Conference taveng::bagels

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!mtgzz!dsc" "d.s.chechik"  5-MAR-1986 10:41
To:	duke!ar@mcnc, bocar!sieg, dec-gramps::liss
Subj:	First Halacha Mail

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Wed,  5 Mar 86 07:36-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.03/4.7.34)
	id AA07182; Wed, 5 Mar 86 06:47:43 pst
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA16631; 5 Mar 86 08:28:19 CST (Wed)
Date:        5 Mar 1986   9:27 EST
Message-Id: < 9 6326627@mtgzz>

I looked at the paths through which you sent in your registrations.
Please ack this message so that i know the paths are valid.
Below is a copy of the as yet only article to come across the mailing list.
Please support it by sending in follow ups or other questions, divray torah
etc.

DATE:        3 Mar 1986   9:30 EST
SUBJECT:    Beans for Passover

I need ideas on how to format things to mail to the mailing list.
For now i'll use net format, (although i don't like it)

>>Newsgroups: net.veg
>>Subject: Re: Vegetarian Passover Recipes Needed
>>
>>>For the chicken soup, a nice vegetable brothy type soup would be nice.  You 
>>>might like to add some soybeans for texture.  This can be made to taste just
>>
>>	For a good texture, you might also want to add lentils instead of
>>soybeans.
>>

>FROM:       e.c.leeper
>TO:         dsc
>CC:         ecl
>DATE:       3 Mar 1986   8:09 EST
>SUBJECT:    Beans for Passover?
>
>You're the local expert (I figure) so you tell me--are beans pesadich or not?
>I had heard from Mark's family that they weren't (real beans, that is, string
>beans and such are supposedly okay).  But I've been seeing a lot of people on
>the net suggesting tofu and other bean products for Passover.  What's the
>story?
>
>Evelyn
>x2070
>

I am not an halachic expert (i'm an engineer or i wouldn't be working here)
However, i'll do my best for a first shot at this mailing list.  I don't want
to be the only writer.

So far as Mosaic law is concerned (for my purposes, this includes the talmud),
the only things not permitted on passover are things that are leavened, this
includes any of the five grains that have had yeast or sourdough added, or
that have been sitting in water for a period long enough to start "leavening".
The five grains are barley, rye, oats, wheat, spelts.  I don't know what spelts
are but, hey, rote is rote.
Mnemonic as taught to me in elementary school is brows.

Water includes those things that contain water including saliva sweat etc.
(in fact, according to the talmud, saliva starts leavening immediately while
water takes ~18 minutes) but not fruit pure (not from concentrate) fruit juice.

Using the principle of building a fence about the law, there were some
additional rabbinic restrictions, most of which, i think arose in the middle
ages.  The major (most impacting and incovenient) restriction is that of
"Kitniyos" or litereally, legumes.  These are things that can be used in
place of wheat flour.  The western (== ashkenazic) community said that since
they looked like and could be used like other grains, they to are forbidden on
passover.  Things contained in this category are "other grains" including
rice, corn, and beans. (bet you never heard of beans as a grain, but in the
middle ages they were ground and used like flour).

There is a principle of "lo ploog  betakanas chachamim", (literaly, there is
no argument in the edicts of the rabbis).  This means (my definition) that,
to avoid boundary conditions, the rabbis, when making an halachic decree
about a category, mean the decree to cover the entire category, not just
the specific elements in the category that were the cause of the decree.
This principle exists and is applied all through halachic literature
especially in the talmud.

Thereforethe prohibition of legumes applies to all "legumes"
including green beans.

So far, as soy beans and peanuts are concerned, (they didn't have
soy beans and peanuts in Europe so it would have been pretty tough
to include them in the prohibition), most authorities agree that
since "lo plug, etc." has been applied, they too are in the category
of "legumes".  This is accepted across the american orthodox
community (so far as i know).  No "reputable"
kashruth organization (ou, ok, chaf k, etc.)
will endorse products containing these beans.

Also, the principle of "minhag yisrael cadin", (the customs of
israel are laws) and "minhag avosaynu beyadaynu", (the customs of our
forefathers are in our hands) apply as in all other laws.
If all of jewry accepts a custom, then it becomes part of the law,
and has the strength of rabbinic edicts.  The prohibition of Kitniyos
was accepted in ashkenazic jewry for hundreds of years.

The eastern (sephardic) community never adopted the restriction,
(smart people, those sephardim).

Therefore, if your family is ashkenazic, beans etc. are prohibited on
passover.   Sephardic jews never accepted the restriction and are not
obligated to avoid legumes at all.

    
    My My,  Shelot about pesach already- Here I am still thinking
    about what to do for shalach manot.
    
    I like this net.jewish buisness but to be perfectly honest I don't
    understand it at all.  People at AT&T can access the E-Net or is
    it only to extract things in a batch mode?  Also, are our replies
    seen by them, I have some info on the kitniot issue.
    
    Anyway,  as a frum (orthodox) sephardi of mixed syrian-galician
    heritage,  rice and beans were always an issue.  Included in the
    fact that my father always insisted and my mother always refused
    I spent time finding out the reasons and the halachot.
    
    As was stated in the article,  European Jews not being accustomed
    to beans and the like would grind them but they would also store
    them with the grains, so Our esteemed fore-fathers said "oy vay-
    ve gonna have the same problem with this here legume buisness as
    with chicken being mistaken for meat, let's make it issur (prohibited)
    and we won't have no problem's" (try to pronounce the above as Gene
    Wilder from the Frisco Kid)  *disclaimer* I hope i don't offend
    anyone orthodox,conservative,reformed or other with my sense of
    humor - I try to have a healthy attitude about yahadut and feel
    that looking at the world today Hashem must have a sense of humor
    so I try to as well**  
    	Getting to the point,  being afraid that the legumes and grains
    would be mixed and since they weren't as much of a staple as in
    the meditteranean/oriental countries, it was given a blanket veto.
    
    In the other half of the world, the rabbi's concluded that since
    the grains aren't as plentiful as in other places, one must inspect
    the legumes (bean by bean, or rice by rice)
    that will be prepared on pesach in advance, (some say three times)
     to make sure none of them little grains snuck in.  Also a modern
    dillema - can an ashkenazi eat at the house of the sephardi?
    
    Absolutely - yes!!!!!!  He may not eat anything which he holds to
    be assur but may eat with the same plates and utensils.
    
    For an orthodox ashkenazi  who wants to change his minhagim (customs)
    I believe he may not,  for a non-orthodox person who normally does
    not observe pesach but would like to start and this way seems a
    attractive - I would ask a cool orthodox rabbi the question.
    My view (only mine) is that it is more important what is in the
    heart & mind than what goes in the mouth. Along the same vein
    keep in mind that it is better to be kosherer on what leaves the
    mouth than what enters it - as last weeks parsha showed us, Hashem
    doesn't like it when we badmouth other jews.
    
    Shabbat Shalom
    
    Bruce Cohen
    

    I am going to enter the second issue of the news letter. I probably
    won't make a practice of entering the news letters. If your interested
    then participate! However, I did contribute a small article that
    fits in with what Bruce Cohen said.
    
    			Fred
    
    
        
**************************************************************************
From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!mtgzz!dsc" "d.s.chechik"  7-MAR-1986 09:13
To:	_halacha
Subj:	Halachic Mailing list - More Thought for Food

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Fri,  7 Mar 86 06:13-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.03/4.7.34)
	id AA05160; Fri, 7 Mar 86 06:13:07 pst
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA13542; 7 Mar 86 08:07:27 CST (Fri)
Date:        7 Mar 1986   8:59 EST
Message-Id: < 8 6529696@mtgzz>

Topics:	Followup to Beans
	Query about vegetarianism
	Mailing list report
	Did you know?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

		FOLLOWUP to Beans on Pesach
		===========================
The  adopted prohibition of eating beans on Pesach (Kitniyos) only applies
to actual eating of such.  I believe one is able to still have benefit
from kitniyos.  Forinstance, one can sell kitniyous in ones store.

I have a bird which during the year we feed it bird seed which contains rice.
I have heard the halachic ruling is that even though rice is kitniyos
since I can have benefit from this I can feed it to my bird.

					Barry Siegel
					bocar!sieg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    	 It really hit home when I saw the question posed by Mr. 
         Leeper, "Beans for Passover?"  I am of Ashkenazic descent and 
         my wife is a Sephardi from Iran.  Over the past 15 months we 
         have been married we have learned to blend our very different 
         customs.
    
    	 One has only to sit at our Shabos table to see some of the 
         differences.  After blessing the wine and challa we continue 
         and bless ha'ats and hadama.  Ever since childhood the women 
         in my family lit only two candles on Shabos.  My wife lights 
         five. She claims that it's a Sephardi custom.  "Besides", she 
         says "My mother lights five candles."  One day I asked my 
         mother-in-law why she lights five candles and got exactly the 
         same answer.  "Because my mother would light five candles."
    
    	 Cookware and dishes are Ashkenazi style.  We have more sets 
         of dishes, silverware, and cookware than you can shake a 
         stick at.  Then there are the dishes etc that we have put 
         away for Passover.
    
    	 Speaking of Passover, we do serve rice.  Those who wish to 
         partake are welcome to do so.  Serving rice at our table is 
         as common as serving bread.  As we Askenazi revere and bless 
         bread at the table, the Sephardi treat rice the same.  If 
         some grains of rice should accidentally fall to the floor 
         they are fed to the birds rather than being thrown out.
    
    	 Of course my wife and I dovin with totally different accents. 
         If she makes a comment about it, I simply look at her and say 
         "Vus? Vus?"  And lastly, I have learned who to wish a "gut 
         Shabos" and who to wish "Shabot shalom" when I am at shul.
    
				Fred Liss
				ihnp4!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-gramps!liss
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rice was introduced to europe in the late XI century CE, right around the
time of rashi.  somewhere he says he spoke with travelers "from the land
where rice is grown" and asked them whether rice was permissable during
pesach, they said it was, so rashi said it was okay.  does anyone know
precisely when the prohibition first appeared?

				meg
				ihuxi!megann
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

		Jewish Vegatarians
		==================
Jews pride themselves in being a merciful people.
Doesn't vegatarianism fit in well with Jewish philosophy?
	
				would rather remain anonymous
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

		Mailing List Report

Twenty responses so far, most of which are people who's names have
not yet appeared on the net.  Many people mentioned that they had
not posted to n.r.j because of abusive responses.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
		Did you know that ....

Shmuel Hanavi (samuel the prophet) was a Nazir his entire life?
						(Talmud, Nazir, last page)

If you are in prison and cannot do any mitvos but will be let out for
one day a year, many authorities say that you should ask to be let out on
Purim to hear the reading of the Megillah [Book of Esther].

    I, for one, would vote for having all of these halachic messages
    saved here, since I am interested in reading them even though I
    am not enough of a scholar to contribute much.  I don't think it
    is very reasonable to load down RHEA:: and DECWRL:: with more than
    one copy of this mail going through.
    
    Charlotte (a.k.a. Gevorah Tamar bat Avraham)

    I also would like to read these Halachic notes. 
    
    Fred, would you be willing to volunteer to post them for us? I agree
    with the previous noter that each of us subscribing would put a
    great deal of strain on RHEA:: and DECWRL::
    
    How about it Fred?

    OK I'll be glad do it. One of the things I've learned is when an
    opportunity to do a mitzva presents itself one should jump right
    in and do it without hesitation.
    
    Out of the thirty to forty of us who read/contribute to this file
    it would be nice if we had an occasional article to represent BAGELS
    in the news letter.
    
    				Fred         
    

    
    	RE_1:  It would also be nice if everyone came on SUnday
    	to the Brunch.  Boo hoo.
    
    
    	ANyway, I am currently working on a com file that
    	when I adapt it for BAGELS, will insert all NET.JEWISH
    	in this note.
    
    	I did not write it so I am having trouble using it.
    
    	Michael
    

    I don't know if it's such a good idea to indescriminantly post
    net.jewish postings. There is a lot of good stuff there but there
    is also a lot of dreck. That's why I didn't post anything this morning.
    You may consider posting selected articles. Oops! that's considered
    censorship. I'll keep my mouth shut on this one. :-X
    
    				Fred
    

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!mtgzz!dsc" "d.s.chechik" 11-MAR-1986 20:00
To:	_halacha
Subj:	Halacha - No. 3

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Tue, 11 Mar 86 16:55-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.03/4.7.34)
	id AA28287; Tue, 11 Mar 86 16:55:27 pst
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA04568; 11 Mar 86 16:06:12 CST (Tue)
Date:       11 Mar 1986  17:00 EST
Message-Id: <17 695277@mtgzz>

TOPICS:
	Jewish Vegatarianism - Andrew Reibman
	Peasach Laws and Prohibitions - Stuart Freedman
	More Peanuts			-Sorry, i lost the author
	Shabos Candles - Followup - Dave Sherman
				  - Dovid Chechik
	Mailing List Update	- Dovid Chechik
	
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Jewish Vegetarianism

My wife and I are vegitarians because when we were first married
we decided to try it by setting up only a dairy kitchen - 
we only bought one set of dishes. From then on it stuck. It
certainly saves a lot of hassle - as we have lots of non-kosher
relatives and friends who we would probably have to lock out of
the kitchen to keep from getting things confused.

Philosophically,it is very satisfying.
For instance, you don't have to worry at all about
eating blood or being cruel to an animal you've eaten
if you don't eat it. It seems to be healthy as well.

Andrew Reibman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.....although I am not a news-poster by nature, I may
contribute in the future.  I would be interested in seeing a com-
prehensive list of Pesach prohibitions, perhaps with columns for
Ashkenazic and Sphardic observance where they differ.  I am also
curious as to what the Ethiopian Jews observe and whether they
have any special, unique customs for Pesach.  That's my $0.02 for
now.  Feel free to post it to the list.  Cheers,

Stuart Freedman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, i lost the author

Also, I have a question pertaining to the Pesadich question on whether 
peanuts are kosher. My mother, who is an orthodox Ashkenazi, always had
peanuts for Pesach. These were the roasted kind, still in the shell. Also,
Planters peanut oil is kosher for Pesach. I can understand the oil, I think,
because it is so processed that it no longer represents a peanut, but what
about the peanut itself. Has anyone else been brought up accepting whole
roasted peanuts as kosher for Pesach?

Editors note:  Rabbi Zevin in "Hamoadim Behalacha" (The Festivals in Halacha)
goes through the history of the prohibition against legumes.
I will try to look it up and summarize for the mail group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Lighting Five Shabbos Candles
Our custom, which I thought was fairly common
among Ashkenazic Jews, is to light 2 plus one for each child.
How common is this?

My wife (lsuc!simone) lights 3, and (im yirtzeh Hashem) will
start lighting 4 next Shabbos...

Dave Sherman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lighting Shabbos Candles

Mazal Tov Dave!!!!!

I too can identify with the situation where wife and husbands
custom with respect to shabbos candles differ.
My custom was like that of Dave Sherman above while my wife's
was to light just 2 no matter the number of children.
However, this was a moot point when we got married.
Since i view all matters of custom seriously, i looked at several
sources for what was the "right" custom.

The basic custom as listed by the Shulchan Aruch is to light 2
one for "Zacur" (Remember) and one for "Shamur" (Observe).
The two words used before "the day of Shabbos"
in the Dueteronomy and Exodus versions of the ten commandments.
Zachur is generally taken to mean the possitive commandment to
physically enjoy one's self on Shabbos by eating well and resting.
Shamur covers the negative commandments of not doing any work.
We light two candles to signify refraining from working and
enjoying of the day.

The sephardic custom, as stated in Kaf Hachayim one of the definitive
authorities on sephardic law, is to light seven for the seven days of the
week, (for you kabalists, the seven spheres, anything else that the
special number seven signifies).  I have seen this custom in the Syrian
Community of Deal, NJ where I used to live.

No matter what the custom, there is a LAW agreed to by all (so far as
i know) that if a woman missed lighting candles, due to accident, forgetfulness,
or for ANY REASON AT ALL, she is required to light one additional candle
(in addition to however many she was lighting before she forgot)
for the rest of her life.  Unless, on the fateful day she did not light,
her husband lit for her or she payed someone to light for her.

There was an old ashkenazic custom that the husband lit the
Shabbos candles the friday evening after a woman had a baby.
Although the husband lit for the woman, many women considered that
they had missed a week and increased the number of candles even
though they didn't have to.  This became custom.

Anyhow, i couldn't decide  what was right myself, so i asked the dean of
the rabbinical college i had attended.  (Rabbi Y. Shnaidman of Yeshiva Beth
Moshe, Scranton PA)   He responded that lighting candles was a woman's
obligation and consequently i should follow my wife's custom.  I later saw
that Rabbi Moshe Feinstein says the same thing in his responsa.

				Dovid Chechik
				who's wife lites 2 candles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i forgot who mailed this in.

Q:Will the addresses on the mailing list be
made part of the messages, or do you intend to keep the
list private to protect people's privacy?

A: b) i intend to keep the list private to protect people's
privacy unless y'all tell me otherwise.

By the way, there are currently 28 subscibers.
Keep those cards and letters coming.

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!mtgzz!dsc" "d.s.chechik" 16-MAR-1986 17:48
To:	_halacha
Subj:	Halacha

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Sun, 16 Mar 86 14:46-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.03/4.7.34)
	id AA03244; Sun, 16 Mar 86 14:46:45 pst
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA02821; 16 Mar 86 15:57:54 CST (Sun)
Date:       16 Mar 1986  16:41 EST
Cc: me
Message-Id: <16 744366@mtgzz>

	Sabbath Candles Correction - Fred Liss
	Kitniyos Correction - Dovid Chechik
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    	 My apologies to the group. I didn't realize I made an error 
         in my posting until I got my own copy of the newsletter.
    
    	 Both my wife and mother-in-law light seven candles, not five 
         as I incorrectly stated.
    
				Fred Liss
				ihnp4!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-gramps!liss
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to apologize for my previous articles on kitniyos which i
wrongfully wrote off the top of my head.  I have since done some research
on the origin an particulars of the Passover Prohibition against legumes.  

The talmud states clearly that eating rice on passover is permissible.
The first written record of the prohibition  against legumes is from
one of the authors of Tosaphot, Reb Yitzchok From Kurbil.  He writes
(circa ~1250) that "The world has the custom of prohibiting them [legumes]
since the days of the ANCIENT SCHOLARS".  He goes on to explain that the
reasons for the prohibition are that 1) legume flour was often mixed with wheat
flour and was therefore chomets and 2) more importantly,
since the flours and things made from them looked alike someone may
confuse rice flour with wheat flour and come to use the chometz.
Legume flour and all legumes are therfore prohibited by CUSTOM.
The custom had seemingly grown as a "grass roots" movement.

The custom is described by several sephardic authorities such as the tur (~1450)
as being only applicable to the ashkenazic community.  The sephardic community
never adopted it.

There were several challenges to the custom in years of famine including 1427.
(either a wheat or potato famine, either way legumes were a needed alternative
for passover consumption).  By 1460 the ashkenazic rabinate decided that the
custom was so old (at least 300 years) and widespread (all of the ashkenazic
community) that although several rabbis expressed the desire to drop the custom,
they all agreed that they did not have the power to do so. The custom has since
had the power of a law.  A ruling of a Halachic Court can only be overturned
by a greater halachic court.  Greater in both wisdom and number.)

Remember though that the custom which all ashkenazim are currently
obligated to keep (by virue of the fact that their ancestors accepted it for
them) is only not to EAT certain types of legumes.  Ownership of legumes is
still permitted.  Several authorities also permit oil made from legumes
although most do not.  In case of great need (if there's a famine)
a competent rabbinic authority should be consulted.

With respect to peanuts and soybeans.  Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in his
responsa writes... [i try to translate exactly] "..since they did not
decree in a gathering of scholars, not to eat those things that were
mixed with grain or of which flour was made, but by custom they did
not eat those varieties.  They did not not forbid but those varieties
that they did by custom not eat.  To the exculsion of those they did not
have a custom for, since the varieties did not yet exist..."
Rabbi Feinstein goes on to say that since the sephardim do not agree
to the prohibition, one does not add on to such a custom.
He then says that in the case of peanuts, family custom should be
observed, i.e., if the family has a custom not to eat peanuts, they
must keep the custom.  If however, they never accepted such a custom, they
may eat peanuts on passover.  He therefore allows a "kosher for passover"
supervision for peanut oil, for those people whose families never
accepted the custom not to eat peanuts.

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!d.s.chechik" 16-MAR-1986 21:56
To:	~halacha
Subj:	halacha no. 5

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Sun, 16 Mar 86 18:56-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.03/4.7.34)
	id AA05248; Sun, 16 Mar 86 18:56:11 pst
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA07627; 16 Mar 86 19:08:00 CST (Sun)
Date:       16 Mar 1986  19:59 EST
Cc: me
Message-Id: <19 7429630@mtgzz>

-------------------- begin forwarded message --------------------
>FROM:       e.c.leeper
TO:         chechik
>CC:         ecl
DATE:       16 Mar 1986  17:27 EST
SUBJECT:    Halacha in Space

Having stuck my neck out in a review of DIASPORAH ("there have already been
rabbinical rulings on how one determines sunrise/sunset on orbital flights for
purposes of prayer").  I have been asked by someone in Springfield, Missouri,
to tell him the "din" on this.  Since I don't even know what "din" means (no
flames please, at least I admit my ignorance), I thought I'd throw this one
out to you/the mailing list.

This is eveything pertinent I have collected from n.r.j:

Date: Wed, 17-Oct-84 11:44:05 EDT

This is at least third hand by now, but I heard that Rabbi Goren was asked
whether Judy Resnick (y'know, the Shuttle Specialist) was obligated to light
Shabbat candles on her flight.  His answer was "No", because there is no way to
reckon days in space (relative to Earth, for which the Torah was written?).
I'm told this was in an article in Monday's (10/15) Chicago Sun Times, if
anyone cares.

What's the story? Is this true? What are the ramifications?

Date: Tue, 23-Oct-84 18:16:33 EDT

Because of wording in the Torah (sorry, as usual I lack the reference), it is
clear that virtually all of the commandments are related to the LAND.  If you
are land-based, on land, temporaily offland (as when jumping or flying), or
even in a boat (water in this sense is land I think), you are bound by the
commandments.

But in orbit, or on another planet,  I believe most commandments,
and therefore most of halacha, no longer apply.

Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 11:08:25 EST

Back in the mists of time, I used to ask my (orthodox) Hebrew school teacher
similar questions.  (She seemed to think I was harassing her...)  Anyway, as I
recall she said that someone on a temporary trip would observe the calendar of
their base location -- probably Houston in this case.  A colonist would use
GMT, or some similar standard time.  (Jerusalem Standard Time?)  She said that
similar questions had already been answered for Arctic explorers, where day and
night are similarly blurred around the solstices.  I never did get answers to
some of my stranger questions, like what would Martian colonists do (they'd
probably live by the local 25 hour day), or folks in a starship traveling at
relativistic speeds -- who would consequently end up out of sync with earth
if/when they returned.

Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 02:37:20 EST

Applying halacha to space is diffeent from applying halacha to the North pole.
In space, one is not ON the earth (nor hopping along the earth, as in a plane),
and much halacha no longer applies.

In the July 84 issue of GEO magazine, in the GEOSPHERE section in the end,
there is a subsection called LOCAL NEWS FROM ALL OVER.  I quote from the
article:

	      Israeli Astronauts Are Excused From Prayers

Jewish astronauts are now required to pray only at sunrise and sunset,
Jerusalem time, according to new tennets set forth at the recent Annual
Congress of Israeli Astronomers.  Prayer poses a considerable problem for
Israeli astronauts - who have yet to make a space flight - because under
rabincal law, a believer must pray every time the sun rises or sets.  Since
this happens almost continually in orbit, a devout astronaut would spend most
of his waking hours in prayer.  The congress also exempted astronauts from the
requirement to pray facing Jerusalam because that would be extremely difficult
to do in the topsy-turvy world of space.

Date: Tue, 29-Jan-85 22:27:36 EST

There was a question raised about Shabbes at the North Pole and in space.
There once was a Jewish community in Spitzbergen in Norway, that is far above
the arctic circle.  Obviously there were times when there was no daylight
during a "day", and thus Shabbes could not start or stop.  Since the essence of
the mitzvah was to rest one day out of seven, they began Shabbes at an
arbitrary time and ended it twenty-five hours later.

I am sure that someone with better access to responsa and to source books can
find out more.

As for space, the question does not yet apply.  An Israeli, on a visit to the
US, will celebrate only seven days of Passover, not eight.  Astronauts are on a
visit to space, and should follow their custom and time, since time is a
variable in space.  They should follow the example cited above and declare a
certain time sunrise, and another sunset and daven  accordingly.

A better question comes when we colonize Mars, and people actually live there.
How long is a year, month, day?  Does one have two new moons??  --))).

Date: Wed, 30-Jan-85 23:17:19 EST

    I will try and give an intelligible answer to the question of when Shabbat
would commence on the North Pole and on Mars based on some responsa (or journal
articles ) that I have seen.

    First, to the North Pole.  The North Pole has a 12 hour day and a 12 hour
night on March 23 of each year (or thereabout).  As it gets close to summer,
however, the days become 24 hours long and there are no nights(ie no sunsets).
As it gets close to winter, one would have nights that are 24 hours long and no
daylight.  Rabbi Shlomo Goren discusses this in a response reprinted in the
Journal of Orthodox Scientists of America (I saw it awhile ago and no longer
remember the  exact issue it was in).  He was asked when Shabbat would be
observed in Northern Ireland where the days become very short (or long) and
sometimes disappear completely.  I believe that his psak was as follows :

      If one is in a place where there are still sunrises and sunsets then
Shabbat would be observed from one sunset to the next.If there are no longer
sunrises and sunsets (North Pole in the middle of the winter or summer) then
there are two options available - following Jerusalem Standard Time or
following the nearest city that has some Jewish inhabitants and still has
daytime and nighttime.  I think each of those options has its halachic sources
to back it up though.

      Rabbi Goren does not discuss keeping Shabbat on the moon, on Mars etc.

      A most thorough analysis of the whole matter is given in Tradition, vol.
7, no.  1, 1965 by Rabbi Azriel Rosenfeld.  He works through the differ- ent
possibilities and concludes the following:

      When one is in a place that has sunrise and sunset then Shabbat is from
sunset to sunset every 7th day.  Now as one is say in the North Pole and winter
comes upon him the daylight hours start waning.  First sunrise is at 9 AM then
at 10 then 11 and so on -- and sunset is first at 6PM then 5PM then 4 and so
forth until eventually sunrise and sunset are only minutes apart, and finally
there are no more sunsets and sunrises -- it is light outside 24 hours a day.
Rabbi Rosenfeld argues however that it is really continuous since even when the
sun no longer goes over the horizon it still reaches a lowpoint then comes back
up.Just as when there is only a half hour long day every 24 hours in the North
Pole during the winter, say from 12 to 12:30, Shabbat would be observed from
12:30 PM (sundown) to 12:30 PM on the following day(plus whatever one waits
after shkeeyat hachama), so when there is no sunrise and sunset we would
consider the point when the sun is lowest upon the horizon as sunset, and
Shabbat would be from say 12 noon to 12 noon on the following day.  Using the
same argument, during the summer, when there  are 24 hour days and no nights ,
Shabbat would be from midnight to midnight  (or close to it).

    He goes on to say that Shabbat is relative and if your traveling it could
become longer or shorter(as could the length of a day).  Consider, for example,
someone traveling on a boat.  If he started on a cruise going West around the
World and kept only 24 hour days then eventually he would gain a day(or more)
-- meaning he could leave from a city and return to it sometime later (say the
cruise embarked and disembarked there) and while for everyone else it might be
Saturday for him it would already be Sunday.  Since this would be an
intolerable anomaly, necessarily his day would have to be more than 24 hours
long (when traveling, or shorter if he was traveling East) so that he keeps
apace with the time in the particular zone that he is in.

     With respect to outer space, Rabbi Rosenfeld writes that it is
inconceivable that if one goes around the earth in a spaceship once an hour,
and sees seven sunrises and seven sunsets every 420 minutes, that he would keep
Shabbat several times a day (a day meaning every 24 hours).  Therefore, he
suggests that using Jerusalem time as a standard is probably the right thing to
same time for Shabbat as the place where one took off from  (a notion accepted
by others) since astronauts on the same spaceship might have to keep different
times or different days for Shabbat.  With respect to Mars, since it has
sunrises and sunsets but its days are 24 and a half hours long it is a little
harder to deal with.  If we treat a day on Mars as a day halachically then one
could return to Earth on what is to him a  Friday but to everyone else a
Saturday (he lost a day up there).  To use Jerusalem time would present a
problem in terms of when to pray, etc.  He suggests using Mars time as a
standard for when to pray,etc and Jerusalem time as a standard for observing
the Sabbath.

      For more specifics, I would suggest seeing the article.

Date: Mon, 4-Feb-85 22:27:04 EST

I beleive Rav Moshe Feinstein is of the opinion that a line is drawn downward
from the point you're standing downward to below the arctic circle.  Unless you
are standing at the exact loacation of the pole, and are point sized  (not
mentally) you should have no problem.

Rav Ya'akov Kamenetzky holds that in such a position, one should practice
according to Jerusalem Time.

Date: Sun, 10-Feb-85 15:59:12 EST

The following is according to the Jerusalem Post - International Edition for
the week of August 26 - September 1.

According to former chief rabbi, Shlomo Goren there is no Sabbath and holidays
in space.  This is because time is calculated on earth according to the sun and
the moon, hence it can not have an effect on persons travelling in space.  "The
earthly days, nights and holidays simply do not exist for the traveller in
space".

Also in the same article, the rabbi claimed that a similar question (vis a vis
Sabbath and holidays in space) is one concerning Jewish travelers flying from
San Francisco to Tokyo.  If the passenger leaves San Francisco Friday afternoon
and arrives in Tokyo Sunday morning, with Saturday disappearing because the
international date line was crossed: "The person simply does not have a Sabbath
to celebrate" according to Goren.

Date: Tue, 5-Feb-85 09:51:10 EST

	I never knew that time was variable, except maybe according to
 Einstein.  The fact that an Israeli keeps seven days is not a good analogy.
 He does not keep it according to Israel time, but rather, local time.  So
 too in space.

Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 16:17:24 EST

If a person were to keep local time in space, a day (where the term day means
the period of time from one sunrise or sunset to another) could be as little as
66 minutes.  This would arise because in a low orbit where the pull of gravity
is strong a manned satellite would have to go at a speed of about 6300
meters/sec to counteract the pull of gravity.  (The acceleration of gravity is
about 10 meters/sec/sec at the earth's surface.   Centrifugal acceleration is
the square of the velocity [6300 ^ 2 = 40000000 meters^2/sec^2] divided by the
radius which is about the radius of the earth [4000 km], or again about 10
meters/sec/sec.  This 10 meters/sec/sec  balances the pull of gravity and
allows the orbit to exist.)

If this spaceship goes at a speed of about 6300 meters/sec, it would take only
about 66 minutes to go around the world.  This must be adjusted  slightly to
allow the orbit to take place above most of the atmosphere,  but it would still
only be about an hour at such heights.

The point is that in such a situation, Eliyahu Teitz would have an orthodox Jew
daven shachris, mincha, and maariv in well under 5 minutes.  What happens to
kavannah (intention to pray; i.e., concentration) under these circumstances?
Seriously, the result of this is that a Jewish human being would have to avoid
such orbits since it would result in obligating him to pray continuously!  No
sleep!  No eating!  No going to the bathroom!  Nothing but prayer!  By  taking
off in a north-south orbit (which passes the north and south poles  instead of
circling the equator) such as is possible from Vandenburg Air Force  Base in
California (but not possible from Kennedy Space Flight Center in Florida), the
observant Jew would be able to avoid these problems.  So it would appear that
we have discovered a new ramification of halacha!

Or maybe halacha (only according to the Teitz point of view, of course)
actually forbids space travel for Jews altogether!  It already virtually
restricts any travel to most places in the world--since kosher food isn't
widely available in Borneo, Upper Volta, Czechoslovakia, Nigeria, Brazil,
Japan, etc., etc., etc.  So maybe it also restricts travel to any place outside
the world.

In addition, I should add that the north-south orbit which could prevent the
halachic problem of constant (i.e., about hourly) sunrises and sunsets is very
specific in that it would have to be almost exactly perpendicular to the line
between the sun and the earth.  In that orbit, the sun would cease to set and
rise at all and (presumably in line with Teitz arguments) the astronaut would
never have to daven at all.  Also, Shabbos would never come.  Forget about
chagim!  One additional question I have is whether Teitz feels that the
returning astronaut (from just such a voyage) would have Shabbos at the same
time as others on earth or would count seven sunsets from the previous erev
Shabbos for his Shabbos.  In that case he might easily end up having Shabbos on
another day of the week, in our eternally earthly calendar.  Teitz?

Date: Sun, 10-Feb-85 16:49:55 EST

Previously, space flights operated on Houston time.  I don't think this has
changed on shuttle missions, but even if it has, it has changed to operate on
someone else's 24 hour day (maybe the local time of the launch or landing
site?).  This makes issues of calendar easy to resolve.  --

Date: Sun, 10-Feb-85 11:32:45 EST

There is an even more ludicrous scenario if the spaceship is moving with a
velocity of 0.999993 the speed of light.  In that case, in the reference frame
of the spaceship, clocks in Israel are moving very fast:  in fact, fast enough
such that a day aboard the spaceship would see Israel celebrate an entire year
of Jewish holidays.

Since one is obligated to celebrate the Haggim according to the time in Israel,
not only would our busy Yeshiva bocher astronaut be davening like mad because
sunrise-to-sunset is only three minutes, but he would have to keep track of
moosaf, ya'aleh v'yavoh, hallel, moreed ha'tal, etc., etc., on a daily basis!

In other words, every day aboard the spaceship, our astronaut would be
celebrating Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kipppur!  What's worse is that every day he
would have to search for Chametz, and change tableware, and throw all his bread
out the vacuum chute!  Imagine  lighting eight different sets of Cahnukah
candles in a time span of half-an-hour!

Now imagine the even crazier situation in which the spaceship moves even
faster!  In this way, we would have solved the problem of conversion (at least
in space) since no one would want to be Jewish anyway.

Date: Tue, 12-Feb-85 12:02:56 EST

I asked a man who was in Siberia in the 1940's what he did about Shabos (In the
north part were he was the Northern Lights made 2 Hr.  days and the rest of the
day was night).  He said they followed Shabos according to the time of the
nearest city that had normal days.  This is not a p'sak halacha, I just wanted
to tell the way some people did it.

Date: Wed, 13-Feb-85 13:14:28 EST

As far as I can remember, I lit Channuka candles when the sun set in my home
town of Elizabeth, N.J.  and not when it set in Israel.  Also, on Yom Kippur I
ate until sunset at home and not in Israel and broke my fast the following
night after nightfall here and not there.  So why do you say that the holidays
are dependent on Israel time?  The holidays are dependent on local time.

Therefore, when one goes where there is very little daylight on theoretically
runs into a problem as to the time for prayer.  There are many responsa on the
issue, but the safest solution is to try and avoid  those areas as much as
possible ( if one really cares ).

One final point on the issue.  I detected a condescending tone in the article I
am responding to.  Not only are yeshiva students required to  daven, but every
Jew ( man and woman alike ) are obligated to pray in  some manner daily.  Of
course, I might just have read too much into the article, but these sideswipes
at the religious are really uncalled for.

Date: Wed, 13-Feb-85 14:11:14 EST

My father asked me an interesting question regarding the dateline.   If a
person were to cross from Shabbat to Friday would he have to make havdala ?

The question boils down to this.  If havdala is recited when going from one
state of holiness ( Shabbat ) to a lower level ( weekday ) then this should
apply no matter which day of the week the prson is going to.  Just as a side
point.  There was a big question in the Second World War as to where the
halachik dateline is.  The question arose because of the Mir Yeshiva which was
in Japan on their way from Poland to America.  The two major opinions were that
the dateline is either 6 or 12 hours east of Jerusalem.  One end up in Japan
and the other in the middle of the  Pacific Ocean.  Because of the minority
opinion ( of the Chazon Is"h, Rabbi A.  Karelitz ) and the possibility that it
might be right, the students of the yeshiva fasted two days of Yom Kippur.
Everyone fasted the first day and on the second day a doctor went around
checking the students to see how they looked.  If the doctor told a student to
eat, the student was set out to eat.  There were some,though, who fasted two
complete days ( along  wit all the accompanying prayers ).

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
					(or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)



-------------------- end of forwarded message --------------------

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!mtgzz!dsc" "d.s.chechik" 18-MAR-1986 09:27
To:	_halacha
Subj:	Halacha #6

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Tue, 18 Mar 86 06:24-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.03/4.7.34)
	id AA05500; Tue, 18 Mar 86 06:23:59 pst
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA07553; 18 Mar 86 07:44:54 CST (Tue)
Date:       18 Mar 1986   8:36 EST
Cc: me
Message-Id: < 8 7627680@mtgzz>

	Request re: article submitions	- Dovid Chechik
	Shabbos Candles obligations	- Sheryl Flieder
					  Dovid Chechik
	Comment on Possible Potato Famine - Kathy Rosenbluh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Request re: article submitions	- Dovid Chechik
	I am having some difficulty figuring out whether things that people
send me are articles to be posted or responses to my own postings.  Please
tell me if you want the article sent out to the group or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found the discussion on lighting Shabbat candles interesting.  I never
knew lighting candles was a woman's obligation.  In our house our mother
never lit candles, it was done by the children, because we learned how
in Hebrew School.  Our mother never knew how to light candles, but 
she obtained much joy from watching her children do it.

My question is:  When does lighting candles become a woman's obligation?
Is it at the age of Bat-Mitzvah, or at the age of marriage?  Only the
age of Bat Mitzvah makes sense, actually.  Also, where is it written
that it is the woman's obligation?  I know it is not in the Torah, because
I have read the Torah.  Therefore it must be in the Talmud.  Please give
specific reference.
					Sheryl Flieder
					...pyramid!sheryl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To answer the question, we must look at the source of lighting candles
which is from the talmud.  (The written torah does not refer to the
obligation directly.)

The reason for lighting candles is very practical, or at least least
it was in talmudic times.  There were no electric lights and having to sit
through a long night in the dark was understandibly considered very unenjoyable.
Since there were no street lights and lighting a candle on Shabbos itself
was forbidden, failure to light a candle on Friday evening would lead to
a very depressing Friday night.
The darkness was considered to be so depressing that the talmud states
that it is forbidden to make Kiddush in the dark!

So a law was instituted requiring lights to be lit in the house.  Both men
and women are obligated in this.  Today that we have electric light, the
law is no longer necessary from a proctical standpoint, but once again,
once a law is enacted and accepted by the entire nation, it can not be
recinded.  Today men and women are obligated to light candles.

You asked for a source so here goes,  Shulchan Aruch (code of jewish law)
chapter 261 paragraph 2, i translate as closely as i can.
"Both men and women must have in their houses a light lit on Shabbos.
Even if someone does not have what to eat, he should beg at doors and buy oil
and light a lamp because this is considered within the enjoyment of Shabbos."

However, only one set of candles need be lit per home and typically
for reasons that will be explained later the "woman of the house" does
the lighting and fulfils the obligation for all members of the household
for reasons that will be explained.  However, if a man lives alone,
he is obligated to light his own candles.  Back in the "good old days"
when i was single and lived alone, i did light shabbos candles every week.

Because of the practical nature of the law, in ancient times it was customary
for a light to be kindled in every room.  The lighting of candles in the main
room of the house (typically, the eating room) was an obligation placed on
women.  The candles or lamps in other rooms would be lit by men.

So, to answer your first question, women and men become obligated in
lighting shabbos candles when someone else on longer fulfils their obligation.
This is usually when one moves out of one's parents home to go to college
or to get married.

So far as women's obligation to light candles being greater that the
obligation of men.  I continue with paragraph 3. "The women are more
obligated [than men] because they are frequently in the home and are
occupied with the needs of the house.  If one cannot afford both light
and wine for Shabbos day kiddush, light comes first............because
of the happiness of the home.  There is no happiness in the home without light."

In jewish tradition, women are considered the mainstay of the home, since
light is considered essential to the happiness of the home, women are
responsible.

An additional reason for women lighting the candles is found in the "Tur",
he writes (i don't have the source in front of me, so this is from memory)
that since Eve (Adam's wife) brought darkness, in the form of death,
into the world (by causing Adam to sin), women make up for it by bringing
light into the home.

I hope this answers the question.

=========================================================================
Subject: historical nitpicking on Kitniyos

In re origin of customs relating to kitniyot:
(This is not germane to the issue, I understand, but:)

The famine you refer to in the 15th c. could not have been a potato
famine, potatoes being a new world vegetable and therefore not discovered
by Europeans until after Columbus' voyages.

I believe the Tosaphist you are referring to is R. Yitzhak of Courbeille,
not Kurbil.  

Kathy
ihnp4!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-lsmvax!rosenbluh  (KATHY)

Editor's note: Thanks Kathy, it's hard to determine french
		names when transliterating from Hebrew

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!mtgzz!dsc" "d.s.chechik" 25-MAR-1986 04:26
To:	_halacha
Subj:	Halacha No. 7

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Tue, 25 Mar 86 01:26-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.03/4.7.34)
	id AA08494; Tue, 25 Mar 86 01:26:59 pst
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA07858; 24 Mar 86 05:21:28 CST (Mon)
Date:       22 Mar 1986  21:13 EST
Cc: me
Message-Id: <21 8011388@mtgzz>

	Subjects for discussion		Sheryl Flieder
	Digest of Purim Laws		Dovid Chechik

Due to some heavy debuging activity, i've not been able to give as much
attention to the mailing list as i'd like.  Things should lighten up soon.
================================================================================
>From: topaz!pyramid!sheryl (Sheryl Flieder)

Which custom are converts supposed to follow?  They are
neither Sephardic nor Ashkenazic.

Speaking of converts, I always wondered whether converts are supposed
to observe the Yahrzeit every year of their deceased non-Jewish parents.

Someone asked the question, how do Ethiopian Jews observe Passover.

They do not have the Talmud. Therefore they do not have the four questions,
the four children, the four cups of wine.  From what I understand,
I think they observe the Pesach just like in the Torah, with a roasted
lamb, roasted over an open fire.

I am sure they must have Maror and Matzah, but they probably never heard
of Haroset, parsley, salt water, reclining, or roasted eggs as Passover
customs.  (Who needs a roasted egg to remind you of the roasted lamb,
when you have the roasted lamb itself!)

						Sheryl Flieder
						... !pyramid!sheryl
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: mtgzz!dsc (Dovid Chechik)

Subject:	Digest of Purim Laws

Purim is this coming Tuesday, March 25.

The following is a brief summary of the Halachos of Purim.

Fast of Esther
This fast day, considered the most minor on the fast day calendar,
commemorates the preparation for the battle that occured on the day before Purim
back in Media as recorded in the Book of Esther.  It was the custom
of Jews to fast the day of the battle to atone for one's sins,
so that one would be free of sin, and consequently less likely to get killed.

Purim Eve
The only obligation on purim eve is the ....
Reading of the Megilah
According to custom one dresses up in holiday clothes for the megilah
reading.  The megilah is read from a scroll containing the Book of Esther,
which for the length of the reading is folded as a letter.
This is because the megilah calls itself a letter and letters are folded,
only books are scrolled.  It is customary to make noise whenever Haman
is mentioned.
Note: that since women took a prominent part in the purim story, they are
obligated to hear the megillah reading as well as to particiapate in all
other Purim observances.

Purim Day

Reading of the Megilah
The megilah is read once again,  this is considered the major reading of
the megilah.

Mishloach Manos - Sending Gifts
The Book of Esther contains a phrase on the custom of sending "Gifts,
a man to his friend".  Each person should send "gifts" (more than one)
to "his friend" (at least one).  The rabbis have told us that the
word "Manos" that is used for gifts, implies food.  It is therefore
customary to send two types of ready to eat food (as opposed to say
raw meat). 

Matanos La'evyonim - Gifts to the Poor
The Book of Esther also references the custom of "gifts to the poor",
The word  used for "poor" is plural in this verse and so the custom is
to give charity to more than one poor person.  One fulfils this
obligation even if the money is given by the giver before Purim so
long as it reaches the poor person on Purim Day.
If someone asks for charity on Purim, it is customary to give it to him
without checking if he is deserving.

Seudas Purim - The Purim Meal
The major mitzvah of purim is "Simcha" joy.  As always this is accomplished
through food.  It is customary to make a large meal on Purim.

Drinking Wine
Because of the prominence of wine in the book of Esther,
(King Achashvarush became drunk, this caused him to execute
Vashti and to marry Esther.  The actual climax of the Purim
saga occured in the Drinking Party given by Esther)
it is a custom to drink much of it on Purim.

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!mtgzz!dsc" "d.s.chechik" 26-MAR-1986 23:32
To:	_halacha
Subj:	Halacha No. 8

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Wed, 26 Mar 86 13:21-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.03/4.7.34)
	id AA06021; Wed, 26 Mar 86 13:21:51 pst
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA02762; 26 Mar 86 14:59:32 CST (Wed)
Date:       26 Mar 1986  12:00 EST
Cc: me
Message-Id: <12 847710@mtgzz>

More on Purim 					Fred Liss
Parents of Converts, Passover Symbolism		Dovid Silverberg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>From: ihnp4!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-gramps!liss
    
    	 This is copied from a pamphlet called "Your Purim Guide."
    
    
                    WHAT IS PURIM? A CHASSIDIC INSIGHT
    
    
    	 More than twenty three centuries ago, when the Pursian Empire 
         dominated the civilized world, an evil chamberlain, Hayman, 
         devised a diabolical plot to annihilate the Jewish people. 
         But on the thirteenth day of the month of Adar, they were 
         delivered from the wicked Haman's decree; and each year on 
         Purim we celebrate our victory amid feasting and merriment. 
         Purim is not only one of our most joyous festivals - it is a 
         day of great significance, a day whose lessons remain 
         relevant for all times.
    
    	 At first reading, the Megillah (Scroll of Esther) which 
         recounts the miracle of Purim, seems more like an epic tale 
         of espionage and suspense than sacred Scripture. In fact, 
         throughout this carefully woven story of evil ambition and 
         palace intrigue, we do not hear the name of G-d mentioned, 
         even once! Yet within the intricate details of the Megillah, 
         we can detect the unmistakable hand of Divine Providence. The 
         closer we look into the events of man, the more we discover 
         that every "coincidence," every seemingly insignificant 
         event, is precisely arranged by the hand of the Almighty.
    
    	 When Hayman denounced the Jewish people to King Achashverosh, 
         he argued that "there is one people, dispersed and divided 
         among the nations ... and their laws are different from those 
         of any other people." What Hayman did not realize, however, 
         was that his very "accusation" held the key to our redemption 
         and ultimate victory over his evil plan. We are "one people," 
         and by strengthening our unity and adhering to the Torah and 
         Mitzvot we survive and flourish. Enemies may arise in every 
         generation, to attack and destroy us, but when we affirm our 
         unique heritage and hold fast to our essential character as 
         Jews, we will always prevail.
    
    	 Mordechai the Jew, the Jewish leader of his time, succeeded 
         in uniting his people to defeat Hayman. The Megillah tells 
         how he "did not bend his knee, nor bow down." He refused to 
         compromise his eternal values of the Torah, even at the risk 
         of his life. By teaching Torah to Jewish children and by 
         mobilizing the Jewish people to return to Torah observance, 
         he is not only saved from annihilation but also gained the 
         respect of King Achashverosh and was appointed his Viceroy, 
         bringing new prosperity to all the states of the empire.
    
    	 The lesson is clear: only through closer adherence to our 
         sacred heritage can we insure our own survival, and influence 
         all the nations of the world to lead a just and righteous way 
         of life.

    ****************************************************************
    
    
    

>From houxa!nvuxh!dps2 (Dovid Silverberg)
	I would like to respond to Sheryl concerning her two questions.
The first concerns whether or not a convert keeps the natural parents'
Yahrtzeit and the second concerns why on Pesach do we need an egg to remind
us of the lamb to remind us of the korban Pesach.  

I don't have sources in front of me so I can't quote "chapter and verse".

    Concerning converts, the Torah treats them as newly born children.
These newly born children's natural parents are NOT their parents so much so,
that if a non-Jewish girl and her non-Jewish father convert or if a non-Jewish
boy and his non-Jewish mother convert, they may marry. 
(I believe this is in the Talmud Tractate of Yevomos or Kesuvos.)
Therefore, I would come to the conclusion that if a convert's parents
are considered not to be parents to the extent that they may marry a
parent if the parent converts, then it doesn't seem likely that a
Yahrtzeit of such a parent is observed.

    Concerning the roasted egg and the roasted egg and the roasted lamb,
they symbolize two entirely different things.  On the day before Pesach,
there was an offering (korban) called the Chagiga offering.  The night of
Pesach there was a different offering called the Korban Pesach.
The commandment to eat the Korban Pesach is to eat it "al hasova"
(when one is satiated with a meal already).
Therefore, during the time of the Beis Hamikdash on the first night of Pesach,
the Korban Chagiga was eaten first and then the Korban Pesach was eaten
after one was filled from the Korban Chagiga.  Therefore, the
roasted egg represents the Korban Chagiga and the roasted lamb represents
the Korban Pesach -- two entirely different offerings.

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!d.s.chechik" 31-MAR-1986 21:02
To:	~halacha
Subj:	mail.jewish No. 9

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Mon, 31 Mar 86 17:52-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.03/4.7.34)
	id AA07728; Mon, 31 Mar 86 17:51:11 pst
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA12072; 31 Mar 86 19:48:32 CST (Mon)
Date:       31 Mar 1986  20:32 EST
Cc: me
Message-Id: <20 8923179@mtgzz>

Life-Cycle Practices of Gerim	meg mcroberts
When can a Jewess remarry?	meg mcroberts
********************************************************************
Subject:  Life-Cycle Practices of Gerim

if the halakah does not require that a ger say yahrtzeit for ones
natural parents, does it prohibit it?  beyond the letter of the law
is the reality that, at least today, some gerim have natural parents
who are supportive of their choice, and to whom one retains strong
emotional ties.  does the halakah prohibit gerim from observing jewish
mourning customs for ones natural parents?

it seems to me that many of the jewish mourning customs arose from
the rabbis profound understanding of the emotional needs of the survivors.
it is bad enough that a ger may have to endure some sort of christian
funeral for ones parents -- at a time when one really needs the comfort
of ones religion, one gets thrown into a rite which has little meaning
and is probably very uncomfortable.  does halakah allow one any use
for the jewish customs which may actually offer some comfort?

meg mcroberts

********************************************************************
Subject: When can a Jewess remarry?

vis a vis the discussion in n.r.j. about Rabbi Feinstein and the woman who
assumed her husband was dead and remarried, only to eventually find out that
he had survived. . .

i thought that under Jewish law, a widow could never remarry unless "reliable
witnesses" had witnessed her husband's death or seen his body?  otherwise,
she is considered an abandoned woman or something.  a man whose wife
disappears and appears to be dead can, however, remarry after seven years,
even if no one witnessed the death or saw the body.

is this incorrect?

meg mcroberts

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!d.s.chechik"  3-APR-1986 02:43
To:	~halacha
Subj:	mail.jewish #10

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Wed,  2 Apr 86 23:38-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.03/4.7.34)
	id AA24691; Wed, 2 Apr 86 23:37:57 pst
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA18847; 2 Apr 86 19:56:27 CST (Wed)
Date:        2 Apr 1986  10:28 EST
Cc: me
Message-Id: <10 912286@mtgzz>

	Laws of Mourning and Gerim - Dovid Chechik
	Laws of Remariage	   - Dovid Chechik

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to answer some of meg mcroberts questions:

Nowhere that I KNOW OF (admittedly very little)
in Halacha does it state that a ger must honor his parents.
The Shulchan Aruch however, does mention in Yora Deyah 241 that a ger
may not curse his parents.  This is a rabbinical Takana (edict) that
was established because a gentile is not permitted to curse his parents and
"Shello yomeru sheholchu mekedusha chamura lekedusha kala",
(they [the gerim] should not say that they have gone from a stronger
state of holiness to a weaker state),  i.e., there were things that
were prohibited when they where gentiles that are permitted now that
they are jewish.

The laws of Mourning are derived from many places in the torah such as
from Leviticus 10 and Ezekiah 24.  I personally do not know of any laws
that were added rabbinically to make the mourner feel better.
The Shiva laws about Kriyah (rending a garment), not learning torah,
not cutting hair, not bathing, not sitting on an elevated seat,
or not greeting people appear rather non-comforting.

With respect to the laws of Yartziet, (aniversary of death)
the prayer that is recited, the custom of finishing a book
of law and making a Siyyum, etc. is not for the benefit of the
Mourner except in that it is supposed to bring him
closer to piety and therefore cause an "aliya" for the neshama,
(a rise for the soul) of the deceaced.  The same books that introduce
these customs say that they only apply to Jews.  I imagine this is because
there is an assumption that the deceased is in some form of the world to
come and hence can benefit from actions that happen down here on earth and
that a gentile would not benefit from these actions.
I don't quite understand the subject of afterlife myself.

So far as getting married, i think that according to halacha a woman
may only get married if there is a reliable witness that saw him dead.
This can be any witness including a non-jew and in certain cases even
the wife herself.  There are many very gory rules listed at the end of
Talmud tractate Kesubos about how much of the body must be in existance
for it to be identified.  There are also other halachic rules that
may be applicable.  In any case a valid Bes Din (Law Court) must be
consulted.  The laws of when a woman herself can testify to the death
of her husband are of course more strict than having other people testify.
Still the principle of "Kol Hamekadesh al da'aton dirabbanan mikadesh",
(whoever marries does so on the DAS of the Rabbis).  DAS means knowledge
or law. This is inherent in the Jewish marriage ceremony when the groom
says "Hayay at mekudeshes li kedas Moshe V'yisroel" (You are separate
unto me according to the "DAS" of Moshe and Israel).  The courts
therefore have the power to disolve a marriage if they see fit to
do so. (Talmud Kesuvos)

If there is a rule of waiting seven years after a husband disapears until
a wife can remarry, this is american civil law and i recall seeing many
TV shows where this is the plot (eve of eight year, husband returns).

What was mentioned with respect to Rav Moshe Feinstein Z"TL, was his
finding "heterim" (halachic permission) for women to marry after
the Holocost.  If like myself and most of the second generation, the
holocost is a bunch of nameless people, if it has never hit home
to you as being a story of personal tragedy for millions.
there is some good reading here for you.  A dozen or so of these
cases are documented in summary in Igros Moshe, Even Haezer,
Responsa of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein,  (i believe volume 3, responsa 53-57)

I paraphrase from memory (i'd rather not translate because the responsa
give me the creeps)  "In sitting three as one (standard way to start a
halachic legal decree, three judges convene as one body) Sara the wife of
abraham came before us, she testified as follows. she was married in Kovno
in 1939, and were taken to Aushwitz in 1942, they saw each other everyday
for some time.  Afterwhich she never saw him again, she heard that
he was transferred to Mathousen (sp?) and that he was in hard labor there.
After the Americans freed her from Aushwitz she met someone who claimed
to have known her husband in Mathousen.
He said that they were to be transfered to some other camp and were not
fed for many days.  He recalls in a half starved state seeing the germans
come in declare him dead and put him on with the other dead people.
He did not know if he was actually dead.  She claims a gentile also
testified to this.  The people who saw this are no longer known.

Since, few people actually survived this situation, and she claims witnesses
saw this,  we permit her to remarry.  (ca. 1960)

Or another.
While we three sat as one, Such-and-such the wife of so-and-so the
teacher from <small european town>, came before us and testified as follows
she was married in 193? in ????, her husband was pressed into the polish army
in 1939 and was soon captured by the German Army, he was never heard from
again.  There are no known jewish survivors from those in his unit that
were captured by the Nazis.
She returned to her town after the war for 2 years to look for him.
He has a sister in Israel (since before the war) and a son, he has never
contacted either.

Since few people surived this and it is easy to locate one's known
relatives (the sister in Israel) these days and he definitely would have
if he were alive,  there are two majorities (halchic principles)
permiting this woman to marry.  We permit her to marry. (ca. 1960)

Rabbi Feinstein passed away last week at the age of 91, leaving Orthodox
Judaism without a universally accpeted leader.
At his funeral, several people eulogized not only his deap halachic knowledge
and understanding but also his compassion.  Stories about about how he went
out of his way to help people abound.

After the war there were thousands of women who had missing husbands.  After the
dust settled, he carefully considered several thousand cases noting the halachic
merit of each individually, and in many cases permitted the women to remarry.
It is a testimony to Rabbi Feinsteins halachic knowledge and insight that
of the women he permitted to remarry, there has never been a mistake.

*** Please submit this anonymously, no credit to me. Thanks. ***

I use a  Wet/Dry electric shaver. Normally I use it dry, but
after  or , when I haven't shaven for a while, it's easier
on my face for me to use it "wet", with shaving cream.  It's still
the same shaver with the normal electric shaving action.

My wife uses an ordinary (men's) Trac II razor for her legs.

Question: if I go into our local supermarket (in a heavily Jewish
area, incidentally) and am seen buying shaving cream, Trac II
razor blades or both, do I have a problem with  Maras Ayin?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Maras Ayin ???????

In case  are wondering what Maras Ayin is, it literally means
"Seeing of the Eye", and is the term used in Halacha for being watched
by one's fellow Jew.

M.A. is a basic  halachic principle mentioned in many places in the
Talmud and other halachic literature.  I will define it and clarify the
definition be giving examples.

The reason why certain activities fall into M.A. are two.
One is "Chshad" (suspicion).  Although you wouldn't know it from the way
that many religious people act, a Jew is obligated to remain above the
suspicion of his or her Jew-religioners.  The Talmud in  Tractate Sheqalim,
derives this from the verse "and  you shall be clean ("Naki") with G-d and
man",  Just as one must be justified before G-d, one must be justified
before man.  Some things which the  mentions that fall into this category are:

	1) back in the days of Idol worship, the Talmud forbid walking
	down a road that was used primarily for getting to an idol, lest
	someone think that one was going to worship there.

	2) The person who went into the Temple treasury to take the
	coins to pay for the sacrifices was not permitted to wear
	clothes that had cuffs or pockets that could possibly hide any
	coins, lest people think that he took some.

	3) The families that prepared things for the Temple never used
	anything similar for themselves lest people think that they
	were dipping into Temple funds.  (E.G., the makers of the spices
	(ketores) never used perfume, the makers of the Lecham Hapanim
	(bread kept in the temple) never ate bread made from white
	flour, etc.)

The other category is more readily evident to everyone.  Many actions are
forbidden because people may misinterpret them and think that prohibited
activities were permitted.  If you think this is far fetched think about
the last time you heard someone say "It can't be wrong, I saw XX doing
it and he's more religious than i am") Some examples,

The Shulchan Aruch  (Yora Deya, 87) in the laws of cooking meat and milk
talks about almond milk ( mideval mocha mix???) and whether it is permissible
to cook meat in it.  The halacha is that one must leave pieces of almond
in the milk so that people will know it's almond milk and not real milk.
Otherwise they might get mixed up and say it's permissible to eat milk and meat.

There is a similar halacha regarding Fish Blood. (ibi , 64?) Only
the blood of animals is forbidden, the blood of fish may be eaten.
However, the rabbis insisted that it only be eaten if there are scales
in it so that it is Jewish as fish blood.

Hiring a Non-jew to do work for a jew on shabbos is forbidden.  However,
if the non-jew was hired to do some work with no time limit given and
the non-jew decides to work on Shabbos,  he may provided that he does
not work on the Jew's premises.  Lest someone think that a) that although
it is forbidden, this person hired a non-jew or a) that one is permitted
to hire a non-jew to do work on Shabbos.

Indeed, for most situations were reason 2 (misinterpretation) is present,
reason 1 (suspicion) is also present.

The Halacha of Kitniyos which was discussed in mail.jewish is another example.
The ashkenazim do not eat it because someone may not realize that the nice
loaf of bread is made of kitniyos instead of grain and may use grain on Peasach.

However, we see an important point, we only apply MA when there has been
a Rabbinic determination that there is danger of mix up.
Here's where it gets tough, I think (i'm definitely NOT sure and have not yet
found this in sources) that for something to be prohibited because of
misinterpretation, there must be a  (decree) specifically prohibiting
it.  I interperet Mr. Anonymous as asking is "is there any case that
seems close to this that there is a decree on?  If someone saw me purchase
these items, would i be suspected?"

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!mtgzz!dsc" "d.s.chechik" 11-APR-1986 13:59
To:	_halacha
Subj:	mail.jewish #12

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Fri, 11 Apr 86 10:56-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.03/4.7.34)
	id AA12846; Fri, 11 Apr 86 10:55:24 pst
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA25283; 11 Apr 86 11:43:10 CST (Fri)
Date:       11 Apr 1986  12:12 EST
Cc: me
Message-Id: <1210014608@mtgzz>

	May Jews cook for non-Jews on Yom Tov - J. Abeles
	Question on Peasach Cleaning	      - Andrew Reibman
	Partial Response to Peasach Cleaning  - Editor

================================================================================
	May Jews cook for non-Jews on Yom Tov - J. Abeles
Following my posting to net.religion.jewish of the comment that
it is against halacha for non-Jews to be present at a Passover
Seder, there have been quite a few responses from people who seem
very surprised to hear such a thing.  Some of them are non-Jews
who were in fact present at a Passover Seder and are obviously
very unclear about what I was talking about.  Others are Jewish
people of apparently good intent who were not at all aware of this.

It is my understanding from an old friend who is knowledgeable in
these matters that indeed Jews are enjoined from inviting non-Jews
to the Pesach Seder and that the reason is that Jews are only permitted
to cook for themselves during the chag days of the shalosh regalim
because it is necessary to celebrate the chag; obviously since the
requirement to celebrate the chag does not halachically involve
non-Jews, the general prohibition against working on the chag applies
to cooking for non-Jews.  Possibly, just possibly, one could argue that
if a non-Jew were to stop by uninvited and hungry, he or she would
be allowed to partake of whatever victuals had been prepared without
the expectation that any non-Jew would consume them.  (But that is
another matter)

I would like to know if any readers of this note could supply a
chapter and verse authoritative explanation of the prohibition
to satisfy the intense curiousity the issue has aroused among
the population reading net.religion.jewish.

--Joe Abeles
  ihnp4!mhuxm!abeles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A preparing for Pesach question:

When getting rid of the chumatz - what must be gotten rid of?
For example, we recently got a cat - the cat food is made
from grains which are clearly forbidden - but it is not intended
for human consumption. If it is clearly kept separated - for instance
in another part of the house is it still forbidden.
What about other things clearly not meant to be eaten,
e.g  wall paper paste. 

Andrew Reibman
decvax!duke!ar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preparing for Pesach short answer:

All types of grain must be gotten rid of assuming they are not
"nifsal mayachilas kelev", (unsuitable for consumption by a dog or
in other words, "not fit for a dog").
This includes dog food which humans would not normally eat but which
can be eaten by humans in times of need ("b'shas hadchak").
I recall reading (sorry no reference, i think it was
time or newsweek) that in the US due to poverty a significantly
large proprotion of pet food is eaten by people, lots of advertisements
for pet food are obviously aimed at humans).

Things that are unfit for human consumption but that would be eaten by
a dog and are therefore prohibited include:  high quality perfume,
cough syrup, etc. which alcoholics sometimes drink.

Wallpaper paste and paper mache statues are, so far as i know,
not included, assuming they are dried up.  I'll check to make sure.

Kitniyos, although it may not be eaten by ashkenazim, may be owned and
used by them on Peasach.

One note about pet food, many pet foods contain milk and meat that
have been cooked together.  Halacha forbids deriving benefit (including
feeding a dog) from such a mixture the entire year!

Whether or not the prohibition applies to non kosher varieties (e.g. horse meat)
cooked with milk is complex and should be refered to a competent
rabbinic authority.

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!mtgzz!dsc" "d.s.chechik" 15-APR-1986 18:44
To:	_halacha
Subj:	mail.jewish #13

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Tue, 15 Apr 86 14:53-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.03/4.7.34)
	id AA02925; Tue, 15 Apr 86 14:52:47 pst
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA07119; 15 Apr 86 16:02:28 CST (Tue)
Date:       15 Apr 1986  16:56 EST
Cc: me
Message-Id: <1610416198@mtgzz>

	Question about Shavers and razors?	E. Leeper
	Question about Kitniyos			Fred Liss
	Keeping Kitniyos Over Peasach		Dovid Chechik
	Cooking for non-Jews on Yom Tov		Dovid Chechik

BTW, for those of us less educated, could you explain what the problem is with
the shavers and the razors?

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
					(or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)

***********************************************************************
	Question about Kitniyos			Fred Liss
>
>Kitniyos, although it may not be eaten by ashkenazim, may be owned and
>used by them on Peasach.
>
    	 This question of Ashkenazim owning Kitniyos during Peasach is 
         very important to me. I mentioned in an earlier posting to 
         the group that I am Ashkenazi while my wife is Sephardi. 
    
    	 It seems that the general consensus of this group and of 
         n.r.j as well is that I may own kitniyos during Peasach 
         provided I do not eat it. On the other hand I asked my Rabbi, 
         who is Lubovitch, the same question. He told me that I may 
         not own kitnniyos during Peasach. The reason being after the 
         search for the chumatz I ritualy disavow ownership of any 
         chumatz that I may have overlooked.
    
    	 At this point I am trying to separate custom from halucha. 
         Can anyone in the group supply an answer to this question 
         with specific references.
    
			Fred Liss
			ihnp4!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-gramps!liss
***************************************************************************
	Keeping Kitniyos Over Peasach		Dovid Chechik

The shulchan aruch in Orech Chayim 453 paragraph 1, clearly states that
there is no prohibition against owning chometz the Magen Avraham and
Mishna Berura give reasons for this (ibid).  The most clear explanation
is given by the Terumas Hadeshen who exclaims "they [sphardim] eat eat
and we shouldn't own it?!?"  The halacha  may also be found in the
Shulcan Aruch Harav 453 paragraph 5.
For a definitive  english reference, see Halachos of Peasach,
by Rabbi Shimon Eider, Published by Halacha Publications, Lakewood. N.J.,
available from Feldheim publishers.
Vol. 1, pp50.  I asked around Lakewood (where i live) and none of
my Chasidishe friends knew of any custom not to own kitniyos on Peasach.
Remember kitniyos is only prohibited by  MINHAG (custom).  There are
NO cholkim on this so far as i know.  Actually, i sell my kitniyos,
because products which contain kitniyos often contain chometz.
***************************************************************************

	Cooking on Yom Tov for Gentiles	- Dovid Chechik

Disclaimer: the following is not intended as bigotry.
I report halacha as it appears in the sources.

The Shulchan Aruch in Orech Chayim Chapter 512 entitled,
"Not to Cook for a non-Jew on Yom Tov", states
"one may not cook for  non-Jews on Yom Tov.  It is therefore prohibited
to invite them [to yom tov meals], since maybe one will cook more
for them.  This is only if he invited them.  However, his servant
or maid-servant, messengers that were sent to him and should a non-Jew
stop by, he can feed them and we do not suspect that he will increase
[the amount of food he prepares] because of them."
"The Rama Comments (For a servant or maid servant it is permitted to 
put more in the same pot, but for a non-Jew, it is prohibited under
all circumstances......."
.P
This prohibition includes doing all other activities on yom
tov for non-Jews.  This is derived from the verse "that which
is eaten by all people, it alone can you do for YOURSELVES"
The rabbis said "For yourselves and not for non-Jews....."
.P
What follows is pure hear-say as i've not found this stuff in the sources.
With respect to the Peasach Seder, i've heard that there are other
reasons not to invite non-Jews, namely, near the end of the Seder,
the door is opened ofr Elijah and saying "Shfoch Chamascha"
(pour out your anger on the gentiles) would be quite uneasy with non-Jews
present.

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!mtgzz!dsc" "d.s.chechik" 22-APR-1986 00:00
To:	_halacha
Subj:	mail.jewish #13

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Mon, 21 Apr 86 21:01-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.03/4.7.34)
	id AA26986; Mon, 21 Apr 86 21:00:35 pst
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA01323; 21 Apr 86 22:57:06 CST (Mon)
Date:       21 Apr 1986  15:27 EST
Cc: me
Message-Id: <1511013597@mtgzz>

       Since i'm going	on vacation till after passover, this is
       the last	passover mail.jewish digest till may.

       The following is	a summary of passover laws.

       For passover eve	there are 5 laws, 2 Mosaic (D'oraysah),
       and 2 Rabbinic (D'rabbanan)

			       Mosaic Laws

	 1.  Retelling the story of the	Exodus -  All adults are
	     required to recite	the story of the exodus	from Egypt.
	     One fulfills this obligation by reciting the Hagadah.
	     Children, so long as they are old enough to understand
	     the story,	are obligated.	The talmud tells us that
	     Rabbi Akiva used to leave the study hall early on
	     Passover eve to make sure the children went to sleep
	     during the	day so they would be up	for the	entire
	     hagadah.  One should try to keep one's children up
	     until after the story of the exodus, not just till
	     after the 4 questions.

	 2.  Eating Matzah - Matzah is eaten 3 times.

		- First	for Motsi, this	is to fulfil the Mosaic
		  requirement of eating matzah on the first evening.

		- Second, for "Korach",	as a sandwhich	with
		  Marror, in rememberance of how matzah	was eaten
		  during the temple periods.

		- Thirdly, for "desert", as the	last thing in the
		  meal,	in rememberance	of the Peasach sacrifice
		  which	was eaten as the last part of the meal.


				 Rabbinic Laws

	 3.  Drinking the four cups - Four cups	of wine	are drunk,
	     in	commemoration of the four expressions for
	     redemption	used in	the Torah.  The	following list
	     shows what	should be used;	if an item cannot be used
	     for health	reasons	then next item should be used.
	     Wine, wine	mixed with grape juice,	wine mixed with
	     water, grape juice, grape juice mixed with	water, ask
	     your rabbi.

	 4.  Eating Marror (Bitter Herbs)  - The bitter	herb in
	     rememberance of the bitterness of the slavery in
	     Egypt.  Romaine lettuce should be used (remember to
	     check it for bugs), or use horseradish.

	 5.  Saying Hallel - Hallel is said after the Hagadah.
	     Many have the custom of saying hallel after
	     Ma'ariv in	Shul as	well.

       On tuesday night	4/22, Bedikas Chometz (Search for the
       Leavened) is done.  The entire house should be searched by
       candlelight (or where this might	cause danger of	fire, a
       flashlight should be used!!)

       After the search	is finished, the first Kol Chamirah is said
       in a language that is understood. (Say it in english if you
       don't understand	aramaic).  Translated roughly,	"All
       leavened	that is	is in my posession, that i have	not cleaned
       or destroyed, and that i	do not know about should be
       considered null and ownerless as	the dust of the	earth"

       There is	a prohibition of Eating	Chometz	from the 4th solar
       hour (9:15 in lakewood, nj) passover eve	(4/23),	a rabbinic
       prohibition of owning chometz from the 5th solar	hour, and a
       Mosaic prohibition of owning chometz from solar noon till
       after passover.	Consequently, chometz found during the
       search should be	burned before the 5th solar hour.  After
       the burning, the	second "Kol Chamirah" is said, it
       translates roughly to, "All leavened that i have	in my
       posession that i	have seen or haven't seen, that i have
       cleaned or haven't cleaned, that	i have destroyed or have
       not destoyed, should become null	and ownerless like the dust
       of the earth."

       Once again chometz is defined to	be anything made out of
       Barley, Rye, Oats, Wheat, and Spelt, that has not been baked
       before it could leaven.

       HAPPY PASSOVER

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"[email protected]" "d.s.chechik"  7-MAY-1986 06:06
To:	_halacha
Subj:	mail.jewish #15

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Wed,  7 May 86 02:55-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
	id AA15054; Wed, 7 May 86 02:54:48 pdt
Date:        2 May 1986   8:25 EDT
Cc: me
Message-Id: < 8121689@mtgzz>

Sorry, there were two # 13 an no #14.

Topics:

Halachic question on adoption   - Jack Gold
mourning for non-Jewish parents - Danny Wildman
Lighting Shabbos Candles	- Danny Wildman

================================================================================
	Halachic question on adoption - Jack Gold

What is the Halacha on adoption, when it relates to children which are not 
known to be Jewish. If a family adopts a child, as an infant, lets say, and 
it is not known who the mother is, isn't the child considered non-Jewish? What 
if the child was a Vietnamese or Cambodian for example.

Would the child be required to be converted upon reaching Bar-Mitzvah age? Are 
the parents allowed to convert the child while still an infant, even though 
the child is not able to make a conscious decision to accept Judaism? In fact, 
are the parents allowed to bring up the child Jewish, at all?

I looked in my copy of the Shulchan Aruch, but could not find any references 
to adoption. Would you or any of your readers know?

Jack Gold
inhp4!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-curie!gold
================================================================================
SUBJECT: mourning for non-Jewish parents

I was somewhat disappointed with the (unsympathetic) response to 
Meg's question about yahrtzeit and mourning for non-Jewish 
natural parents. Although my opinions are not steeped in direct
Halachic sources, I would like to offer an alternate answer to
her query.

Many adopted children raised by Jewish parents - whether the
children were born Jewish or not - do observe laws of mourning
and yahrtzeit for their adopted parent despite the absence of
any Halachic imperative to do so. I have seen this observance
by very Halachic Jews; in one case by a Rabbi himself, and in 
another instance, I believe a "shailah" was raised with Rav
Heineman (sp?) of Baltimore. This implies that there exists no
isur to "use" these customs without Halachic requirement, or, 
in other words, to define one's own "religious" ceremonies/
observances, given that they don't violate Halacha. 

I would liken this extention of mandated observances to the
"Shalom Nikeva" celebrated by some on the first Friday night
following the birth of a girl, or the Simchat Bat ceremony
(embellished naming) for a female newborn; both of these
ceremonies can be observed without violating halacha, and 
are often motivated by parents' emotional needs rather than
purely "religious" feeling. (We held a Zeved Habat - the 
sephardic term - for both our daughters' naming, coincidently
on the eighth day after birth; I speak at least for our 
motivation, although indirect social pressures were also at
work here.) These ceremonies can be viewed as "r'shut" - 
permitted although clearly not required.

One might argue that celebrations of Yom Ha'atzmaut and Yom
Yerushalayim fall into this same category. Many halachic Jews
alter their davening on these days, mostly adding various 
Tehilim and excerpts from Navi to the regular prayers. The
additions do not violate the Halacha, but provide a religious
outlet to a religious feeling for which no Halachic outlets
technically exist.

I have purposely emphasized the phrase "not violating the 
Halacha." In the case at hand, various customs of mourning and
Yahrzeit can not be applied by r'shut to a non-Jewish natural
parent because they cause Halachic inconsistencies. Here I can
barely speculate, let alone paskin, but consider some of the
following practices:

   Recitation of Kaddish - glorification of G-d's through
      Kaddish is done by the mourner to acrue merit to the
      soul of the deceased. Can this merit acrue to a non-Jew?
      Are they meritorious in having raised a child who entered
      Kedushah out of love of G-d?  If, however, the deceased
      parent was a practicing idolator, would the offspring's
      recitation of Kaddish appear to be blasphemous? (Or, like
      the words of Torah which cannot become Tamei (impure), is
      G-d's holiness not subject to the recitor or the recitor's
      intentions?)

   Refraining from Torah learning - the problem here is similar
      to an Israeli's eighth day of Yom Tov - observing the day
      as Yom Tov precludes his fulfillment of the mitzvah of
      Tefillen.  If the Ger refrains from Torah learning, he/she
      is failing to observe a positive command. It would seem that
      the command to learn should take precedence over the self-
      imposed mourning practices. (This problem applies to adoptees
      as well, and I don't know how it is observed.)

   Refraining from sexual activity may conflict with Onah, and
      taking a haircut before Yom Tov (so as not to enter the Chag
      mnuval - disheveled) are further instances of halchic 
      requirements that would seem to override observance of r'shut.

   Yizkor - the words of Yizkor, or of the Kail Malai Rachamim,
      simply may not apply to the afterlife state of a non-Jew, 
      as Mr. Chechik indicated in his previous posting. The
      charity given in connection with those prayers, however,
      would be a fulfillment of a mitzvah in and of itself.
 
   Sitting shiva - Sitting in low chairs, not greeting others,
          not shaving or bathing, and other Shiva observances would 
          be hard to prohibit since the activities may be done by
          anyone at any time without culpability. 

I would also like to respond to the issue of whether these observances
were intended to comfort the mourner. Of course, we do not know 
G-d's motivation in determining how we observe any particular mitzvah, 
nor even the nuances of intent of Rabbinic ordinances. However, given
the assumption of G-d's perfection, of the hidden meaning and purpose
in every aspect of the Torah and in every moment of our experience,
it is easy to find beneficial "side effects" of many mitzvot.
 
I have a pet project of collecting Chazal's side-effect benefits
regarding attention and Kavanah. During Aseret Y'mai Teshuva we
add phrases to Shemona Esrai at very key places. The additions have
ample Halachic justification; however, as a side effect, we tend
to daven with better kavanah at all the crucial points of the Amidah.
And lest your mind wander towards the middle of the Shemona Esrai,
we add a word change here and there to draw your attention back -
specifically during this time of year. I have numerous examples of
this type of (primarily psychological) secondary benefits of our
laws, which someday I'll organize and better analyze. The point
here is that one, at least, need not deny the possibility that
Halachot may have a hidden agenda, and that the laws of mourning
may have psychological benefit for the mourner as well as theological
benefit for the deceased.

The practices of Shiva are frequently understood as an important
catharsis for the mourner, who during a week of forced interaction
with others works out much of the grief and guilt surrounding traumatic
loss. The mourner is also prepared during the week of shiva to reenter
society at its conclusion.

To the extent that the laws of Shiva and Avaylut parallel Charem,
excommunication, the mourner is allowed to exile himself (a form
of punishment that gains kapara, atonement) and atone for guilt;
atoned guilt, like atoned sins, removes scars and lays the groundwork
for higher achievement. Non-atoned guilt, like unatoned sin, remains
as an obstacle to moving on. This psychological benefit, I believe,
has not received enough attention.

Tearing a garment, kriyah, is a symbolic gesture representing a
torn heart or, alternatively, an irreparable loss. Expressing 
those feelings through a physical, concrete action must have
some cathartic, grief controlling, benefit.

The partial closure achieved by the end of Shiva helps put a cap
on potentially excessive grief. After 12 months of Avaylut and
comemorating the first Yahrzeit, complete closure should be attained
and the "healthy" person should be able to begin enjoying life,
particularly social life. Attempting to totally reenter society
prior to the year may be psychologically damaging.
 
Yahrzeit, in addition to its benefits for the departed soul, allows
the surviving child to remember the parent without reawakening grief
and guilt - because, by observing the Yahrzeit, the child can do
something on behalf of the parent to expiate those feelings.

The argument I want to make is that the Ger could/should benefit
by all this wonderful psychological insight of the Torah. And
that's probably true. The question all you readers should then ask
is why isn't the Ger REQUIRED to do this stuff in the first place?
And shouldn't non-Jews also observe avaylut to benefit?

One could answer, perhaps, that the benefits, after all, are secondary
to the main purpose of the observances, and the main purposes are not
served by goyim observing them or by Gerim serving them. Any better
anwers out there?

D. Wildman


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Lighting Shabbos Candles

The discussion of the source for the woman's primary responsibility
to light Shabbos candles omitted mention of the traditionally
accepted role of Sarah as originator of the practice. Rashi on
Genesis 24:67, near the end of Chayai Sarah, hints at this:
"'Into the tent of Sarah his mother..' - ..for as long as Sarah lived 
there was a light burning from Erev Shabbos to Erev Shabbos..."
The Hebrew "m'erev Shabbat l'erev Shabbat" might be read as "each 
and every Erev Shabbat."
 
My wife adds her commentary to why a candle is added for each
child born to the family. (She is prone, as I am, to sermonic
types of drasha.) Each soul is compared to a candle - this is
why we light a candle during Shiva and on Yahrzeit; to symbolize
the new soul we light an extra candle. Further, each Jewish 
child potentially illuminates the world with further acts of
chesed, additional mitzvot, and Torah learning. And the 
performance and learning of Torah is also compared to the
candle (Ki ner mitzvah v'torah or.) Thus, an additional candle
represents the additional illumination to be brought to the 
world by this new Jew. 

(We are particularly fond of this "g'zerah shava" since our
first son was born on Chanuka, the festival of lights. It
made the text of the birth announcement easy.)
 
Danny Wildman

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"[email protected]" "d.s.chechik"  7-MAY-1986 06:14
To:	_halacha
Subj:	mail.jewish #16

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Wed,  7 May 86 03:13-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
	id AA15695; Wed, 7 May 86 03:13:30 pdt
Date:        6 May 1986  20:09 EDT
Cc: me
Message-Id: <201256117@mtgzz>

Topics
	Kashrhrut Status of Caviar			 - David Sher
	Questions Concerning Children of Mixed Marriages - Michael Brochstein
	Prohibition Against Shaving with a Razor	 - Dovid Chechik

================================================================================

>From: David Sher  <ihnp4!seismo!rochester!sher>

Question on the subject of kashrut:
What is status of caviar?
In particular the cheap lumpfish black caviar, and the golden
white fish caviar.  If they are legal they make a great inexpensive
substitute for lox whose price has hit the ceiling and kept going.
-David
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: Michael Brochstein< ihnp4!mtx5c!mab>

	A Jewish female friend of mine is married to a non-Jew.  Neither
the husband nor the wife underwent conversion to the others religion and they
were married by a civil judge.  My female friend is now pregnant.  If it
makes any difference in answering the following questions, she is of
Ashkenazic descent. My questions are as follows (please state references):

	1. If she gives birth to a girl, when she is named in shul,
	   what is used for the fathers name (bat Avraham, bat Israel,...)?
	   Also since the father is not Jewish, he won't be called to the
	   torah, so what is the procedure commonly done ?

	2. Similarly if she gives birth to a boy, what is done at the brit
	   milah since the father is not Jewish (naming problem again, who
	   acts as the father in the ceremony,...) ?

	3. If for some reason, the couple refuses to have a brit milah
	   ceremony, what is the status of the child so far as having 
	   a name ? (I gather he is still considered Jewish since his mother
	   is without a doubt Jewish.)  Also if the couple refuses to have
	   their daughter named in shul, what is (can be) done?

	4. If the child is baptized (regardless of whether it has had a 
	   brit milah or has been named in shul), what is its status ?
	   (Also would it matter whether the baptism or brit milah came
	   first ?)

thanks,
Michael Brochstein (mtx5d!mtx5c!mab)
********************************************************************************

	Prohibition Against Shaving With a Razor

A question was asked about the prohibition of shaving with a Razor
minimal research yielded the following.

Leviticus 19:27 states "velo soshchisu es pe'as zekanecha"  (and you shall
not destroy the edge of your beard).  The rabbis took this prohibition
to mean that men (not women, who don't have beards) may not shave where
shaving their beards if shaving would mean "destroying".  Destroying
was defined as using a razor.
The Kitsur Shulchan Aruch writes (chapter 170)
"The torah only forbid destroying the beards with a razor,.......there
is no difference between a razor or a sharp stone which cuts the hair
[examples given by the author of the kitsur are transliterated from his
vernacular which must have been yiddish] e.g., 'pigment or pumice stone'
would also be prohibited.
Those that remove there facial hair with a chemical compound should be
careful not to remove it with a blade lest they cut hair with the blade."

Use of electric shavers is a very controversial subject.  Most halachic
authorities feel that shavers are "misparayim ca'en taar", scissors that
are like a razor since most electric shavers do use scissor action to cut hair.
Some authorities forbid using certain electric shavers that give shaves as good
as razors.  For particular halachic decisions, ask your rabbi.

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"[email protected]" "d.s.chechik"  9-MAY-1986 20:25
To:	_halacha
Subj:	mail.jewish #17

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Fri,  9 May 86 16:06-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
	id AA06503; Fri, 9 May 86 16:06:03 pdt
Date:        9 May 1986  15:58 EDT
Cc: me
Message-Id: <151289861@mtgzz>

Topics:
	Re: Kashrut Status of Caviar - Susan Slusky
	Conversion of non Jewish Children - Dovid Chechik
================================================================================
Re: Kashrut Status of Caviar

Where I shop there is red (salmon) caviar available with a kaph
hechsher, so that is definitely kosher. I believe that the lump-
fish (black) caviar sold under the same brand name is not
hechshered, so I would suspect that there is some problem with
lumpfish since the company already has the services of a mashgiach
and would thus probably hechsher everything if they could.
I've never run across golden whitefish caviar, but since
whitefish show up at all the best kosher affairs, it probably
is not inherently tref.

Susan Slusky
mhuxn!segs
================================================================================
Concerning Adopted Non-Jewish Children

There was a question a while back about adopting non-Jewish children.
There may be several possible halachic problems and i don't what they
are.  This posting deals with whether or not the "conversion" of the
non-Jewish baby is valid.  Sources: Shulchan Orech, Yora Deya 268 and
Talmud Bavli, Tractate Kesubos 11a.

Some concepts:
1) "Zachin L'adam shelo b'fanav" - One can do something (totally) beneficial
for someone without his knowledge.  This principle is used all over Halacha
in cases where someone would benefit by something say by appointing a
representative to take ownership of something, but he is not present and
will therefore miss an opportunity.  We (bes din) do "whatever" for him as
if he were here and appointed us to be his representative.  So, if someone
gives someone a million dollars on condition that the money is picked up today.
(assuming getting $10e6 is something totally beneficial), you can pick it
up for him without his knowledge.  If the giver later says that you cheated
since you were not appointed, you respond  "Zachin L'adam shelo b'fanav".

This principle does not apply if there is anything at all non beneficial
about what you are getting.

2) "Avda behefkeyra Nich Lei" - A slave likes his wantoness - non-Jewish
slaves (Eved K'nani) can not transgress any negative commandments and are not
obligated in many other commandments.  They may marry (Shifcha K'nanis)
a non-Jewish maid servant.  When a slave is freed he gets a "Get Shichrur" a
Separation Decree from his master.  If he is not present can we apply (1) and
get the "Get Shichrur" for him?  The talmud says that you can't.
Because of (2), (1) does not apply.  Freedom would not be completely
beneficial since he can marry a non-Jewish maid servant as a slave
and he can not as a free man (he becomes a full Jew, if freed).
Since non-Jewish maid servants are less modest that Jewish women, he
might not want to give up being a slave.

3) (2) above does not apply for an "eved katan" a slave who is a child.
because the principle of (2) only applies if "To'am taam issurah", he
has tasted the taste of the forbidden.  Since a child has never been
with a non-Jewish maid servant, he won't mind giving up the opportunity
to be a free man and a Jew.

4) Anything done on behalf of a child is considered "shelo befanav" (without
his consent) because he does not have the halachic power to make decisions.

Now to the subject at hand.
Can we convert a child saying "Zachin L'adam Shelo B'fanav" or since (according
to halacha) he gives up marrying non-Jews and eating cheese-burgers, he would 
rather remain a non-Jew?  Yes he can be converted, becuase he was not
To'am taam issurah, he doesn't know what he's missing.

The talmud further tells us that when the child convert comes of age,
(bar or bas mitzvah) if he objects to being converted (he must be given the
choice), he reverts to his non-Jewishness.  If he does not object immediately on
coming of age, he can no longer revert to non-Jewishness.

There may be other halachic problems with adopting non-Jews that are
not discusses here.

					Dovid Chechik

When I go into a Japanese restaurant, I often order "Salmon Roe".  It's
large red eggs served in a rolled up seaweed paper.  It's DELICIOUS.
(I know it sounds wierd, but TRY it, then get back to us!)

The eggs are large, about � inch in diameter.  Also, they are not
very salty, another big plus in my book.

When I go into supermarkets and see "salmon caviar" for sale, the
eggs are much smaller, and much saltier.

Does anyone know why the "big ones" are never seen in supermarkets,
and where one can tend to find them .?

/Eric

RE: .27

Salmon roe used to be avaliable --and maybe still is-- at the Roka
Market, 361 Newbury Street in Boston. This was the real stuff. It
was by no means cheap, but certainly worth it...

This was some tome ago, so I would give them a call before making
the expedition down.

Lete-avon (enjoy the food) - Ron

	Often, what is advertised as Salmon Roe, in markets,
	is a different species of salmon compared to the ones
	found in Japanese Rest's/stores (Ikura).

	I think the large eggs are from King Salmon, so
	you might be able to find some in the fish markets
	in Kittery, Maine.... King Salmon is in season.
	8-}

	Oh, there is a place (Rocky Imprters) at
	Logan that gets Ama Ebi (Sweet Shrimp) and
	other delicacies for Benisushi next to the common.
	You might look up the number and see if they will
	sell to you.

	Hit Select or P7 for the Boston Rest's conference.
	(There is a note on Japanese Food).

	Mata Dozo,
		Michael

    < Note 75.29 by CADCAM::MAHLER "Michael" >
                         -< NOt all fish are alike ! >-
    
       "Oh, there is a place (Rocky Imprters) at
	Logan that gets Ama Ebi (Sweet Shrimp) and
	other delicacies..."
    
    Mike, please! Shrimp in this note? 8-(
    
    			Fred
    

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"[email protected]" "d.s.chechik" 17-MAY-1986 01:08
To:	_halacha
Subj:	mail.jewish #18

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Fri, 16 May 86 22:05-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
	id AA24365; Fri, 16 May 86 22:05:52 pdt
Date:       14 May 1986   9:03 EDT
Cc: me
Message-Id: < 913312315@mtgzz>

Topics
	Status in Mixed Marriages - Yechezkal Gutfreund
	More on Kosher Fish	  - Dovid Chechik

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:  Status in Mixed Marriages

Regarding Michael's Borenstein's questions on the status of a child of
a mixed marriage (female mother). I would first want to precede my comments
with a caveat: Questions invovling personal status (marriage, mamzerim,
converts, agunah (the abandoned women), etc.) are of a class of laws that
can really only be answered by someone of general halachic competance. I
would say even 70% of those rabbi's with orthodox smicha would not try and rule
on these issues, but pass it on to some posek or a bet din. 
                                                 
The average person on the net (with a reasonable yeshiva experience) can
probably tell you quite definitively about whether certain fish are kasher
or if something is muktza (not to be directly moved on shabbat). And these
positions can probably be reasonable followed. However in cases of personal
status there are so many individual circumstances, and such depth of Torah
knowledge is needed to even begin to approach these issues that you should
definitely apprach an competent Rav, even if all you want is an intellectual
curriosity in these subjects. (especially since most of these topics are
emotionally charged it would be an incredible shame if someone gets some
right-wing opinion of a poorly informed but observant individual (of which
there are many)).

1. Names: Your name does not have to be Hebrew. Yiddish names such
   as Zalman and Wulf are common among Hassidm. The name Alexander
   became popular among Jews after the famous story of the meeting
   of Alexander the Great and Shimon HaTzaddik. There are also
   tanna's (Atignos ish Socho) who have non-hebrew names. At Lubavitch
   shuls I frequently hear people called up by things like John
   ben Matthew (talk about the descent of the dorot!)

2. Naming in the shul. You are correct according to the majority of
   opinions the child will be Jewish. Jewishness is not a quantity
   with magnitude and scale. It is a quality which is present or not.
   A minyan is ten jewish male souls, and the shechina will reside there
   regardless of their learning, sins, etc. Even 9 of the greatest
   rabbis of all time would not make a minyan.

   However for positions of authority in the shul, in the community, and
   in terms of public honors in the community, we ask for good role models.
   Those who are publicly intermarry and public violators of the
   community standards and Jewish law are not to be given honors (according
   the the rulings I have read). This would include aliyoth, and might
   include the public naming. I assume the bris would be done, but it
   would not be proper to condone the major violation of Jewish ethics
   occuring. (the mixed marriage). Incedentally a jew cannot be (halachicly)
   married to a non-Jew. The halachic status of the marriage is that
   is that you are living together, but not married. Thus no divorce
   is ever needed from such a situation.

3. There is an intersting side point to mixed marriages that I would like
   to have cleared up for myself. In Contemporary Halachic Problems by
   Bleich, he talks about mixed marriages, and brings some interesting
   sources which might lead one to the idea that children of a female Jewish
   mother may not be Jewish if the father is a non-Jew. First there is 
   curse in Devorim about if you let your daughters go to the non-jew
   your grandchildren will not know you. There is a Tosfoth in Gittin
   (my memory may be off) that says that this indicates the difference
   between a daughter who gets pregnet by a non-Jew but comes to live
   with the child at home, and the one who goes off and lives with
   the non-Jew. The first case the Tosfoth says is a Jew, the second
   a mamzer (but in this case they says mamzer means non-Jew, not the
   normal meaning). This is hinted at in Megilla Ester where Darius
    the offspring of Ester and Achasverous is considered a non-Jew.
   I have also seen many cases when children of mixed marriges do
   return to yiddishkeit (and a baptism occured and the mother was Jewish)
   a Mikvah is done. Naturally is very depressing to those involved who
   had there Jewishness questioned. We usually have to point out the
   Jewish attitude toward care and protection in these matters, and
   that it is in no way a personal degradation. This should also
   be emphasized to the Falasha who are being whipped up by an extremely
   anti-religious press in Israel.


						- Yechezkal Gutfreund

                                    
********************************************************************************
More on Kosher Fish

The kashruth of fish is very simple to determine, they don't require
ritual slaughtering, the blood is not forbidded, etc.
Generally, it does not take a great talmudic scholar to figure out
which fishes are Kosher and which are not.  There are two very obvious
discriminators that are given in the torah and used for this determination.
Fishes that have Fins and Scales are kosher those that are missing one
of the above are not.  For once, halacha is simple, fins are "osseous
organs analogous to the limbs of animals", the fins in question, (i think)
are the anal or pelvic fins.  Scales are those osseous membranes that cover
the outside of a fish that can be scraped off.

Not being and ichthyologist, i don't know about "lumpfish caviar" or
"golden whitefish caviar" but it should be obvious if you can look at a whole
fish.  Caviar is not a very technical name as it covers salmon (a kosher fish)
and sturgeon (non-kosher).  There is a book called "Mazon Kasher min haChai"
which has an english chapter called "Modern Kosher Food Preparation
from Animal Source" by Rabbi Levinger of the Institute for Agricultural
Research According to the Thora (their spelling) in Israel.  It contains
extensive tables of both kosher and non-kosher fishes.  However, the exhaustive
tables are organized by latin genus and i don't know what the particular
fishes are called in latin.  The book also contains tables in english but they
are much less comprehensive.  I found an entry under caviar for "Lumpsucker".
One member of the "Lumpsucker" family is "lumpfish" (cyclopterus lumpus).
It is NOT kosher.

					Dovid Chechik

P.S.  The book also has a much more scientific definition of fins and scales
than the ones given above.

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"[email protected]" "d.s.chechik" 17-MAY-1986 01:00
To:	_halacha, _not!yet
Subj:	mail.jewish #19

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Fri, 16 May 86 21:59-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
	id AA24288; Fri, 16 May 86 21:59:37 pdt
Date:       16 May 1986   8:49 EDT
Cc: me
Message-Id: < 813525357@mtgzz>

	Moderator's note:
	There are currently about 70 subscribers to the mailing list.
	Unfortunately, there are not a whole lot of posters.  If you
	have an idea for something you'd like to hear about, just
	ask.  Also, if you're afraid of notoriety, articles can
	be posted to the mailing list anonymously on request.


		Vegetarianism Throughout the Ages - Dovid Chechik

       A while ago there was a question	about vegetarianism in
       Halachic	philosophy.

       First a historical perspective.	The Talmud tells us that
       Adam (the original man) was not allowed to eat meat, this
       prohibition lasted some 1600 years until	the great flood.
       After this, Noah	was permitted to eat meat.  See	Rashi or
       Ramban (Nachmanades) Genesis 1:29, Ramban references Talmud
       Sanhedrin.

       Ramban gives several reasons for	this:  1) The animals were
       so gratefull to Noah for	having saved them, that	they
       permitted themselves to be eaten	by man.

       2) Spiritually, you are what you	eat.  Originally, before
       the flood, both animals and man were on higher spiritual
       levels. Man was at that time totally spiritual, and would
       thus have been polluted with "animalness" if man	had eaten
       flesh.  The generation of "destuctive behaviour"	before the
       flood led to a general weakening	of nature in both man and
       animal.	Man not	only became physically weaker (note the
       difference in life span before and after	the flood, prior to
       the flood life span limits were several hundred years,  the
       patriarchs lived	less than 175) but also	lost much of his
       spirituality.  Animals too, became weaker spiritually.  The
       consequence of this is that the "new man" (no longer
       spiritualy pure)	could eat the post flood animal	(no longer
       spiritually strong) without getting polluted spiritually.

       However,	 eating	part of	a live animal (one of the 7 Noachic
       commands) was never permitted as	this puts to much spiritual
       "animalness" into the eater and violates the animal "rights".

       A similar concept is found in the eating	of blood,  the
       torah states that blood should not be eaten, "Ki	hadam hu
       hanefesh", (because the blood is	the soul [of the animal]"
       Ramban explanes this as meaning that if a human were to eat
       animal blood, the soul of the animal would enter	the person,
       making the man less "human" and more animal from	the
       spiritual standpoint.

       The Torah tells us that with man's current nature, eating
       meat is not spiritually destructive, so long as the animal
       is prepared according to	halacha	(e.g., no blood	is eaten).

       Back to history.
       We find meat being eating by our	Forefathers even before	the
       giving of the Torah as we see in	many places such as when
       the angels came to visit	Abraham	after his circumcision and
       when issac blessed jacob.

       The Torah demands that meat be eaten on certain occasions
       such as Passover	and for	various	other sacrifices.  Someone
       who could have brought the passover sacrifice but fails to,
       is punished by "Kores", dying early and loosing his place in
       the world to come.

       Chazal also mention the eating of fish and meat anytime the
       torah proscribes	"simcha" (joy),	such as	on the Holidays	and
       Shabbos,	(shulchan orech, orech chayim 242, 250,	629).
       Certainly, eating meat is within	the teachings of halacha.

       With respect to the philosophy of vegetarianism being in
       step with Halachic ideals, the Torah permits the	eating of
       meat and	as one person i	spoke to about it said,	you can't
       be more religious than the Torah.

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"[email protected]" "d.s.chechik" 20-MAY-1986 12:26
To:	_halacha, _not!yet
Subj:	mail.jewish #20

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Tue, 20 May 86 09:18-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
	id AA11152; Tue, 20 May 86 08:51:29 pdt
Date:       20 May 1986   8:31 EDT
Cc: me
Message-Id: < 813927907@mtgzz>

I have received very little material to post for the last week or two,
feel free to send in any questions etc.
One article sent to me was accidentally deleted.  So if you sent me an
article and haven't seen it, please retransmit.

>From: ihnp4!ucbvax!ucdavis!vega!ccrdave (Lord Kahless)
Subject:  Definition of Mamzer - Question

Could somebody briefly give me a definitive answer as to what constitutes
a Mamser?(sp?)  My mother says that it is a child of ANY relationship
outside of marriage, while I think it is only one from which a marriage
would not be legally possible, i.e. something like somebody already
legally married, a marriage which would be incest, etc.  I believe
a ton of articles on this subject were posted in n.r.j. a year or
so ago, but I didn't save them.

Also, what would be the proper Yiddish words to express a child which
came from two single young Jews in which it would be possible for them
to marry, but in which they weren't married?

Thank you much in advance, as they say.

		{ihnp4!ucbvax,dual,lll-crg}!ucdavis!vega!ccrdave
		{ihnp4!ucbvax,dual,lll-crg}!ucdavis!samira!kahless

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"[email protected]" "d.s.chechik" 29-MAY-1986 15:53
To:	_halacha, _not!yet
Subj:	mail.Jewish #21

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Thu, 29 May 86 12:52-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
	id AA08761; Thu, 29 May 86 12:51:02 pdt
Date:       28 May 1986  23:00 EDT
Cc: me
Message-Id: <231479634@mtgzz>

There have been no articles submittions for a long time consequently
there have been no digests of articles.

The following is a piece that i wrote as kind of a primer on 
Jewish Lineage.  It is rather long and drawn out yet it does
not approach complete coverage of the subject.  Feel free to post
followup questions, to ask about things that are unclear, or to
point out where i'm wrong.

		YICHUS	- Dovid Chechik

       DISCLAIMER: As will become obvious to you as you	read the
       article.	 The sources for this are very widely dispersed
       throughout halachic literature.	I am but a poor	engineer,
       not a Rabbi.  Consequently, anything i say may be wrong.	 If
       anyone takes what i say as P'sak	Halacha	(in this or any
       other article),	they are naive and i am	not responsible.


       1.  What	is Yichus and why is it	important?

       Yichus literally	means descent.	In halacha this	takes on
       the connotation of "class".  One's Yichus will determine	who
       one can marry and to some degree	will often determine
       privleges and responsibilities.	 Yichus	alone does not
       determine one's absolute	worth.	We are told that a Mamzer
       Talmud Chacham (scholar)	 is to be more respected than a
       Kohain Am Ha'aretz (ignoramous).	 With respect to personal
       worth, Torah scholarship	is more	important than impeccable
       lineage.

       Lineage is much sought after because of it's relation to
       levels of spirituality.	According to Jewish tradition,
       certain physical	actions	have spiritual effects.
       Consequently, certain physical conditions surrounding the
       conception and birth of individuals are said to effect their
       spirituality and	hence their (spiritual)	abilities and
       personalities.  This is important to many people	in choosing
       a spouse.


       2.  Something to	Keep in	Mind

       The following is	a paraphrase from Rambam, Laws of Forbidden
       Unions, chapter 19, paragraph 17.  All families can be
       assumed to be "kosher" .......  [unless one knows
       otherwise].  Even so, if	one sees families that fight with
       each another...... or one sees someone who has chutzpah and
       fights with everyone, keep away.	 And so	too, someone who
       constantly denigrates others, like someone who makes claims
       that someone else is a Mamzer or	a slave	[and can't
       substantiate his	claim],	and so too, someone who	hates
       people, or is cruel, or is brazen, or is	not Charitable,
       doubt his lineage, he may be a Givoni, (see Nesinim below)
       The Jewish people can be	identified by being holy, modest,
       compassionate, and charitable.

       3.  Types of Yichus

       There are many ways to classify groups of Yuchsin (plural of
       Yichus).	 I will	use a method of	classifications	found in
       the Talmud plus some of my own where appropriate.  Marriage
       rules for specific groups are mentioned in the
       classifications,	most intergroup	rules will be explained	in
       section 4.

       3.1  Assara Yuchsin

       Some types of Yuchsin are mentioned in Kedushin Chapter 3
       Mishna 1	entitled "Asara	Yuchsin" (Ten Lineages)	These ten
       groups went back	to Israel with Ezra from Bavel (Babylon) at
       the time	of the building	of the Second Temple.  Since Jews
       were to have much more control over record keeping etc.	in
       Israel (as opposed to Bavel), only "normal Jews"	(first
       three categories	below) were permitted to remain	in Bavel.
       All others had to go up to Israel where they could be
       tracked.	 Consequently, Babelonian lineage was kept pure.

       3.1.1  Kohanim  This group consists of males that are
       descended from Aaron HaKohain.  A son is	a Kohain if the
       father is a Kohain and the union	was halachicly permitted.
       Unlike other "normal" Jews, Kohanim cannot marry	divorced
       women, women who	have been intimate with	anyone who they
       would not be permitted to marry,	and others as explained
       later.  This group still	exists today.  The daughter of a
       Kohain for Yichus purposes is a Yisrael.

       3.1.2  Leviyim  These are the male descendants of the tribe
       of Leyvi	except for those included in the previous group.
       As in the case with any tribal Yichus, a	child is a Leyvi if
       the father was a	Leyvi and the mother was Jewish.  Leviyim
       still exist today.  The daughter	of a Leyvi for Yichus
       purposes	is a Yisrael.

       3.1.3  Yisraelim	 The group of plain ordinary Jews are
       descended from the original Israelites, other than those	in
       another group.  Obviously, this group exists today.

       3.1.4  Chalalim	One is a member	of this	group if he or she
       is descended from a marriage of a Kohain	and a woman who	the
       Kohain was not permitted	to marry, e.g.,	 a divorced woman,
       a Challala, or the daughter of a non-Jew and a Jewess.

       Lineage is transmitted through the male and to a	lesser
       extent through the female.  A male child	of Challol or
       Challala	is a full Challol.  The	female child of	a Challol
       or Challola is a	second generation Challola.  The child of a
       second generation Challola and a	normal male is normal.
       This group exists today.	 The major restriction is that they
       cannot marry Kohanim.

       3.1.5  Gerim  A convert.	 Group exists today.

       3.1.6  Chararim	A previously non-Jewish	slave (of a Jew)
       who has been freed.  Same laws as a Ger.	 Group does not
       exists today.

       3.1.7  Mamzerim	Children of incest or adultery.	 Group
       unfortunately exists today.

       3.1.8  Nesinim  This is a historical group that no longer
       exists.	According to the book of Joshua, a group of Givonim
       converted when the Jews first conquered Israel.	There is
       some dissent as to whether or not they are really Jewish.
       Some say	that they originally converted with real intention
       and are consequently Jewish even	though they returned to
       their wicked ways.  Others say they are "Geyray Aroyos",
       (Converts due to	Lions).	 Hard as it is to believe after
       visiting	Israel today, the country was once very	fertile	and
       covered with forest.  The Givonim were repeatedly attacked
       by the lions that roamed	Israel at that time.  Seeing that
       lions never attacked Jews, they converted to save themselves
       but never really	meant it.  Joshua made them "drawers of
       water and cutters of wood" and decreed that Jews	should not
       marry them.  They later showed their barbarism in demanding
       the death of King Saul's	descendants (Samuel II).  This
       prompted	King David to proclaim that they would be
       permanently forbidden to	marry Jews since Jews are a
       merciful	people and they	had showed their cruelty.  Same
       laws as Mamzer. see section 4.

       3.1.9  Sh'tukim	Literally, silent ones.	 These are people
       who, when they ask their	mothers	who their fathers are, are
       told to shut up.	 Usually, the child of a woman who is not
       married who has not divulged who	the father is, Or of a
       woman who has been raped.  Their	father may be a	Mamzer,
       maybe not.  This	child's	status is iffy and he cannot marry
       anyone but a Ger.

       3.1.10  Asufim  Foundlings.   The circumstances of how they
       were found should indicate that they are	Jewish.	  Very
       iffy, they can only marry Gerim.

       3.2  Four More Types Yuchsin

       3.2.1  Amoni, Moavi  Male converts from the Nations of Ammon
       or Moav.	 They can not marry other Jews by biblical
       prohibition.  No	longer exists.

       3.2.2  Mitzri  Converts from the	Nation of Mitzrayim.  Can
       only marry a Jew	(other than a Ger) until after the third
       generation.  No longer exists.

       3.2.3  Kusi  According to the book of Kings.  This group
       also called Shomronim was brought by the	king of	Ashur to
       convert.	 They later returned to	their evil ways.  They
       converted because of the	splendor of King Soloman's reign,
       and never really	meant to do anything other than	share the
       wealth.	No longer exists.

       3.3  Other Types	of People

       3.3.1  Eved Cenani  A non-Jewish	slave, can marry only a
       Shifcha Cenanis.	 Doesn't exist any more. Becomes a Ger if
       freed.

       3.3.2  Shifcha Cenanis  A non-Jewish maid-servant.  Becomes
       a Ger if	freed. Doesn't exist any more.

       3.3.3  Eved Ivri	 A Jew who has been sold as a slave usually
       because he stole	something and has to raise money to repay.
       Doesn't exist any more.	Can marry a regular Jewess or if
       his master wishes a Shifcha Cenanis.  In	the latter case	the
       child would be an Eved Cenani.

       3.4  P'sul

       There are several cases where the soul of the child is
       stained because of the circumstances surrounding	the child's
       conception.  They can marry regular Jews.  Examples are
       children	conceived of:  a Nidah,	parents	that were angry	at
       each other, parents that	were planning on getting divorced,
       parents who were	thinking of other partners, etc.

       3.5  Non-Jews

       The child of a non-Jewish mother	can become a Ger by
       converting.  If a male Mamzer  and a non-Jewish woman have a
       child and the child converts, he/she is a Ger, not a Mamzer.

       The child of a non-Jewish father	and Jewish mother is Jewish
       but cannot marry	a Kohain.


       4.  Marriage Rules

	  - Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisraelim can intermarry.
	    Children are whatever the father is.

	  - Leviyim, Yisraelim,	Chalalim, Gerim	and Chararim can
	    intermarry.	 Children are Yisraelim	except as noted
	    above under	Chalalim.

	  - Gerim, Chararim, Mamzerim, Nesinim,	can intermarry.
	    Children have the classification of	normal Jew or if no
	    Mamzer/Nasin is involved, or Mamzer/Nasin if one is
	    involved.

	  - Shetukim and Asufim	can marry Chararim and Gerim but
	    not	each other.  Children are Shetukim or Asufim.

	  - Amonim, Moavim, Mitzrim, Gerim and Chararim	can
	    intermarry.	 Children are whatever is the "lowest"
	    classification of the parents.  E.G., 2nd generation
	    Mitzri and 1'st generation Mitzri => second generation
	    Mitzri. Amoni + Giyores => Amoni. Mamzer + anything	=>
	    Mamzer.

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"[email protected]" "d.s.chechik"  2-JUN-1986 19:47
To:	_halacha, _not!yet
Subj:	mail.jewish #22

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Mon,  2 Jun 86 16:44-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
	id AA12964; Mon, 2 Jun 86 15:47:40 pdt
Date:        2 Jun 1986  18:00 EDT
Cc: me
Message-Id: <181529663@mtgzz>

New subscribers are joining every day, but article volume remains low.
Isn't there anything about judaism that you wanted to know but were too
apathetic to ask?  Now's your chance.


TOPICS:
	Children of mixed marriages - Jack Gold
	On-line Chumash Search - Elliott Hershkowitz
	Mikveh Question  - Fred Liss

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Children of mixed marriages - Jack Gold

I had a thought about the ongoing dilemma of who is a Jew, specifically as it 
pertains to children of mixed marriages. The opinions expressed are my own, 
and I certainly am not a Halachic expert. I know just enough to make me
dangerous, but here goes. 

If a child is born of a mixed marriage, with a Jewish father and a 
non-Jewish mother, that child is considered to be non-Jewish, even though 
the child may be raised Jewish by the father. This is the traditional 
thought on the subject.

If a child is adopted by a Jewish parent and is raised Jewish, regardless 
of whether the biological parents were Jewish, then the child is regarded as 
being Jewish until he or she is thirteen. At that time, the child selects 
whether to remain Jewish or not. This I believe is Halachic law.

Based on the above, if the Jewish father of a child born in a mixed
marriage were to "adopt" his child and raise him or her Jewish, wouldn't
that mean that the child were Jewish? The child would have to choose at age
thirteen whether to remain a Jew, but that would be the child's choice. 

Again, I am not a Halachic expert, but wouldn't this argument mean that the 
children of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother could be considered 
Jewish under the proper circumstances, i.e., that the father, in effect, 
adopts the child and raises the child as a Jew? Would this be acceptable 
from a Halachic point of view? 

I would be most interested in seeing any comments on this. 

Jack Gold
decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-curie!gold


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Mikveh Question  - Fred Liss

    The other day I was reading through a pamphlet that described a
    modern day mikvah. The article also spoke of the mitzvah of women
    to keep the laws of family purity. There were photos of the
    waiting room, showers, dressing rooms, and the mikvah itself. My
    guess is this pamphlet is intended for a woman who has never been
    to the mikvah before. 
    
    From my personal conversations with other members of the shul I've
    learned that some male members, especially the Rabbis, visit the
    mikvah too. I would like to know what is the responsibility of the
    Jewish male concerning the mikvah? 
    
    			Fred Liss
                        ihnp4!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-gramps!liss
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	On-line Chumash Search - Elliott Hershkowitz
    

Does anyone have or have a source of a Chumash in electronic form?
We are planning a dedication of a new Torah and need a rapid way of
searching for letter patterns for people who wish to dedicate letters
which spell non-Biblical names.

Please reply by Email to;
				whuxg!mruxd!eeh
				Elliott Hershkowitz
				Bellcore, Morristown

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"[email protected]" "d.s.chechik"  5-JUN-1986 23:54
To:	_halacha
Subj:	mail.jewish #23

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Thu,  5 Jun 86 20:55-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
	id AA19274; Thu, 5 Jun 86 20:54:51 pdt
Date:        5 Jun 1986  22:00 EDT
Cc: me
Message-Id: <2215525186@mtgzz>

Shavous is upon us and so, the time has come to pick a new leader.
Since message traffic is low, i don't mind keeping the job,  it's
up to you.  If you think i should continue to keep the mailing list
tell me so, if you think it should be passed on to someone else,
send mail with your opinion.  If a significant proportion of those
with an opinion think someone else should be given the chance to
moderate this list, we'll hold an election.  I am also taking this opportunity
to make sure that all addresses are still correct so if you abstain,
at least respond with an ACK.

					Thanks,
					Dovid Chechik

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topics
	Emotion and Halachic Thought - Anonymous
	Children of Mixed Marriages - Lynne Fitzsimmons

********************************************************************************

	Emotion and Halachic Thought - name withheld by request

Does halacha tell us anything about how to think about
certain situations, or how we "should" react mentally
and emotionally?

Take the movie "The Jazz Singer", for example (the Neil
Diamond version). The way the story is presented, it's
hard not to sympathize with the protagonist when he moves
in with the non-Jewish girl. Right at the end, when his
father, who had rejected him and her, finds out that he
has a grandson, he (the grandfather) "comes around" and
accepts them.

When I saw this movie, I felt somewhat guilty in my mind about
liking the ending. After all, it goes against everything I've
been brought up with. Does halacha help me deal with such
responses?

And how should I react if I discover that a non-Jewish friend or
acquaintance is marrying a Jew? What about finding out that the
non-Jewish acquaintance has been married to someone Jewish for N years?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>From: Lynne Fitzsimmons

Awhile back,  Jack Gold asked a question about children of mixed marriages
that was never answered, namely, in the case of a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish
father, what was the child named at the bris?  Xyz ben ??.  As I am now at
5 weeks and counting, I would like to know!  I am planning to ask the Rabbi
(as soon as I get one lined up), so if no one answers before then, I will let
you know what he said.
		Lynne Fitzsimmons
		tektronix!tekgvs!lynnef

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"[email protected]" "d.s.chechik"  9-JUN-1986 22:50
To:	_halacha
Subj:	mail.jewish #24

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Mon,  9 Jun 86 19:51-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
	id AA04576; Mon, 9 Jun 86 19:50:35 pdt
Date:        9 Jun 1986  21:56 EDT
Cc: me
Message-Id: <21159607@mtgzz>

Topics
	Re: Emotion and Halachic Thought - Susan Slusky
	Re: Naming Children of Mixed Marriages - Evelyn C. Leeper

********************************************************************************
Re: emotions vis-a-vis mixed marriage portrayals in fiction and closer to home

I get very annoyed at portrayals like the one described in The Jazz Singer where
the people objecting to the intermarriage are very clearly drawn as the heavies,
old-fashioned and probably un-American.  I never saw that movie but I remember
Briget loves Bernie a TV series that I suspect most of the mailing list
participants are too young to have watched. This kind of manipulation 
of feelings is a subtle form of sabotage against Judaism.

On the other hand, with the people I know who are intermarried I don't
know how to react. I have a first cousin now married to a lovely Christian
woman, and they have a little son. The baby is my cousin and he's not Jewish.
We still see them frequently at family gatherings including at my house.
He's still my cousin and I still love him and his wife is very pleasant,
but I would feel more comfortable if she had converted.  However, my
discomfort is my problem and perhaps the problem of the Jewish people
but not their problem. 

Re: naming babies born of Jewish mothers
and non-Jewish fathers

Such babies are named bat or ben the mother's name, as they would be for
a case of rape or other unpleasant circumstances. The connotation is not
complimentary. See Dovid's treatise on Yichus for further elucidation.

Susan Slusky
mhuxn!segs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Mark and I got married, I was called "bat Abraham" ("daughter of Abraham")
which I prefer to interpret as the default Hebrew name for all those who don't
have one, rather than a name which specifically dis-owns my (non-Jewish)
father.  (But the reason doesn't affect the fact.)

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
					(or ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl)

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"[email protected]" "d.s.chechik" 25-JUN-1986 20:01
To:	_h!acked, _h!not.yet, _h!returned
Subj:	mail.jewish #25

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Wed, 25 Jun 86 16:52-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
	id AA17410; Tue, 24 Jun 86 17:17:49 pdt
Date:       22 Jun 1986  16:59 EDT
Cc: me
Message-Id: <161725867@mtgzz>

Voting Results:

Of 74 subscribers,
	 3 unsubscribed (2 leaving school or job, 1 no longer interested)
	22 responded and voted for me to keep the moderator task (thanks)
	 2 responded but did not vote
	10 mail messages were returned by various mailer daemons
	37 seem to be lost!!!!  I am actively trying to find if they're alive

	IF YOU RECEIVE THIS, BUT HAVE NOT SENT ME ANY MAIL FOR THE LAST MONTH,
	PLEASE SEND ME SOME MAIL TELLING ME YOU'RE STILL OUT THERE!!
	If you you can't reach me at mtgzz!dsc try mtgzt!grunt!dsc.

Topics:
	Kusi - Shomronim Yichus correction - Barry Siegel
	delivery of newspaper on Shabbos - Dave Sherman
================================================================================
	Subject:  Kusi - Shomronim Yichus correction

The Shomronim still exist in the land of Israel.  They live on top
of Har Grezim (where the cohen pronounced the blessing from, opposite
Har Eval) which is just outside of Shechem.  

We took a trip to the top of Har Grezim where they have their own community 
there.
There are approximately 200 left.  They have their own "shul" and holy books. 
They are not accepted as jews.
They have their own  remnant of the "beit hamikdosh". They believe that
they live in Ereetz Moriah and thats where the beit hamikdosh was. not 
on Har Hamoriah.
They go to the arab schools in Shechem and their own "shomronim" schools 
in the afternoon (simiar to hebrew school).

ALSO what about the karite sect (or are they called sadduccees)? 
I believe there is a karite shul in the old city of Jerusalem.
I once read that there are still karites around. 

Barry Siegel
ihnp4!bocar!sieg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: delivery of newspaper on Shabbos

We've received the Saturday Toronto Star for years; since we pay
the office, we've never been particularly aware of who delivered it.
Recently the carrier changed, however, and the new "paper boy" is
a neighbour that we know quite well. The family is mildly observant
(they keep kosher, send their kids to Orthodox schools), but
don't keep Shabbos.

Now, given that there's an Eruv here, the delivering itself isn't
that much of a problem, but the kid's father helps him out by driving
along with him, and he comes back to the car for the papers. Last
Shabbos he (the father) waved at me from the car while I was walking
to shul. (The previous Shabbos he came to shul, in fact, and I walked
home with him.)

Question: halachically, should we be stopping our subscription
if we know that they'll be driving to deliver our paper? Does
it make any difference that we're only one house and the whole
block gets the paper?

Dave Sherman
Toronto
(Thornhill, actually)

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"[email protected]" "d.s.chechik"  3-JUL-1986 14:23
To:	_h!acked
Subj:	mail.jewish #26

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Thu,  3 Jul 86 11:19-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
	id AA27179; Thu, 3 Jul 86 11:19:47 pdt
Date:       30 Jun 1986  10:31 EDT
Cc: me
Message-Id: <1018028360@mtgzz>

Topics:
	Minhagey Yisrael		- Jay Shachter
	Who's who in the 20th Century	- Dovid Chechik

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: minhagey yisrael

Recently I asked someone not to spit on the floor during shaharit, because it
was revolting, and he informed me that it was a `minhag yisroel'.  I was
astonished to hear this.  I knew that it was a Lubavitch custom, but I have
never known anyone except a Lubavitcher to do so.  Is it truly a minhag yisrael?
Have you seen other communities where people spit on the synagog floor during
prayer?  If not, then what are the communities with which you are familiar, of
whom you can say that they do not do so?

					jfs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	  Who's	Who in the Twentieth Century - By Dovid	Chechik

       I'd like	to thank Barry Seigel's	for correcting me about	the
       Shomronim still being around.

       Barry's response	got me thinking.....  In general who is	who
       these days is a tough question.	I know there are those who
       claim that you are who you say you are, e.g., a Jew, a Kusi,
       an honest man, etc.  There are others who say that you are
       what everyone thinks you	are, for example, a Jew, a Kusi, an
       honest man, a Mitzri (Egyptian),	etc.  Although in  many
       cases Halacha takes people at face value, in other cases
       Halacha does not	share this opinion.

       How about the "who is an	Egyption question"?  The torah
       states that a Mitzri who	converts may not marry a Jew (other
       than a ger) for three generations.  If an Egyptian were to
       convert today, halacha permits him to marry a Jew.  Why?

       The answer lies in Jewish history.  Now,	i'm not	an expert
       on history, what	i write	here is	from Jewish sources, NOT
       from history books.  Maybe some of you historians can shed
       some more light on this.	 According to these sources,
       Sancherev, decided to solidify his rule over the	(then)
       known world.  To	do this	he wanted to make everyone feel
       insecure, so he exiled every single group to some other
       place.  We are told that	after he was finished, no people
       were left in their original place.  Just	as the Jews were
       forced to leave Israel, the Shomronim were put in Israel	to
       take their place, the Mitzrim no	longer remained	in Egypt,
       and the new occupants of	Egypt were actually from someplace
       else.  (As stated in the	Yichus article,	the shomronim half
       converted to judaism to avoid being eaten by the	lions that
       roamed the Israeli contryside at	that time, see mail.jewish
       #21)

       Halachicly then,	one cannot assume that the peoples that	now
       occupy a	geographical area are those that were there when
       the torah was given.  Consequently, laws	concerning those
       peoples no longer apply.	 This is true for the laws
       prohibiting marriage with Mitzrim, Amonim, Moavim, and etc.

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"[email protected]" "d.s.chechik" 10-JUL-1986 18:39
To:	_h!acked
Subj:	mail.jewish #27

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Thu, 10 Jul 86 15:41-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
	id AA00264; Thu, 10 Jul 86 15:41:17 pdt
Date:       10 Jul 1986  14:06 EDT
Cc: me
Message-Id: <1419021342@mtgzz>

Most of those subscribers that were lost have been found, about
20 are still missing.  Mostly due to downed machines or changes
in machine names.

	      Newspaper	Delivery on Shabbos - Dovid Chechik

       To recap, a while back, Dave Sherman described a	situation
       where his Jewish	neighbor delivered his newspapers using	a
       car and questioned whether he was required to cancel his
       subscription because he was causing another Jew to violate
       Shabbos.

       Although	i do not know the answer to the	question, i have
       some thoughts on	the matter.  First, given that the neighbor
       will drive, irrespective	of Dave's subscribing to the paper
       or not, what violation is Dave's	subscription causing.
       Second, what obligation if any is there for Dave	to cancel
       his subscription. And Third, if it is permitted for Dave	to

       When talking about violations of	Shabbos	it is often useful
       to note which prohibition is being violated and whether the
       prohibition is of Mosaic	(D'oraysah) or Rabbinic	(D'rabanan)
       origin.	Driving	a car on Shabbos is a violation	of Mosaic
       law as the act of starting the car and of pressing on the
       gas pedal is (like) adding fuel to a fire.  I would guess
       that each press on the pedal is a separate violation.  Since
       it is reasonable	to assume that the car must decelerate and
       accelerate to deliver Dave's paper,  Dave's subscribing is
       causing the driver to further violate Shabbos.

       The Torah law of	"Mipnei	Iver lo	Sitain Michshal" (Do not
       place a stumbling block before a	blind man) is generally
       taken to	cover causing a	fellow Jew to violate a	Torah
       precept.	 Thus if one causes a fellow Jew to violate a Torah
       obligation, one is himself liable for violating "Mipnei
       Iver...".  This has serious implications	in Halacha, for
       example,	there is a halacha that	if one knows that a man
       will not	make a blessing	over food, one can not give a him
       bread even if he	is poor.  One could apply the same
       reasoning here saying that since	subscribing to the paper
       causes an incremental Shabbos violation,	continued
       subscription is a violation of "Mipnei Iver..".

       Finally the newspaper.  One cannot derive benefit from
       Shabbos violations.  So if one accidentally cooks an item on
       Shabbos,	one can	not eat	it until after Shabbos	(actually
       until enough time has elapsed after Shabbos so the item
       could have been cooked after Shabbos).  If one violated
       Shabbos on purpose and cooked something,	according to some
       authorities one may never benefit from it.  On the other
       hand since there	is an Eruv, and	the paper could	have been
       delivered by hand, maybe	it could be used on Shabbos.

       With respect to the newspaper, i	think there is a
       prohibition of using an object which came from outside the
       "Tchum".	 So if a paper comes from way out of town, it may
       also not	be usable.  I'll have to check on this.

       P.S.  After writing the above, I	spoke to Rav Shimon Eider
       about this and he suggested that	Dave subscribe for only	6
       days a week as it is indeed "Mipnei Iver..."

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"[email protected]" "d.s.chechik" 16-JUL-1986 12:40
To:	_h!acked
Subj:	mail.jewish #28

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Wed, 16 Jul 86 09:39-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
	id AA06937; Wed, 16 Jul 86 08:53:45 pdt
Date:       16 Jul 1986   8:31 EDT
Cc: me
Message-Id: <819628326@mtgzz>

By popular demand (and a lack of articles dealing with halacha)
mail.jewish is now expanded to cover Jewish Ethics.

Our first contribution is by  Yechezkal Gutfreund
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	The Ethics of Dissent in Judaism

Pirke Avot ch: 1, mishna: 12
	Be among the disciples of Aaron:
	Love peace, pursue peace, love people and bring them close to Torah.

Pirke Avot ch: 2, mishna: 6
	An overly particular person cannot be a teacher.

(Editor's Note: Pirke Avot, often translated as "Ethics of the Fathers",
is a tractate of Mishne dealing entirely with ethics.)

The above to quotes are from Hillel. Who also used to say: "May the honor
of your neighbor be as dear to you as yourself". I'd like to apply
these principles in coming to an understanding of the great "Secular
Religous war of 1986". 

		(R. Shimon ben Eleazar used to say:
	Do not try to make up with your friend when he is angry"

I apologize to readers of this list if I am introducing a disagreeable subject
at a time when it is not appropriate, but to continue with the discussion.

It seems to be that regardless of whether one has a heter (permission)
to rebuke those in society that are doing folly. Or even to use the state
for coercion. That the actual application of that coercion or rebuke must
be dictated by the above quotes of R. Hillel. Actions which when analyzed
after-the-fact have clearly led to outcomes that do not lead to: 
"binging them close to Torah", would seem to imply that the actions
themselves are quite questionable regardless of halachic validity.

Can ayone shed further light on this?

				- Yechezkal Gutfreund

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"[email protected]" "d.s.chechik"  5-AUG-1986 10:29
To:	_h!acked, _h!not.yet
Subj:	mail.jewish #29

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Tue,  5 Aug 86 07:30-PST
Received: by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
	id AA18130; Tue, 5 Aug 86 07:29:50 pdt
Date:        5 Aug 1986   8:27 EDT
Cc: me
Message-Id: <821613436@mtgzz>

Please submit all articles to {ihnp4|allegra|most everyone}mtgzl!grunt!dsc
If you haven't heard from me within a week, send it again.

Topics: E-mail and Shabbos?
	Hallachic definition of Clothing?

===========================================================================
	
Question: Can we send E-mail towards the end of the we
week, because it might be traveling on Shabbos??

			!philabs!aecom!ledereic
==========================================================================

On the shabbos one may not carry anything but one can where any
legal form of apparel (one that doesn't mix different natural fibers?).
Where does carrying stop and clothing start?  As an example my guess is
that I can wear a backpack on the shabbos but not put anything in it.
Is this a fact?
					-David Sher
					seismo!rochester!sher

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"decvax!mtgzz.ATT.UUCP!dsc" "d.s.chechik"  7-AUG-1986 09:22
To:	_h!acked, _h!not.yet
Subj:	mail.jewish #30

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Thu,  7 Aug 86 06:11-PST
Received: from decvax.dec.com (decvax-dmc0) by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.05/4.7.34)
	id AA28465; Thu, 7 Aug 86 06:10:21 pdt
Date:        7 Aug 1986   8:10 EDT
Cc: decvax!me
Message-Id: <821825449@mtgzz>

TOPICS:	Re: E-mail on Shabbos?
	Re: Clothes on Shabbos?

===========================================================================
> Question: Can we send E-mail towards the end of the we
> week, because it might be traveling on Shabbos??

>From e.leeper

Comment on the E-mail question (as a system administrator,
I know something about it):

Can you send mail through the U. S. Post Office at any time because it
might be traveling on Shabbos?  (Lots of stuff takes more than a week,
right?)  Since obviously you can (I assume--I get mail from people whom
I know to be observant), the same should be true of E-mail.  Even more so,
in fact, because no one handles the E-mail after it's sent.  Note that
E-mail has also been known to be delayed several days.  Therefore, even
E-mail sent on Tuesday might still be in the pipeline.

Now, you might argue that by sending it early enough in the week you
decrease the probability that it will be traveling on Shabbos.  E-mail
(and regular mail) are not deterministic with regard to time.  Also,
if you are sending mail (either kind) halfway around the world, do you
need to take into account that Shabbos here is shifted 12 hours
(give or take an hour) from Shabbos in Taiwan?

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					(201) 957-2070
					ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
					[email protected]

--------------------------------------------------
>From: utzoo!lsuc!dave

I would assume it's no problem, since everything being done
automatically anyway. It's akin to putting on a timer before
Shabbos. (This is my own, uninformed opinion.)
What about mailing a regular letter (anyone remember those?)
before Shabbos, where you have local mail pickup on Shabbos?
What if you happen to know that the local mail pickup person
is Jewish? What if you happen to know that you have reliable
1-day mail delivery at the recipient's address, and you also
know that their letter carrier is Jewish? Would that preclude
mailing to them on Friday? (Assume no eruv.)



--------------------------------------------------
>From: ihnp4!picuxa!warren

I think that sending E-mail close to Shabbat is the same as leaving an
electric timer running and should be permitted.

Question in return: how about phoning someone who is not Jewish in a
different time zone when it is not Shabbat where you are but it is
where the callee is?

===========================================================================
> Question: On the shabbos one may not carry anything but one can where any
>	legal form of apparel (one that doesn't mix different natural
>	fibers?).  Where does carrying stop and clothing start?  As an
>	example my guess is that I can wear a backpack on the shabbos but
>	not put anything in it.  Is this a fact?

>From: ihnp4!picuxa!warren

Objects are considered "worn" if the purpose is decency, comfort, or
ornamentation.   A backpack does not serve any of these purposes and
even though it is attached in a way that people call "wearing" it is
be Halachically considered "carrying".

BTW, the only mix of fibers that is prohibited is wool and linen.  All
other blends are permitted.

These are just opinions, consult a Rabbi before acting.
ihnp4!picuxa!warren

---------------------------------------------------
>From: Art Kamlet
I can't contribute to the answer, but seeing the wearing/carrying
question brought back some distinct memories:

1. Talking to a religious soldier in Israel (I'm assuming
he was religious because he was weaing a black kippah; if
that's a bad assumption, please let me know) about having
his weapon on shabbos, even when there was no fighting going
on, he said he doesn't carry it, he wears it. I have no idea
if this is one man's opinion, or if it is generally accepted.

2. As a little kid, I spent a few years noticing that lots of men in
shul had tie clips that looked exactly like house keys.  It wasn't
till I was a big kid (7 or 8 or so) that someone explained that
there was a store near us that made keys into tie clips so
the keys could be worn, not carried.  (So I'm slow to learn)
---
Art Kamlet  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"decvax!mtgzz.ATT.UUCP!dsc" "d.s.chechik" 25-AUG-1986 20:55
To:	_h!acked, _h!not.yet
Subj:	mail.jewish #31

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Mon, 25 Aug 86 17:57-PST
Received: from decvax.dec.com (decvax-dmc0.dec.com) by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.06/4.7.34)
	id AA22066; Mon, 25 Aug 86 17:56:25 pdt
Date:       25 Aug 1986  11:52 EDT
Cc: decvax!me
Message-Id: <1123626605@mtgzz>

There have been no articles in the past couple of weeks.
Is this because of summer vacation, or is interest waning?

==========================================================================

       Automation on Shabbos - Dovid Chechik

       Disclaimer, these are my	own opinions and not necessarily
       those of	normative halachic sources.

       The general question of getting useful "work" done on
       shabbos without violating any prohibitions is very complex.
       I feel it is one	of the most important areas in halacha
       today since our everyday	existence depends on
       technologically complex systems.

       Questions regarding E-mail and paper mail are just the tip
       of the iceberg.	For example,  can someone in NJ	log onto a
       computer	in CA right after shabbos (EST), when it is still
       shabbos afternoon in CA.

       To achieve a complete understanding of the subject, one must
       first understand	certain	concepts.  One concept is that
       shabbos is an "issur gavra", it is a prohibition	on people,
       (as opposed to objects).	 This has several implications,
       1) there is no prohibition of my posessions working on shabbos
       just me.	 For example: Nothing in halacha says that a fire
       cannot burn all shabbos.	 However, a Jew	is prohibited from
       starting	one.  2) in situations where I do work through my
       posessions, shabbos is where I am.  This	applies	to the case
       of the NJ-CA computer.  Shabbos is where	I am, not where	the
       computer	is, objects are	not obligated to keep shabbos so I
       can log on so long as it	is not shabbos where I am.  One
       exception to this is animals, there is a	specific biblical
       prohibition against working one's animals on shabbos.

       Even given that one's objects can work on shabbos, it still
       might be	possible for something automatic to be prohibited
       on shabbos.  The	Talmud states that if one had a	(water
       powered)	mill, one can not leave	it running over	shabbos
       (grinding flour).  The reason a mill is prohibited is
       because it makes	quite a	bit of noise (while grinding) and
       consequently, we	have Ma'aras Ayin (see mail.jewish #11 for
       a thorough discussion of	MA).  People would think that
       either grinding on shabbos was permitted	or that	the owner
       of the mill was violating shabbos.  Becuase a melacha is
       obvious it might	still be prohibited for	this reason.
       However,	in the days of the talmud (300-500 C.E), automation
       was not very advanced, consequently is was unusual for a
       mill to be left running on its own and the only conclusions
       one could make from seeing a mill running was that someone
       was actually grinding.  Today, technology is rampant,  if
       someones	lights turn on,	one knows that a timer (shabbos
       clock) is the cause.  So	this principle of maaras ayin does
       not apply.  Rabbi M. Feinstein actually compares	grist mills
       to timers in a responsa (Orech chayim 4,	#60).  I don't
       remember	how he resolves	the comparison.

       However,	Ma'aras	Ayin depends on	what people think so if	you
       do something that will cause people to think you	were logged
       on on Shabbos, it may still be prohibited.

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"decvax!mtgzz.ATT.UUCP!dsc" "d.s.chechik" 23-SEP-1986 16:20
To:	_h!acked, _h!not_yet
Subj:	mail.jewish #32

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Tue, 23 Sep 86 13:19-PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.2/4.7.34)
	id AA09339; Tue, 23 Sep 86 13:18:42 PDT
Date:       23 Sep 1986  14:06 EDT
Cc: decvax!me
Message-Id: <142651763@mtgzz>

Thank you all for your encouraging words of support.  I do appreciate
support.  I would appreciate articles even more.

Remember do NOT hit the "r" key.   Send mail to either:
					mtgzz!dsc
					or
					mtgzl!grunt!dsc

UUCP connect information available:	Dovid Chechik
					201-957-5677

Topics:
	Hallelukah?	 	Dave Sherman
	A trip to the mikvah	Anonymous

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Hallelukah?

At what point does a word or name containing one of the Divine names
become enough of its own word that it can be used in its original
form in ordinary speech?

Many of our most common names include the name which we normally pronounce
on its own as "Kel", yet we say Yisrael and not "Yisrakel"; Similarly,
we say Eliyahu, Batya or Basya (female name), etc.

My interest is in "Hallelu" followed by the same name of Hashem.
Observant Jews, to my knowledge, normally say "Hallelukah" (which
sounds particularly weird if you're trying to sing along to the
modern Israeli song of the same name). Is there a Halachic basis
for suggesting that this word has become enough a part of the language
on its own that it needn't be pronounced this way?

David Sherman
[email protected]
seismo!mnetor!lsuc!dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Washing after a bath

(editors note: anonymity preserved as per author's request)

I recently was gulled into helping my newly-wed sister and
brother-in-law get their new apartment ready.  My brother-in-law
is orthodox and it seems that my sister was converted as well.
After seeing orthodox "mating rituals" (wedding ceremony) up
close, I was prepared for some surprises from the new couple.
After helping drag the furniture around the living room (women!! :-),
we started on the kitchen.

They had two sets of dishes, pots, and even pot holders.  My sister
and b-i-l were opening boxes of wedding gifts and taking labels off
of things and putting them back into the boxes.  Wanting to be helpful
I started emptying a box into a cabinet and was promptly told to stop
because the new kithen ware had to go the the Mikvah!!  Within the
next five minutes I learned an important lesson, "Thou shalt
not debate religion with thy brother-in-law".  He explained that
dishes needed "ritual purity"  He left me totally confused.

He offered to take me to the mikvah to show me.  Not having seen one
of them since a hebrew school field trip, I went along.
In the basement of a very nondescript building, there was this a 'brackish'
pool of water.  Now, I had heard the word "brackish" in novels, etc. but
had never truly understood the term before visiting the mikvah.
This, I was told, was the special mikvah for dishes.  The person mikvah
was upstairs and was, he assured me, much cleaner.  But the upstairs mikvah
was closed the only think I was was the locker room.  Anyhow, he offered to
let me make the required blessing but I declined.  So he made a blessing and
proceeded to put all of his clean new dishes in a basket submerged
in this 'mikvah'.

We dipped all the dishes and then shook off the water and put them
back in the box.  We were just about to leave the mikvah with a box
of smelly (like mud) wet dishes when he stopped by the sink which is
right by the exit and poured a couple of cups of water over his hands.
I tried to scrub the mikvah smell off mine, put I refused to pour water
on my hands with the foul looking cup.  My b-i-l gave me a story about
ritual purity of hands. I tried to argue that if the mikvah gave "ritual
purity" to dishes, it should work for hands too.  But I remembered my
previous lesson and just held my questions.  We got home and rinsed the dishes.
Surprisingly none broke and they are all looked none-the-worse for wear.
I can't wait for next trip to my sister's place!

Now the point of the story is:
	-Why do you take dishes to a mikvah?
	-What was the blessing for?
	-What was the significance of the basket in the mikvah?
	-Why are dish mikvahs dirty?
	-Are person mikvahs dirty?
	-Why pour water over your hands after being to the mikvah?

< Note 75.45 by GRAMPS::LISS "Fred - ESD&P Shrewsbury MA" >
                                 -< Number 32 >-

>>Subject: Hallelukah?
>>
>>At what point does a word or name containing one of the Divine names
>>become enough of its own word that it can be used in its original
>>form in ordinary speech?
>>
>>Many of our most common names include the name which we normally pronounce
>>on its own as "Kel", yet we say Yisrael and not "Yisrakel"; Similarly,
>>we say Eliyahu, Batya or Basya (female name), etc.
>>
>>My interest is in "Hallelu" followed by the same name of Hashem.
>>Observant Jews, to my knowledge, normally say "Hallelukah" (which
>>sounds particularly weird if you're trying to sing along to the
>>modern Israeli song of the same name). Is there a Halachic basis
>>for suggesting that this word has become enough a part of the language
>>on its own that it needn't be pronounced this way?


Here's one simple explanation:  to say "hallelu-kah", one is expressing
something specifically directed to G-d, i. e., "praise G-d".

In Eliyahu, etc., we are using the word for another meaning, i. e.,
the literal name indicated, not for the "literal" translation -- which
would include G-d's name.

I think that this is more or less universally practiced verbally.  
However, I do know some very observant people who will say "Yisrael", but when
they write it, they either deface or remove the lamed...

/don feinberg

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"decvax!mtgzz.ATT.UUCP!dsc" "d.s.chechik" 29-SEP-1986 12:53
To:	_h!acked, _h!not.yet
Subj:	mail.jewish #33

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Mon, 29 Sep 86 09:53-PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.2/4.7.34)
	id AA05565; Mon, 29 Sep 86 09:53:23 PDT
Date:       25 Sep 1986  18:00 EDT
Cc: decvax!me
Message-Id: <1826728278@mtgzz>

TOPICS:
	This issue is devoted to replies to questions asked in
	"A Trip to the Mikvah" from mail.jewish #32,

	Tvilas Keylim - Avi Feldblum
	Washing Hands - Dovid Silberberg

	To reitierate the questions:

	>	-Why do you take dishes to a mikvah?
	>	-What was the blessing for?
	>	-What was the significance of the basket in the mikvah?
	>	-Why are dish mikvahs dirty?
	>	-Are person mikvahs dirty?
	>	-Why pour water over your hands after being to the mikvah?
	
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Tvilas Keylim by Avi Feldblum

I will attempt to answer the above questions at least partially.

1)	Why do you take dishes to a mikvah?

The verse upon which the laws of immersion of vessels is based, is found
in Bamidbor (Numbers) 31:23. The context there is that after Bnei
Yisrael defeated Midyan, they took booty back to the camp. There, Moshe
told them that anything whose mode of use was in fire, had to be
"kashered" (to use our current terminology) in fire.  A second step was
also required, "Ach bmei nida itchata". How to translate that exactly is
not clear to me.  However, the Mishne in [tractate] Avoda Zara
derives from here that any metal or (possibly even) glass vessel
that is used for the serving of food and has been in the possesion
of a non-Jew must be immersed in a mikveh.  Thus, any new item bought,
is immersed in the mikveh, unless it is known that it was
manufactured by Jews, all the middlemen were Jewish and
the final storekeeper was Jewish.  (The most likely way for this
to occur is if you know someone Jewish who makes metal or glassware.) 

2)	What was the blessing for?

In general, one makes a blessing prior to the performence of any
mitzvah. The blessing here is (if memory serves me correctly):

	Blessed are you, Hashem, Our G-d Master of the universe, who has
made us holy with his commandments, and commanded us with regard to the
immersion of utensils.

3)	What was the significance of the basket in the mikvah?

Among the basic rules of a mikveh is that there cannot be anything
shielding the object to be immersed in the mikveh from the waters of the
mikveh.  This applies to vessels as well as people. Before we get to
the basket, let's look at something else you wrote:

> My sister and b-i-l were opening boxes of wedding gifts and taking
> labels off of things and putting them back into the boxes.

The labels had to removed from the dishes before they were immersed so
that they (the labels) would not be a "seperation" between the dish and
the water.  In the same way, if you hold the dish tightly in your hand
when you immerse it, your hand will be a seperation. Thus you must hold
it in such a way that the water can get all around it.  That is the
purpose of the basket.  It usually is a wire type basket, so as long as
the dishes move somewhat in the basket as it is lowered into and then
raised out of the mikveh, the water of the mikveh comes into contact
with the entire surface of the dishes.

4)	Why are dish mikvahs dirty? ; Are person mikvahs dirty?

The laws of what constitute a valid mikveh are somewhat complicated.  One
thing that is not specified is whether the water be clean or dirty.  That
is usually dependant on who does the maintenance on the mikveh.  If you
have a seperate mikveh for dishes, there is likely to be little
incentive to clean it out all that frequently, and it may become dirty.
It doesn't have to, but there may not be the money and time to keep it
clean.  A "person mikveh" is usually quite different.  The majority of
such mikvaot (plural of mikveh) are for the use of women.  Before a woman
goes into the mikveh, she must cleanse herself with a bath and a shower.
So there is very little dirt entering into the mikveh. In most communities
that I have been in, the mikveh is drained once a week and thoroughly
cleaned. I think it is fair to say that most such mikvaot are clean.

5)	Why pour water over your hands after being to the mikvah?

This one I can't really answer. It is not part of the immersion of
dishes part, that much I can saw for sure. There are several actions
that require pouring water over your hands. I don't see how this fits
into any of them. The closest is upon leaving a bathhouse. While a
mikveh may be similar in some ways, I think there are fundimental
differences. If anyone has a solid source for the above action, I would
like to hear it. If we accept that you do, I believe that your arguement
in this case:
> I tried to argue that if the mikvah gave "ritual purity" to dishes, it
> should work for hands too. 
is actually correct, although pouring over the hands may be prefered.

I hope this gives you some more understanding of what you were doing. 

Avi Feldblum
AT&T - ERC	# Include <std. disclaimer> ; for identification only
uucp: {any AT&T machine}!pruxc!ayf

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Laws of Hand Washing by Dovid Silberberg

I will attempt to explain why your brother-in-law washed his hands
after leaving the mikveh.  But first, lets get an overview of why
Jews wash their hands so often.  The following is an explanation
of the laws regarding washing one's hands (Mishna Brura chap. 4).
It covers all the rules for handwashing excluding washing over bread.
At the end of the article, I will answer the original question.

Washing hands is required in several circumstances.  So let's start
from the begining.

Upon arising in the morning, one should wash one's hands and
make the bracha of "al niteelas yadaim."  There are two reasons
for this.  According to the Ro"sh, when we sleep at night, it is
impossible that our hands do not touch unclean parts of our body
and therefore chazal affixed the bracha of "al niteelas yadaim"
of the morning hand washing prior to the recitation of the Shma
and Davening.  According to the Rashb"a, in the morning, we are
considered as new creations and are required to praise G-d who
created us for his honor and service and to praise G-d's name; 
therefore, chazal arranged the morning blessing which we recite
every morning and also chazal arranged that we wash our hands
from a cup like a Cohen in the Temple before his service.

The exact reason for the morning handwashing does matter.  When there
is a conflict of what to do (ie, according to one of the opinions above,
we should wash our hands and according to the other we need not wash our
hands), we act according to the stricter opinion.  We will see examples
of this later in the article.  In any case, if one forgets to make the
bracha before davening, one must not recite it after davening.

In short, the point of the morning washing is for cleanliness.
One is not permitted to daven without clean hands.  

Given this, What kind of washing is required for cleanliness?
Any kind of washing is fine for washing for cleanliness.  Any type of
water can be used.  This means that, unlike the water used for washing
over bread, the water used for washing in the morning may be discolored,
used, salty or sour.  Any form of washing will is good enough to be
considered a washing.  You may dip your hands in snow, in a lake or just
wash them with soap and water underneath the faucet.  All of these are
good enough for the bracha of "al niteelas yadaim" before the recitation
of "Shma" and davening in the morning.  One should make sure to
wash up to the wrists as a first recourse, but it is all right in
extenuating circumstances to wash up to the knuckles.

Cleanliness though, is not the only reason for the morning handwashing.
There is another reason why one must wash hands in the morning.
When one sleeps at night, the Ruach Rah (roughly translated as Evil Spirit)
rests upon a person.  I do not know what it is or how to explain it better,
but it is harmful and therefore, one must be careful not to touch
any openings on the body such as eyes, nose, etc., before washing one's
hands in the morning.  A special type of washing is required to
remove the Ruach Rah.

The only way to remove the Ruach Rah is to wash your hands
alternately three times.  The preferable manner in which
to do this is to take the vessel of water in the right hand and hand
it to the left hand.  Then, alternately, one must pour the water
on to the right hand and the left hand three times.  Anything else will
not remove the Ruach Rah.  (In the book Maaseh Rav, it is written that one
must wash one's hands four times alternately; three times removes the Ruach
Rah and the fourth time removes the water that contains the Ruach Rah.)

The halacha according to the author of the Shulchan Orach,
Rabbi Yosef Karo, is that one can daven even without
washing off the Ruach Rah; one must only be clean to daven.

There are opinions that state that one must not make a bracha before
removing the Ruach Rah.  According to those who hold that you must wash
off the Ruach Rah before making a bracha, the majority hold that the
alternate 3 washing method immediately removes the Ruach Rah and therefore
a bracha can be made before one dries one's hands; the minority hold that
the Ruach Rah remains on the residual water on the hands and therefore one
must dry one's hands before making a bracha.

-- What should one do in the morning if one is awake all night long?

According to the Ro"sh, the reason we wash our hands in the morning is
because they get dirty at night and, since we are aware of where are hands
are when we are up all night, we do not need to wash in the morning.
According to the Rashb"a, even though we are not like new creations in the
morning when we are up all night, we still wash our hands to sanctify them
for the morning prayers.  This is a case in which we take the strict views
of both and wash our hands without a bracha.  Furthermore, since it is a
question of whether the Ruach Rah comes to us when we are asleep (in which
case, we wash our hands after an afternoon nap as well) or at night even
though we are not asleep, we wash using the alternate three method.
In any case, it is best to go to the bathroom in the morning when up all
night.  This way, we can say the bracha of "al niteelas yadaim" according
to both the Ro"sh and the Rashb"a and we have the added benefit of being
able to say the bracha "asher yatzar" without any question.

-- What should one do if one arises and washes before sunrise?

Since there is a question of whether the Ruach Rah settles
on one's hands during the night, one should rewash their
hands at sunrise to get rid of the Ruach Rah.

-- What if one should fall asleep again and reawake?

According to the Ro"sh, one should wash again since the hands probably
touched non-clean places.  However, according to the Rashb"a, we are made
as new creations in the morning once and not a second time; therefore,
the first handwashing took care of our obligation.  Since we adopt the
stricter view of both the Ro"sh and the Rashb"a, the halacha is that we
wash our hands again after reawakening, but without a bracha.  If we didn't
say the bracha after the first handwashing, the Mishna Brurah says that we
don't make the bracha after the second handwashing since our obligation for
washing was after the first handwashing and therefore, our bracha should
be made after the first handwashing.

---------Other Reasons for Washing Hands----------

The halachos for washing for bread are completely different, so they will
not be dealt with in the following list.  Of the following list, only
the handwashing for awakening in the morning requires the bracha of "al
niteelas yadaim;" the rest of the handwashings are made without brachas. 
(Of course, the bracha of "al niteelas yadaim" is also made for washing
before eating bread.)

One is required to wash ones hands after the following:
awakening in the morning (the only item in this
list for which the bracha of "al niteelas yadaim" is
made), leaving the bathroom, leaving a bath house,
cutting the nails, taking off shoes, touching the feet,
scratching the head, walking in a cemetery, touching a
dead body, checking the clothes for lice, having sexual
relations, touching lice and touching uncovered portions 
of the body.  Futhermore, we should wash our hands after
giving blood and after a haircut.  The alternate 3 method
is required for getting rid of the Ruach Rah only after
awakening.  There are those that are strict to wash the
alternate 3 method by leaving a bathroom or a bathhouse 
and after leaving a cemetery because of the Ruach Rah.
The other washings are only for cleanliness.

**                                                         **
** Now, for the answer to the question, "Why did my        **
** brother-in-law wash his hands after leaving the mikveh?"**
**                                                         **

The first reason is because the mikveh is a bath house
and the halacha is that one must wash one's hands after
leaving a bath house for reasons of general cleanliness.
(As the article stated, mikvehs are not always the 
cleanest places.)  This type of washing can be done
in any manner.  There is a stricter opinion that states
that the Ruach Rah hovers in a bath house.  Therefore,
according to this opinion, one must wash not only for 
cleanliness, but also, one must use the alternate 3 method 
to remove the Ruach Rah.  Your brother-in-law likely used the
alternate 3 method which requires the use of a cup.

						-- Dovid Silberberg
					{bellcore computers}!nvuxh!dps2

    Ycch!  I have never been in a mikveh that was not clean enough for
    bathing in!   I suppose a little "community action" is required
    there!   A dirty mikveh might satisfy the halachic requirements,
    but only just barely, to me.
    
    I don't think even my most observant relations seriously believe
    in "evil spirits" that settle on hands at night, any more than they
    or I believe that there are evil spirits under the bed (also from
    the Shulhan Aruch - though in my house there might be CATS under
    the bed, I wouldn't usually describe them as evil...).  We wash
    our hands so as to pray "with clean hands and a pure heart".  The
    brother-in-law in question was adhering to the "letter of the law"
    in washing when he left the (dirty) mikveh.
                                

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"decvax!mtgzz.ATT.UUCP!dsc" "d.s.chechik" 13-NOV-1986 04:45
To:	_h!acked, _h!not.yet
Subj:	mail.jewish #34

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Thu, 13 Nov 86 01:44-PST
Received: from decvax-dmc0.dec.com by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.3/4.7.34)
	id AA21291; Thu, 13 Nov 86 01:45:19 PST
Date:       12 Nov 1986  19:00 EST
Cc: decvax!me
Message-Id: <1931512259@mtgzz>

Topics:
	Halachic abortion? - Charles Haynes
	Easy Question, Difficult Answer -  Steven H. Gurfreund
================================================================================
>From decwrl!haynes  Thu Oct 30 16:56:09 1986
Subject: Halachic abortion?

Ok, I've been reluctant to ask this since it's such a controversial
topic, but what it the halachic view of abortion? I've heard that until
the child is born (fetus is delivered) that it is considered "part" of
the mother, somewhat like any other appendage. This being the case, the
reasoning goes, then an abortion if the mother's life is in danger is
*required*, but a "contraceptive" abortion is a harder question, in
that it could be considered self-mutilation.

	-- Charles

================================================================================

Date:     Mon, 10 Nov 86 11:38 EDT
>From: "Steven H. Gutfreund" <harvard!RELAY.CS.NET!GUTFREUND%cs.umass.edu>
Subject:  Easy Question, Difficult Answer

Where does one get reliable up-to-date Kashrut information (if one
does not have a Rav to whom to put such questions)? Questions
such as: Who is backing the K-Moon? or can Best's Meats (CRC) be
trusted? Also tricky political questions such as what is really the
problem with Rabbi Ralbags hesher and Who SUPERVISES the KVH, is the
term vaad in their title meaningful?

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"decvax!mtgzz.ATT.UUCP!dsc" "d.s.chechik" 24-NOV-1986 03:40
To:	_h!acked, decvax!_first, _h!not.yet
Subj:	mail.jewish #35

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Mon, 24 Nov 86 00:42-PST
Received: from decvax-dmc0.dec.com by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.3/4.7.34)
	id AA26601; Mon, 24 Nov 86 00:43:14 PST
Date:       21 Nov 1986  10:26 EST
Cc: decvax!me
Message-Id: <1032422760@mtgzz>

Topics:
	Men and Gittin? - Joe Abeles
	Kashruth and Kashruth Symbols - Dovid Chechik
==========================================================================
	Men and Gittin? - Joe Abeles

This question pertains to a real-life situation, but I'll be
discreet and not too specific:

1)  Is there any reason why a Jewish man should not be able
to marry a Jewish woman if he is separated and his former
wife refuses to accept a get?

2)  Can such a Jewish man give the Jewish woman a get without
her actually accepting it?

--Joe Abeles
nvuxj!abeles

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Kashruth and Kashruth Symbols - Dovid Chechik

>Where does one get reliable up-to-date Kashrut information (if one
>does not have a Rav to whom to put such questions)? Questions
>such as: Who is backing the K-Moon? or can Best's Meats (CRC) be
>trusted? Also tricky political questions such as what is really the
>problem with Rabbi Ralbags hesher and Who SUPERVISES the KVH, is the
>term vaad in their title meaningful?
>			Steve Gutfreund


I would like to respond to this question on several levels.  First if
you don't have a rav, GET ONE.  By observing myself and others i find
that despite having learned in "brand name" yeshivas under the greatest
of Talmidei Chachamim, not everyone can be trusted for "psak halacha",
(issuing a halachic judgement), EVEN FOR THEMSELVES.    I live in
Lakewood, NJ which houses one of the (if not the actual) biggest orthodox
Rabbinical Colleges in the world.  Yet despite the fact that many of the
students have been studying Talmud and Halacha for 10-20 years, most do
not try to decide halacha for themselves and Rabbanim (plural of Rav)
here (thankfully there are many) are kept busy.  If you do not have
a local rabbi you can always call one on the phone.  I'm know that
of several  Rabbanim here that answer tons of questions over the phone.

Concerning who stands behind the Kashruth symbols or "k" on a product:
One way to find out who stands behind a "k" is to write the company.
I've done this and they usually send you a polite letter telling you the
name of the Supervising Rabbi or Agency (often this is NOT someone you'd
trust).  There are several publications which give the names behind the
various symbols.  I know that "Kashruth" (formerly the Kashruth Newsletter)
prints a comprehensive list of who stands behind the symbols a few times a
year.  I may have an issue which has the list.

However, because of the very real danger of being sued for Libel.  No rav
will put in print or publicly say that an agency is not reliable.  I know
that when certain Lakewood Rabbanim speak on the subject they ask not to
be recorded.  However, rabbanim will answer questions privately.

Any Rav who is truly trustworthy will not allow minor political struggles to
color his judgement.  So although certain groups will say that each other's
Hashgacha is not good, a decent rav will check into it.

Kashruth is very complicated.  The recent vinegar scandal proved that
certain "top notch" kashruth supervising agencies often rely on ingredients
from less trustworthy agencies.  Also ingredients and supply arragements
are often so complicated, that even a well meaning kashruth supervisor can
make mistakes due to lack of knowledge.

In short.  Find a Rav who knows what he's doing and ask away!

						Dovid Chechik

    RE" -1
    
    I have the copy of the "magazine" Kashruth mentioned in the previous
    reply.  If anyone wants a copy please contact me at DARTH::SCHORR.
    
    WS
    

    The nerve of some people. Leaving us without a news letter. ;-) 
    
    This just arrived via e-mail.
    
    From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!mtgzz!dsc" "d.s.chechik" 31-DEC-1986 12:50
To:	_h.acked, _first
Subj:	mail.jewish moderator change

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Wed, 31 Dec 86 09:51-PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.3/4.7.34)
	id AA29451; Wed, 31 Dec 86 09:51:53 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA17153; 31 Dec 86 10:09:08 CST (Wed)
Date:       31 Dec 1986  11:04 EST
Cc: me
Message-Id: <113649729@mtgzz>

	After talking about it for long enough, the Chechiks are finally
making Aliyah.  Consequently we need a new moderator for mail.jewish.

I am looking for nominations or volunteers for the new moderator of mail.jewish.

Since I will only be in the US for about 3 weeks and will only have access
to unix for another 2, please get back to me as soon as possible.

						Dovid Chechik
						AT&T Information Systems
						Middletown, NJ
						(201) 957-5677 (w)
						(201) 370-9756 (h)
						{ ihnp4, ... }!mtgzz!dsc

>From uucp Fri Dec  5 09:20 EST 1986
>From dsc Fri Dec  5 09:07:38 1986 remote from mtgzz
MESSAGE-ID: <933821323@mtgzz>
FROM:       [email protected] (d.s.chechik)
TO:         _h.acked, _h.not.yet
CC:         me
DATE:        5 Dec 1986   9:07 EST
SUBJECT:    mail.jewish #36
Status: RO

TOPICS:
	RE: Joe Abeles' Men and Gittin questions - Susan Slusky

------------------------------------------------------------------------
	RE: Joe Abeles' Men and Gittin questions

I can't give answers to these questions authoritatively
but I can add the following:

If the couple is separated civilly (perhaps secularly is
a better word) and not divorced civilly
then the man cannot, of course, remarry civilly. Most (all?) 
states demand that clergymen to whom they have granted the right
to perform civil marriages should perform only marriages
which are both civil and religious. This would not prevent
two people from going through the marriage ceremony themselves
and having their ketubah properly witnessed, as long
as the new bride is Jewish.
It appears that the rest of the question revolves around
the prohibition on polygamy for Ashkenazim, whether it has
expired and whether it was ever binding, and the "Law of the
land is the law" point, whether it applies in this case.

So the answer to the question depends on:
a) Are the old couple divorced civilly
b) Are they all three Ashkenakim
c) Is the new couple willing to get married in a polygamous country ;^)

Also, the wife must accept the get or she's still married. 
That's part of the protection Halacha gives to us married women. 

Susan Slusky
mhuxt!segs

>From uucp Fri Dec 12 09:15 EST 1986
>From dsc Fri Dec 12 09:05:51 1986 remote from mtgzz
MESSAGE-ID: <93455528@mtgzz>
FROM:       [email protected] (d.s.chechik)
TO:         _h.acked, _h.not.yet
CC:         me
DATE:       12 Dec 1986   9:05 EST
SUBJECT:    mail.jewish #37
Status: RO

More on men and Gitten - Joe Abeles

Regarding Susan Slusky's comments in response to my
question (about whether a woman can refuse to accept a get
and prevent the husband from remarrying; alternatively,
whether the husband is required to seek out the woman
to give her a get in order to remarry):

In the case I'm thinking of, I believe the following
circumstances to apply:  The man was married to another
woman in a foreign country.  This man was not religious
but was Jewish, as was his former wife.  They were divorced
civilly in the foreign country.  Later the man came to
the U.S. to live permanently.  He met another Jewish
woman and they were married civilly, or possibly by
a non-Orthodox rabbi who didn't ask too many questions
(if such a thing exists, I'm not sure at all).  The
new wife is somewhat more traditional, and would like
to fix the situation up if given the opportunity.

Furthermore, the former wife is living in the foreign country
and most likely cannot be located.  She may be remarried;
whether or not she is remarried, she has no interest in
being married to her former husband.  She may be hostile
however, and (not being religious) couldn't care less
about receiving a "get."  If she were to be located she
might not cooperate at all, on account of her hostility
and non-religiousness.

Now, I know that according to religious law a woman can
not be released from a marriage without receiving a
"get" from her former husband.  Can a man not be released
from a marriage without giving a "get" to his former wife?

That is, there are no circumstances (as far as I am aware)
which could allow the former wife without a get to remarry.
(She is called an "agunah".)  In general, among Ashkenazim,
a man needs to give his former wife a "get" to remarry.
However, are there extenuating circumstances which apply
in the case of a man, as I suspect since in that case
the law is not from the Torah?

--Joe Abeles
  nvuxj!abeles
    201/758-2848

>From uucp Mon Dec 15 09:36 EST 1986
>From dsc Mon Dec 15 09:33:16 1986 remote from mtgzz
MESSAGE-ID: <93483812@mtgzz>
FROM:       [email protected] (d.s.chechik)
TO:         _h.acked
CC:         me
DATE:       15 Dec 1986   9:33 EST
SUBJECT:    mail.jewish #38
Status: RO

TOPICS:
	Re: Gittin in unusual circumstances - Susan Slusky
	Subject: To Get a Get - D.M.Wildman
	Men and Gitten - Dovid Chechik

==============================================================================

	Re: Gittin in unusual circumstances - J. Abeles' question - Round 2
		Susan Slusky

Your new information brings up a new question. Were the original couple
married Jewishly? Is there a ketubah [marriage document proscribed by
jewish law before a couple can live together, ed]? If the first wife is
so hostile to Judaism, it seems unlikely that they bothered to make
theirs a formal Jewish marriage.  If there was no ketubah, it does
not seem that a get would be appropriate.

Even if there was a ketubah, I still hold by the opinion that 
since a Jewish man can d'orieta [by Mosaic Law, ed] be married to more than one
woman, the new couple can marry. They may already be married, depending
on the ceremony, ketubah, and witnesses that pertained earlier.
Or a rabbi would probably marry them today if he could be assured
that the husband would grant a get to the first wife if requested.
Or they could marry with ketubah and witnesses and "Haray at ... "
and no rabbi (you don't need a rabbi, you know).

What it comes down to is that a man can't be an agunah. (agun?)
[an agunah is a woman who is living without a husband but
still cannot get remarried, either because the husband is missing or
is unwilling to grant a divorce. ed]
You don't hear about women demanding ransoms from their former husbands
in order to be persuaded to accept a get. It's always the other way around.

Susan Slusky
mhuxt!segs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: To Get a Get - D.M.Wildman

In response to Joe Abeles question of releasing a man from a prior 
marriage:

There is a Halachic process called Heter Meah Rabbanan which has the
desired outcome of allowing a man to remarry without his former wife
accepting a Get. The process, rather than undoing the former marriage,
simply allows the man to be polygomous which is normally prohibited
under (Ashkenazic) Rabbinic law. The heter does not undo the former
relationship; it just allows the man to "transgress" Rabbeinu Gershom's
[see editor's note below]
takana against polygomy. 

Unfortunately, I do not know the circumstances under which the Heter Meah
Rabbanan is used, nor the costs in time and money of its implementation.
I do know from the case of a relative whose wife was clinically insane
and unwilling and/or unable to rationally accept a get, that this process
was considered. (It was not used because she became, at least for a short
time, lucid and agreeable enough to accept the get.) It would be nice to
know what the conditions are for use of the Heter and if anyone knows of
modern cases of its use. Can anyone help out?

Danny WIildman
699-6038
rutgers!rruxc!dmw2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Editor's Note - Mosaic vs. Rabbinic Get Laws

By Mosaic Law a man is permitted to have multiple wives.  Furthermore,
by Mosaic Law a woman can be divorced (given a get) against her will.
Consequently a woman refusing a get has no bearing on whether her husband
can marry another woman.  Rabbeinu Gershom Meor Hagola,
one of the first ashkenazik scholars (mid tenth century,
two generations before Rashi), instituted several edicts
which were accepted across the ashkenazic community.
Two of these were that a man cannot force a woman to accept a
get against her will and that a man can have only one wife.

Rabbeinu Gershom's edicts were instituted for a limited time which
has already expired.  However, since they were universally excepted
across all ashkenazic Jews, they are still in effect.

>From uucp Fri Dec 19 10:42 EST 1986
>From dsc Fri Dec 19 10:38:19 1986 remote from mtgzz
MESSAGE-ID: <103524111@mtgzz>
FROM:       [email protected] (d.s.chechik)
TO:         _h.acked
CC:         me
DATE:       19 Dec 1986  10:38 EST
SUBJECT:    mail.jewish #39
Status: RO

Topics:  MORE on Women and Gitten - Art Kamlet
				    Dovid Chechik

I know if a man divorces his wife, he should give her a Get or she
will be an aguna.   I have a question, though, if the couple is
betrothed but not yet married.  If the betrothal is to be broken
off, is a Get required?

Art Kamlet  AT&T Bell Laboratories  Columbus  ihnp4!cbrma!ask
--------------------------------------------------------------------

There have been a lot of articles on women and gitten.  This is my
understanding of the situation.  As usual my opinions are my own and
due to my pitiful knowledge of halacha should be taken with a pound of salt.

D'oraysa (By Mosaic Law)  a man can have many wives.  A woman can have
but one husband.  A valid marriage (we'll define that soon)
can be terminated only by the husband giving a Get to the wife.
A Get is a document which has unique and complex laws both in it's
writing and it's delivery.  That is not the subject of this article.
Let it suffice to say that one a Get is properly composed and delivered,
d'oraysa a man can give a Get to a woman against her will and she is divorced.

One of the first, if not the first Ashkenazic communal leader Rabbeinu
Gershom Meor Hagolah,  (~10th century) the Rosh Hayeshiva (dean)
of the acadmeny in Mayence (whose students were Rashi's teachers)
instituted a degree of equality for women.  Two of his bans (Cherem) were that
a man could have but one wife and that a woman could not be divorced against
her will.  Over the next couple of hundred years these bans were universally
accepted throughout the ashkenazic world.  These are tipically know as
"Cherem d'rabeinu gershom" (the ban of rabbeinu gershom).
Sephardim never accepted these bans and are not bound by them and
consequently up until recently it was common for sephardim living in countries
were poligomy was permitted to have several wives.

There are two stages to a Jewish Wedding, "Kiddushin" (separation or betrothal),
and "Nissuin" (marriage).  After kiddushin a woman is married (if she commits
addultry, she is put to death and would require a Get if the
couple broke up ) but she cannot live with her husband until nissuin.
In talmudic times, it was tipical for Kiddushin to take place
one full year before nissuin, giving the bride time to put together a
trouseau.  However, since there doesn't seem to be much benefit in kiddushin
(Get required, but can't live together), we do them both at the same time.
Kiddushin takes place under the chupah, escorting the bride to the "yichud
room" is nissuin".  The modern custom of betrothal or engagement has no
halachic status or implications.  Consequently no Get is required if an
engagement is broken.


As we all recall from our weddings (You remember. Your practiced 100 times
before the wedding and then stammered through it anyway as the term
"life imprisonment" took on new significance. :-)
the formula the groom recites to the bride under the chupah (kiddushin) is:
"HARAY AT MEKUDESHES LI BETABAAS ZU KEDAS MOSHE VEYISRAEL".
Litterally, You are separate unto me (implying that she is forbidden to
all other men) with this ring (kidushin requires the transfer of property)
ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF MOSES (Mosaic law) AND ISRAEL (Rabbinic law).

Now this is what really gets me.
People understand that although your drivers lisence says nothing about
agreeing to the motor vehicle laws, signing it implies that you agree
to all the motor vehicle laws including being subject to breathalizer or
blood tests etc. even against your will.  Why can't people understand that
when you get married you EXPLICITLY state that your marriage is subject to the
approval of Mosaic and Rabbinic law? 

I have been associated at various times with an organization that gets
unwilling husbands to giv GITTIN and unwilling wives to accept them.
Most often Gitten are used as a wepon of extortion.  Yes, just as men often
want $$ to give gitten, many women will refuse a Get unless they receive $$.

It would be convenient for society to be able to "annul" marriages where
one side refuses to give a Get.  However, in the case of a man refusing to
give his wife a Get, this is not possible because by Mosaic Law a woman
cannot be divorced without a Get.  Women refusing to accept a Get are
another story.  Cherem d'rabeinu Gershom  has a built in escape clause.
If a woman refuses a Get, her husband can get the approval of 100 rabbinic
scholars (heter meyah rabbanan) and be permitted to become a bigamist and
marry another woman.

Case in point:
I know of a couple in Israel both from very respected families of well
known rabbinic scholars.  After being married for 7 years, the husband
was called to his father's death bed where father instructed son to assume
the father's position as Rosh Hayeshiva (dean) of a very large and respected
rabbinical accademy in the US after the father's death.  After the father
died the son acceded to his father's death wish and came to the US to assume
his father's  position.  The woman refused to leave Israel where her parents
were.  The husband send for his wife repeatedly, she refused to come.
(Things start to get confused, it was rumoured that the couple did not
really get along, that being childless was one of the reasons, and that
the woman may have had a family custom never to leave israel.)
The husband offered a Get.  The woman refused saying that she wanted to remain
married (it was quite an honor to be married to a world renowned scholar)
and that it would be to embarrasing for someone of her stature
(respected family) to get divorced, she called for him to come to Israel.
This went on for a couple of years.  He finally said either take a Get or else.
She still refused.  He got 100 rabbinic scholars in the US to sign a
Heter Meyah Rabbanan and remarried.
(wasn't too hard for his as he is very well known)


I believe his ex-father-in-law (not really ex) tryed at one time to
get him arrested for bigamy.  But was not successfull.

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!pruxc!ayf" "Avi Feldblum" 25-JAN-1987 19:23
To:	mail.jewish_ack.subscribers
Subj:	mail.jewish #40

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Sun, 25 Jan 87 16:15-PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.3/4.7.34)
	id AA11779; Sun, 25 Jan 87 14:20:13 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA10491; 25 Jan 87 16:08:26 CST (Sun)
Date:       Sun Jan 25 16:51:31 EST 1987
Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Contents:

	Administration issues - [mod.]
	Heter Meah Rabbonim (Cont.) - iitcs!ehrlich

----------------------------------------------------------------

Administration issues:

	The transfer of tha mailing list has proceeded along smoothly, I
hope. I have had path confirmations from most of you. If the To: field
contains mail.jewish_ack, that means I have received an acknowledgement
from you. If the field contains mail.jewish_notyet, please try and send
me back an acknowledgement. 

	The mail of articles or questions for submission has been less
than overwhelming, so if you have something to submit, please send it to
me. If your mailer likes domain style addresses, you can try either

	pruxc.att.com!ayf	or	[email protected]

otherwise {however you get to an ATT machine}!pruxc!ayf. Where possible
I am using a modified pathalias generated path to send this out. If
there are people you know who you think would like to be on this list,
just have them send me a note asking to be included in the list.

That's all for now.

Avi Feldblum
mail.jewish moderator
uucp: pruxc!ayf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning Heter Meah Rabbonim...

   It should be pointed out that a Heter Meah Rabbanim to release
a husband from any obligations of a previous marriage will most
likely only be approved by a Beit Din in the event that the execution
of a get is impossible. This is a solution of last resort, and hence
            ----------
can only be implemented after all attempts to locate the wife have failed.
Please also note that if the wife can be located -- even if in a foreign
country-- her approval is NOT (Biblically) necessary for the get's execution.
The decree of Rabbenu Gershom not to divorce a woman without her
consent was made in the woman's interest, to give her some kind
of leverage in the divorce proceeding. This does not however give
her the ability to hold up a get indefinitely, and hence the
rabbis may be willing to waive this requirement.

I suggest that the husband in this sheilah make some inquiries and
find the location of his first wife. If that can be accomplished,
he should go to his local Orthodox (this is serious stuff, don't
use the other guys) Beit Din and tell them the story, complete with
the address of the former wife. What they will most likely do is
to arrange to have a get delivered to her in much the same way
a subpeona is delivered. Agents of her local Beit Din will track her
down, ask her if she is so-and-so, and then present her with the
get. The get is effective from the moment it is in her hand.
The wife's local Beit Din will then write a letter to the American
Beit Din and report the get.


If the wife cannot be located, the husband should so report to the
Beit Din, which will then make some inquiries of their own and only
then authorize a Heter Meah Rabbanim. One way or another, though,
this can be straightened out.

                                         Steve Ehrlich
                                         ihnp4!iitcs!ehrlich


---------------------END----------------------

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!pruxc!ayf" "Avi Feldblum"  2-FEB-1987 22:17
To:	mail.jewish_ack.subscribers
Subj:	mail.jewish #41

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Mon,  2 Feb 87 19:11-PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.3/4.7.34)
	id AA05498; Mon, 2 Feb 87 19:11:07 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA14223; 2 Feb 87 19:26:54 CST (Mon)
Date:       Mon Feb  2 19:50:25 EST 1987
Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Topics:
	HETER ME'AH RABBONIM - Ezra Tepper
	Question about Megillah reading	- Bruce Bukiet

--------------------------------------------

As I understand it, a man granted a "heter me'ah rabbonim" MUST deposit
a divorce with the rabbinical court and appoint them as agents to deliver
the paper once this possible. According to Jewish law, refusal of a husband
or a wife to give or receive a get, following determination of the beis din
that divorce is required is tantamount to contempt of court. When the Jewish
court exercised its full powers, which in general are not granted in modern
democratic societies, contempt of court was taken care of corporeally
and problems of recalcitrant husbands or wives were as a result rare, if not
nonexistant.

From: Ezra L Tepper
  <rutgers!harvard!WISCVM.WISC.EDU!WEIZMANN.BITNET!RRTEPPER>

--------------------------------------------

I have a question.  Is it proper to have a public reading of the
Megillah on Purim if you don't have a Megillah?  That is,
must each person read it him/her-self or can it be read aloud?
If so, are any of the brachas said? (Al mikrah megillah it seems should
not be said-- but the other 2 brachas -- shehechianu and sheasah nisim ..
seem reasonable).

From: ihnp4!lanl!a.LANL.ARPA!bgb (Bruce G Bukiet)

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!pruxc!ayf" "Avi Feldblum" 22-FEB-1987 06:48
To:	mail.jewish_ack.subscribers
Subj:	mail.jewish #42

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Sun, 22 Feb 87 03:42-PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.3/4.7.34)
	id AA03063; Sun, 22 Feb 87 03:43:14 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA10414; 21 Feb 87 22:38:20 CST (Sat)
Date:       Sat Feb 21 20:39:22 EST 1987
Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Topics:

		Incident at Migdal HaEmek
				[Mod]
				Yechezkal Gutfreund
				Ezra L. Tepper

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I received a submission to the mailing list from Yechezkal Gutfreund
concerning some events that had occured in Israel. Since the information
in the American press was less than complete, I asked a member of the
mailing list living in Israel if he could find some additional
information. I would like to thank Ezra collecting this additional info.
I have placed the original submission first, followed by the additional
information. 

Sorry to all about the delay in getting this edition out.

Avi Feldblum - Mod.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

An article in today's New York Times (2/5/87) entitled:

Rage of Israeli Women: Issue is Graveside Rites

Talks about an event that occured at Migdal HaEmek. It is a bit hard to
decipher exactly what occured. (especially when the reporter has chosen
to focus on the controversy and mutual acriminations that are occuring).

But the tachlis seems to be:

There was a funeral of a 105 year old women named: Hanna Chamu. The family
asked the Rabbi (Rabbi David Grossman: who runs the Migdal Or home for
children), to exclude women from attending. (here the story becomes
murkier) It seems that there have been many accidental deaths in
the community recently, and according to an interpretation of the
Zohar, some of the community felt that the attendance of women at
burials was the cause. 

At least two points need clarification:

a) does anyone understand the implications that are being derived from
   the Zohar?

b) what are the various minhagim of attendance of women at l'vayas?

					- Yechezkal Gutfreund

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was an article in today's Jerusalem Post reporting that Rabbi Grossman
appeared before the Knesset Interior Committee, at which occasion he denied
having given any psak din relating to the participation of women at funerals.
 
The whole matter was brought to the attention of the press by the Head of
Na'amat, the secular women's organization connected with the Histadrut,
Israel's Trade Union. They got the story from a publication of the Migdal
Haemek Religious Council, one of whose representatives acted on his own in
interpreting Jewish law. Naturally the press did not care to check the story
out with Rabbi Grossman who was maligned by columnists and editorials in the
local newspapers.
 
In fact, there is a long tradition that men and woman, who both come to
the funeral (eulogies at the Funeral Parlor) and the burial (actual interment
at the cemetery), do not intermingle during these ceremonies. Men walk
alone and women walk alone while accompanying the dead to the cemetery.
This halacha is brought down in R. Moshe Caro's Shulchon Oruch and is
accepted by most communities, particularly among the Sefardim.
Despite the fact that a mechitza is not the rule at the Funeral Parlor,
separate seating (or lack of intermingling) would certainly be indicated
by the sanctity of the event.
 
Without going into all the details, it is eminently clear that since a
man's or women's sins are often connected with improper sexual contact,
the community does not wish to exacerbate the dead person's judgement in
the afterword by sexually unseemly -- however slightly so -- activities
at the burial ceremony.
 
Ezra L. Tepper, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
 
Bitnet: rrtepper@weizmann
Arpanet: rrtepper%[email protected]
Usenet: rrtepper%[email protected]
        ...!psuvax1!weizmann.bitnet!rrtepper

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!pruxc!ayf" "Avi Feldblum"  3-MAR-1987 00:15
To:	mail.jewish_ack.subscribers
Subj:	mail.jewish #43

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Mon,  2 Mar 87 21:10-PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.3/4.7.34)
	id AA15677; Mon, 2 Mar 87 21:10:46 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA18052; 2 Mar 87 22:47:07 CST (Mon)
Date:       Mon Mar  2 23:10:16 EST 1987
Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Topics:
	What to do if you don't have a proper Megillah.
				1. Josh 
				2. Avi Feldblum

---------------------------------------------------------------------
[We have two replies to Bruce Bukiet's question in mail.jewish #41 about
reading the Megillah without having a kosher parchment to read from. For
those who are interested, the second reply goes a little more into some
of the sources, but is therefore a little less readable. In both cases,
as in all submissions to this mailing list, items written here should
not be considered "Piskei Halacha", and in actual cases you are urged to
consult your local Orthodox Rabbi (I guess that falls under a standard
disclaimer statement). Mod.]

______________________________________________________________________

The preferred course is to obtain a kosher Megillah (written on 
parchment by hand by a competent sofer) or to travel to a place 
where there is a kosher Megillah and a person who knows how to read 
it. Purim is never allowed to fall on Shabbos in our calendar, so 
travelling is always possible. If there really is no way to do this, 
the next best course would be to read the Megillah from a printed 
tanach, which contains all of the Bible. Next would be a printed 
chumash, which at least contains the Torah and parts of the 
Prophets, et al. [ See however comments in reply #2 about this. Mod.]
It would not be necessary for each individual to read separately; one
could read to the group.  

Concerning the blessings: "Al mikrah Megillah" would only be said if 
a kosher Megillah were being read from. There is a disagreement 
about the other two ("shehechianu" and "she'asah nisim") which 
derives from the similar question of whether one who cannot light 
for Chanukah and cannot even see someone else's lights can make the 
corresponding two blessings.

If they apply to the reading, they too should be omitted in the 
absence of a kosher Megillah. If they apply to the day itself, then 
they should be said. Because of the doubt we would not make any 
of the three blessings without a kosher Megillah. The blessing 
involves use of a divine name, and in general if there is doubt 
concerning a biblical prohibition (use of a divine name in vain) we 
follow the stricter opinion and avoid the problem. 

A related point is that, unlike reading the Torah, a minyon is not 
required. Nevertheless, publicizing the miracle of Purim is the 
purpose of reading the Megillah, and the larger the group the 
better; so every effort should be made to join a congregation for 
the reading. In talmudic times the scholars would leave the study 
halls, where they had a minyon, and travel to the shul in order to 
hear the Megillah read in a larger group. Few other things would be 
permitted to interrupt their studies.

					Joshua Pruchan

______________________________________________________________________


The question of the proper procedure to follow in the event that there
is no kosher Megillah available is addressed in the Shulchan Aruch in the
section dealing with the laws of Purim. The Shulchan Aruch states in
section 691, part 10: 

	If one does not have a kosher Megillah, one reads it from a
"chumash" without any bracha.

The Magen Avraham explains, that the "chumash" that is referred to is not
similar to book form we have today, but rather referred to a rolled
scroll similar to a kosher Megillah, simply not kosher. From such a
version there are those who say one does furfill ones obligation, but a
bracha should not be said due to the majority opinion that one does not
furfill the obligation this way. From what we call a Chumash, there is
no disagreement that one does not furfill ones obligation. 

The Prei Magadim says however, that although the mitzva of reading the
Megillah is not furfilled by using our type of Chumash, nevertheless, if
that is all that is available, one should read it from the Chumash "in
order that the laws of reading the Megillah should not be forgotten."

According to the above, the Megillah should be read from a chumash, and
there appears to be no reason why one person should not be able to read
it for all those who are present. There is NO brachot that are said on
the reading of the Megillah. As far as what type of Chumash it should be
read from, I have not seen anything explicit, however it would appear
from the above discussion and part 9 of the same section of the Shulchan
Aruch that having the printed Megillah as a seperate volume and rolled
in a scroll form would be the preferred item to read from.

There is the question still as to whether there are any brachot to be
said on the holiday of Purim itself. If there is a Megillah, you say all
the brachot over the reading of the Megillah, and there is no extra
brachot on the day itself. This issue is not addresses directly by the
Shulchan Aruch, but is raised by the Magen Avraham. He focuses on the
question of Shehecheyanu. We know that in the morning reading, we have
in mind that the bracha of Shehecheyanu applies also to the mitzvot of
Mishloach Manot and the Saudat Purim. If there is no Megillah, however,
the Magen Avraham says that there is no Brachot to be said. 

The Baer Halacha appears to disagree with the above, and suggests that
the Magen Avraham may be refering to a case where they had a kosher
Megillah in the evening, and said all the brachot over it then, and the
question is whether to say Shehecheyanu again in the morning for the
other mitzvot of the day. If you do not have a Megillah at all, then you
do say Shehecheyanu on the day of Purim itself. The Baer Halacha brings
down a Meiri discussing a similar situation by Chanuka, who says that if
you cannot light candles, you nevertheless say both Shehecheyanu and
Sheasa Nisim, and the B'H says the same should apply here. He finally
quotes the Birchai Yosef who says that one should say Shehecheyanu and
not Sheasa Nisim, but concludes that the "Acharonim" disagree. The B'H
leaves the issue saying that "Tzarach Eeyun La'maaseh" - it remains in
doubt what to do in this case.

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Thu, 12 Mar 87 05:43-PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.3/4.7.34)
	id AA13165; Thu, 12 Mar 87 05:44:10 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA05708; 12 Mar 87 04:52:16 CST (Thu)
Date:       Thu Mar 12 05:41:58 EST 1987
Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Topics:
	Numbering mixup
			Mod.
	Who is Haman?
			Joshua Proschan
	A Question
			Frank Silberman
______________________________________________________________________

As some of you have noticed, I sent the last digest out as #45 and
skipped #44. So I'm numbering this one as 44. 

	Wishing everyone a happy Purim
			Avi Feldblum
			mail.jewish Moderator
______________________________________________________________________

There is an interesting question raised by a friend of mine:

The targum on the Megillah has the following three statements:

1.    M'muchan is one of the 7 leading advisors of the kingdom;

2.    M'muchan is Haman;

3.    After Achashverosh realized what he had done on their advice, he 
      ordered them all taken out and hung. 

Question: Who is this chap named Haman who keeps appearing in the rest of 
the Megillah? 
					Joshua Proschan

______________________________________________________________________

Question for the mailing list:

Eighteen months ago, I met my fiance' at our campus Hillel society.
We started dating.  Soon after the relationship became serious,
she admitted to me (in tears of apprehension that I might leave her)
that she was NOT Jewish.  Apparently, she had become interested
in Judaism four years ago while still in high school, and had been
thinking seriously about conversion ever since.  After this confession,
she began taking formal conversion studies with our Rabbi, and a year
later we became engaged.  Her conversion will take place in a few weeks;
the wedding in August.  The Hillel rabbi is Reform, but handles
conversions in cooperation with other rabbis in this area, one
of whom leads a Conservative synogogue.

I myself am quite assimilated (my family is skeptical of all religion),
but because of exposure through my fiance', I have been reading more,
and have developed more respect for the Talmudic tradition.
(I am still far from observant, but I am slowly reducing the number
of ways in which I desecrate the Law).  After marriage, my wife
wants to keep a kosher home (which is alright with me), and might
consider regular visits to a Mikvah (if we had one in this area).

I read of the controversy in Israel in which a woman immigrating
to Israel was having difficulties due to her non-Orthodox conversion.
The Chief Rabbi suggested as a compromise that American conversions 
should be performed via a mixed Bet Din, i.e. one in which Orthodox
rabbis also participate.  Obviously, it would be to our benefit
if my wife's conversion were accepted by ALL Jews.  However, we
are a bit apprehensive about what would be involved.  What level
of frumkeit must be achieved before an Orthodox rabbi would consider
performing a conversion?

	Frank Silbermann <ulysses!ecsvax!mcnc!unc!fsks>

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Sat,  7 Mar 87 18:51-PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.3/4.7.34)
	id AA05905; Sat, 7 Mar 87 18:52:04 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA00935; 7 Mar 87 20:27:11 CST (Sat)
Date:       Sat Mar  7 21:01:48 EST 1987
Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Topic:
		Heter Me'ah Rabbonim and Marriage
				Josh Proschan
______________________________________________________________________

The recent  discussion of  the heter  me'ah rabbonim  and related
topics contained  many incomplete and hence misleading statements
about the  nature of  Jewish marriage,  when a marriage is valid,
and when  a marriage  is not valid. As these issues are extremely
important,  and  can  have  serious  consequences,  it  is  worth
reviewing the basics.

1.   There are three steps to getting married:

     t'naim (conditions):        informal arrangements
     
     kiddushin (sanctification): formal, ritual betrothal
     
     nissuin (marriage):         formal, ritual wedding

     The first  step is  often not  recognized but  nearly always
     occurs. The  Rabbis of  the Talmud  strongly disapproved  of
     anyone  who  married  without  careful  prior  arrangements.
     Nowadays  the   t'naim  are  often  written  into  a  formal
     contract.

     There is a popular belief that t'naim or other precursors to
     a wedding have no halachic implications, and consequently no
     get is  required if  an  engagement  is  broken.  Not  true;
     EVERYTHING has  halachic implications.  (This is  one of the
     things that distinguishes us from the rest of the world, who
     separate religion  and everyday  life.) T'naim are a form of
     contract.  A   secular  engagement   can   even   constitute
     kiddushin.

     Many authorities  regard t'naim  as very strong obligations.
     Reportedly the  Vilna Gaon recommended kiddushin followed by
     a get  as preferable  to breaking  t'naim, and  the  Chofetz
     Chaim strongly  criticizes men  who abandon  a match because
     the bride's  family broke  the t'naim (even though the match
     was only  arranged in  the first  place on  the basis of the
     promises in  the t'naim).  This may  be why  t'naim are  now
     usually signed just before the kiddushin.

     As pointed out in previous articles, in talmudic times there
     was a one-year waiting period between kiddushin and nissuin,
     during which  the bride  remained in  her father's house and
     prepared for  the wedding.  This may  have been  due to  the
     practice of  marrying in the early teens. During the current
     exile,  with   Jewish  communities   scattered  over   large
     distances, wars,  and  generally  unsettled  conditions,  it
     became increasingly  likely that  the couple would be unable
     to find  each other a year later. To avoid leaving the woman
     an agunah  the period  was shortened  by stages,  eventually
     reaching one  day (kiddushin  Friday afternoon,  followed by
     nissuin Saturday  evening after Shabbos), and then vanishing
     (unless the presiding rabbi speaks).

     Obsolete  customs  die  hard.  The  separate  betrothal  was
     replaced by  written t'naim  and other  informal substitutes
     for betrothal.  As usual  these have become more formal over
     the years.  The same  process has  repeated itself,  and the
     written t'naim  are now  often signed immediately before the
     kiddushin.

2.   The following  are the  essentials of  a valid kiddushin, in
     practice:

     a.   A transfer  of some  object of  value from the groom to
          the bride;
     
     b.   The groom's  intention of  effecting an  engagement  by
          this transfer;
     
     c.   Free and willing acceptance of the object by the bride;
     
     d.   The bride's  intention of  effecting an  engagement  by
          accepting;
     
     e.   Acceptable witnesses to the above.

     There are  other requirements  (age, martial status, yichus,
     valuation of  the object, etc.), but these are basic. If any
     are absent  or defective,  the marriage may be invalid or of
     doubtful status.

4.   The Torah  does not  require  a  ketubah  for  kiddushin.  A
     ketubah is  required at the kiddushin by rabbinic ordinance,
     to protect  the wife  if she  is  widowed  or  divorced.  It
     originally provided  enough money to support her for a year.
     By rabbinic  decree, the  couple cannot  make a  nissuin and
     live together  without a  ketubah; if  it is lost it must be
     replaced immediately;  but it  is not  required by the Torah
     and its absence does not invalidate a kiddushin.

3.   A ketubah,  rabbi, cantor,  caterer, orchestra, lace-trimmed
     gown, invitations, announcement in the Times, et al. are not
     required. A  ring  is  not  necessary;  anything  of  easily
     recognizable commercial  value will  do. (Undecorated  rings
     are used  for this  reason. Carved  or decorated ones may be
     misleading. Items  such as  clothing or  gems would  require
     expert appraisal.)  The wording  need  not  be  the  precise
     formula now customary.

     In fact,  under certain  conditions a  valid kiddushin might
     occur without  any explicit  statement being  made (e.g.  an
     engagement ring given in front of witnesses during a general
     discussion  about   getting  married).  Under  other  rather
     bizarre conditions, even though the man expressly offers the
     object for the purpose of kiddushin and the woman accepts it
     willingly, no kiddushin has taken place.

5.   It is extremely dangerous to assume that a marriage ceremony
     undergone  by   non-religious  jews   is  not  valid.  Quite
     possibly; but  a non-observant,  anti-religious  couple  can
     easily become  married according  to strict halachah without
     intending to.  They can  even more easily perform a doubtful
     kiddushin.

     It may  be true  in Greek  logic that a marriage that is not
     invalid must  be valid;  the law of the excluded middle does
     not  apply  in  halachah.  (This  is  why  the  Greeks  felt
     compelled to  try to  eliminate us,  but that is for another
     discussion.)

     How can a kiddushin be neither valid nor invalid? Doubts may
     arise due  to lack  of information  about what actually took
     place, and there may be no way to eliminate the doubt. There
     are also  circumstances in which the kiddushin is inherently
     doubtful. In  such a  case the  doubt forces stringencies in
     both directions.  The couple  cannot live  together, but the
     woman cannot marry someone else without a get unless the man
     dies; if  he does  die it  is uncertain  whether she  is his
     widow; and so on.

     Another complication  is that  it is sometimes not enough to
     know that  the formal  wedding was no good. If enough of the
     essentials were  missing, as  in a  do-it-yourself  counter-
     culture wedding,  there may be no problem. If many or all of
     the essentials listed above were apparently present, then it
     will be necessary to prove that the kiddushin was defective.
     This is  not always easy. I heard of a case where an invalid
     marriage could  not be  invalidated, because  the people who
     knew it to be invalid could not be accepted as witnesses.

6.   The point  of all  this is  that even if a marriage does not
     seem to  have been  kosher, and the people are not concerned
     about religious niceties, a get may still be required.

     As  remarriages   involve  not   only  the   possibility  of
     transgressing Torah  and  rabbinic  prohibitions,  but  also
     irremediable problems  such as  mamzerus of future children,
     the best  Orthodox authorities available should be consulted
     in any  actual cases.  Even someone  who has  no interest in
     religious observance  should not  burden children  with  the
     status of mamzer.

7.   Another point  is that, even though Jewish marriage is not a
     "sacrament" and does not require an "ordained" officiant, it
     should not  be arranged  by the  couple themselves  or other
     amateurs. Marriage is too complex halachically to be treated
     so cavalierly.  The marriage  ceremonies do  not  require  a
     rabbi; but  they do  require a  thorough  knowledge  of  the
     halachah  and   its  practical   application.  I   emphasize
     "practical application"; a man can spend years in a yeshivah
     and have  studied the  tractate Kiddushin  several times and
     still not know the practical side of conducting a wedding.

8.   Concerning the  two best-known  edicts of  Rabbeinu  Gershom
     Me'or Hagolah,  that a  man cannot force a woman to accept a
     get against her will and that a man can have only one wife:

     It  is  essential  to  note  that  there  are  two  separate
     prohibitions here.  In most  cases  the  problems  discussed
     result from  their combined  effect. A  heter me'ah rabbonim
     allows violating  one of the bans. It is also quite possible
     to get  permission from  competent rabbinical  authority  to
     violate the other and deliver a get even if the wife doesn't
     want to accept it.

     A forced  get is  not always  possible. Some  women are  not
     capable, in Torah law, of accepting a get. Examples would be
     a  woman   who  is  insane  and  unable  to  understand  the
     procedures, or  comatose. In  such a  case the  heter  me'ah
     rabbonim would be the only possibility.

     I have read that many authorities prefer delivering a forced
     get  to  using  a  heter  me'ah  rabbonim.  The  latter  was
     (presumably) instituted  to alleviate  situations where  the
     Torah does  not permit  giving a get; it might not be proper
     to violate  one rabbinic prohibition (against bigamy) merely
     in order  to avoid  violating another  rabbinic  prohibition
     (not giving a get without consent). Others disagree. As part
     of the  process of a heter me'ah rabbonim the husband writes
     a get  for his  wife, which is held for her by the bais din.
     This allows her to change her mind later and accept the get.
     In certain  cases this  might be more beneficial to the wife
     than an  immediate forced divorce. In all cases the decision
     depends on the subtleties of the particular situation and no
     general rules can be laid down.

9.   In passing,  it is  interesting to  note that among Rabbeinu
     Gershom's edicts  was one  prohibiting the  reading of other
     peoples' letters  and documents;  this apparently applies to
     electronic  communications   as  well.   (Headline:  Hacking
     Prohibited 1,000 Years Before Invention of Computer.)

10.  A final  observation. One  writer said  that  "...  a  valid
     marriage ...  can be terminated only by the husband giving a
     Get to  the wife."  Terminating the  husband also terminates
     the marriage.  (Self-help is  prohibited, but  prayer isn't.
     Husbands who refuse to give gittin should take note.)

	Josh Proschan:     UUCP: {... any bellcore}!nvuxb!jhp3

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Wed, 18 Mar 87 00:44-PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.3/4.7.34)
	id AA04904; Wed, 18 Mar 87 00:44:29 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA23468; 17 Mar 87 22:15:58 CST (Tue)
Date:       Tue Mar 17 22:43:31 EST 1987
Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Topics:
			Administration 
				[Mod]
			D'var Torah - Ki Tisa
				Arnie Lustiger
______________________________________________________________________

As many of you know, I ran a D'var Torah on the Parsha of the week on
the net during the last two years. That effort fell apart before I
started moderating this mailing list. In this mailing we have a
submitted D'var Torah. I would like to know from the members of the
list if this is something they would like to see as a regular part of
the list or not. Please mail comments and suggestions to me.

Avi Feldblum

______________________________________________________________________

      Understanding the Eigel Incident

      One of the most enigmatic incidents in the Chumash is that of the
"Eigel Hazohov" (the golden calf). The central question regarding this
incident is so obvious that it is almost superfluous to repeat : how could
clal yisroel engage in such flagrant avoda zara just three months after
krias yam suf, and less than six weeks after maamad har sinai?  Even if
one were to attribute this act solely to the erev rav, the question 
remains compelling. Would anyone with any level of sanity worship a false
god after experiencing the most dramatic manifestation of Hashem's existence
since maaseh bereishis?

      I believe that I have an answer to this question which, to me at least,
is intuitively satisfying as well as appears consistent with other sources
in the Chumash. However, because the answer is rather encompassing, either I
am "mechaven" to someone else who has said essentially the same thing, or I
am entirely incorrect. If you have any information one way or another, please
let me know. 

      First of all, the role of the eigel must be defined. According to most 
 meforshim, the eigel, as well as avoda zara in general, does not mean that
 the object is being worshipped per se, but rather that the object is merely
 an intermediary between the individual and a deity. The role of the object
 is to transfer prayers and requests from the individual or group to the de-
 ity.

       What then is the great sin of avoda zara? According to the Rambam,   
 when all outward manifestations of religion are directed to a visible, tan-
 gible object, even though the "true" deity is what one has in mind, future 
 generations will ultimately mistake the intermediary for the true deity and
 worship it directly.

       However, I would like to suggest another reason for the severity of
 the sin of avoda zara. Hashem's relationship with clal yisroel is a direct
 one, and as a result our approach to Him must be equally direct. The  
 use of intermediaries violates the uniqueness of the am hanivchar. The ess-
 ence of the relationship dictates that each deals directly with the other.

        In biblical times, there clearly was an overriding temptation to in-
 dulge in avoda zara while such a yezer hara is almost nonexistent today.
 Why? One can invoke a simple analogy. When ancient man looked at the stars at
 night, he may have thought that these points of light in the sky were a few
 miles away. However, as modern man began to understand astronomy, he realized
 how far removed we really are from the stars that are visible on earth, how
 many light years separate us from the stars. When it comes to the recognition
 of the essence of Hashem, we in contrast are the cave men. We may talk about
 Hashem`s greatness, but have no real conception in a cognitive sense of the
 awe that this should engender. There was no generation like the dor hamidbar
 with as keen a sense of this reality.(Raah Shifcha al hayam...).             
 However, with this understanding there is a concomitant awareness of extreme
 inadequacy in attempting to deal directly with an infinite being. As a result,
 there is an overriding zeal to develop intermediaries so that the awesome re-
 sponsibility of "shivisi Hashem lenegdi samid" can be alleviated. The G-d -
 man encounter is so awesome ( as evidenced by clal yisroel`s extreme fear
 manifested at Har Sinai) that the creation of intermediaries is a great tempt-
 ation. We, in contrast, have no such temptation.

          There are a number of raayos to this idea, which can be introduced
 in the following series of questions:
               
           1. What is the significance of Yaakov's dream about the ladder?
           2. Why did Moshe`s late arrival with the luchot result in the eigel?
           3. Why was Hashem's propsed punishment for the eigel (sending an an-
              gel to chase away enemies) so unacceptable to b`nai yisroel?
           4. Why were the first two of the aseret hadibrot "mipi hagvurah"?
           5. Why is Moshe not mentioned in the hagadah ?
           6. What is the significance of "ani v'lo maloch" in the hagada?
              Why is this emphasized?

           Yaakov's dream, according to the Ramban, dealt with this direct
  relationship. In contrast to other nations, who required the services of
  "malachei elokim olim veyordim", Yaakov's discussions with Hashem were dir-
  ect (vehiney Hashem nitsav alav),  mirroring how his descendants would relate
  to Him. Moshe was made a pseudo intermediary in the eyes of the people, and
  as a result, his prolonged absence precipitated the creation of another in-
  termediary, the eigel. Hashem's response was a direct "mida keneged mida"
  in that the refusal to deal directly with Hashem  would result in the crea-
  tion of an angelic intermediary to the people. B`nai Yisroel recognized
  that the presence of such an angel violated their uniqueness as a people
  and that no matter how benevolently the angel led the people, he was still   
  no substitute for Hashem Himself. Hashem had earlier recognized the potential
  of Moshe to be misrepresented as such an intermediary and as a result the 
  first two of the aseret hadibrot, dealing with the relationship of Hashem to
  B'nai Yisrael and the prohibition of avoda zara had to come from Hashem Him-
  self. The significance of the appelation "Rabbenu" to Moshe`s name emphasizes
  that Moshe is not to be misconstrued as such an intermediary but rather per-
  forms the function of a teacher. For the same reason, Moshe`s name does not 
  appear in the hagadah, and the possibility of angelic intermediaries perform-
  ing miracles on behalf of b'nai yisroel is also precluded (ani v'lo malach).

            There would, however, seem to be a few inconsistencies with this
  idea. First of all, the chumash does mention a "mashchit" in regard to macat
  bechorot. Secondly, the idea of an angel leading b`nai yisroel appears in
  parshat mishpatim prior to the eigel and without any protest from the people.
  (Note however that Rashi attributes this also to the later chait haegel).
  Moshe himself spoke to an angel at the burning bush.
 
             The Malbim explains that the angel promised in parshas mishpatim
  is fundamentally different than the one Hashem threatened to use in parshas
  ki tisa. The critical difference is that in mishpatim "shmi bekirbo" , Hash-
  em's Name is in him. In contrast, no such phrase is found in ki tisa. App-
  arently, malochim in general are given a certain amount of autonomy in their 
  dealings between G-d and Man. Hashem, however allows no such autonomy when
  it comes to B`nai Yisroel. He takes a personal interest in all that trans-   
  pires with them. As a result, the angels are true messengers when it comes
  to b`nai yisroel and "shaliach shel adam kemoso" an agent and his sender are
  interchangable. As a result, although a malach spoke to Moshe at the burning
  bush, the angel often used the first person singular when in fact referring
  to Hashem,and presumably for the same reason we can talk about the "mashchit"
  when dealing with macat bechorot and still say "ani v'lo maloch" in the hag-
  gadah.
                                                     Arnie Lustiger
                         
                                                     clockwise!akiva
  

             

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Sun, 22 Mar 87 19:43-PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.3/4.7.34)
	id AA24065; Sun, 22 Mar 87 19:43:16 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA16621; 22 Mar 87 10:18:47 CST (Sun)
Date:       Sun Mar 22 10:57:09 EST 1987
Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Topics:
	Administration
				Moderator
	When and How to examine?
				A.S.Kamlet
	Request: The halachat of Babysitting.
				Elliott Hershkowitz
	Response to Frank Silberman (mail.jewish #44)
				Moderator
				Jack Gold

______________________________________________________________________
So far the response to my query about having a Dvar Torah distributed
to the mail.jewish mailing list has elicited only positive responses.
One comment was to give it a seperate Subject line, and not include it
in the same numbering system as the regular digests. I will use the
words Dvar Torah and the parsha it is on as the subject line. What
remains is for people to write the Divrei Torah. Those who are
interested in writing are encouraged to contact me.

					Avi Feldblum
					[Moderator]
______________________________________________________________________
How often and how deeply should we inquire as to the correctness or
kashrut(??) of something?  I agree that once we realize there may be a
problem, we must stop and make further examination.  But how deeply do
we inquire before-hand?

Just a very few examples:

1.  The megilla is one.  Should we scrutinize it?
Or should we make a quick examination?

2. I understand that a mezzuzah must be inspected at least every 7
years.  But is it proper or improper to examine, say, every week?
(after all, that takes time away from doing other things that may be
more important.)

3. How deeply must we inquire of someone's yichus before marriage?
   Does it depend on whether the person has ever been married?

4. How deeply must we inquire of someone's yichus to count him in a
   minyan?    (I assume, but don't know, that our examination is
   far less strict than for a marriage.)

And, when we make an examination, are there times when we should
err on the strict side, and other times when we should err on the
lenient side?

[email protected]    AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus

______________________________________________________________________

We have a group of girls in our community who are just old enough to start
to babysit.  I would like to organize one or two classes around the
religious aspects of baby sitting.  There is plenty of material on the
duties of a shomer regarding the protection of property, etc.  What I
am looking for are any source materials on the ethics of the task.
 
Specific areas of interest are:
         How to treat the confidential nature of information you
         receive just by being in someone elses home.

         How to maintain a professional attitude in accepting
         and rejecting jobs

         What can really be expected of an 11 yr old.

Please send any replies by E-Mail to  ...!mruxd!eeh

Elliott Hershkowitz

______________________________________________________________________

[Mod. comments

	The issue dealt with in Frank's question and in Jack's
response here represent some very difficult issues facing the jewish
community at this time. From a halachik point of view, it is probable
that the only valid conversions are those done by an Orthodox Beit Din
- court. For those who are interested, conversions may be the only
action which requires a Rabbi and a valid Beit Din. Thus even if a
Conservative or Reform Rabbi were to ask the same questions and get
the same responses and then do all the same actions done by the Beit
Din, the conversion may not be valid. In such a case all children born
to the marriage will not be Jewish according to Halacha, even though
they think they are. However, I am well aware that this is an arena
in which simply knowing the Halacha does not resolve all the conflicts
involved. As such, I think the following response from Jack Gold is a
very positive sign that the personal conflicts can be resolved in a
way that is compatible with Halachik decisions. ]

Re: Frank Silberman's conversion question in Mail.Jewish #44

I went through a very similar situation. I also met my wife in school. When we 
got serious about our relationship, she went to see the Hillel Rabbi, who was 
reform. She went through the conversion process with him. When we went to get 
married, there was definitely a problem. My parents belonged to an Orthodox 
congregation, and my wife's conversion was not acceptable because a reform 
Rabbi had done it. So... She had to go through another conversion. The ONLY 
difference between the first and second conversions was the three men sitting 
in the room at the Mikveh officiating. It was the identical ceremony and the 
same Mikveh. [Mod: But note as I said above, the two actions may very
likely NOT BE the same from a Halachik point of view. In any legal
system, two actions that look the same may not in fact have the same
legal ramifications.]

The moral of this story is, if you want to avoid later hassles, try to find a 
reasonable Orthodox Rabbi to do the conversion. The one we talked to did not 
place any undue burdens on my wife's second conversion. He was very nice, and 
spoke with her several times to see if she was serious. When he was convinced 
she was, there were no problems. We were married in an Orthodox synagogue, 
with an Orthodox Rabbi presiding.

Another point of this story is that you should not necessarily be afraid to go
to an Orthodox Rabbi for conversion. They are people too, and are willing to
help as much as possible if they believe you are serious and converting for
the right reasons (not just for marriage). A good Rabbi will tell you that it
is against Jewish law to refuse someone who truly wants to become Jewish,
although tradition states that you are to turn them away at least once to see
if they are serious enough to return. Orthodox conversion presents many fewer
problems in the long run, and is accepted by all branches of main line
Judaism.  It is also fairer to any children you may have, since they will not
have to bear the brunt of your decision. It should also present no problems to
immigration to Israel, should that become your option some day. 

By the way, we now belong to a Conservative congregation. We too, chose to 
keep a Kosher home, and we have been married now for 14 years and we have
three children. This shows that it can work long term. 

Good luck,
Jack Gold
ihnp4!decwrl!curie.dec.com!gold

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Fri, 27 Mar 87 04:53-PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.3/4.7.34)
	id AA27601; Fri, 27 Mar 87 04:52:19 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA08119; 27 Mar 87 04:58:16 CST (Fri)
Date:       Fri Mar 27 04:37:41 EST 1987
Message-Id: <[email protected]>



			THROW AWAY YOUR HAMMER    

				or


		DVAR TORAH:  PARSHIYOS VAYAKHEL-PIKUDEI 

		_______________________________________



	Parshas Vayakhel, the first of the two portions of the Torah we'll be
reading this week, opens with Moshe assembling all the Jewish people and 
addressing them.  Rashi tells us that this was the day after the very first
Yom Kippur in history, when G-d forgave the Jews for their sin of worshipping
the Golden Calf.  Only now was Moshe able to convey G-d's commands concerning
the building of the Mishkan, the portable Sanctuary to be used by te Jews in
the desert as a vehicle to communion with G-d.  However, while the rest of
Vayakhel, and all of Pikudei, concern themselves with the building of the
Mishkan, the weaving of the garments for the Cohanim who performed the
Avodah (service) in the Mishkon, and the inauguration of the Mishkon, the first
three verses of Vayakhel are concerned with a totally different subject: the
commandment of observing the Sabbath by not doing any form of work on the
seventh day of every week.


	What is the connection between the two topics, and why is a discussion
of the Sabbath, which is mentioned many times in the Torah, necessary right
here?  Rashi explains, "He (Moshe) preceded with the warning to observe the
Sabbath before the command to build the Mishkon, to imply that the building of
the Mishkan does not supersede the prohibition of working on the Sabbath."  But
in addition, there is a further, more intimate connection between Shabbos and 
the Mishkon.  The Talmud, the body of work in which the Oral Law's interpret- 
ation of the Written Scripture is organized, learns something else from this
juxtaposition of topics:  that the "Melachos" of Shabbos, the 39 categories of
creative labor prohibited on the Sabbath, are derived from the "Melachos" of
the Mishkan, the types of work involved in building the Mishkon.  In other  
words, we are being told that the types of work we must refrain from doing on
the Sabbath are precisely those broad classes of work employed in the building
of the Mishkon.


	Two obvious questions come to mind:  First of all, why doesn't the
building of the Mishkon have priority over observing the Sabbath?  The aim of
Shabbos, which seems to be the recognition of the Creator, would seem to be
enhanced by the construction of G-d's Sanctuary, by the bringing of His  
presence into the midst of the Jewish people?  Secondly, what is the signifi-  
cance of learning the prohibited labors of Shabbos from the imperative labors
of building the Mishkon?  It's a convenient enough memory device, but in what
way are they connected with each other?


	There are two aspects to the Sabbath, one passive and the other active.
The passive aspect is embodied in the command of Shamor, literally "guarding"
the Sabbath.  By refraining from creative acts, as represented by the Melachos
of Shabbos, we acknowledge G-d's mastery over the world, recognizing that He is
the Creator of all that is in the world.  But that is not sufficient.  There is
the second aspect of Zachor, literally "remembering" the Shabbos.  Were I to
sleep an entire Shabbos, I would not have been a "mechalel shabbos", a profaner
or desecrator of the Sabbath, but neither would I have truly experienced the
Shabbos.  The command of Zachor requires us to actively engage in more
spiritual pursuits in order to bring us closer to G-d.  Shabbos is often
referred to as "may-ain olam haboh", similar to the world to come, because it
represents the ideal state that we ought to strive to reach:  A clear and
visceral understanding and sense of how we relate to G-d and G-dly ideals
within every aspect of our lives.  Not merely intellectually, and not just
within religious ritual, should this feeling exist, but more fundamentally, it
should permeate the very fabric of our existence.  This ideal is what has been
referred to in the Jewish literature as "hisgalus ha-p'nimius", the "inner
revelation", or the bringing out of the essence into the open.


	The Mishkon represents a very different concept.  The ideal that
the Sabbath represents sounds great in theory, but difficult if not impossible
to implement.  In the hustle and bustle of life, our grand aims and goals tend
to get clouded and sullied.  We get too caught up in the individual ordinary
things we do, and we lose sight of the big picture.  We do things without
seeing how they relate to the rest of life and to G-d.  In building the  
Mishkon, we take the plain, everyday acts, acts of construction and labor, and
use them to form a Sanctuary and a "hashro-as ha-shechinah", an awareness of  
the Divine Presence, within our midst.  If Shabbos corresponds to Olam Ha'Bo,
the world to come, then the Mishkon corresponds to Olam Ha-Zeh, the world that
we all live in.  It shows us how to take normal human activity, and, even
without appreciating its relationship to more spiritual matters in the short  
run, use it to ultimately establish a connection between ourselves and G-d.
There is a well known interpretation of a verse in Parshas Terumah.  There, G-d
says of the Jews, "They should make for me a holy place, and I will dwell
within them."  The verse does not say "and I will dwell within it, the
Sanctuary, it says "I will dwell within them"- within each and every member of
the Jewish people.  The purpose of the physical Mishkon is principally to
effect a change and an awareness of G-d's Presence within the individuals and
the people as a whole.  The Mishkon also corresponds to the six working days
of the week, the days of "Chol", ordinariness, whose activity culminates in
Shabbos, for the lesson of the Mishkon is really about how to approach our
everyday ordinary acts, so as to bring about the ideal of Shabbos.


	We can now answer our questions about the Mishkon and Shabbos.  Since
the Mishkon represents a lower spiritual level of living that ys meant to
lead us towards the ideal of Shabbos, it would be inappropriate to occupy
ourselves with the Mishkon on Shabbos, the day that represents this ideal, for
Shabbos and what it stands for is a higher plateau of life than that signified
by the building of the Mishkon.  Why are the Melachos Shabbos derived from the
Melachos of the Mishkon?  One way of looking at this question is that the
Mishkon and its types of work are meant to serve as a microcosm of the world,
representing all of man's creative activities and abilities.  Therfore, on 
Shabbos, when we refrain from exercising our creativity to acknowledge G-d as
the ultimate source of all creativity, we refrain from doing those very same
symbolic creative acts, the Melachos of the Mishkon.

	
	Another, complementary way of viewing this  question is that in telling
us what not to do on Shabbos, the Torah also wants to tell us what to do 
during the rest of the week.  The word Melachoh is related to the word Malach,
which is usually translated to mean an angel, but which actually means a 
messenger or intermediary.  When Moshe tells the Jews in the second verse of
Vayakhel, "Six days you should do Melachah, but on the seventh day you should
rest", the word Melacha is being used very precisely.  If all it meant to say
was that you can do any kind of work you want for six days, just don't do it
on Shabbos, a word such as Avodah, meaning work, would be used.  Instead, the
word Melachah, with its connotation of being a messenger or intermediary, is
used.  The Torah is defining Melachah for us.  What should you do during the
weekdays, during the times when you have not reached the ideal that Shabbos
stands for?  Do activities which can serve as intermediaries towards a
hisgalus ha-p'nimius, the revelation of the true essentials, do Melachos
which will result in the setting up of a Mishkan, of a creation of hashro-as
ha-shechina, an awareness of G-d, within your midst.  All your weeklong labor
should be truly creative and constructive, not trivial nor destructive.


	Perhaps we can now understand a little more about how the episode of
the worshipping of the golden calf fits into the motivation behind the      
construction of the Mishkon.  Before this episode, the Jewish people had
witnessed the miracles in Egypt and had raised themselves to the extent that
they accepted the Torah, and experienced a personal encounter with G-d, at
Mount Sinai.  According to many of our commentators, they were then on a level
of being "akin to the World to Come", the level represented by Shabbos.  What
happened with the golden calf?  Was this just an instance of a primitive
people reverting to brute idolatry?  Many of our commentators argue that this
was not the case.  With Moshe not available, as he was then communing with
G-d on Mount Sinai, the people sought an intermediary between themselves and
G-d, and somehow wished to use the golden calf for this purpose.  But, as is
so often the case with us, they got so wrapped up with the golden calf itself
that, rather than viewing it as a means to an end, they saw it as an end unto
itself.  Many commentators, Rashi among them, say that the command to build a
physical Mishkon came only after the sin with the golden calf, because it was
this flaw of worshipping the means rather than the end that the building of
the Mishkon came to rectify.  Perhaps we can now also see that the sin of the
golden calf was not one isolated incident in history where a bunch of people
went bananas and worshipped a golden calf.  The sin of the golden calf
describes one of the problems that all of us encounter- that in the course of
the material world we live in, we take our own version of the golden calf,
ostensibly for some higher goal, and end up worshipping the gold itself.  The
Talmud says that whenever G-d punishes the Jews for their sins, he adds a bit
extra of punishment in retribution for the sin of the golden calf.  Why?  Is
G-d being vindictive, still bearing a grudge?  No, what this means is that
every sin is a recreation in miniature of the sin of the "egel", the golden
calf, and even without a physical Mishkon, we can atone for our "egel" by
keeping the ideas represented by the Mishkon in mind.



Good Shabbos.


Pinchus Klahr  {allegra,ihnp4,...}!cmcl2!csd2!klahr.UUCP  [email protected]

    Re. 65:
    
    I believe that careful examination of the Parsha of the Mishkan
    and the Parsha in Bereshit dealing with the creation of the world
    will show some very startling textual similarities. 
    
    It would appear that there is a comparison  between the Brieat
    Haolam vis-a-vis Shabbat and the building of the Mishkan vis-a-vis
    Shabbat.
    
    Cb.

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Tue, 31 Mar 87 15:54-PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.3/4.7.34)
	id AA12812; Tue, 31 Mar 87 15:53:26 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA10994; 31 Mar 87 17:14:06 CST (Tue)
Date:       Tue Mar 31 17:19:43 EST 1987
Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Topics:
		Adding something into the ketuba
				Mannie Lowe
		More on conversion topic
				Susan Slusky
				Moderator
______________________________________________________________________

I will be getting married on July 12th this year.  In the planning
process, my fiance and I read a book called \The New Jewish Wedding/
by Anita Diamant.  It is an excellent book and I highly recommend it to
anyone getting married.  In the chapter about invitations was the following:

	"This story from the Baal Shem Tov makes a wonderful
	invitation quotation: 'From every human being there
	rises a light that reaches straight to heaven.  And
	when two souls that are destined to be together find
	each other, their streams of light flow together,
	and a single brighter light goes forth from their
	united being.'"

We agree with the book that it would make a great invitation quote, but
we also want to incorporate it in our ketubah.  The problem is that the
only reference for it is what you see above.  I would like to find it
in Hebrew from the original source (if at all possible).  In my search for
it, I found who the Baal Shem Tov was, but I can't find a book of his
writings or stories in Hebrew.

Can any of the learned men of the net help me out.  I would like to have
a photo-copy the source in Hebrew but I'll settle for pointers to a reference.
If you can get a hold of a copy, please send it to Snail Mail address below.
Otherwise, please send me electronic mail.

This is being cross-posted to soc.culture.jewish and the jewish mailing list.

[Although this was cross-posted, I am sending it out over the mailing
list as well. There was little or no discussion of this on the net
that I saw. The one point made, which I think is correct, is that
incorporating anything into the text of the ketubah is a bad idea. The
ketuba is a legal document, and you don't include things not ment to
be there. I would be much better to include it as a "decoration" to
the ketuba by having it written along the edges. Does anyone know the
source of the above quotation? P.S. Mazal Tov! MODERATOR]

Thanks in advance,

Mannie Lowe
Medical Systems Development Corp
Box 26022; 80 Butler St
Atlanta, GA   30335
{gatech,ihnp4,mcnc,akgua}!msdc!mannie

______________________________________________________________________

I am including the next article at least partially to make a point
about what is and is not appropriate in this forum. When Dave Chechik
first started the mailing list, one of the main driving forces was his
view that much of the discussion on what was then net.religion.jewish
was clearly against halacha. The mailing list was started so as to
have a forum where the validity of halacha was a given and not
something subject to debate. In addition arguments of orthodox vs
conservative vs reform (and surely jewish vs non-jewish) have no place
in the mailing list. Those debates are best left to soc.culture.jewish
and misc.religion.misc (or whatever it is called). 

I am not a Rabbi and I will not try to be a posek. However, items that
I feel are not consistant with halacha will generally not be posted. I
felt in the case of Frank's request, that even if what he was asking
about (a Beit Din with both orthodox and non-orthodox members) may not
have been the ideal halachik solution, the questions involved are both
very complicated and have major implications for him. If the members
of the mailing list could in any way assist him, the posting would be
worthwhile. 

However, a posting saying that the orthodox jewish community is
narrow-minded etc because they insist on following the halacha is NOT
acceptable on this mailing list.

				Avi Feldblum
				Moderator
______________________________


I noticed that the discussion on conversion and means for assuring
that a conversion is recognized throughout the Jewish community 	
has shifted from (a)Frank Silbermann's question about the feasability
of conversion by a Beit Din which includes rabbis from the several
branches of Judaism to (b)answers regarding conversion solely by Orthodox
rabbis. The former, which would require flexibility and tolerance
from all concerned, would nonetheless be an encouraging development
that would provide evidence that hope for a united clal yisrael is not
in vain.  Dismissal of the former and insistance on the latter
is a manifestation of the "we're authentic and you're belly button 
lint" attitude that prompted the recent article "Will there be one
Jewish people in the year 2000?" by Rabbi Yitzchak Greenberg.
His answer, by the way, was "if things go on as they are, no."
May I say, however, that I do not think that those who answered
about conversions solely by Orthodox rabbis were dismissing the
idea of joint conversions. They were just answering on the
basis of their experiences which are typically with only one or another
'flavor' of rabbi.

Susan Slusky
mhuxt!segs

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Mon,  6 Apr 87 13:05-PDT
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.3/4.7.34)
	id AA27419; Mon, 6 Apr 87 13:04:56 PST
Received: by cbosgd.ATT.COM (smail2.1)
	id AA06006; 6 Apr 87 15:33:43 AST (Mon)
Date:       Mon Apr  6 06:48:15 EDT 1987
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Status: R

Topics:

	Call for explanations on the Hagadah
				Moderator
	Is your tfilin kosher?
				Ezra Tepper
				Avi Feldblum

______________________________________________________________________

I should have put this out earlier (I'll try next year) but if people
have some nice things they say at the Seder (explanations of part of the
Hagadah, what you might call a 'vort' or 'pshetale') and you can get it
to me quickly, I will try and put it out in a special Pesach Seder
mailing. Share your favorite ideas about the Hagadah with the rest of
mailing list! This way, if everyone you know is tired of hearing you say
the same thing every year, you now have a new audience, and you'll get
something new to say.

One big question is how long it takes you to get mail from me. I plan to
try and send it out Thursday evening if I get responses. I would
appreciate if those who do respond, let me know how long it takes them
for this mailing to get to them.

Avi Feldblum
mail.jewish moderator
[email protected]	or	{Any major machine}!pruxe!ayf

[mail sent to either pruxe or pruxc will reach me. I will be slowly
changing references to my address to ayf@pruxe, but mail sent to pruxc
will be forwarded to me.]

______________________________________________________________________

As an interesting aside on A. S. Kamlet's question about "When and
how to examine?" I'd like to quote a wall poster widely seen in Jerusalem
last year. It was put up by the Va'ad Le'achzakas Stam (or some such
organization) which operates out of Bene Brak and is concerned with
upholding the quality and kashrus of tefilin, mezuzos, and sifrei Torah.

They took a random sampling of tefilin from orthodox Jews in some of
the more religious neighborhoods of Jerusalem and Bene Brak. One
gets the impression that they examined the tefilin of what are commonly
referred to here as chareidim or in the U.S. as hassidic Jews, rather
than the so-called "modern" orthodox group. They report that they found
that 60% of the tefilin were not kosher! I find that statistic extremely
difficult to swallow. If it is so, something very funny is going on.
Without further evidence (and no further posters were spotted by me),
I would tend to take it with a grain of salt. However, one good way to make
sure that one's tefilin are O.K. is to check them oneself, following
a kosher report by the sofer.


Ezra L. Tepper, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
[email protected]


There is a very similar organization here in the U.S. called Va'ad
Mishmeret Stam which is a very reliable group. Many of the better sofrim
belong to this organization. I saw a report they put out about a year
ago on the percentage of kosher tefillin and mezzuzot for various New
York and New Jersey communities (including Boro Park and Highland Park).
Unfortunatly, I did not keep it and don't remember the exact numbers,
but I think they were up around 50% or more posul in all the communities
they checked. Does anyone have the original report and can verify this?

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!pruxe!ayf" "Avi Feldblum" 17-MAY-1987 13:29
To:	mail.jewish_ack.subscribers
Subj:	mail.jewish #50

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Sun, 17 May 87 10:28-PDT
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.3/4.7.34)
	id AA15217; Sun, 17 May 87 10:28:50 PDT
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA05760; 17 May 87 12:16:03 CDT (Sun)
Date:       Sun May 17 12:56:23 EDT 1987
Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Topics:

	I am still alive
			[Moderator]
	Question about watches and Shabbat
			Rich Mintz
	More on checking Tefillin
			Joshua Proschan

______________________________________________________________________

Hello everyone!

	I and this mailing list are still alive. Pesach, and getting
my work back on schedule after peasach, kept me busy for a while, but
I hope things will start being more normal now. I am including all the
stuff that I know is backed up. If you sent me something, and you have
not seen it in any of the mailings, please contact me. Start sending
me any new stuff you may have. When you send things for the mailing
list, if you don't include a signature on the bottom and also do not
request that I include it as anonymous, I will use a single line
signature line that has your name and an email address relative to my
machine (i.e. what I use to send the mailing list to you).

Avi Feldblum
mail.jewish moderator
uucp: [email protected]		or {any major AT&T machine}!pruxe!ayf

______________________________________________________________________

Is it permissible to wear a self-winding watch (i.e. one which winds itself
automatically through the normal motion of your arm) on Shabbat?

Rich Mintz		<harvard!husc4!mintz>
______________________________________________________________________

Regarding 50-60% of t'fillin checked being defective; this is
quite believable. Keep in mind that they are counting all defects,
major and minor. I would agree that so high a percentage of major
defects would not be credible.

Minor defects are another matter. A single crack in a single
letter, as a result of pressure on the parchment when it was
inserted in the case, can render the t'fillah invalid. Minor
damage to the case that affects its squareness can also make the
t'fillin invalid. The effects of changing temperature and humidity
can weaken the bond of ink to parchment and cause a letter to
crack or peel off. It is also quite common for minor defects to be
overlooked when the t'fillin are first assembled.

Similar problems occur with mezuzos (with the additional problem
of air pollution) and I have heard similar figures for them.

Unfortunately, frequent checking is not the answer. Removing the
parchments for checking can damage them, as can the process of
folding and inserting them. This is especially true if the
parchments were not carefully matched in size to the cases in the
first place. This is a good example of something that should not
be looked into unnecessarily. T'fillin, unlike mezuzos, do not
have to be checked periodically. The best solution is to check the
parchments very thoroughly when the t'fillin are first purchased,
and then to follow the advice of a competent sofer as to if, when,
and how often to have them rechecked.

As to checking the parchments oneself, this should always be done.
This is one of the few places where an amateur can do better than
an expert. Professional checkers will sometimes see what should be
there, rather than what is there. This is why it is common to find
parchments that were checked and are still missing a letter or
word (also mezuzos, megillos, sefrei Torah). It is also why
reputable sofrim do not object to additional checking being done
on their merchandise.

One should check them before having a professional examine them.
[This has to be done while the sofer is working on the t'fillin,
as opening the cases and replacing the parchments is not a job for
the amateur. Most good sofrim are willing to cooperate.] One trick
I find useful is to check it one time with both the parchment and
the tikkun (a printed copy of what should be on the parchment,
used for writing and correcting t'fillin etc.) upside down. This
forces you to concentrate on matching the letters, and minimizes
the probability of overlooking a missing letter in a familiar
word. Incidentally, use only a good tikkun with the exact
spelling; don't rely on a siddur or chumash, which may have
variations in the spelling.

Joshua Proschan		<nvuxb!jhp3>

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!pruxe!ayf" "Avi Feldblum" 25-JUN-1987 16:15
To:	mail.jewish_ack.subscribers
Subj:	mail.jewish #51

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Thu, 25 Jun 87 12:58-PDT
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.3/4.7.34)
	id AA03019; Thu, 25 Jun 87 12:57:52 PDT
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA13237; 25 Jun 87 06:54:13 CDT (Thu)
Date:       Thu Jun 25 07:32:18 EDT 1987
Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Topic:
		I'm here but where are you?
				Moderator
_________________________________________________________________

I've had a few questions as to whether this mailing list is still
alive. Well, a mailing list is only as alive as its members. I have
not heard anything from all of you out there. If you have something to
say, something to ask, send it to me and hopefully we will get the
mailing list a little more active.
In general, if anyone sends me anything I will try to send back an
acknowledgement that I received it. There have been some changes in
the connectivity of my machine. If you are not an AT&T machine, and
you are doing direct routing, you will probably want to route your
mail through one of the following machines:
{ihnp4, clyde, mtune, cbosgd, allegra, moss}
If your mailer accepts domain form addressing, .att.com is currently a
registered internet domain and probably will be routed to one of the
above machines. If you wish to check your connectivity to me, send me
mail with the subject line 'Path Check' and I will send a path
acknowledgement when I receive it.

Avi Feldblum
mail.jewish moderator
[email protected]
{ihnp4, clyde, mtune, cbosgd, allegra, moss}!pruxe!ayf

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!pruxe!ayf" "Avi Feldblum" 29-JUN-1987 08:01
To:	mail.jewish_ack.subscribers
Subj:	mail.jewish #52

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Mon, 29 Jun 87 05:00-PDT
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.3/4.7.34)
	id AA13792; Mon, 29 Jun 87 05:00:10 PDT
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA06387; 29 Jun 87 06:06:11 CDT (Mon)
Date:       Mon Jun 29 06:53:17 EDT 1987
Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Topics:

			Kosher and non-Kosher Fowl
				Stan Glazer
			Pareve Foods
				Susan Slusky
			Blessing on Yahrzeit candle?		
				Arthur Altman

[Well, it looks like I got a response to my request for material.
Good! If anyone else has stuff, just send it in. Mod.]
______________________________________________________________________

	Regarding what is acceptable to eat and what is not acceptable, I've
noticed in my readings (albeit limited, which I guess is usually the case),
that the Torah clearly specifies what you can and what you can not consume
as far as four legged animals, water residing life and other creatures.
However, when it comes to fowl, only those prohibited are mentioned.  My
question therefore is in two parts: Why are fowl treated differently in so
far that only those that are prohibited and not those that are allowed are
mentioned and, what guidance or rules are available for determining those
that are allowed?  Is there a general rule that (assumming proper handling,
slaughtering, etc.) would tell us?  For example, are herbivorous fowl allowed
and carnivorous and omnivorous disallowed?  My grandfather (and his peers
many years ago) told me that we can consume any bird that is not a bird of
prey provided it is slaughtered properly.  My wife and father-in-law support
that position.  What is the definitive position?

				Stan Glazer
     				hou2f!stan

______________________________________________________________________

I have some kashrut questions. I'd like to hear how different people
would handle these situations and with what rationale.

1. You have a metal cake pan which is only used in the following way:
Cake batter is mixed, cold wet ingredients, all pareve ingredients.
The batter is mixed using some glass utensils and some metal, fleishig
utensils and is then poured into the aforementioned metal pan.
The cake is then baked in the pan and is turned out
onto a glass plate. No fleishig ingredients have ever been in the pan. 
Can the resulting cake be cut with a dairy knife and served on a dairy plate
and consumed with a milchig meal? Does the manner in which the pan
is cleaned between uses bear on the matter?

2. You make a pareve ingredient, frozen dessert with milchig utensils.
No heat is applied throughout the process. The stuff is frozen in a 
metal pan which is definitely milchig. Can the resulting dessert
be consumed after a fleishig meal(i.e. before whatever waiting
period you observe is up)? in fleishig dishes?

Susan Slusky
mhuxt!segs

______________________________________________________________________


Is a blessing or blessings recited when lighting a Yahrzeit candle?

-Arthur

[email protected]

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"ihnp4!pruxe!ayf" "Avi Feldblum" 16-JUL-1987 08:48
To:	mail.jewish_ack.subscribers
Subj:	mail.jewish #52

Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Thu, 16 Jul 87 05:44-PDT
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
	id AA09184; Thu, 16 Jul 87 05:44:12 PDT
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA09078; 16 Jul 87 06:04:00 CDT (Thu)
Date:       Thu Jul 16 06:23:24 EDT 1987
Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Topics:
		Personals
				Moderator
		Responses to Pareve Foods [m.j_52]
				Avi Feldblum
				H. Braude
		R. Feinstein's Responsa
				Isaac Balbin
		Short Questions
				 Yechezkal Gutfreund
				 Bruce G Bukiet
______________________________________________________________________

I feel like the mailing list is a kind of extended family, so I take
this occassion to announce the birth of:

	Tziporah Shoshana Feldblum on July 3 to Avi and Rochie Feldblum

[being moderator must have some priviliges! Seriously, anyone who
wants to announce something here, just let me know.]
______________________________________________________________________

Before starting to try and answer this question, it may be useful to
mention some of the relevent halachot. There is a Torah prohibition to
cook meat and milk together. It has been expanded by the Rabbis in the
time of the Talmud to include eating milk and meat together in the
same meal. In addition, it was understood that when two items were
heated up together, there was a strong enhancement of "diffusion" from
one into the other. So that if meat was cooked in a pot, part of the
meat "flavor" was absorbed into the pot. If milk would then be cooked
in the same pot, the meat flavor would come out of the pot, and one
would be cooking meat and milk together. This is the basis for
requiring two sets of pots and dishes. According to halacha, not all
materials absorb to the same degree. In particular, glass is special
in that it does not absorb at all. In general, things that are cold do
not strongly absorb or give out what they have absorbed. One last
halacha is that when something has soaked for 24 hours, even fully
cold, it has many of the same rules as if it were cooked. 
	NOTE: This is not meant to be a full and complete exposition
of the laws of meat and dairy!!!

Lets examine question one first. The pan is metal which does absorb. Cold
pareve ingredients are put in the pot, and mixed -while cold- with a
fleishig metal utensil. This utensil is the only connection with meat.
What is meant by a fleishig utensil? This is a very important point.
Here are a couple of possible examples, which are all halachacally
different:

1) Used for meat and has not been cleaned.
2) Used for meat within the last 24 hours and has been cleaned in
water only.
3a) Used for meat within the last 24 hours and has been cleaned in
soap and (hot) water.
3b) Used for meat NOT within the last 24 hours and has been cleaned in
water only.
4) Used for meat not within the last 24 hours and has been cleaned in
soap and (hot) water.

For case 1) the cake MAY be considered as fleishig and the metal pan
may become fleishig. However I think case 1) is unlikely to be what
Susan was really asking about. For cases 3 and 4, I'm pretty sure that
the cake and cake pan are still fully pareve and may be used with a
dairy meal [ it is a 'nosen taam lephegam' and I don't think we worry
about 'boleah kedi klipah' in such a case]. Case number 2) I suspect
may also be pareve according to halacha, but many will not serve it
directly with dairy, e.g. eat it with whipped cream, but will at the
end of a dairy meal on dairy plates etc. [ we don't worry about a
'bleah' of dairy into it because of "n't bar n't", but are machmir
about 'boleah kedi klipah'].

Question two brings in the issue of 'kavosh k'mevushal dami' -
something which is soaked for 24 hours is considered similar to
cooking. If the pan was used for cooking dairy within the last 24
hours, I think that the dessert would be considered dairy, and could
not be eaten with a fleishig meal. The same MIGHT be true even if
the pan was not used within 24 hours and/or was washed with soap.

I refer everyone to the disclaimer in the next response, DO NOT
decide halacha based on articles in this mailing list. If you have a
actuall question, please check with a Rabbi. However, I hope that
things discussed here give people a better feeling for the halacha.

Avi Feldblum
mail.jewish Moderator

______________________________________________________________________

In mailinglist article 52, Susan Slusky, <mtuxt!segs> writes:
>1. You have a metal cake pan which is only used in the following way:
>...
>The cake is then baked in the pan and is turned out...
>...
[DISCLAIMER:  I am not a rabbi, so this should be considered an opinion, not
              an authoritative answer! ]
One factor that should be considered that a person might overlook
is the status of the oven itself. If one prepares meat in an oven by 
roasting, for example, the splatter of the roast on the walls of the oven
should be considered when one wishes to prepare another foodstuff (eg: a
cheesecake.)

While a meat pan that hasn't been used for at least 24 hours can be used
to prepare a pareve dish and eaten, with some restrictions, as part of a
dairy meal, it cannot be used to prepare a dairy foodstuff. The oven is
not any different, except that the procedure to "kasher" the oven may be 
more convenient (eg: self-cleaning ovens.)

What some people do is they will cook either dairy or meat in their ovens
uncovered when appropriate, but will always securely wrap the other type
of food in foil before preparing it. So if the person chooses to make the
oven "meat" then to make lasagna, the person might buy a separate countertop
broiler or toaster-oven (is that someone's trademark?) or do without "browning"
the top.

		        h.b.braude ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________

	[The mailing list is becoming quite international, and I
welcome Isaac, our first Austrailian participant to it. Mod.]

Hello from down under,
	My name is Isaac Balbin and I am new to this mailing list so would
	you excuse me if the issues I am about to raise are either old,
	or not relevant to this forum. Specifically, of late, I have become
	fascinated by the Responsa of Rabbi M. Feinstein OBM.
	There are a number of aspects which are puzzling. I do realise that,
	as he states himself, these are not for ordinary plebians like myself,
	nevertheless, purely on intellectual grounds, I am interested.
	I will give some examples. I don't have his Igrot Moshe in front
	of me so I cannot give you exact references,
	(1)
	He decided that "Chalav Yisrael" was not required from the 
	purely decisive framework of "Ikkar Hadin", and went on to say that
	if it is freely available, then one can be "machmir" on himself.
	Yet, when it came to a camp who had to decide whether to subsidise
	extra pupils or have "Chalav Yisrael", he indicated that it would
	be better to get the "Chalav Yisrael". Surely, this is not just an 
	issue of quality versus quantity? Why didn't he say that Chalav Yisrael
	should be used, period. Then, if it wasn't available, he has a hetter?
	Doesn't this capture the intuition behind the Camp responsa? I have
	heard some people say that Reb Moshe, himself, did not use Chalav
	Yisrael - I guess that could only have been during times when it
	wasn't freely available?
	(2)
	With reference to dishwashers for both Milchig and Fleishig, it
	is well known (4 responsa) that Reb Moshe permitted it provided
	that seperate racks were used. In 3 of the four responsa he is
	quite consistent and repetitive. Yet in one of them, he adds
	"and when I am asked lemaaseh, I say that min haraooy, if you
	have time, you should make a cycle in between".
	Chronologically, this was his latest Tshuvah on the matter.
	Well, if Igros Moshe is "lemaaseh" why did he not say this
	in his other Tshuvos? Which is correct? What is the practical
	difference between "min haraooy" and "le hachmir"?


______________________________________________________________________

Why is it Yehoshua bin Nun and not Yehoshua ben Nun like the other meraglim?

				- Yechezkal Gutfreund

______________________________________________________________________


Is there a blessing one says upon having a baby? If so, what is it?

			 Bruce G Bukiet (ihnp4!lanl!bgb)

______________________________________________________________________

From:	DECWRL::"ihnp4!pruxe!ayf" "Avi Feldblum  25-Oct-87 1452 EST" 25-OCT-1987 16:41
To:	mail.jewish_notyet.subscribers
Subj:	   mail.jewish #60

     I hope you all had a good Yom Tov! With Yom Tov over, as  we
try  to  climb  over  all  the work that has piled up, I will try
getting the mailing list out on a regular basis again. There is a
new  place  you can send mailing list mail to (the old address of
[email protected]     is      still      good      as      well):
pruxe!prayf!mail.jewish. As yet, prayf is only known to pruxe. If
anyone out there would like to set up a uucp connection to prayf,
send me mail.
     One point that arose during the Yom Tov period  regarded  an
article  submitted  to  the  mailing  list  and  also  posted  to
soc.culture.jewish.  My position on this is that unless I feel it
is  of  particular  interest to the list members, I will not post
it, based on the assumption that most list members are also s.c.j
readers.  Now,  while  that was true when we started this list, I
don't know if that is still true. So, if you have any opinion  on
this  matter, please send them in to me. I will summerize and try
to reach a decision on this matter soon.
     And now,  back  to  the  submissions  (and  please  send  me
anything new you've got)!
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
        I found the discussion relating to cholov yisroel and the
whole  issue  of  "ro'ui  lehachmir"  interesting.  However, upon
consulting the relevant teshuvah <Iggros Moshe, Yoreh Deah,  Part
I,  Siman  47>, it appears to me that the matter was taken out of
context. Rav Moshe (ztz"l) wrote, "Ba'al nefesh 'ro'ui lehachmir'
ve'ein  bo  mishum  yuharoh."  (Trans:  A  person  punctilious in
observance can properly be strict with himself and  there  is  no
pretentiousness <in his drinking only cholov yisroel>.) This coda
follows his ruling that American "company  milk"  is  not  cholov
akum,  nor  is  there any doubt that the original Rabbinic decree
forbidding cholov akum does not  apply  to  government-controlled
commercial milk sold in the U.S.  Rav Moshe then informs "ba'alei
nefesh" that they can properly be strict and drink only specially
supervised  cholov yisroel. He needs to do so as "ba'alei nefesh"
are not interested in showing  themselves  to  be  ostentatiously
frum,  despite  their  desire  to  be  strict  with themselves in
personal observance.
     I would like to allow myself one observation  regarding  the
chumros  practiced  by  present  day  orthodoxy,  the drinking of
cholov yisroel having become one of the standards by which people
judge  their fellow's "frumkeit" (level of religious observance).
For most organized religious communities, including those here in
Eretz Yisro'el, there is no particular effort required to consume
only cholov yisroel.  If one examines the chumras  that  orthodox
Jewry  commonly  observes,  from eating only glatt kosher meat to
following the shi'urim of the Chazon Ish, most of  these  do  not
require any particular extra effort on the part of the people who
observe them. I imagine that it is easier to find  a  store  with
glatt  kosher  meat  in  Monsey  than  one that sells the regular
kosher kind. (Sometimes, though,  observing  chumras  do  require
extra expenditures.)
     Chumros that involve time and effort are generally not  very
popular.   For example, one may ask ourselves how many men (aside
from the Hassidic communities) go to  the  mikveh  every  morning
before  prayers.  Certainly  a  "ba'al  nefesh"  would do well to
observe takanas Ezra and appear before his Maker each morning  in
a  purified  state.  Or  take a glance into Shulchon Oruch, Orach
Chayim, Chapter 89 where we read that the time to pray  shacharis
is  at  the precise time the sun rises. And as the Mishnah Brurah
there writes: It is proper ("vero'ui") and correct to be  careful
in this matter. And ibid., Chapter 58, Halachah 1, Siman koton 6,
he writes that the basic mitzvah of shacharis is to pray with the
sunrise.  Moreover,  in  the Bi'ur Halachah, he writes that it is
preferable to pray at  sunrise  without  a  minyan  (if  none  is
available)  than  to  wait  for  the  minyan later on.  The Bi'ur
Halachah also writes there that it is better to pray  at  sunrise
without  tefilin  (if  one does not have them) than to wait until
one can obtain them.
    Where are all the "ba'alei nefesh" who feel it  necessary  to
be  machmir  and  pray  according  to the ro'ui lehachmir in this
case?
    The list could go on, but I would like to hear  reactions  of
your learned contributors.
 
Ezra L. Tepper, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
Bitnet: rrtepper@weizmann
Arpanet: rrtepper%[email protected]
Usenet: rrtepper%[email protected]
        ...!psuvax1!weizmann.bitnet!rrtepper
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
        Tell  me about what I'm supposed to do with an etrog from
Israel after Sukkot this year. From the instructions I  received,
I  can neither eat it, make it into marmalade, nor throw it away.
(For those who are totally lost, all the extra restrictions arise
from  the  fact that last year, when the etrog was growing, was a
shmita,  or  sabbatical,  year.)  I  must   be   misunderstanding
something.   Is the only option to give it back to the shule? And
what will they do with it?
 
Susan Slusky
 
[I asked R. Kaminetsky of Highland Park, N.J., and his reply  was
that you should keep the etrog until it fully dries out, and then
it can be thrown out. Mod.]
 
 
 
========================================================================
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
	id AA23658; Sun, 25 Oct 87 12:40:35 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA15908; 25 Oct 87 13:56:51 CST (Sun)

    re .-1
    
    The first of the notices in the halachic newsletter was so very
    technical that I (a liberal American Jew) could barely understand
    it at all.  Can someone here expound on the issues he is discussing
    in English (remember, I know only "prayerbook Hebrew", and very
    little Yiddish)?  I really appreciate these postings, even when
    I do not thoroughly understand what is being discussed.
    
    About etrogs: I had forgotten that last year was special, anyways,
    but I thought that so long as the blossom end of the etrog is intact,
    the etrog is kosher for use as an etrog - even if it is from last
    year's harvest, or even earlier - if the blossom end tip of the
    fruit breaks or falls off, the fruit cannot be used as an etrog
    even if it is not dried out (I don't know if you are then allowed
    to eat it - the only thing I ever do with an etrog, usually called
    a "citron" here, is use the candied rinds in coffecakes).  If my
    remembering is correct, one thing that she could do with the etrog
    then is to pack it back up in the box it came in (etrogs we get
    here usually are wrapped in what appears to be horeshair and packed
    in sturdy little shipping boxes - I always figured that that was
    so that the "point" would not break and render the fruit unusable)
    and save it until next year.  Then, if it is intact, it is usable,
    and if it isn't, it can be thrown away.  The etrog we use at our
    schul (as a community - I have never gotten my own) is usually saved.
           

    Re. .73:
    
    I agree that most of the Chumros that are widely accepted and used
    as measuring sticks are the easy ones. 
    
    I recall having a vehement arguement once with a "Chazon Ishnick"
    who supposedly had accepted upon himself all the chumros of the
    Chazon Ish yet did not bother himself to rise for Vasikin. 
    
    Regarding Cholov Yisroel: I recall speaking to both Mordechai and
    Yaakov Tendler (grandsons of Reb Moshe). They both stated that Reb
    Moshe's view was that there is no actual status of Cholov Yisroel.
    There is a prohibition of drinking Cholov Akum that is a mixture
    of Kosher and Trief milk. Any milk void of Trief milk is by definition
    allowed whether this void is caused by Government regulations or
    caused by supervision of a Mashgiach. They stated that with regard
    to this issue Reb Moshe included the statement quoted with regard
    to a Baal Nefesh more for "political" reasons (YES !!! even Reb
    Moshe was a victim of pressure and succombed).
    
    With regard to Esrogim from Israel:
    
    The basic problem of removing an Esrog from Israel has to do with
    the Biur (getting rid) of Shmita fruits that must take place in
    Israel. Now this of course only applies to fruits that exist. An
    Esrog MAY be either eaten or made into Jelly. It must be consumed
    entirely,however, by the middle of Shvat (time of Biur). Alternatively, it
    can be returned to Israel.
    
    Cb.
 

Topics:
                Administrivia
                        [Moderator]
                Kosher Gourmet Report
                        spked!khazar
                More on R' Moshe's T'suva
                        Isaac Balbin
                Lulav after Succot
                        David Snyder
______________________________________________________________________
 
Two administration type issues:
 
First, prayf is now  connected  to  rutgers.  You  can  send  mail  to
rutgers!prayf!mail.jewish,  and  if  this mail to you is going through
rutgers but not prayf, or if you have good connections to rutgers  and
you  think that is a better path, please let me know. The mailing list
is now approaching 150 people, and I'm trying to optimize the  mailing
of it.
 
Second, I have received the following from David Lubinsky:
 
     I have been thinking for a while of sending a  Mishna  a  day  to
     people  on  your  mailing list, if they want it.  I would use the
     Blackman translation, and send out a message each night, so  that
     people could start work each day with a Mishna.
 
I think the best way to do this is for anyone who  wishes  to  receive
the  daily  Mishna,  to send their name to either myself or David. His
net-address is:
 
rutgers!sabbath.rutgers.edu!lubinsky    or
[email protected]
 
Keep the submissions coming in!
 
Avi Feldblum - Moderator
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Report 1 on airline Kosher food.
 
        Hi, this is the flying Kosher gourmet, winging his way through
a  random  sampling  of airlines over this country.  Seriously, my job
takes me to many locations throughout  the  country,  on  several  air
lines, so I thought you all might be interested in my experiences.  If
there's interest in this information, I'll plan on making a  quarterly
report.
 
        Please remember these are my  *PERSONAL*  feelings,  and  have
nothing  to  do with any official position taken by anybody, living or
dead.
 
        All flights were coach class, between June 15 and the present.
(end  of  September)   Airlines will be ranked in order of my personal
preference.
 
1)      Delta.  If they're  not  crashing,  Delta  serves,  without  a
doubt,  the  best  food.  I've flown Delta five times, and the food is
always there, always warm, and usually pretty good.  They  don't  make
you  wait  for  the meal either. Most of the time, you have to ask for
the meal when they're serving to everyone else, and they go and get it
in  a  minute or two, but one very nice flight attendant had it on his
cart, simply asked me if I was the one who had ordered the  meal,  and
then  gave  it  to  me, no waiting or anything.  Meals are the typical
Wilton's or Shraft's food, nothing extrordinary, but all  the  entre's
are always there and nothing has ever made me ill.
 
2)      TWA.  I've only flown them twice, but the food  was  warm  and
edible,  although  somehow  it  seemed a little smaller or of slightly
lower quality than Delta.
 
3)      United.  A trial for the  faithful.   I've  flown  United  six
times,  and every meal I got was cold.  Four times the food was frozen
solid, (Picture a salad with frozen dressing and a  pastrami  sandwich
on  a  roll with ice crystals on it, and you'll get the idea.)  Twice,
the  food  made  me  distinctly  ill,  one  time  it  had  thawed  out
sufficiently  that  I  could eat the meal with no ill effects, and one
time the meal wasn't there and I went hungry.  Of the five meals I did
eat,  twice  there were missing parts from the food.  Once the missing
part was the main entre.  The strange thing was that these meals  were
the  same  Wilton  catered  meals as on Delta.  Why was the quality so
much worse?  Also, I twice asked the  flight  attendant  to  warm  the
meal,  and both times I was told that there was no way they could warm
the meal, despite the fact that the other meals  were  warm  and  that
they were serving hot coffee.
 
        The food was so bad that I did  something  I  had  never  done
before  in  my  life,  which  is to write a letter of complaint to the
company.  Two months later, I received an  answer,  saying  that  they
didn't  understand  how  the  food could be so bad and that they would
investigate, but the flights I had after the  answer  came  back  were
just as horrid.   United used to sent along a little questionaire form
with the meal, and I always filled them out, dutifully  reporting  the
meal  as  frozen  and  disgusting, but it's interesting to note that I
didn't get a questionaire with this month's flight.
 
4)      Continental.  Twice I asked for a Kosher meal on  Continental,
and  both  times I got nothing.  After the first time this happened, I
called Continental three times, over a one week period, to  make  sure
that  the request was still on their computer, but still no meal.  The
flight attendant on the second flight where this happened shrugged and
handed  me a petition of passangers who had likewise been shafted, and
asked me to add my name to the list.  I  am  probably  biased  against
Continental  since  this  flight  was  simply  awful.  We roasted on a
runway in the middle of summer with no air  conditioning,  suffocating
without ventilation, for over an hour.
 
                                        From spked!khazar
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
In reply to Ezra Tepper( m.j #60)
 
(1) There was no  contextual  problem  as  you  put  it.  It  was  not
difficult to know what Reb Moshe meant _in this T'shuva_ if you viewed
_only_ this T'shuva. It was however difficult  in  light  of  (a)  the
T'shuva to the school; (b) the later letter which said that ``now that
it is freely available, one should use it''.  Your  comments  pointing
out  the  Yuharoh  (ostentatious) factor do not help to clarify issues
(a) and (b).
 
(2) Whilst I  would  not  class  myself  as  a  Ba'al  Nefesh,  nor  a
spokesperson  for  them,  I  find  nothing  at all strange with Ezra's
observation. Most people will not be Ba'alei Nefesh  -  however,  many
will  adopt customs, dictums etc pertinent to Ba'alei Nefesh when this
is very easy to achieve. To pray Vatikin (early in morning) is  harder
for  many  than  to  buy  Glatt,  or  Chalav  Yisrael.   That orthodox
communities take certain customs from Ba'alei Nefesh is a nice  thing;
it  is  when they LOOK DOWN ON those who don't that this issue becomes
problematic and divisive. It is problematic because they have  grabbed
the minor tennets of judaism and forlorn the major ones.
 
Equally, many groups tend to feel that they aren't quite  as  good  if
they  don't adopt these easy to do chumros - this is also very sad. In
most cases, _if_ you know what you are doing, and why you are doing it
you  should  sleep  quite  contently at night without feeling any less
than anyone else.  Easier said than done! By the way, why no  reaction
to the tuna fish business?
 
Isaac Balbin
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
         I would like to know what can be  done  with  a  lulav  after
succoss?  Can it just be thrown away or what?
 
David Snyder
 
 
 
========================================================================
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
	id AA24298; Mon, 16 Nov 87 19:09:21 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA17619; 16 Nov 87 20:10:29 CST (Mon)

Topics:
                Follow-ups on Airline Kosher Meals
                                Joe Abeles
                                Arthur Altman
                                Shimon Schwartz
                Re: What to do with your Lulov
                                Shalom Krischer
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding airline food  experiences,  (probably  others  have  similar
stories), I wrote a nasty letter to United after flying from LaGuardia
to Reno (I think) in January this year and not  receiving  any  kosher
dinner.   I  had  requested  it  and  at  the  front  desk it had been
confirmed that a "special" meal was waiting for me.  It, however,  was
not a kosher special meal, but something else (I have forgotten).
 
I argued that I would have carried on a kosher meal had I  known  they
were  not going to live up to their word.  United sent me a $25 credit
towards a future flight.
 
I've really had enough of this kind of garbage, though I don't fly  as
frequently  as  the person who started this discussion.  Clearly there
are airline employees who don't care to satisfy the requests in  black
and  white  on  their  order  forms  for kosher meals.  Are they anti-
semites?
 
Could we refuse to pay the credit card bills for our  airline  tickets
or  a portion thereof based on the airline's failure to live up to its
end of the deal?
 
Finally, perhaps if enough of the participants in  this  mailing  list
could  pool  their  experiences  and document them, something could be
done about this.  For example, getting access to  airline  presidents,
or publicity in a Jewish newspaper.
 
--Joe Abeles
 
[ If there are  several  complaints  of  this  nature  about  specific
airline  companies,  I will compile a list of the worst offenders, and
make those airlines aware of our displeasure. Those of  you  that  are
flying  on  corporate  accounts  may wish to have a letter sent to the
travel agencies or corporate divisons in charge of arranging  business
flights.
                                                        Mod. ]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I read part 1 of the Kosher Gourmet Report with great  interest.   Let
me  add  this to the pool of experiences.  I have found the quality of
airline kosher food itself to be poor  across  the  board.   That  is,
aside  from  whether  it  was well-served by the airline, the caterer-
supplied meals suffer from  an  incredible  lack  of  imagination  and
ignorance  of  modern  health  consciousness.   I do not wish to eat a
heavy, fatty meat with overcooked vegetable  and  sugary  dessert  for
lunch or for supper in general, and particularly not when I am flying.
The message I get from such low quality food is: "Take it or leave it.
You're a captive audience so why should we try harder?"
 
My solution has been to order airline Vegetarian meals.   These  meals
contain  no meat or dairy or fish, they consist ONLY of pareve breads,
fruits and vegetables.  I have always found them to be creatively  and
attractively  prepared,  wonderfully fresh and satisfying and just the
sort of light meal that keeps  my  stomach  happy  in  turbulence.   I
almost  always  get an envious glance from the person beside me who is
eating the usual mystery meat.  So far, I have found the food  quality
and service quite consistent across airlines.
 
[From a halachic point of view, I believe this  alternative  is  quite
questionable. Mod]
 
Regards,
 
Arthur Altman
Texas Instruments
Dallas, Tx.
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
I took Eastern round-trip Boston-Seattle last year (four meals).   All
food  was served at the proper temperature, either at the beginning of
the meal or within 10 minutes of service to adjacent passengers.
 
A  friend  who  took  Continental,  and  got  zapped,  reported   that
Continental's  official  policy  is  -not- to refund in case a special
meal is discarded.  I  accept  this  in  the  context  of  a  discount
airline, to be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
 
I always introduce myself to the flight attendants when  I  board  the
aircraft,  asking  if my special meals have been loaded.  Eastern puts
the passenger's name on the meal, so it's unlikely that  it  will  get
lost.   The aforementioned problem with Continental occurred when they
gave the kosher meal to the wrong person; they probably don't tag  the
meals.
 
                                --- Shimon
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
David Snyder (hi David!) asks what one is to do with an old Lulav.  As
a  D'var  Mitzvah, even after Sukkot is over, the Lulav does have some
Kedusha associated with it, and should therefore not be ignobly thrown
out!   Rather,  many  people use it for another Mitzvah.  You can save
them as Schach, or, if you have too much  already,  why  not  save  it
until  Pesach,  and then use it as kindling for burning the Chametz???
Or yet another idea...as children we learned how to weave  the  leaves
into  mats  and animals...Sukkah decorations?!?  As you can see, there
are many ways of utilizing an old D'var Mitzvah for a  new  mitzvah!!!
Hope I was of some help...
 
         --Shalom Krischer--
 
 
========================================================================
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
	id AA06058; Sun, 15 Nov 87 17:41:13 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA00624; 15 Nov 87 19:06:20 CST (Sun)

 
>     I have been thinking for a while of sending a  Mishna  a  day  to
>     people  on  your  mailing list, if they want it.  I would use the
>     Blackman translation, and send out a message each night, so  that
>     people could start work each day with a Mishna.
 

    As they say down in Georgia, Shalom Y'all,

    I am getting myself on the mailing list.  I will open up a new note
    for the mishna of the day and deposit all the mailings there.

    Gavriel

   Topic:
        Administrivia
                                Mod.
        Complacency (Re: More on R' Moshe's T'suva (m.j_61))
                                Lazer Danzinger
        Chumrot: Halacha and Perspective
                                Avi Feldblum
______________________________________________________________________
 
Just a few quick items.  1) prayf crashed this past week,  so  if  you
sent stuff there it may have got lost (but I don't think much did). If
you don't see it in the next mailing, or I didn't respond to something
I  should  have,  try and resend it.  2) I received a few more airline
kosher meal stories, I will probably make the next issue a special  on
that  topic.  3) Going from the practical to the more philosophical, I
hope this issue of the mailing list will generate as  much  discussion
(or  at  least some discussion) as whether your kosher meal was served
hot over Chicago :-)
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
The  following  is  in  response  to  Issac  Balbin's  submission   in
mail.jewish #61.
 
I am in quite agreement that one ought never to look down  at  another
Jew.  However,  let's  just  clarify  one  small  but essential point.
Judaism/G-d  *does*  indeed  expect  a  person  to  grow  and  develop
spiritually--in all areas.  This means trying to learn more Torah each
and every day, with more concentration each and every  day.  It  means
being  more  meticulous  in  the observance of commandments. Its means
growing in Ahavas HaShem and Yiras HaShem  (love  and  fear  of  G-d),
which   will   naturally  translate  itself  into  keeping  additional
important "chumras" and "hidurim".
 
I think it is a great deal easier to get to sleep if you feel as  good
as  every  one else. Other people can and should always be "dan le'kaf
zechus" (give the benefit of the doubt, so to speak).  One cannot  and
should  not  be  so  easy  with  oneself, though.  "Ve'nafshi ke'affer
le'kol te'hiya" [And my soul should be like dust to  everyone.  trans.
by  Mod].  Spiritual lethargy and complentency, I think, is one of the
greatest threats facing the Orthodox, regardless  of  group.  "Mitzvos
anashim  melumada", commandments performed by rote, is a big stumbling
block.
 
As such, and as a compromise, I would suggest  what  it  says  in  the
Zohar.  We  have to have happiness implanted in one side of our hearts
and bitterness in the other. Happiness because we are  Jewish  and  we
have  the  opportunity  to  perform  G-d's  commandments.  Bitterness,
because each individual knows in the inner recesses of his heart  that
he  falls  short  of his potential, falls short of what G-d expects of
him. As our Sages say, each person must ask  himself:  "When  will  my
deeds approximate those of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?"
 
No Isaac. The problem is not that we cannot sleep contently at  night.
The problem, I think, is that we do sleep too contently at night.
 
Lazer
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
There have been several submissions that have revolved around  what  I
view as a major issue which confronts Orthodox Jewry today. There is a
tendency today among many people to say that we must be more  'strict'
in our observance of halacha, that we should take on, to the extent we
can, as many 'chumrot' as we can. [A 'chumrah' is an observance of the
law where something is basically permitted, but one takes upon oneself
to forbid that something.] There tends to be an extension of  this  in
some circles that says that you are on a higher 'level' if you take on
these chumrot, and conversely, you are on a lower level if you do not.
The  issue  of  chumrot,  their  halachic  status and the attitudes of
various groups within orthodoxy toward chumrot  is  in  my  opinion  a
major  issue  today. Many issues that appear to be completely distinct
may in reality have this issue as at least a major contributer.
 
There are two issues that I think should be addressed. The first issue
is  what  is  the  attitude  of  halacha  to  taking on chumrot. Is it
encouraged or even permitted to anyone to take  on  any  chumrah  they
wish?  Is  it  permitted  to rule for others that they should follow a
chumrah?
 
A second issue that comes up is the lack  of  differentiation  between
that  which  is  basic halacha and that which is a chumrah. Many times
people do not even know whether what they  are  doing  is  a  chumrah,
rather  than  what  is  required by halacha. This may have significant
consequences! I will start with some of  my  thoughts  on  the  second
issue in this mailing, before going back to the first issue in a later
mailing.
 
The Rambam in the end of the second chapter  of  the  laws  of  Mamrim
(Rebels)  defines what the prohibition of 'Lo Tosif' - 'Do not add (to
the laws of the Torah)' is. The Rambam has  just  finished  explaining
that  the Sanhedrin Hagadol (Great Court of 71 that sat in the Temple)
has the right to legislate pretty much  as  they  see  fit,  including
adding  extensions  to existing Torah laws (see the first two chapters
there for more details). So what is the prohibition of 'Do  not  add'?
The  Rambam  explains that while Sanhedrin has the right to legislate,
they may not say that what they have legislated is Torah  law.  Rather
they must make it clear that have added this for what ever reason they
saw fit to do so.
 
While the above refers specifically to the High Court, I  believe  the
implication  for  all  of  us  is  clear.  We  have  an  obligation to
understand the origin of the various laws, and we should not pass  off
a D'Rabbanan (of Rabbinic origin) as a D'Orita (of Torah origin), or a
chumrah as either a D'Rabbanan or a D'Orita. One consequence  of  this
confusion  or lack of knowledge about the origins of various things we
do is when two issues come in conflict. I have  seen  clear  D'Orita's
violated  in order to keep a chumrah! The most common in my experience
is a chumrah in kashrut (or shabbat)  and  the  D'Oritas  involved  in
interpersonal  relationships.  It is forbidden on the D'Orita level to
embarrass a fellow Jew, especially in public. Yet a person  will  come
to anothers house for a Kiddush or Simcha and then proceed to publicly
question whether it is XXX's shachita (slaughtering) or not, and  when
told  it  is not to question out loud how anyone can eat it since they
are not careful about (some chumrah). I am talking here about  a  case
where  the  food  at  the Kiddush is kosher according to Halacha. This
individual who has come  to  the  kiddush  may  subscribe  to  certain
chumrot,  and  therefor  does  not  use  certain items that are at the
kiddush. That is (or maybe is not) his  perogative.  However  in  this
case,  he  has publically embarrassed the host of the Kiddush. That is
clearly forbidden.
 
All to often, it is these chumrot that act  as  points  of  contention
between   different  groups.  This  friction  can  grow  and  lead  to
divisiveness in the Jewish community. I think it is important that  we
know  the  origins of what we are doing, so that we can look at things
that are divisive and say, Yes, I can bend a little about this  issue,
Yes,  I  can it this way and you another way, yet we are all following
in the Torah's way. It is when one doesn't know the source  of  things
that  one  feels  one  must  treat  any difference as a violation of a
D'Orita.
 
Avi Feldblum [email protected]   or  ayf%[email protected]
 
========================================================================
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
	id AA01617; Tue, 24 Nov 87 13:17:20 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA11321; 24 Nov 87 14:55:04 CST (Tue)

Topic:
        More on airline meals
                        Harlan Braude
                        Sam Saal
                        Harry H. Chefitz
                        Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund
                        Harry I. Rubin
                        David N. Deutsch
______________________________________________________________________
 
One quick administration issue before we get into  our  meals  in  the
sky.  A  point  that was brought up was including the email address of
contributors so that people can respond directly to them.  For  future
mailings,   if   you   want   your  email  address  included  in  your
contribution, please put your name and email address at the end of the
article (preferably on one line). - Mod.
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Dr. Abeles asked if it was possible to withhold credit-card payment of
airline  tickets  in  cases  where  the  kosher  meal  ordered  is not
delivered. From my layman understanding of airline charges,  the  meal
is  simply  a  frill  that is not considered part of their contractual
obligation toward the passengers.
 
Their contractual obligation -  the  contract  being  the  ticket  you
purchased  - is simply to provide the passenger with transportation by
air to the destination written on  the  ticket.  Everything  else  (eg
movies, meals, snacks, etc) is provided to make the trip more pleasant
and thereby attract return business.
 
That being the case, the only recourse a person  denied  these  things
has  is  to  do  just  what  Dr.  Abeles  said he did - submit written
complaints. Stopping payment on the tickets in such a  case  would  be
wrong,  in  my  opinion  and  might even leave one open to other legal
entanglements related to non-payment for services rendered.
 
Harlan Braude mtx5d!hbb
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have flown many different airlines over the course of the years.   I
find  that I rarely get the meal I ordered unless I call to confirm my
reservation and the meal a couple of days  before  the  flight.   Even
then,  the  meals  are  never  good.   The  hot portion is usually hot
enough, but the rest is always frozen (still has ice crystal  and  the
bread/cake  is nice and crispy on the inside).  I've written to Wilton
and Shreiver (sp?) and gotten the usual platitudinous  replies.   Once
in  a  while they simply ignore my complaints ("These meals are packed
to the highest standards blah blah blah...).
 
I think I must agree with Arthur Altman's assessment about the quality
although I am not sure about his solution.
 
Sam Saal
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Many airlines have "lost" my reserved kosher meal, but  let  me  share
with you the worst experience.
 
Eastern Airlines, round trip from Newark  to  Ft.  Lauderdale:  I  was
flying  with my wife and ordered two kosher meals. As usual, I checked
with the stewardess upon entering to make sure  they  had  the  meals,
and,  as  usual, she said "no problem; if you ordered it, we will have
you on the list"  When it came time to eat, they only had  one  kosher
meal for the two of us.
 
While in Florida, I called Eastern to confirm that they had TWO kosher
meals  reserved  for  our  trip  back.  On the day of our departure, I
called twice to check on the time of the  departure,  and  both  times
they again reconfirmed that I had TWO kosher meals reserved.
 
When entering the plane for boarding, I checked with  the  stewardess.
"No  problem,"  she  said  (why do they always answer as if they never
make mistakes?).  When it came time to eat, they only had  one  kosher
meal,  and  they  showed  me  the list that only had one meal under my
name.  I went into the kitchen area and asked  them  to  check  again,
explaining I had confirmed the meals 3 TIMES!  Mysteriously, they were
able to come up with an extra meal (I think  they  had  given  it  out
already  to  someone  who had not ordered it), but the stewardess said
that I should always get the name of the person I  confirm  the  meals
with, so I can report him/her in case of another screw-up.
 
As I said, I've had other problems besides this  case,  but  this  one
still sticks in my mind because it was the only time I confirmed meals
3 times and they still blew it.
 
Harry H. Chefitz
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I too have had a  few  problems  with  Kosher  service  on  United.  I
switched  to  American  and I would estimate about 85% of the time the
food is warm (or I will leave it double wrapped and have them heat it)
and  they  have  been  quite  good at finding me to give me the kosher
food.  It  is  quite  interesting  to  watch  the  reactions  of  some
steward/esses to a kosher food request in some hinterland parts of the
nation. There is a look of respect/awe/or something  other  that  some
non-Jews  are able to affect when coming across a religous Jew which I
cannot adequately capture in words.
 
P.S. my father, who flies extensively  has  had  some  really  winning
experiences sometimes. He once went to Nashville and got a Pesach meal
in the fall.
 
-=-=-=-=-=-
 
On the topic of food quality and vegetables, I too have  noted  it  is
poor,  especially  with  respect  to  fresh vegatables. Lately, I have
noticed that Wilton's is including a card (maybe because  the  surveys
cards  we  fill out) which advises the traveler of the difficulties in
mass production techniques in preparing  kosher  food  and  inspecting
fresh green vegatables.
 
Perhaps one of our network scholar's (talmiday Chachamim)  would  like
to  give  an  overview  and  insights  into the "BUG" problem. I would
certainly like to know if ANY preperation of broccolli is  universally
acceptable.   The  recent  upsurge  in  "BUG"  consciousness  is quite
noticable where I am.  Many  of  those  I  know  have  abandoned  even
iceberg  lettuce  because  of  the  difficulties with bugs. As one FFB
women put it: "When I grew up we didn't have bugs", (it was send in  a
humerous vein).
 
                                - Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have had problems with a number of airlines with respect  to  kosher
meals.   Continental has been pretty bad, and I have had problems with
Northwest, too.  I used to make a point of writing to the airline (ask
the  stewardess,  oops,  flight  attendant,  for the address) whenever
there were problems.  I usually got a polite response, and sometimes a
check  for  $10  or $25 (that hasn't happened for a long time though).
In one case, service on that airline was noticeably better on a flight
some months after I wrote.
 
After not receiving a kosher meal on a TWA flight,  I  wrote  to  TWA.
They  wrote  back that they were very sorry and that they thought they
should be able to do better and that they would look  into  it.   Some
months  later I was booked to fly from San Francisco to Minneapolis on
TWA.  The flight was overbooked, and since  I  wasn't  in  a  hurry  I
volunteered  to  be  bumped  in  return  for  sufficient compensation,
including TWA getting me to Minneapolis by the next  fastest  routing.
That turned out to involve a flight to Los Angles followed by a flight
from L.A. to Minneapolis.  I told them I would like a kosher  meal  on
the  LA-Mpls flight; they said it was very short notice but they would
see what they could do.  Sure enough, several hours later there was  a
kosher meal on the LA-Mpls flight.  I felt sure (without any objective
evidence) that my earlier letter had caused them  to  shape  up  their
kosher meal handling.
 
I felt a moral obligation to let the airlines know that  kosher  meals
were  important  to  at  least  some  of  their customers, and that it
mattered to us when they messed up.  Frankly, I have gotten  tired  of
writing to airlines and seldom do it anymore, but I strongly encourage
others to take up the torch.  It also occurred to  me  that  it  would
probably be equally important, or even more important, to write to the
airlines when a kosher meal did appear properly, to let them know that
it is important to us and that we really appreciate that service.
 
One other note for when kosher meals do not appear:  the  stewardesses
often have a few extra trays, from which they may give you the salads,
rolls, etc.  Alternatively, nearby passengers may be willing  to  swap
their  salad  or  piece  of  cheese for your ham sandwich.  Of course,
these items are not under strict kosher supervision, but for some that
is fine.
 
Harry I. Rubin - rutgers!ucbarpa.berkeley.edu!harry
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
     My family and I used Continental Airlines to  fly  a  round  trip
between Newark, N.J. and Orlando, Florida.  My wife called the airline
a couple of times and they assured us that  the  relevant  information
was in the database.  On our southbound trip, they had no special food
on board.  Another family complained that they had ordered kids  meals
(hot  dogs  and/or  hamburgers) that also weren't available.  In fact,
the plane came from PeopleExpress and didn't even have  facilities  to
heat  such  items!   That  proves  that  they  don't discriminate.  We
checked upon landing that our requests were in for the  return  flight
(they  apparently  were).   When we reached the gate for our departure
from Orlando, we asked about  our  kosher  meals.   Of  course,  there
weren't any available.  They checked the reservation information (they
typed some approximation to my name) and, lo and behold, came up  with
all  of  our  special  requests.  Even though the name was misspelled,
their matching program did a good job.  They  then  typed  the  flight
number  and,  guess  what,  we  somehow  were  NOT listed for anything
special.  Apparently, they can have two (or more) databases  that  are
not consistent.
 
     We  called  their  800  number  to  complain  and  were  given  a
runaround.   Finally,  somebody told us that ``all such special orders
are requests only, not guaranteed, and besides, they can't always  get
a  Rabbi  to bless the food.''  So much for their understanding of the
matter.
 
    My wife and I flew Continental again about two weeks  later,  this
time  between  Newark  and  Fort Lauderdale.  Our kosher meals were on
board both times.  Going down, they were frozen with some ice crystals
still  remaining  (again, no heating facilities).  Returning, the food
was quite good (it came from someplace nearby  in  Florida).   All  in
all, one good experience, one bad, and a great story.
 
                                 David           N.            Deutsch
______________________________________________________________________
 The score to date is:
 
Eastern -;+
United -;-
American +
Continental -;-;-;-;+
TWA +;+
Delta +
 
The flow of airline reports has slowed down, so I'll hold anymore I
get for a future issue.
                                        Mod.
 
========================================================================
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
	id AA00679; Tue, 1 Dec 87 00:39:02 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA03562; 30 Nov 87 22:56:07 CST (Mon)

Topics:
                Rise of the Religious Right
                        Lou Steinberg
                Chumrot - Cont.
                        Danny Wildman
                        Josh Proschan
______________________________________________________________________
 
Many of us who associate ourselves with Orthodox observance have  been
fairly  complacent  about  the rising political power of the religious
right  wing in America, at least much more so than our less  observant
brothers.  This has been true for a number of reasons, largely because
we hope that in a number of ways the growth of the non-Jewish relgious
right  may  help  encourage  Jews,  too,  to  become  more religiously
involved.   However,  I've  started  to  wonder  if   the   non-Jewish
phenomenon is indeed "good for the Jews".
 
The thing that has started me wondering is the sequence of messages by
Ken Arndt in soc.culture.jewish (that's a Unix news-group, if there is
anyone out there unfamiliar with it).  He started by posting a  series
of  "questions",  containing  the typical missionary-to-the-Jews line.
When essentially no one in the newsgroup was willing to engage him  in
this  "dialogue" and several people told him we were not interested in
a disputation, he got shriller, insisting we owed it to him to hold  a
dialogue.   Unfortunately,  around that point a few posters lost their
cool and used  inappropriate  language  (that  is,  language  that  he
deserved  but  that  was  inappropriate to be actually said).  He then
became threatening, and went so far as to say that he now saw  one  of
the  roots  of  anti-Semitism and the Holocaust in the way he had been
treated by the s.c.j-ers.  It turns out that  Ken  Arndt  is  a  major
activist for Pat Robertson, the TV preacher running for president.
 
So, I'm wondering if the rise of  the  religious  right  may  lead  to
substantially  increased  conversionary pressures, pressures which the
Jewish community  is  tragically  under-educated  to  face,  and  also
substantial hostility as it becomes clear to them that we really don't
want to be converted.  Or is the current secularist society still more
of  a danger, with all of its assimilation and intermarriage?  What do
you folks think?
 
Louis Steinberg  - [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I would like to add a gloss to Avi Feldblum's  point  with  regard  to
Chumrot, d'Rabanan, and d'Oraita [stringencies, Rabbinical enactments,
and Torah laws]. Avi notes that on occasion d'Oraita  laws  pertaining
to public embarrassment of a fellow Jew are violated in the name of an
observance of lesser weight (particularly Chumrot).   He  argues  that
this may result from a lack of knowledge of the source of various laws
and customs.
 
While I agree with Avi's premise that the source  of  a  law  must  be
preserved  with  its  observance,  I  would ascribe the dynamic of the
conflict he outlines to the differences between ritualistic,  concrete
mitzvot  bayn adam laMakom [between man and G-d] and the less bounded,
and less conspicuous, mitzvot  bayn  adam  l'chavero  [between  fellow
mortals].
 
There are many reasons why people are frequently more scrupulous  with
ceremonial/concrete  observances  than  with  those  concerning social
action and interaction. Among these  are  ignorance,  finitude,  ease,
appearances,  our  educational system, and popular attention. (See the
Chafetz Chayim's sefer Ahavat Chesed for a more complete treatment  of
the  rationalizations  people  construct  to  avoid performing gemilat
chesed.) Whatever the individual motivation,  our  overall  preference
for  the  ritual  at the expense of the more abstract (including Torah
study sometimes also), seems deeply entrenched.
 
In the  previous  sentence  I  used  the  term  "at  the  expense  of"
deliberately.  I believe in the conservation of human energy, that is,
we mortals  have  only  so  much  koach  [strength]  to  channel  into
religious  life.  Different  Jews  excel at different mitzvot, but few
excel at all. Most of us make choices,  not  all  of  them  conscious,
about  which  mitzvot to put our efforts into; this implies that other
mitzvot will get less than their fair  share  of  attention.   Indeed,
stories  about  our  tzadikim  and  gedolim frequently emphasize their
ability to give equal time to acts of benevolence and acts  of  ritual
performance. Not all of us are tzadikim, so we compromise something. I
submit that, more  often  than  not,  we  "sacrifice"  the  bayn  adam
l'chavero.
 
How many people accept Chumrot regarding giving tzedakah? bikur cholim
[visiting  the sick]? hachnasat orchim [welcoming guests]?  Are Rabbis
faced  with  sh'aylot  [halachic  questions]  on  bearing  a   grudge,
comforting  the  mourner,  taking  collateral?  Is  anyone  publishing
plastic cards with the shiurim [minimum sizes] for loans and gifts  to
the poor?
 
Perhaps the immediate gratification upon completing a discrete ritual,
accompanied  by  feelings  of  righteousness (or self-righteous ness),
perpetuates the pattern of coming closer to G-d through further ritual
action.  In  other words, the Chumra can become a conditioned response
to  legitimize  religious  feelings.  Because   of   the   sacrifices,
discipline,  and  trouble  involved in gemilut chesed [doing kindness]
and shmirat lashon [watching  one's  tongue],  those  mitzvot  do  not
readily serve as reinforcers for religious feelings.
 
The problem, as Avi points out, occurs when the  Chumra  supercedes  a
d'Rabanan  or d'Oraita. It is probably also a problem when one has not
reached a level of minimum  observance  of  the  required  "bayn  adam
l'chavero"  halachot  while accepting Chumrot between himself and G-d.
That individual's koach would be better spent on achieving a  balance.
Only  when  one  has reached the shiurim for tzedaka and fulfilled, as
much as possible, acts of kindness to others, would it  be  proper  to
venture into the realm of Chumra.
 
In a previous interchange, it was pointed out that although there  are
blessings  to  be recited upon the birth of a child, just as there are
brachot upon seeing a friend after an extensive  absence,  we  do  NOT
customarily  recite  these  blessings today. Is this a reflection of a
decline in our regard for our fellow human beings? Have we  so  numbed
ourselves  to our interpersonal feelings that we don't feel sufficient
joy at seeing a friend to justify a bracha?  Perhaps we need to become
MORE  accustomed to associating G-d's name with our fellow Jew, rather
than just with ourselves.
 
Daniel Wildman
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding  Lazer  Danziger's  remarks;  the  desire  to  grow   should
first  manifest itself in improving the simple performance of mitzvos.
As Rabbi Heineman wrote in an article on supervision of  meat,  it  is
more important that the meat is kosher than that it is glatt.
 
     [I hesitate  to  offer  a  translation  of  "glatt",   which
     doesn't  seem  to mean anything any more.    It used to mean
     "smooth";  in  particular,    meat   from   an  animal  with
     smooth   lungs.     The  significance  is  that if the lungs
     are not smooth,   or  other defects are visible,  an  expert
     has  to  be  asked whether the meat is  kosher.   There is a
     chumrah to only eat meat on  which  no questions were asked,
     even  though  the other meat is definitely kosher.  The term
     used to apply only to beef.   Nowadays, glatt seems to  mean
     what  "pure"   means  to the FDA;  nothing whatever.  I have
     seen glatt kosher pizza shops, ...]
 
For  chumroth  and  hidurim to serve a purpose,   there  must   be   a
proper  foundation.    To  work on hidurim and chumroth without having
achieved  a good level of performance of the  plain  mitzvos  is  like
trying  to  apply   a  French  polish finish to wood that has not been
sanded smooth.  One should also  guard  against  perfecting  one  area
of  mitzvos,    and   then   adding  chumroth and hidurim,  when other
areas still need work at the  level  of plain halachah.
 
I  must   add   that  everything  Lazer  says  applies   directly   to
improving  oneself on the level of plain halachah.   One should simply
keep in  mind that  chumroth  are intended to be a means  to  an   end
(self-improvement); they are not an end in themselves.
 
Regarding  Avi  Feldblum's article,  I  would  add  a   third   issue:
the  distinction between valid and invalid chumroth.  My understanding
is that a person cannot simply create chumroth;  they  must  be  based
on   halachic  opinions  of  recognized  authorities.  That is, if the
majority of rabbinic authorities have ruled leniently on  a  question,
an   individual   may  choose  to   follow   one   of   the   stricter
authorities.     Anything   else   is   an  individual  habit,  not  a
chumrah.
 
A fourth issue:  consistency of chumroth.    Can  a  person  accept  a
chumroh  regarding  a  certain  thing  in only one area, or must it be
followed in all areas?  An example is opening  refrigerator  doors  on
Shabbos.   Many people have  a  chumroh that refrigerator doors should
only be opened  when  the motor  is on,  to  avoid  having  the  motor
turn  as  a result of opening  the door.   The same effect occurs with
central air conditioning and heating; is a  person   permitted  to  be
strict  regarding   opening  refrigerator doors and  lenient regarding
opening house doors and windows with   the   central  system  on?   Is
consistency required, or do we follow Thoreau?
 
     [There is a serious question here.   I  once asked a  posek   how
     people  who  are machmir on refrigerators go in and out of  their
     houses  on Shabbos,  and he replied "That's why I  don't   follow
     that chumrah."]
 
Finally, an addition to the first  issue:  what  is  the  attitude  of
halachah  to  chumroth?   Are  they vows,  prohibitions,  etc.  in the
biblical sense?  What establishes something as a chumrah for a person?
What  must  be  done  if  a  person  wishes to stop doing a particular
chumrah?
 
Josh Proschan

Topics:
                Administrivia
                        Moderator
                Tuna Fish
                        Harold S. Wyzansky
                Chumrot - Cont.
                        Asher Meth
                Shiva Question
                        R. Yaacov Haber
______________________________________________________________________
 
In the last mailing, I edited a line that may have changed the meaning
of  the  sentence.  The  following  is  the  corrected  line  (from D.
Wildman's posting).
     In other words, the Chumra can become a conditioned  response  to
     legitimate religious feelings.
I have recently become aware of a PC based discussion group on Torah and
Halacha  issues. It is part of something known as Kesher-net or Kesher
Echos. I am open to comments concerning gatewaying this  mailing  list
onto  that  forum. If I get no negative responses, I will try and find
out from that end if they are interested.
 
I am holding on to any more comments about airline  food.  When  other
topics  dry  out,  I'll  make  another posting on that topic. The next
mailing  will  have  several  comments  on  Lou's  posting  about  the
religious  right,  so  if  you have any comments on that, send them in
soon.
 
        Moderator
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
In reference to Isaac Balbin's question about the status of  O-U  Tuna
Fish,  the  following article appeared in the Rosh Hashana, 5748/1987,
issue of Jewish Action, p. 58:
               "THE KOSHER STATUS OF TUNA FISH:
                      A STATEMENT OF FACT
     You may have heard or read about a recent difference  of  opinion
between  the  Orthodox  Union and the Kashruth Department of the Chief
Rabbinate of Israel about appropriate Kashruth standards as relates to
cooking procedures of tuna product, manufactured by Chicken of the Sea
in Bangkok, Thailand, and imported to Israel.
 
     The  Halachic  principles  upon  which  the  OU   standards   and
procedures  as  relate  to tuna are based, were carefully reviewed and
approved by Hagaon Rav Joseph B.  Soloveitchik,  Shlita.   Hagaon  Rav
Ovadia Yosef, in his responsa, ("Yechaveh Daas", volume V, chapter 54;
"Yabiah Omer", volume V, chapter 9); Hagaon Rav  Yitzchok  Weiss,  the
head  of the Eida Hachareidit ("Minchas Yitzchok", volume III, chapter
26) as well as many others approve of these very standards, as related
to  cooking  procedures.  (See  also  Rama, "Yoreh Deah", chapter 113,
sections 4 and 7; "Darkei Teshuva", chapter  113,  section  6;  Birkei
Yosef,  "Yoreh  Deah", chapter 112, section 9 quoting Maharit Stzolen;
"Sefer Taharas Mayim", page 199.)
 
     Furthermore we are informed by the Chief Rabbinate  of  Jerusalem
that  these are the same procedures that are in place in Jerusalem and
that, consequently, it has approved the use and sales of the  tuna  in
that city.
 
     The  Orthodox  Union  therefore  strongly  regrets  the  careless
statements  made  by  some  staff  members  at the Office of the Chief
Rabbinate.
 
     The Orthodox  Union  Kashruth  program  is  one  of  the  premier
accomplishments  of  the  organized  Jewish community.  It remains the
only national communal Hashgacha  in  the  United  States  which  has,
through  the high standards of its certification program, enhanced the
observance  and  awareness  of  Kashruth  in  the  United  States  and
throughout the world."
 
Harold S. Wyzansky          [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
I recall a Chumash shiur given by Rabbi  Herschel  Schachter  (YU)  on
Parshat  Yitro  5747.  He spoke about the concept of "lifnim mi-shurat
hadin" (going beyond the letter of the law) and "chumra" (following  a
more stringent than the required level of observance).
 
He said that acting "lifnim mi-shurat hadin"  is  a  demonstration  of
"Ahavat  HaShem"  (love  of  G-d); that you realize & know that HaShem
would like this mode of  action  (which  is  more  than  is  generally
required), and act accordingly to make Him happy. So, too, "chumra" is
a demonstration of "Ahavat HaShem". A similar theme is brought down in
the sefer (book) "Mesilat Yesharim" (Paths of the Just) by Rabbi Moshe
Chaim Luzzatto (Ramchal). Similarly we find the  phrase  "ve-hamachmir
tavoh  alav  berachah"  -  he  who  is stringent with himself, will be
blessed.
 
He quoted a Gemara which relates that Rabbi Akiva had a doubt  in  the
understanding  of the opinion of Beit Hillel in the matter of when the
New Year for Trees occurred, & therefore, accustomed himself to follow
both  opinions,  "le-chumra"  in  accordance  with  "lifnim  mi-shurat
hadin".
 
We express our "Ahavat HaShem" through the observance of  mitzvot.  To
assert  that  one is accepting a higher than required level of "Ahavat
HaShem", one must first function on the required level, following  the
letter  &  the  spirit of ALL the laws, in all areas. Only after one's
observance has reached the required lower level, can one  then  strive
to  achieve  a higher level. Thus, to accept "chumros" upon oneself in
some area while still lacking in many other areas, just does not  make
sense.
 
"Chumra" is a very noble practice, but within  its  own  boundaries  -
when  & for whom; each according to his own "madreiga" - current level
of observance. In this context, "chumra" can  then  represent  "Ahavat
HaShem";  else,  it  can  be  "mechzei  keyohara" or "yohara mamash" -
appear like haughtiness, demonstrating that for this person  religious
observance is just a game.
 
In deciding whether a specific practice is to be considered  a  viable
"chumra",  there must exist some *significant* "sheeta" (opinion) that
holds like that (even though the other big "poskim" are  not  of  this
stringent opinion).
 
He gave some examples : a Gemara - When a "sota" (woman who  has  been
found  unfaithful  to her husband, under specific conditions) is taken
to the "Beis HaMikdash - Holy Temple - to drink the  "bitter  waters",
she  is  publicly embarrassed (removal of her headcovering, ripping of
her garment). The Gemara asks - perhaps she should wear jewelry ?  and
the  answer  is  no.  What  is  the  question  - in her time of public
embarrassment she should wear her fine jewels ? Of course  not  !  The
meaning  of  the  question  of the Gemara is that she *should* perhaps
wear her jewelry then, to increase her embarrassment, as  one  who  is
wearing  filthy & torn clothes will look even more repugnant & strange
(i.e., more embarrassed) if also wearing fine jewels.  The  only  time
that  jewels  will  enhance  her  beauty  is  when  she is wearing her
beautiful clothes (or at least decent ones), not when her garments are
rent, her hair is in disarray, etc.
 
Another example : A student in some Yeshiva in Europe was told that it
would  be  nice & proper for him to start wearing a tie. So, he wore a
tie. One night, there was a fire in the building.  When  this  student
finally  came  out  of  the  building  he  was  wearing his pajamas, a
bathrobe, and ... a tie ! How could he be seen in public  without  his
tie  ! Yet, this outfit looked most silly - pajamas & a tie ! A tie is
a proper addition to a wardrobe, when wearing the basic shirt & pants;
but without the shirt & pants, a tie is just silly.
 
Another example - The Rov, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik of Boston (may
he have a "refu-ah sheleimah"), has a practice to recite both versions
of the counting of the 'Omer - "hayom .... yom she-heim ....  la-omer"
and  "...  ba-omer",  as a personal "chumra" - one out loud, the other
quietly. Many students at  YU  (Yeshiva  University)  like  to  follow
practices  of  the Rov, some having been his students, some not. (In a
similar notion, many people like to follow the "chumrot" of the GR"A -
all  of  those  that  they  have  heard  of  so far.) A number of NCSY
advisors are/were students in YU. They, when  running  a  seminar  for
elementary or high-school students during the time of the 'Omer, would
count like the Rov, having the  NCSY  kids  repeat  after  them,  *out
loud*. These kids would then think that this is the generally accepted
practice of all religious Jews, and that this is the way that  one  is
supposed  to count the 'Omer as brought down in the "Shulchan (code of
Jewish law). But this is only a "chumra" that the Rov, being at  *his*
level  of observance, accepted upon himself. How will these kids later
blend in with mainstream Orthodox Judaism when  they  see  that  other
people do not follow this practice in reciting the 'Omer ?
 
The bottom line is  that  "chumra"  is  a  very  noble  practice,  but
accepting  "chumrot"  upon  oneself  implies a commitment much greater
than that practiced by the regular people. Do we all measure up in all
other  areas  of  "halachah"  that  we  can then say to the world - "I
accept these "chumrot" upon myself.
 
Asher  Meth  ...  allegra!cmcl2!csd2!meth   ...   [email protected]   ...
[email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
Does anyone know a source for the practice of sitting shiva on a child
who intermarries?
 
Rabbi Yaacov Haber - Torah Center of Buffalo -  [email protected]

Topic:
        Re: Religious Right
                        Harold Wyzansky
                        Sam Cramer
                        Yechezkal Gutfreund
______________________________________________________________________
 
I read with interest Louis Steinberg's submission on   the   rise   of
the  religious  right  in  America.   While I don't have access to the
Usenet soc.culture.jewish and therefore did not  have  a   chance   to
read   the  communications  with  Ken  Arndt  (if anybody has them and
is willing to send them to  me,  please  do  so),  nevertheless  I  am
inclined  to  agree with  him  about  the  rise of the religious right
and have been worried about it for some time.  In particular, I  think
that   the   candidacy  of "Reverends"  such  as Jesse Jackson and Pat
Robertson for the Presidency is setting a dangerous precedent.   There
has  always   been  a  streak  of fundamentalist  Christian  religious
fanaticism in "Bible Belt" America that those of us who  live  in  the
large urban areas of the  Northeast  do not really appreciate.
 
The  subject  of  a religious dictatorship in the  United  States  has
been  explored  in  science  fiction  and  Robert Heinlein presented a
frightening, and  all  too plausible, scenario of how a combination of
TV  evangelism,  public  relations, advertising and voter apathy could
elect "the Prophet" as  President  supported by less than 20%  of  the
population.   There were no further elections and the Jews who refused
to convert were classified as  "pariahs"   and  herded  into  ghettos.
While  I  do not believe that Pat Robertson is a Nehemiah Scudder, nor
that  he  has  any   chance   at   the  Republican   nomination,   the
parallels,   and  worse, the precedent he is setting of an unqualified
and unexperienced person being considered  as  a  credible   candidate
solely   because   of   his   name   recognition as a TV preacher, are
unsettling.
 
Of course, what I have presented above is  a  "worst  case"  scenario.
The  religious   right  present  an  ambivalent  face  to  the  Jewish
community.  On the one  hand,  there  is  the  continued   effort   to
convert   us   to   their religion,  with  the attendant anger when we
stubbornly refuse to accept their views as the  "TRUTH"  and  convert,
but  on  the  other hand, they  are among  the strongest supporters of
Israel and of American aid to Israel.   It  was  the  evangelist  Mike
Evans  who  presented  a   nationally   syndicated  television  show a
couple of years ago called "Jerusalem, D.C." (David's  Capitol)  which
was  heavily  pro-Israel  and in favor of continued American aid.   Of
course,  their  reason  for supporting Israel is not  from  any  great
love  for  the  Jews  but rather because they see the establishment of
Israel as the first step in the fulfillment of their prophecies.
 
The    other    problem    which   Louis   Steinberg   mentions,   the
assimilationist effects of the current secular society, is well known.
I have seen  the figure of 50% for that portion of the American Jewish
community which is completely unaffiliated.  Is there any way to reach
these people or will they be written off?
 
Someone  (I  can't  remember  who)  said  about  15  years   ago  that
the  remainder  of this century  will  be  very  interesting  for  the
Jewish community  in  the  United  States  and followed  it  with  the
old  Chinese  curse about living in interesting times.  I think we are
in for  a  wild ride.
 
Harold Wyzansky  ([email protected])
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Lou Steinberg raises some interesting  questions.   The  rise  of  the
religious  right  certainly  poses  a  certain  threat  to  the Jewish
community - we have all heard the calls to make America  a  "Christian
Nation",  calls  which leave one wondering what room there is for Jews
in such a state.
 
In my politically liberal community, the  religious  right  is  viewed
with  great  hostility and fear.  However, the threat of the religious
left, which, in the main, is far more hostile  to  Jewish  aspirations
(especially  Jewish  national  aspirations) is ignored or down-played.
For example, recently a workshop on "Peace in  the  Middle  East"  was
sponsored by a local church.  At this workshop, blatantly anti-semitic
statements were made (that Jews control the media, Jews are  disloyal,
etc.).  It was very difficult to get the organized Jewish community to
respond forcefully to this outrage.
 
Anti-Jewish activity - masked as anti-Zionist activity  - is a  staple
of  the politically active Christian left.  While we certainly need to
be aware of the threat of the religious right, we also  must  confront
the hostility of the Christian left.
 
Sam Cramer : [email protected]
 
[Interesting - when I thought  about  the  "religious  right",  I  was
thinking  about  it  as opposed to the secularists.  I had not figured
the religious left into the equation.  Thanks for reminding  me  about
them.   I agree that they are very hostile to Jewish aspirations.  One
question I'm unclear about is the extent of their influence.  Also, is
there  a  difference  between  the  "religious"  left  and the left in
general?                                          Lou Steinberg]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I find myself a little bit disturbed by  Lou  Steinberg's  message  in
mail.jewish  #65.  Not  that  there  was  anything  offensive  in  the
contents, but rather I worry about the direction that such discussions
tend  to  progress towards.  Specifically, I have recently been giving
increasing thought to the place  and  the  amount  of  attention  that
discussions  of a political nature should have in the life of a Torah-
true-Jew.
 
I find the balance struck in most of  the  mail.jewish  articles  very
good.   There  is  a  slight  amount of "seasoning/spicing/salting" of
politics that instigated the discussions on Chalav  Yisroel.  But  the
majority  of  the  discussions  was  factual  and  informative.  Thus,
regardless of ones predispositions, one can always come away  informed
and more enlightened.
 
I think a similar thing occurs when  Rabbaim  use  humor,  levity  and
sarcasm  in their drushim. Torah is not a joke. Nor is it stories. But
an element of humor and levity can sensitize  the  taste-buds  of  the
mind.  Rabbi Akiva used to start his classes with a joke, but the same
Rabbi Akiva says in Pirkey Avot (perek 3) schok v'kalot rosh  margilim
adam  l'erva  [humor  and  light headedness accustom a man to lewdness
<actually I would like a better translation for erva>]. This seems  to
indicate  that  humor  and  levity  is  like  salt. In essence it is a
poison, and its best use is in trace amounts.
 
I think a similar case applies to politics and political interests.  I
tend to be a newsphile, but after the Bork and Contra hearings I think
I have had a severe case of  poisoning.  Perhaps  related  to  a  salt
overdose.
 
What is politics, what characterizes a political debate, and why is it
a  spiritual  poison?  To  me,  politics thrives in an absence of emes
[truth].  Where there has is clear truth, or where one has carried out
extensive  investigations  into  a  subject, political issues die. Ask
yourself, as an engineer or  technologist,  how  you  feel  about  ill
informed  anticomputer political attitudes toward computer usage (this
does not mean that there  are  not  well  grounded  informed  negative
opinions).    Where   one   has  been  metunim  b'din  [deliberate  in
judgement], and not v'gas libo b'horah ["quick  in  one's  judgement"]
which leads one to be called a shoteh [fool], rasha [wicked], and gaas
ruach [arrogant] - then when one is well informed on  the  facts,  the
politics of the issue disappear. Truth is utterly compelling and makes
no allowances of personal preferences.
 
The nature of a political debate is obscuration of truth. It is relies
on  images  and  perceptions.  One  employs  political hacks and media
experts to mold an image for the mass  media.  It  is  not  truth  but
darkness  (see  R. Nossen Sherman on Chanuka in ArtScroll Chanuka). It
also seems that success  in  politics  is  the  obliteration  of  ones
opponents.  It's  not  the  force of the arguments, and the subsequent
conversion of ones opponents to ones philosophy, it is by their  being
vanquished  in  a contest that political battles are won. At one point
R. Meir wanted to curse the bandits in his district that  they  should
die.  But  his  wife  Bruria  said  that  the Torah only calls for the
removal of sins not the destruction of sinners. Remove the  sins,  and
there  are no more sinners. However, political debates in this country
are won by the public rejection, humiliation,  and  removal  of  those
individuals associated with the failing issue.
 
In conclusion, I don't think this discussion group is best  served  by
not delving into discussions that are loaded with political overtones,
and lacking in potential for teaching and enlightening.
 
Yechezkal Gutfreund  - [email protected] (csnet)
		       [email protected] (milnet)
 
 
========================================================================
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
	id AA14086; Sun, 27 Dec 87 21:42:52 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA24746; 27 Dec 87 23:16:09 CST (Sun)

Topics:
		Sitting Shiva for a child who intermarries
				Channie and P. Rappaport
		Chumra incident
				Ben Svetitsky
		Issues related to Tuna
				Isaac Balbin
______________________________________________________________________
 
This is in reply to  Rabbi Haber's question on the  source of sitting  shiva
for a child who intermarries.
 
See the  Bais Lechem Yehudah on  the side of  Shulchan  Aruch YD, siman 345.
Synopsis: It  is  written in Sefer  Chasidim  that we  should mourn  one who
abandons his faith.  Since we mourn one whose body is lost, surely we should
mourn  one whose soul is   lost. Presumably, this  gave  rise  to a  similar
practice in the case  of intermarriage. The Bais  Lechem Yehudah  also notes
that this custom is  only practiced  with one's  son or daughter,  not other
relatives for whom the obligation of mourning normally applies.
 
(This is based on Hagahos Ashri, 3rd perek of Moed Katan, siman 59.)
 
Channie Rappaport (homxc!hkr) (Research by P. Rappaport) 
 
[  The   Hagahos Ashri  referred to   here  states   that Rabbanu  Gershon's
(France-Germany 960-1040)  son converted, and  R.  Gershon mourned over  him
then for  fourteen  days. The  Encyclopedia  Judaica elaborates that he  was
forced to convert to Christianity and died before  he could repent. Although
the halacha in the Shulchun Oruch, on which the Beit Lechem is a comment, is
that  when one who has become  an apostate dies,  his relatives do not mourn
over him, nevertheless in  this   case Rabbanu  Gershon did. The   Artscroll
Rishonim explain the 14 days as 7 for  the loss of  life, and 7 for the loss
of soul. Sefer Chasidim  is by R. Yehuda  HaChassid of Germany, 1150-1217. -
Mod]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding chumrot,   I recall fondly an  issue   having to do   with selling
chametz before Pesach.  This legalism was created  to prevent great monetary
loss from the destruction  of perfectly good food  before Pesach, and  these
days there are those who have adopted the  chumra of avoiding the selling of
chametz altogether.
 
Last year, I  was arranging the sale  of my chametz with  a respected Rav in
Boston, and I asked him about some details of  (other people's) chumrot.  He
told  me that Lubavitcher chassidim  frequently buy MORE bread, etc., before
Pesach, freeze  it, and sell  it, so that they  will know for sure  that the
bread they eat after Pesach had been properly sold.   (The point is that one
may not use, after  Pesach, chametz that was owned  by a Jew during Pesach.)
Thus they take advantage of the  kula (if it can  be called such) of selling
chametz in order to be very strict about "chametz she-avar alav ha-Pesach."
 
"Clearly," he said, "one man's chumra is another man's kula."
 
Ben Svetitsky - FNBENJ @ WEIZMANN.BITNET
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
The following is in  reply to Harold   Wyzanski's posting of the  article in
``Jewish Action''. Firstly, I would like to thank Harold for the effort.  In
actual fact, I though that the issue which was discussed in that article was
_not_ the main objection with the  OU Tuna. The  issue that was discussed in
the sources cited  in that  article relate  to Bishul  Akum  - Cooking by  a
Non-Jew. The  tuna is steamed in the  can by non-jews  and hence there  is a
question as  to whether it is   Bishul Akkum.  There  is a  general question
whether steaming is considered Bishul - cooking - and so  this is one reason
to be lenient. Secondly, the prohibition of Bishul Akum  was enacted to stop
the extended socializing with non-jews.  In this  case, since we do not know
the identity of  those doing the cooking  (in Thailand) then this is another
reason to  be lenient with Bishul Akum.   Notwithstanding all of this, there
are indeed other major problems with tuna fish (OU)  which are not addressed
by the sources mentioned in the article, but which  I would like to know how
people in this group react.
 
	Specifically, I refer the reader to Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 3,8 where
Reb Moshe  is of the  opinion that unless  there  is a  FULLTIME Mashgiach -
kashrus supervisor - one cannot  be sure that  the tuna is indeed tuna since
the scales  and fins are no longer  visible. Indeed, the self-same source of
Minchas Yitzchok 3, 26 raised in the article in Jewish Action also discusses
the problems of the cans being steamed together with (trayf) pet food.  Most
places which manufacture tuna also manufacture pet food  (using the bad fish
and any  non-tuna  fish that  might ``creep''  in).  Thus, this   is another
problem.  A third issue relates to the fact that meat or fish which has been
``ne-elam  min  ha-ayin''  hidden  from  the  eyes,  that  is   it  has been
``certified'' as kosher but  now has left  the supervision of  any authority
(eg to be  sent  out to the  shops)  must  have TWO  covers.  That  is,  the
foodstuff must have two seals  (eg airline meals).    The question here  is,
even if   we consider the tuna  to   be tuna and  hence  kosher,  perhaps it
requires two seals (a can is one seal?).   Reb Moshe thinks  so. There is an
excellent  summary of these   issues in Rabbi  Bleich's book.   Contemporary
Halachic Problems Vol 2. Finally,  I would like to point  out that there  is
another OU tuna  called ``Dagim'' the label on   which states that  there is
indeed hashgacha. So what do you think?
 
On another tack,  I am most  interested in hearing the  names of any Posekim
who, because of   AIDS, do not allow Metzitza   B'peh (the drawing of  blood
after the bris milah  using the mouth). I would  appreciate this since  I am
trying to  coax the  orthodox rabbinate here  to come  out with a definitive
statement.  It  is,  in my   opinion, a   real Safek Pikuach   Nefesh  (life
threatening  issue) and requires a  uniform  response.  I applaud the  Chief
Rabbinate in Israel for their statement stating that  the Mohel should use a
pipette with  cotton wool at the top.  I am very  interested in knowing what
other Posekim say. I can inform you that Rabbi Heinneman (sp?)  concurs with
the Chief Rabbinate's view.  Does any one know  what Rabbonim like R. Shlomo
Zalman Auerbach or R.  Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg  or R. Yosef Elyashiv hold?
Can you find  out for me?  PLEASE  mail me ...   with the name of the posek,
what he  holds, and whether  you know this  from hearsay,  or something more
reliable. I will summarize to this mailing  list. Please make the effort and
ask your Posek next time you ask a Sheyla (or can't  think of one to ask :-)
)
 
Isaac Balbin
CSNET - isaac%munnari.oz.au@australia
 
 
========================================================================
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
	id AA13360; Wed, 6 Jan 88 06:15:11 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA06573; 6 Jan 88 03:11:55 CST (Wed)

Topics:
 
		Politics and mail.jewish
			Moderator
			Harry Rubin
			Sam Saal
______________________________________________________________________
 
	I have read with  interest both Yechezkal's posting, the  responses
to his posting,  as well as Lou's  posting and the responses  to it. Let me
try and clarify my position on the issue.  The purpose of this mailing list
is  to have a   non-confrontational forum to  discuss  Jewish  and Halachic
issues. This list was started by Dave Chechick to provide a forum for those
who did not wish to have to justify Halacha, but  rather to discuss various
issues within the guidelines  of Halacha. I am committed  to this  goal for
the mailing list. The questions I ask when I receive a submission are:
 
1) Is the submission consistent with Halacha?
2) Is the submission a "flame"? We wish to discuss  issues here, not attack
anyone. All flames are rejected (or will be if I ever get such a posting).
3) Is it a valid Jewish or Halachic issue?
 
I think that Lou's  article pointed to  some issues that  we as Jews cannot
ignore.    As such,   I  feel   that there   is   no question    as to it's
appropriateness for  the mailing  list.  Yechezkal brought up  some  issues
related to the nature of the political process as he saw it, and questioned
" the  place and the amount of  attention  that discussions of  a political
nature should have in the  life of a Torah- true-Jew."  That too is a valid
issue that can   be discussed.  However,  unless I  can   be convinced that
discussion  of  political issues is   clearly  a violation  of Halacha, the
criteria for carrying   such discussion on  this  mailing list will  be its
relevance to Jewish and Halachic questions,  and it's orientation to issues
rather than "flames".
 
Please keep these points in mind  for future submissions  and replies.  Let
me point out that I do not think I have  ever rejected any posting yet, and
hope that I do not have  to. I think we  have a wonderful "family" here and
hope it continues that way.
 
Avi Feldblum - Moderator
mail.jewish%[email protected]
[email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Yechezkal Gutfreund, in his note in mail.jewish  #67, says that politics is
"a spiritual poison," and that sufficient inquiry  will reveal the truth of
any issue, thereby causing the politics of the issue to disappear.  He goes
on to paint all who  have contact with  politics as cruel, by claiming that
they are not  satisfied to overcome  their opponents' arguments, but insist
on  "the public  rejection, humiliation,  and  removal of those individuals
associated with the failing issue."  I think Gutfreund is almost completely
wrong in these views.
 
First  of all, there  is politics and there   is Politics.  Everything that
anyone does  that in any   way  involves other  people involves   politics.
Politics (small "p") is  the process  by  which people interact,  influence
each other, come to agreement, resolve differences, and so on.  Some people
do these  things  in a  considerate,  humane manner, others  are  pushy and
obnoxious.  (Judaism of  course has  much  to say about  how  one ought  to
conduct oneself in interpersonal  relationships.) To claim that politics is
poisonous is to say that all human interaction is poisonous.
 
Politics  (capital "P"),  on  the other hand,  is  a different matter.   By
Politics I mean the business of being elected to a  public office such as a
seat in a legislative body and what one does once occupying such an office.
I  suspect it is this  Politics to which Gutfreund  means to  refer.  He is
right, unfortunately,  in that it is very  often true that those engaged in
trying to get elected   and occupying high  offices  do try to  obscure the
truth  and  humiliate and  remove their   opponents.  However, because some
(many) of the people engaged in an activity  use "poisonous" means does not
mean that the activity itself is bad or  wrong.  (Although it may mean that
the rules of  the game need some amendments.)   Furthermore,  Politics as a
high-stakes,  state-  or   national-scale, career-length  business is  very
different from politics that all of us deal with all the time.  Even if the
former were in some sense "poison"  that does not mean  that the latter is,
too.
 
It is on the matter of truth eliminating all  political aspects of an issue
that I object most   to Gutfreund's note.   Forget  for  a moment  lack  of
information and  questionable  objectives.  Reasonable  persons, completely
well-informed, and each with the best of objectives  can and do disagree on
important issues.  Is  it best  to build special  housing projects  for the
poor or to give them money to pay for housing?  What  sort of maternity and
child-care benefits are or should employers be obligated  to provide?  If I
do  one thing  it will   hurt  some  people close    to me, but  doing  the
alternative is  questionable and will hurt  some  other people.  Issues are
complicated, often extremely so.  Usually the choice is not a clear-cut one
between   right and  wrong, it  is    a choice between approaches,  usually
approaches different in  kind, so that you  cannot tell which is the better
by any easy measure.
 
In that politics is part of human interaction, it does have a place in this
group, although, obviously, only insofar as it has  to do with Judaism.  In
that   light, I would  like  to ask  what help   Judaism gives in resolving
difficult, complex issues such as those mentioned above.
 
Harry I. Rubin
[email protected]  or  ...!ucbvax!harry
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I read  Yechezkal Gutfreund's article in m.j.67  and understand his dislike
for the political discussions that seem to be beginning in this newsletter.
I, too, am getting tired of the Jewish  newsgroup's political discussion [I
assume Sam  is referring to soc.culture.jewish  on Usenet, for those not on
Usenet - Mod].
 
I  think  that the  value  of  having these political   discussions  in the
newsletter   is that  this newsletter  sticks  to  the original charter  of
assuming  the basic  tenets  of traditional/Orthodox  Judaism.  In somewhat
callous terms, I simply don't   want to be bothered with  listening/reading
what secularists, anti-semites, and nonJews say about an issue.  I can, and
do,   get that  information  from  far   better sources  than an electronic
network.  What I want to hear is the JEWISH view on the topics.  That means
more than simply hearing droshot.  I want to learn the Halachic perspective
on life and  on what goes on  in  the world.   I  "vote" we  keep a certain
amount  of political  discussion in  this  forum.  In  Pirkei Avot  it says
"Rabbi Hanina  the assisant cohen  gadol said: Pray for  the welfare of the
government, for without the fear of it men would swallow one another alive"
[Perek 3; Mishna 2]. Politics is a Jewish question and a Jewish perspective
on a secular question  at the same time.  I  think we have enough qualified
people to discuss what Judaism says on these things.
 
Sam Saal         ..!attunix!saal

Topics:
		Administrivia
			Moderator
		Bishul Akum
			David Sherman
		Selling Chametz 
			J. H. Proschan
		Tuna Fish
			J. H. Proschan
		Ma'arat Ayin
			Bruce Krulwich			
		Politics and Judaism
			Sam Cramer
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Does anyone have copies of  the early mailings? I  do not appear to be able
to  find  my archive file   of mailings before   #39.  If anyone  has these
mailings, please send me mail  telling me what you have,  so I will be able
to get one copy from whomever has it that is "closest" to me.
 
Thanks in advance, 
		Avi Feldblum, your moderator
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
If bishul akum  is a problem  for tuna,  is  it also  a  problem for canned
vegetables and the like? I  have always had  the understanding that there's
no problem  with canned (cooked) potatoes,  carrots, peas, etc., as long as
there are no other ingredients other than water and salt.
 
David Sherman  - [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
More on chametz chumros: 
 
Related to the chumrah  of not selling  chametz is the "chumrah" of selling
not only chametz  but also kitniyos,  inedible mixtures containing chametz,
and so  on. As a result,  people not only throw out  real chametz, but also
throw out  things they would be permitted  to keep over Pesach. This latter
is  a  violation of "bal   tashchis"   [the prohibition  against waste  and
pointless  destruction].  This also  leads to the   ""chumrah"" [one set of
quotes isn't  enough  for this one] that  one   is only permitted  to  sell
kitniyos, permitted  mixtures, etc. but not  real chametz. A friend of mine
once called a leading posek to ask if it is permitted to sell real chametz;
the posek replied "What ELSE do you sell?" and hung up.
 
Regarding the buying of extra bread, it usually is a choice between relying
on one's own sale of chametz,  or relying on  the bakery's sale.  It is the
same "kula" in either case.
 
Regarding tuna fish:
 
I have  not had time to  check this, but  if  memory serves these questions
came up several years ago. Word spread that Rav Moshe said canned tuna fish
was not kosher,  people stopped using  it,  and confusion was  rampant. The
affair ended when  a local posek  announced that he would  buy, for his own
use, any canned tuna fish with an O.U.  -- for half price. No one sold. The
consensus,  as I   remember it,  was that the   situation  described in the
"she'alah" [question]   was not  the  actual  situation prevailing  in  the
industry. Therefore, while the "tshuvah" [response] was correct, it did not
apply  to the  canned tuna  fish then  on  the market. It  is  important to
remember that what,  in English, are  simply called  responsa [tshuvos], in
Hebrew are called   "she'alos  u'tshuvos" [QUESTIONS  and responses].   The
question is an essential part of the  response, and they are always printed
together.
 
As far as double seals are concerned:
 
    1.  Why raise the question only for tuna? Is gefilte fish any 
        better? Salamis? 
        
    2.  What of jars? They can be opened and reclosed without any 
        trouble. 
        
    3.  Seals serve two purposes; to ensure that the container cannot 
        be opened and closed again, and to identify the contents as 
        being kosher. Cans often can't be considered even one seal; 
        while the can cannot be opened and re-closed, the label is the 
        seal; if the label is glued on, it can be tampered with. 
 
As a matter of simple  prudence, in these days of  food tampering, all food
products  should be  in  tamper-proof containers;  but  that is a  separate
issue.
 
J.H.Proschan - allegra!nvuxh!jhp3 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
Here's a new  topic for discussion.  It happens  quite often that I am with
people (fellow graduate students, for example) who want to go out for lunch
(at a Treif  resteraunt), and I'll go along  for the discussion and  have a
coke or something like that.  Whenever I do this, I'll  either put a hat on
or take off my Kipah  because of Ma'arat Ayin, namely  because I don't want
onlookers to see me in the resteraunt and assume  that I'm eating there and
that the food (or some of it) is Kosher.
 
I'd be interested in discussion about how other people  deal with this type
of   situation  (there  are  many  different    instances of   this type of
situation).  Do you think that it is necessary  to consider this??  What if
there is someone else wearing a Kipah in the resteraunt??  What about a bar
where you are getting drinks but others are eating??  There seem to be alot
to consider, and no easy answer.  What do you all think??
 
Bruce Krulwich
 
[Some of this was discussed in an earlier mailing,  yes one of those that I
don't have. When I get the full archive, I will post a  summary of what was
discussed then. If my memory serves, it was fairly early in the life of the
mailing list, and our membership has more than tripled since then, so it is
valid to re-open the discussion. Mod]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
Several  correspondents have    suggested  that  political   discussion  in
mail.jewish should  be limited  to areas of  Jewish  and  halachic concern.
This  seems  reasonable  enough to me.   The   claim that  involvement with
politics  inevitably degrades the   participant   and therefore should   be
avoided  I can not abide,  however.  I believe that politics  is, in a way,
applied morality, and  that the world  of  politics is one which  religious
people should engage and not hide from.
 
Thus, I have a question regarding Jewish religious  thought and protest.  I
was shocked  to hear  that a major  Orthodox  organization  decided not  to
participate in the recent major demonstration on behalf  of Soviet Jewry on
supposedly halachic grounds.  I don't know a lot  about halacha, but I find
this suprising, as a march on Washington  by hundreds of Orthodox rabbis on
behalf of European Jewry took place during WWII.
 
Comments?
 
Sam Cramer - sun.com!cramer
 

From:	DECWRL::"ihnp4!pruxe!ayf" "Avi Feldblum  16-Jul-87 0623 EDT" 23-JAN-1988 10:52
To:	mail.jewish_ack.subscribers
Subj:	   mail.jewish #53

Topics:
		Personals
				Moderator
		Responses to Pareve Foods [m.j_52]
				Avi Feldblum
				H. Braude
		R. Feinstein's Responsa
				Isaac Balbin
		Short Questions
				 Yechezkal Gutfreund
				 Bruce G Bukiet
______________________________________________________________________
 
I feel like the mailing list is a kind of extended family, so I take
this occassion to announce the birth of:
 
	Tziporah Shoshana Feldblum on July 3 to Avi and Rochie Feldblum
 
[being moderator must have some priviliges! Seriously, anyone who
wants to announce something here, just let me know.]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Before starting to try and answer this question, it may be useful to
mention some of the relevent halachot. There is a Torah prohibition to
cook meat and milk together. It has been expanded by the Rabbis in the
time of the Talmud to include eating milk and meat together in the
same meal. In addition, it was understood that when two items were
heated up together, there was a strong enhancement of "diffusion" from
one into the other. So that if meat was cooked in a pot, part of the
meat "flavor" was absorbed into the pot. If milk would then be cooked
in the same pot, the meat flavor would come out of the pot, and one
would be cooking meat and milk together. This is the basis for
requiring two sets of pots and dishes. According to halacha, not all
materials absorb to the same degree. In particular, glass is special
in that it does not absorb at all. In general, things that are cold do
not strongly absorb or give out what they have absorbed. One last
halacha is that when something has soaked for 24 hours, even fully
cold, it has many of the same rules as if it were cooked. 
	NOTE: This is not meant to be a full and complete exposition
of the laws of meat and dairy!!!
 
Lets examine question one first. The pan is metal which does absorb. Cold
pareve ingredients are put in the pot, and mixed -while cold- with a
fleishig metal utensil. This utensil is the only connection with meat.
What is meant by a fleishig utensil? This is a very important point.
Here are a couple of possible examples, which are all halachacally
different:
 
1) Used for meat and has not been cleaned.
2) Used for meat within the last 24 hours and has been cleaned in
water only.
3a) Used for meat within the last 24 hours and has been cleaned in
soap and (hot) water.
3b) Used for meat NOT within the last 24 hours and has been cleaned in
water only.
4) Used for meat not within the last 24 hours and has been cleaned in
soap and (hot) water.
 
For case 1) the cake MAY be considered as fleishig and the metal pan
may become fleishig. However I think case 1) is unlikely to be what
Susan was really asking about. For cases 3 and 4, I'm pretty sure that
the cake and cake pan are still fully pareve and may be used with a
dairy meal [ it is a 'nosen taam lephegam' and I don't think we worry
about 'boleah kedi klipah' in such a case]. Case number 2) I suspect
may also be pareve according to halacha, but many will not serve it
directly with dairy, e.g. eat it with whipped cream, but will at the
end of a dairy meal on dairy plates etc. [ we don't worry about a
'bleah' of dairy into it because of "n't bar n't", but are machmir
about 'boleah kedi klipah'].
 
Question two brings in the issue of 'kavosh k'mevushal dami' -
something which is soaked for 24 hours is considered similar to
cooking. If the pan was used for cooking dairy within the last 24
hours, I think that the dessert would be considered dairy, and could
not be eaten with a fleishig meal. The same MIGHT be true even if
the pan was not used within 24 hours and/or was washed with soap.
 
I refer everyone to the disclaimer in the next response, DO NOT
decide halacha based on articles in this mailing list. If you have a
actuall question, please check with a Rabbi. However, I hope that
things discussed here give people a better feeling for the halacha.
 
Avi Feldblum
mail.jewish Moderator
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
In mailinglist article 52, Susan Slusky, <mtuxt!segs> writes:
>1. You have a metal cake pan which is only used in the following way:
>...
>The cake is then baked in the pan and is turned out...
>...
[DISCLAIMER:  I am not a rabbi, so this should be considered an opinion, not
              an authoritative answer! ]
One factor that should be considered that a person might overlook
is the status of the oven itself. If one prepares meat in an oven by 
roasting, for example, the splatter of the roast on the walls of the oven
should be considered when one wishes to prepare another foodstuff (eg: a
cheesecake.)
 
While a meat pan that hasn't been used for at least 24 hours can be used
to prepare a pareve dish and eaten, with some restrictions, as part of a
dairy meal, it cannot be used to prepare a dairy foodstuff. The oven is
not any different, except that the procedure to "kasher" the oven may be 
more convenient (eg: self-cleaning ovens.)
 
What some people do is they will cook either dairy or meat in their ovens
uncovered when appropriate, but will always securely wrap the other type
of food in foil before preparing it. So if the person chooses to make the
oven "meat" then to make lasagna, the person might buy a separate countertop
broiler or toaster-oven (is that someone's trademark?) or do without "browning"
the top.
 
		        h.b.braude ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
	[The mailing list is becoming quite international, and I
welcome Isaac, our first Austrailian participant to it. Mod.]
 
Hello from down under,
	My name is Isaac Balbin and I am new to this mailing list so would
	you excuse me if the issues I am about to raise are either old,
	or not relevant to this forum. Specifically, of late, I have become
	fascinated by the Responsa of Rabbi M. Feinstein OBM.
	There are a number of aspects which are puzzling. I do realise that,
	as he states himself, these are not for ordinary plebians like myself,
	nevertheless, purely on intellectual grounds, I am interested.
	I will give some examples. I don't have his Igrot Moshe in front
	of me so I cannot give you exact references,
	(1)
	He decided that "Chalav Yisrael" was not required from the 
	purely decisive framework of "Ikkar Hadin", and went on to say that
	if it is freely available, then one can be "machmir" on himself.
	Yet, when it came to a camp who had to decide whether to subsidise
	extra pupils or have "Chalav Yisrael", he indicated that it would
	be better to get the "Chalav Yisrael". Surely, this is not just an 
	issue of quality versus quantity? Why didn't he say that Chalav Yisrael
	should be used, period. Then, if it wasn't available, he has a hetter?
	Doesn't this capture the intuition behind the Camp responsa? I have
	heard some people say that Reb Moshe, himself, did not use Chalav
	Yisrael - I guess that could only have been during times when it
	wasn't freely available?
	(2)
	With reference to dishwashers for both Milchig and Fleishig, it
	is well known (4 responsa) that Reb Moshe permitted it provided
	that seperate racks were used. In 3 of the four responsa he is
	quite consistent and repetitive. Yet in one of them, he adds
	"and when I am asked lemaaseh, I say that min haraooy, if you
	have time, you should make a cycle in between".
	Chronologically, this was his latest Tshuvah on the matter.
	Well, if Igros Moshe is "lemaaseh" why did he not say this
	in his other Tshuvos? Which is correct? What is the practical
	difference between "min haraooy" and "le hachmir"?
 
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Why is it Yehoshua bin Nun and not Yehoshua ben Nun like the other meraglim?
 
				- Yechezkal Gutfreund
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
Is there a blessing one says upon having a baby? If so, what is it?
 
			 Bruce G Bukiet (ihnp4!lanl!bgb)
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 

>From ayf Thu Jul 23 17:41 EDT 1987
>From ayf Thu Jul 23 17:41 EDT 1987 forwarded by ayf
From:       [email protected] (Avi Feldblum)
To:         mail.jewish_ack subscribers
Date:       Thu Jul 23 17:21:52 EDT 1987
Subject:    mail.jewish #54
 
Topics:
		Shorts
				Mod.
				Ira Pollak
		Re: Brachot on birth of child
				Danny Wildman
		Re: R. Feinstein's Teshuvot
				Arnie Lustiger
				Josh Proschan
		More on Meat and Dairy (Re: m.j_52,m.j_53)
		Re: blessing on a jahrzeit licht
		Re:  "bin Nun" 
				Josh Proschan
 
--------------------------------------------------------------
 
I mislabeled m.j_53 as m.j_52 for most of you, so if you have two
m.j_52's and no m.j_53 please make the change.
					Mod.
 
Ira Pollak suggests as a topic of conversation any comments on the
halachik issues in software copyright, licensing, etc.
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
 
On the birth of a baby, one or two brachot are recited depending
on the sex of the child:
 
For a girl, "shehechiyanu" is said.
 
For a boy, both "shehechiyanu" and "hatov v'hametiv" are recited.
 
Given this answer, I can think of dozens of questions which we
never sufficiently resolved regarding when, by whom, and why these
brachot are said.
 
The halacha in the Mishna Brurah implies that the parents, or at
least the father, say the appropriate blessing(s). It is not clear
if the mother recites it also, is Yotzei with her husband (or vica
versa!), or has no chiyuv at all. It is also not stated if siblings
and other close relatives are permitted to say a bracha.
 
I have not been able to find any sources that discuss when the
brachot should be said: immediately at birth (or the closest moment
of Tzniut thereafter), at the brit or naming, or in between. One
might think that somebody should be present to respond Amen; perhaps
a minyan should be present (like benshing "Gomel").
 
Does one double the appropriate brachot at the birth of twins?
If one forgot to say the brachot at the proper time, can they be
recited at any time into the future (e.g, a week later, 1st birthday, 
1st haircut, Bar Mitzvah)? There is a minhag sfarad to recite 
shehechiyanu at the brit (the Askenazim don't say it because of the
baby's pain): is this the same bracha or an additional one?
 
The commentators do field the question of the apparently sexist
nature of the additional bracha said at the birth of a boy. Generally,
Shehechiyanu is said when one benefits "alone"; hatov vihametiv is
reserved for when the benefit is to oneself and others. The
non-apologists state straight out that there is more simcha at the
birth of a boy for b'nei yisrael (and not b'not yisrael?) due to
the extra Torah to be learned or extra mitzvot to be performed by
the new male. At least one source (I haven't looked in almost 10 years,
sorry I can't recall who.) mentions that the father's simcha is miti-
gated upon the birth of a girl since he will have to be concerned 
with her protection and getting a good shiddach. I have never been
totally satisfied with any of the answers except that whatever the
reason is, it might be related to the fact that we make a Shalom
Zachor and not (traditionally) a Shalom Nekaiva. 
the bracha also.
 
D.M.Wildman
rutgers!rruxqq!rruxc!dmw2 
______________________________________________________________________
 
From: Lustiger <likewise!polymer!akiva>
 
 Re: Isaac Balbin's questions concerning Tshuvos in Igros Moshe.
Both questions are excellent, and I look forward to hearing an
answer from someone in the mailing list, since I don't have one.
However, with regard to "cholov  yisroel" it should be clarified
that Reb Moshe Zt'l did not permit cholov acum across the board: his
heter is based on the fact that USDA inspects the milk regularly,
rendering it "pseudo" cholov yisroel. In contrast, milk made in
other  countries outside of America (and of course Israel) would
definitely be not permitted.
 
Arnie Lustiger
polymer!akiva
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
 
The questions raised by Isaac Balbin from down under are rather complex, and I will only touch 
on a few aspects. I have heard discussions of the camp question in a slightly 
different form; there it was a yeshivah that was facing financial difficulties 
[are there ever any that aren't?] and wanted to reduce expenses by using 
"chalav stam" [ordinary store milk]. (This may be the same case disguised in 
different terminology.) The reason given for advising them to use chalav 
yisroel in spite of the difficulties was that, since the school was going to 
great lengths to giving the students the highest level of religious and moral 
education, they should make a point of using chalav yisroel despite the 
financial problems to reinforce those lessons. 
 
This is equivalent to saying that since they are being machmar on so many 
other things, they must be machmar here too. It is very different from saying 
that the use of chalav yisroel is the basic requirement, and one needs a 
special dispensation to use ordinary milk. As to whether Rav Moshe, O"H, used 
chalav stam, I have no information. I have come across a number of things said 
in Rav Moshe's name that turned out not to be so; this may be one more. 
 
j.h.proschan
allegra!nvuxb!jhp3 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Some additional observations on the question of pareve foods in meat/dairy 
utensils:
 
1.  In the categories of meat utensils, another dimension that may affect 
    matters is whether the utensil was used hot or cold. "Hot" can mean either 
    high temperature or sharp/spicy/hot; either way, the food is more readily 
    absorbed.
 
2.  A second factor that is often overlooked is the physical state of the 
    utensil; is the surface smooth, rough, or pitted; are there seams, welds, 
    rivets, sharp interior corners; is it coated; and so on.
 
3.  Glossary:
 
[In my comments in the last mailing, I gave (in brackets) some very
sketchy reasonings for my opinions, and used several 'technical'
terms from the laws of meat and dairy without translating them. In
my mind, I was addressing them to those who were more familiar with
the halachot. I would like to thank Josh for the excellent glossary
he has put together.   Avi Feldblum - Mod. ]
 
    nosen taam lephegam: giving an injurious flavor.
                
                something that gives a bad taste to the food; for example, a 
                bit of food that has spoiled to the point of being completely 
                inedible and revolting. 
 
    boleah kedi klipah: absorbed [in an amount] sufficient to require 
                peeling.
 
                a food that has absorbed a slight amount of something 
                forbidden, so that only the surface is affected; if the outer 
                layer is peeled away, the rest may be used. 
 
    bleah:  absorbed.
 
                whatever was absorbed into the food or utensil.
 
    n[osen]'t[aam] bar n[osen]'t[aam]: giving a flavor as a result of giving a 
                flavor.
 
                a secondary absorbtion, resulting from an original absorption; 
                the intensity (and effectiveness) is far weaker.
 
    machmir:  stringent
 
    kavosh k'mevushal dami: soaking is equivalent to cooking
 
4.  Another extremely important dimension is the general level of "chumrah" 
    [stringent observance] that the individual asking the question follows. In 
    matters of kashrus, and many other areas, there is a range of opinions 
    from the lenient to the stringent. Which a person follows depends on local 
    custom, family tradition, personal preference, etc. This is an area where 
    a person should be reasonably consistent; as a result, two different 
    people asking the same question of the same Rav might get different 
    answers.
 
 
Regarding a blessing on a jahrzeit licht: There are three categories of 
blessings; those over [certain] mitzvoth of the Torah; those over [certain] 
Rabbinical mitzvoth; those over food or other items of satisfaction; and those 
of praise (e.g. on seeing lightning). (I'm counting mitzvoth as one category.) 
There are no blessings over customs, and lighting a jahrzeit licht is a 
custom.
 
Finally, the reason for "bin Nun" and not "ben Nun". I don't have my library 
available, but I seem to remember that it is a matter of Hebrew orthography. 
When Abraham had his name changed from Avram, it was by the addition of a 
single letter "heh". For symmetry, his wife's name was changed from Sarai to 
Sarah, which in Hebrew involves replacing a "yud" by a "heh". This left a 
stray "yud" which had been deprived of its place in the Torah. The "yud" was 
rewarded by being inserted into Yehoshua's name, changing the "ben" ["beth" 
"nun"] to "bin" ["beth" "yud" "nun"]. 
 
 
 

>From ayf Thu Aug  6 17:24 EDT 1987
>From ayf Thu Aug  6 17:24 EDT 1987 forwarded by ayf
From:       [email protected] (Avi Feldblum)
To:         mail.jewish_ack subscribers
Date:       Thu Aug  6 17:12:03 EDT 1987
Subject:    mail.jewish #55
 
Topics:
 
		Re: Blessings over birth of children
				Isaac Balbin
		Re: Cholov Israel
				Isaac Balbin
				Lenny Oppenheimer
		Re: Yehoshua bin Nun
				Fran Storfer
				Rabbi Haber
				Mechael S. Kanovsky
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
In reply to D.M. Wildman.
   
>  The halacha in the Mishna Brurah implies that the parents, or at
>  least the father, say the appropriate blessing(s). It is not clear
>  if the mother recites it also, is Yotzei with her husband (or vica
>  versa!), or has no chiyuv at all. It is also not stated if siblings
>  and other close relatives are permitted to say a bracha.
 
The  relevant section is Orach Chaim, Siman 223, Seif 1.
Over there it is quite explicit that BOTH the Father and Mother have
a Chiyuv to say Hatov Vehameitiv. As in other Brachos of this type,
the husband MAY be motzi his wife. On the other hand she can do so herself.
These two people are Bepashtus the two who have directly "received" the
goodness of Hashem in their partnership in Pirya Verivya (as distinct
from Siblings etc). Note some hold that the reason for the happiness
is different between mother and father. See Shar Hatziyun,OS 3.
Note though, that the Eliyahu Rabba differs and opines that Grandparents,
or even good friends can make it. See Biur Halacha, Siman 223.
The other Brocha of Shecheyanu is different. The Aruch Hashulchan
says that it is not necessary. The Mishna Brura says that in the
least it is a Birchas Reshus. Reb Moshe Feinstein Z"tzl paskened that
the Brocho of Shehecheyanu should be said seperately. (The Source is
a book entitled "Aim Habanim Smeicha" by Rosenthal - it is published
by Feldheim. Interesting that the Sefer "Halichos Bas Yisrael" by
Rav Fuchs says that the woman does NOT make Shehechyanu after a
daughter. Even though he cites a source  (Shar Hatziyun Os 3, ibid)
in my opinion the Shar  Hatziyun is not even addressing that issue.
On the contrary, the reason given by the Mishna Brura for the Bracha
- we make a bracha of shehecheyanu if we havent seen someone for 30 days! -
is applicable to both males and females. Since this is a personal thing,
ie when each and every person sees someone they haven't seen in 30 days,
Reb Moshes Psak seems to "jive" well with the Mishna Brura.
 
>  I have not been able to find any sources that discuss when the
>  brachot should be said: immediately at birth (or the closest moment
>  of Tzniut thereafter), at the brit or naming, or in between. One
>  might think that somebody should be present to respond Amen; perhaps
>  a minyan should be present (like benshing "Gomel").
 
The Siman cited above states that Hatov Vehameitiv can be said even before
seeing the boy, can be said as soon as he sees it, can be seen even after
- provided(!) that the joy is still as prevalent.
As for Shehecheyanu, for the reasons outlined above it should be made
upon seeing the girl. Reb Moshe Feinstein adds that if it wasn't said then
it can be said for up to a week (provided joy is still great!).
 
  Does one double the appropriate brachot at the birth of twins?
No, if they are two boys - one Hatov, two girls one shecheyanu,
a boy and a girl - the Hatov can be said over both (seeing both).
 
				Isaac Balbin
________________________________________________________________________
 
Re: Cholov Yisrael
 
	[Isaac Balbin points out that Australian milk is also under a
board of control, so Reb Moshe's heter should apply there as well.
Mod.]
 
 
J.H.Proschan writes in m.j_54:
 
> The reason given for advising them to use chalav yisroel
> in spite of the difficulties was that, since the school
> was going to great lengths to giving the students the
> highest level of religious and moral education, they
> should make a point of using chalav yisroel despite the
> financial problems to reinforce those lessons.  This is
> equivalent to saying that since they are being machmar on
> so many other things, they must be machmar here too. It is
> very different from saying that the use of chalav yisroel
> is the basic requirement, and one needs a special
> dispensation to use ordinary milk.
 
All this is nice and dandy, but it begs two more questions. Firstly, if
you are correct, would that Yeshiva have to take on ALL CHUMRAS? If not,
which ones yes and which ones no? and why? 
Secondly, I have seen a republished letter from Reb Moshe in a book on
Kashrus by one Rav Feurst, where Reb Moshe was addressing a "Kashrus list?"
and seemed to imply again, that "where it is available, you should use it".
I ask you, again, this seems to say to me that it is the ideal (not a chumrah)
but if you can't get it, there are very good reasons for a hetter.
					Isaac Balbin
______________________________________________________________________
 
more Re: Cholov Israel [and I think it also addresses Isaacs points in
the above item. Mod.]
 
Regarding the two questions raised by Issac Balbin in the #53 mailing:
 
(1) That Rav Moshe ZT"L in one place said that one could use "Chalav Akum"
while he suggested that a camp go to the extra expense of purchasing
"Cholov Yisroel", even if it meant having less campers.
 
(2) The ambiguity in the difference between "LeHachmir" and "Min Haro'uy".  
 
Though I don't know if Issac intended this, I think that these two questions
are related in an interesting way.
 
There is, in my humble opinion, a problem in certain parts of the frum
world. There are many well meaning people who find great joy in discovering 
new and novel ways to increase and enhance their spiritual lives. This, of
course, is a wonderful thing and should only be applauded. It is of paramount
importance that one's Avodas Hashem (service of G-d) not become stale and 
relegated to a status of "Mitzvos Anoshim Melumodoh". (Doing Mitvos in a 
rote fashion, mechanically and uninspired.)
However, sometimes this positive virtue gets extended into the distorted view
that it is right and proper to begin conducting oneself in all matters, in 
the most stringent halachic view possible, going beyond the Psak Halacha 
that has been accepted as the normative "Lema`asseh" Halacha in a given 
situation. In other words, there are those who seem to find their greatest 
religious satisfaction in finding new "Chumros" to take upon themselves.
Our sages were opposed to this ideology for many reasons, some of which are 
the following:
	1. There is a certain arrogance implicit in this attitude. It as
	if one was saying, "I am already up to par in all of my Mitzva
	responsibilities, I am looking to do even beyond the basic 
	requirements."  Need more be said???
	2. One may bring upon oneself a harsher judgement in Heaven since
	it is as if, as it were, the person is saying "I am on a 'madreyga'
	which is higher than the normative, I must behave in a more saintly
	fashion." It is well known that G-d is more particular and stringent
	with the more saintly, hence it is almost as if the person is asking
	for that treatment.
	3. It breeds arrogance and disdain vis' a vis' others. All too often
	people who engage in this behavior develop a smug, "holier than thou"
	attitude, which is certainly a very negative phenomenon.
	4. At times it happens that those for whom the quest after "Chumros"
	becomes a very major undertaking acquire a certain callousness 
	regarding "mundane" basic mitzvos that should really have a very
	much higher priority than some obscure esoteric supra-halachic 
	opinion. Haven't we all heard complaints about the "ultra-Orthodox"
	who are deficient in some very basic behaviour?
 
There are more reasons that could be brought, but this article is getting too
long already. (If interested see "Sha'arei Talmud Torah" by Yehuda Levi, 
Feldheim 1981, for an interesting discussion of the subject.)
To get back to the point, it should be clear why even if there is reason
"LeHachmir" (to be more stringent), that does not make it "Min Haro'uy",
or appropriate. One needs guidance from one's spiritual mentor as to when
a Chumra should, in fact, be accepted, and perhaps Rav Moshe ZT"L was trying
to provide us with this guidance.
Furthermore, in the case of Cholov Yisroel, it was, perhaps felt by Rav Moshe
ZT"L that being that this was "Min Haro'uy", and that, as Arnie Lustiger 
pointed out in mailing # 54, the purpose of the camp was to provide an 
education towards the importance of Mitzvos, that this warranted the extra
expense of Colov Yisroel. (I presume that the children who were turned away
had another camp that they could attend.)
On a personal note, I was privileged to see Rav Moshe ZT"L often as a child,
having grown up as the next-door-neighbor of one of his children, and I 
remember a number of occasions when his grandchildren would come over to
borrow Cholov Yisroel milk from us when he was visiting with them, as
that is what he preferred to use exclusively.
 
Lenny Oppenheimer     opus!leo    ATT Network Sys. Red Hill
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Re: Yehoshua bin Nun
 
The 'yud' taken from Sarai's name was used in changing Hoshea to
Yehoshua. This is clear from sanhedrin 107 and even more clear in the
Yerushalmi sanhedrin 2;6.
				Rabbi Yaacov Haber and Fran Storfer
 
[As moderator I will at times combine similar responses from two or
more people into a single response. I will list all the people whose
postings I combined. Mod.]
 
The words bin and ben were explained to me differently, as follows:
 
When the Jews were wandering in the desert and were approaching
Canaan, Moses sent in 50 men to spy out the land.  Yehoshua was
one of those men, and the 'bin Nun' refers to 'one of fifty' as 
opposed to 'ben Nun', 'the son of Nun'.  (This was explained to 
me by a man in my shul named Ben Bennoun, the Bennoun being a
derivative of ben Nun.  When called to the Torah, he is called as
'Benyomin ben Yehoshua bin-Nun', and I had asked him about his 
name.)
				Fran Storfer
 
The Radak (rav David ben Kimchi) writes in the begining of joshua that
the reason Yehoshua was called *been* Nun and not *ben* Nun is purely
phonetical. Since both the words ben and Nun are one sylable words it
is easier to say them together i.e. beenun instaid of ben Nun.
				Mechael S. Kanovsky
 
 

>From ayf Wed Aug 19 23:10 EDT 1987
>From ayf Wed Aug 19 23:10 EDT 1987 forwarded by ayf
From:       [email protected] (Avi Feldblum)
To:         mail.jewish_ack subscribers
Date:       Wed Aug 19 22:47:42 EDT 1987
Subject:    mail.jewish #56
 
Topics:
		General
			Moderator
			Josh Proschan
		Re: bin Nun
			Warren Burstein
		Re: Chalov Israel
		Re: Blessings over a new baby
			Josh Proschan
		Re: 'eruv' around an island
			Ira Pollack
______________________________________________________________________
 
A few general comments on the mailing list. First, the status of
internet mail appears to be a state of flux at this time. I
received several notices from different mailers that things were
not getting through. I will be trying to find alternate paths to
those locations. Second, I would appreciate it if people who are
submitting articles put a one line signature at the end of the
article. If I receive something with no request that your name
not be included with the article and with no signature, I will
try and make a one line signature from either the mail headers or
my mailing list. The last item comes from Josh Proschan,
concerning use of hebrew or yiddish in submissions.
					Avi Feldblum - Mod.
 
    I must, again, object to the casual use of Hebrew or Yiddish 
    words in articles.  I am aware that this is common usage in many 
    yeshivos, and is acceptable there in speaking; it is NOT 
    acceptable in writing.  There are too many different 
    pronunciations for Hebrew (is it 'o'? 'oy'? 'ee'?) and no standard 
    way of indicating pronunciation in ASCII text (was that first one 
    'oh' or 'uh'?).  Worse, many people reading this mailing list may 
    not know the terms used, and be unable to understand the 
    articles. Even if you know the word, and expect it in that
    context, it can be very hard to recognize. 
 
    Suggestions:
 
    a. Enclose all hebrew or yiddish words in quotation marks,
       unless they have been fully absorbed into English (e.g.
       kosher).
 
    b. Translate each term the first time it is used in an
       article, even if it was defined in a previous mailing;
       there may be new readers who didn't see the earlier
       definition.
 
    c. Use such terms only when unavoidable.  Examples would be
       technical terms or labels that are difficult to use in
       translation, or would be misleading.  (Some uses of
       'minhag' can be replaced by 'custom'; others can't be.)
					
				Josh Proschan [allegra!nvuxb!jhp3]
 
I basically agree with Josh's statement and request. I will put
quotes around hebrew or yiddish words that I see, and will try to
put a definition after them in [ def -Mod.] format. I don't
guarentee accuracy (and surely not spelling) so do me a favor and
try and do it before submitting the article. If the hebrew words
are after the main english text in (),[],{} and the article is
readable without the added comment, I will leave it alone on the
assumption that the author is including it for any who can make
out what it means.
						Mod.
______________________________________________________________________
 
> Yehoshua was one of those men, and the 'bin Nun' refers to 'one
> of fifty' as opposed to 'ben Nun', 'the son of Nun'.
 
Has anyone heard of any source that indicates fifty spies, rather than
the tweleve the 'pshat' (simple, or literal meaning) of the story of the
spies indicates?
			Warren Burstein [allegra!phri!pluto!warren]
______________________________________________________________________
 
1.  Correction:
 
    In m.j.55 Isaac Balbin quotes an extract from the middle of 
    something I wrote about Rav Moshe's response to the question of 
    using 'cholov yisroel' at a school or camp.  This extract 
    unfortunately gives the impression that I was describing the 
    reasoning as stated in the response; in fact, I tried to make it 
    clear that I was describing discussions that I have heard on this 
    ruling.  There is a great difference, and one should be extremely 
    careful to distinguish what a 'posek' (halachic authority) 
    actually wrote from the general impression of what he wrote. 
 
2.  Additional comment:
 
    One distinction that I failed to make, that is perhaps important 
    in this discussion, is that there are two questions: 
 
    a. Is the {milk|meat|candy|...} kosher?
 
    b. What procedures must we follow in deciding the previous
       question in order to be permitted to eat the food?
 
    For most foods, there are many choices for the second question.  
    Usually, it is up to the individual to decide which to rely on.  
    If a custom develops to use only one method, or the 'poskim' 
    (halachic authorities) rule that only one method be used, the 
    food may be known to be kosher (question a.) but we still could 
    not eat it (question b.)  This may be the case with 'cholov 
    yisroel'; the custom developed in Europe, based on advice or 
    rulings from many respected authorities, of only using milk that 
    had been certified kosher through this process.  (Note that 
    'cholov yisroel' is NOT simply another term for 'kosher milk'; it 
    refers to milk that has been supervised in a specific way during 
    production and storage.) 
 
    Thus, when we find ourselves with another, easier, method of 
    determining whether milk is kosher, we may still have the 
    obligation to follow that custom -- not because the milk wouldn't 
    be kosher otherwise, but because we have an accepted 'minhag' (a 
    custom that has much of the force of law).  (This would be even 
    stronger if it were a halachic ruling, rather than a minhag.) 
 
    This results in the interesting situation that, regarding 
    'kashrus' (question a.) normal dairy milk is kosher, without 
    needing a lenient interpretation of 'kosher'; but using it 
    requires a 'heter' for violating the custom of only using 'cholov 
    yisroel' (question b.). 
 
    If this distinction I have been making is valid, it provides a 
    way of understanding several points.  Since the Government-
    inspected milk is kosher, Rav Moshe's remarks on that point are 
    clear; since there is a minhag to use only 'cholov yisroel' Rav 
    Moshe's advice to use it where and when possible is not 
    contradictory.  This differs from other 'chumros' (stringent or 
    strict practices), as those usually do not have the status of 
    accepted 'minhagim' and are thus a matter for individual 
    discretion. 
 
    DISCLAIMER:  The preceding discussion is speculative.  I did not 
    intend to provide answers to any of the underlying halachic 
    questions, such as whether 'cholov yisroel' as practiced in 
    Europe was a 'chumrah', 'minhag', or 'halachah'. 
 
3.  Blessings over a child:
 
    There is a widespread custom to NOT say either blessing.  There 
    is also a widespread custom to not say a 'shehecheyanu' on seeing 
    a (very close) friend after 30 days.  The reasoning seems to be 
    that there are doubts (does the person feel enough joy and 
    happiness? is that friend a close enough friend? ...), and one 
    should not make a blessing if there are doubts over its 
    applicability or appropriateness. 
 
				Josh Proschan
______________________________________________________________________
 
It seems that an island surrounded by water can be used in place of an
eruv on shabat.  What are the limitations in size of island for this
kula, and also does the island have to be populated? Do the forests
negate the idea of 'mukaf l'dira' [An eruv is generally around an area
that is 'set aside for dwelling' (I think I have one right) Mod.]? Do
you have to destroy part of the exisiting eruv and rebuild or is it
sufficient to rely on the pre-exisiting island boundaries (this is not
a question regarding manhattan which is obviously a whole different
problem because of 600,000 people and 'reshut harabim d'oraita' [A
'public area' by Torah definition. Mod.]).
 
The specific issue is for people who live in cities without an eruv
and would like to get away for a shabat to a place where they can
carry their kids around and not be imprisoned in the house.  Chicago
does not have any bungalow colonies to which we can escape and we
would like to tent out somewhere so that we can get outside with our
(nonwalking) child.
 
				IRA A POLLACK [uicvm.bitnet!u18239]
 
 

>From ayf Wed Sep  2 19:35 EDT 1987
>From ayf Wed Sep  2 19:35 EDT 1987 forwarded by ayf
From:       [email protected] (Avi Feldblum)
To:         mail.jewish_ack subscribers
Date:       Wed Sep  2 19:22:03 EDT 1987
Subject:    mail.jewish #57
 
Topics:
			Yahrzeit
				Harold Wyzansky
			Re: An eruv around an Island
				Rabbi Yaacov Haber
			The tuna issue
			Listening to music
				Isaac Balbin
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have some questions regarding the calendar and Yahrzeit
[anniversary of a death - Mod.] observance.  I  received a Yahrzeit
table program which I am trying to port to my PC and I don't think
that it is handling some of the situations correctly.  The problems
happen when the date to be observed does not occur every year.  I
used the "Kitzur Shulchan Aruch" (KSA) as a reference, but he does
not  cover every situation.
  
1.  Cheshvan usually has 29 days and sometimes 30.  According to the KSA, 
if the death occurred on the 30th, the first day of Rosh Chodesh Kislev,
to determine the Yahrzeit date to be observed in those years when Cheshvan
has only 29 days, one looks at the next year (the first anniversary of the
death).  If Cheshvan the next year again has 30 days, then henceforth the
Yahrzeit is to be observed on Rosh Chodesh Kislev, either the 30th of 
Cheshvan if it exists, otherwise the first of Kislev.  If, on the other
hand, Cheshvan the next year has only 29 days, then henceforth the
Yahrzeit is to be observed on the last day of Cheshvan, either the 30th
if it exists, otherwise the 29th.  Is this in fact the rule as it is
currently observed?
  
2.  Kislev usually has 30 days and sometimes only 29.  The KSA says that
the rule for Rosh Chodesh Tevet is the same as above for Rosh Chodesh
Kislev.  He also says that the Yahrzeit should be observed by the day
of the month rather than by which day of Chanukah the death occurred.
Is this correct?
  
3.  The rules for Adar and leap years are clear, except for one situation.
If a death occurred in one of the Adars of a leap year, then in a leap
year, the Yahrzeit is to be observed in the Adar in which it occurred,
and in a normal (i.e. non-leap) year, the Yahrzeit is to be observed in
the only Adar.  If the death occurred in Adar of a normal year, then the
Yahrzeit is to be observed in BOTH Adars of a leap year.  If, however,
the death occurred on the 30th day of Adar Rishon in a leap year, when
is the Yahrzeit to be observed in a normal year where Adar has only 29
days?  Should it be on the 29th of Adar or the first of Nisan?  This
situation is not mentioned in the KSA.
  
Harold Wyzansky
[email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
> What are the limitations in size of island for this
> kula, and also does the island have to be populated? Do the forests
> negate the idea of 'mukaf l'dira' [An eruv is generally around an area
> that is 'set aside for dwelling' (I think I have one right) Mod.]?
 
	In order for the natural boundries to work
	the space has to either be `mukaf ledirah'
	or be less than a `bais sosayim'. A bais
	sosayim is 5000 sq. amos. An amah is between
	18 and 24 inches depending on your Rav.
 
	[see responsa Kol Mevaser vol 1 chap.20
	pg.65.]
 
> a question regarding manhattan which is obviously a whole different
> problem because of 600,000 people and 'reshut harabim d'oraita' [A
> 'public area' by Torah definition. Mod.]).
 
	It's not so simple. Although the Chazon Ish
	Eruvin 108 makes this point there are many
	opinions which hold that even 600000 can't
	abolish a natural boundry.see Noam vol 1.
 
Rabbi Yaacov Haber / Torah Center of Buffalo 
Internet:  [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
What are peoples feelings  regarding  the  tuna  issue  -  that  is,  the  Chief
Rabbinate  in  Israel  concluding  that OU tuna was not acceptable? Certainly OU
have to answer the issue, Reb Moshe & Rabbi Henkin  both  forbade  it  as  well,
Indeed,  you  can  see  Bleich  in  Contemporary  Halchik problems II, issue the
challenge. Rabbi Tendler told me that OU told him they had a hetter  from  Rabbi
Soloveitchik,  however,  Rabbi Tendler says that he asked Rabbi Soloveitchik who
said that it  is  true  he  thought  that  it  was  muttar  (permitted)  without
supervision  but  he  (Rabbi  S) said he was not a posek. Thus, did the OU get a
HORAHAH Lemaaseh? (practical halachik decision).?
 
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Reb Moshe Feinstein has a responsa where he claims that one is not permitted  to
listen  (for  pleasure)  to  (jazz,  rock  even classics for example) because of
Zecher LeChurbon (remembering the destruction of the temples).  Reb Moshe, based
on  a  question he has on a Gemarah, decides according to the Beit Yosef and not
the Ramah. He seems to go against the gammut of Ashkenazy posekim. I have  found
this  Psak very puzzling.  It is interesting to note that the Maaseh Rokeach, on
the Rambam (Hilchos Taanis, I think) cited by Reb Moshe, gives  a  very  similar
explanation  to  Reb  Moshe.   Indeed, Harav Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg Shlita in
Tzitz Eliezer Vol 15 (I think - I will find it on request) alludes to this point
by quoting from Rabbi Akiva Eiger that one should not sway from the Ramah.  Does
anyone understand how this sort of psak ``fits in'' to the scheme of things?
 
                Isaac Balbin    ...!{seismo,uunet}!munnari.oz!isaac
 
 

>From ayf Fri Sep 11 13:54 EDT 1987
>From ayf Fri Sep 11 13:54 EDT 1987 forwarded by ayf
From:       [email protected] (Avi Feldblum)
To:         mail.jewish_ack subscribers
Date:       Fri Sep 11 13:34:28 EDT 1987
Subject:    mail.jewish #58
 
Topics:
                       Minhag  ['custom']  (from  chalav  yisrael discussion)
                                         Isaac Balbin
					 
_____________________________________________________________________________
 
     I  would  like  to  respond  to  some of the questions raised by  Josh
Proschan.  The  issue  of  minhag is complex. Indeed, Reb  Moshe  Feinstein
discusses it in a number of Responsa.
 
     Even if Chalav Yisrael was  deemed  necessary  in   Europe,   or   the
US   or  Australia,  and  90% of people adhered to the necessity, this does
not mean that *you* or *I* have to.  It  does  not  take  on  the  face  of
minhag.   Indeed,   if   one  considers   Reb   Moshe   to   be  his  Posek
(halchik  decisor)  then  he does not necessarily require  Chalav  Yisrael;
even  if  Reb  Moshe  himself used it -  and  he did,  and  even  if  every
``Gadol  Hador''  - Torah Luminary - in the Aguda  or  elsewhere  says  you
need  it.   This is not an issue of minhag. It is an  issue  of Halacha and
Horahah (actual practical determination  of  Halacha).   What  does  *your*
Rabbi say?
 
     The halacha is determined by your Posek. He may or  may  not  give   a
Horahah  (binding  halachik  decision) based on this Halacha.  For example,
I was told by Rabbi M. Tendler that Reb Moshe Feinstein used  to  turn  the
gas  *off*  on   Yom-Tov because  he  felt  that  this was the halacha. The
astute reader of his  T'shuvos  (responsa)  will  see  that  Reb  Moshe  is
sufficiently  ambiguous   when   he   mentions  related   issues,  so as to
``protect'' his own viewpoint.  Nevertheless, neither you  nor  I  has  any
license to keep  this  halacha  (unless  there  is  a  certain circumstance
which  I  won't  go into) until such time as a formal *Horahah* is  entered
into.
 
     We can now understand the reason for the Horahah  to  the  schools  by
Reb  Moshe   *requiring*   them   to   use  Chalav  Yisrael which has extra
supervision.  A Horahah,  as  distinct   from   a   ``dry''   halacha   can
take    social/political  expediencies   into   account.  In  this  case, a
particular type of education was being imparted, thus, the Horahah for this
school was specific for  this  school and  required  them  to  keep  within
the bounds of the educational philosophy.  Indeed, Reb  Moshe  used  Chalav
Yisrael  with  the  extra  supervision and the Chumroh therefore  became  a
NEDER requiring Hafarah (annulment) in  order  to  revert  to  a  different
situation.  It  does not become a minhag, therefore Reb Moshes  children do
not  HAVE  to  keep it. In fact, Rabbi Tendler  tells  me  that  Reb  Moshe
never forced his wife or children to use it even IN HIS OWN HOUSE.
 
     Over a period of time, more and more people used Chalav  Yisrael,  and
so,  anyone   who   feels   that they wish to conform (or put differently -
based on Reb Moshe's Psak - if they wish to be  Machmir  they  can.)  Rabbi
Tendler  tells  me  that in  his  house  they  now use Chalav Yisrael.  Reb
Moshe told him that he didn't  NEED  to  use  it  when  Rabbi  Tendler  got
married.   In later years a letter from Reb Moshe appeared in which he says
"now that it is freely available etc, one should use it." The  halacha  has
not  changed, the Horahah might have. Reb  Moshe,  Rabbi Tendler  told  me,
was sensitive to the wishes of other Gedolei Haposkim (if it was a case  to
be machmir). In this case, he felt (and I am sure there were other reasons)
that times were such, and the people  were  such,  that  they  should/could
accept  this  Chumroh.   I  think  it  is  a  big step to say  that  it  is
because  of MINHAG.
 
     The above concerns a specific issue -  Chalav  Yisrael.    Reb   Moshe
gives  hints   of   similar  halachik  decision  making  processes in other
Tshuvos.  For instance, there is  the  Tshuvo  where  Reb  Moshe  discusses
whether one can check  a lung  for  Sircha (scar tissue etc) by removing it
in a different way - that is, by snapping ribs as a means  to  get  to  the
lung.   This  is   in   Yoreh   Deah   1,   I  forget  the  Chapter.  After
concluding that it is absolutely permitted - this was not the  practice  in
former  times  it seems - he says that one should not  do  it.  He  alludes
to  the Chassam Sofer's famous dictum "Chadash Assur Min Hatorah" a  pun  -
which  means that new  (technological?)  methods  are  assur.   (One  would
imagine  that the Chassam Sofer would not permit a cat-scan of tissue as  a
means  to  determine  lack of sircha on this basis - would your Rabbi?) Reb
Moshe says in that  Tshuvoh that one should not permit this new  method  of
breaking the ribs as a means of entry on this basis.
 
     I feel though that as distinct from the Chassam Sofer, Reb Moshe  (who
does  not   cite  the Chassam Sofer by name) uses this Klall (general rule)
whenever the Horahah (not the halacha)  requires  sensitivity.    In   this
case,   Reb   Gedaliah  Felder  (and  others) objected strongly.  Reb Moshe
probably felt (in keeping with his latter Horahah of Chalav  Yisrael)  that
this  was  a  particular  issue  which didn't require the full force of his
halachik hetter.  Indeed, he says that EVEN IF other poskim  felt  that  it
was  assur  one  could NOT  assume  it  was  a  minhag because  there is no
source for the minhag according to Reb Moshe.  According to Reb Moshe there
is  also  no  source (in Gemarah, Rishonim)  for  a  minhag  to  be machmir
in Chalav Yisrael with extra supervision when according to Reb Moshe it  is
muttar  meikkar  hadin  (permitted).  I am not at all sure that you can say
that  there  is  a  minhag  not  to  have  Chalav  Yisrael  without   extra
supervision.   I  would  guess that the very same people who have glatt (ps
glatt in melbourne, australia is even stricter that in the US  despite  our
DDT  content  :-)) have Chalav Yisrael with extra supervision.  Do you then
say there  is  a  MINHAG  to  have  glatt?   Maybe  you   would   say,   in
contradistinction,  that where possible one ``ought'' to use glatt if it is
financially viable.
 
     As an aside, note that other poskim, notably Harav  S.Z  Auerbach,  do
not  feel  as  strongly  about  this  "Chadash Assur min Hatorah" Klall.  I
heard, in Rabbi Auerbach's name, that when  someone  asked  him  about  the
Klall,  he   replied,  I   thought   Chadash  was only applicable to grain!
Nevertheless, it is apparent from his treatment of electricity  that  Rabbi
Auerbach  also was very sensitive to his  Rav  Hamuvhak (esteemed teacher),
the Chazon Ish, who felt that electricity was Assur Min Hatorah because  of
Boneh  (building).   The  moral  is  that   one  must probably  do  Shimush
(practical  decision making) with these Rabbanim to get a clear and defined
view  of  their  horahah  philosophy.   I  think  it is always  going to be
difficult to guess what they mean unless they say it.
 
     Returning to the issue of minhag again, there is one instance that   I
know  of,   and   the   reference   is   to   the Shach, Yoreh Deah 242:60,
whereby one MUST follow certain halachik pronouncements despite what   your
Rabbi   or   any  other might  say - and they are not minhagim!  If a Rabbi
decided that he would forbid something as a Gezerah (decree), - ie lest you
do  something  worse,  AND  he  is  the  Rabbi  of  that City (one needs to
redefine? this today) the people of that city can never find a hetter.
 
                Isaac Balbin    ...!{seismo,uunet}!munnari.oz!isaac
 
 
 

>From ayf Tue Sep 15 21:58 EDT 1987
>From ayf Tue Sep 15 21:58 EDT 1987 forwarded by ayf
From:       [email protected] (Avi Feldblum)
To:         mail.jewish_ack subscribers
Date:       Tue Sep 15 21:44:01 EDT 1987
Subject:    mail.jewish #59
 
Topics:
		Re: An eruv around an island
				Ira Pollak
		Re: Listening to music
				Lazer Danziger
				Isaac Balbin
______________________________________________________________________
 
I think the answer given by Rabbi Haber to the  question  of  the
island  is not quite complete. The point is if you decide to stay
on the island for shabat, then in essence, you are living on  the
island,  ergo,  it  is  thus  mukaf  l'dira (fenced in for living
space). The question  therefore  arises,  can  you  retroactively
convert a fenced in area (or an island, which has its own natural
boundaries) to mukaf l'dira status by moving your house there (or
your tent, as the case may be), or, must you symbolically destroy
the fencing and rebuild it. This is comparable to  the  issue  of
"taase v'lo min he'assui" seen by succah ( to make something with
the  express  intention  of  doing  so,  as  opposed  to   merely
converting  a preexisting object to the desired outcome).  If you
do not have to break down the fencing, then there is the addition
al  issue  of the trees, which may negate the whole idea of mukaf
l'dira, since a forest by its very innate nature, is not  a  back
yard.Finally,  is  there  an  upper limit to the size of a chazer
(yard) which may be mukaf l'dira?
 
Ira A. Pollack
 
[ Is anyone familiar enough about the rules of  mukaf  l'dira  to
put together a basic explanation of the rules and requirements of
a place being mukaf l'dira. With the number of communities having
eruv's  these  days I think it may be of general interest ( and I
think that the average person is less aware of  the  halachot  of
eruv than say kosher or shabbat). - Mod. ]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
In response to a recent request for  explanation  of  a  responsa
from  R.  Moshe  Feinstein  O.B.M,  I am submitting the following
clarification and remarks for distribution.
 
The correspondent  indicated  that  R.  Moshe  appeared  to  rule
contrary  to  a  ruling  of  the  RaMaH  (R. Moshe Isserles), the
established halachic authority for the Ashkenazim, regarding  the
listening to of musical instruments.
 
*Without* attempting to resolve the  question  entirely,  perhaps
the  following  points  will as least mitigate to some degree the
pungency of the question.
 
1)  R. Moshe Feinstein in this responsa is "machmir" (ruling in a
stricter fashion) over the RaMaH.
 
2)  R. Moshe qualifies his prohibition of  listening  to  musical
instruments  with  the  words  "yesh  le'hachmir"  (one should be
strict), perhaps indicating that he acknowledges that his  ruling
is strict and therefore is (only) advising that one should act in
a strict fashion, without maintaining  that  one  *must*  act  in
accordance with this ruling. (This point is admittedly strained.)
 
3)  There are several occassions  when  the  Taz  and  the  Shach
(earlier Rabbinical authorities) disagree with the RaMaH in Yoreh
Dayah (a section of the Jewish Law [Shulchan Aruch]) and are also
"machmir".  (Although,  again,  notwithstanding his greatness and
erudation, no one, I think, would consider R. Moshe in  the  same
category of these latter scholars/authorities...)
 
4)   R.  Moshe  himself  explains  that  the  RaMaH   bases   his
(dissenting)  opinion on a Rashi and Tosephes, who seem to make a
distinction between listening to musical  instruments  habitually
or  just  on  occassion.  However,  R.  Moshe  suggests  a way of
interpretting Rashi and Tos. in such a way, that they do *not* in
fact make or recognize such a distinction. As such, the RaMaH may
not have a basis on which to rule differently than  the  Mechabar
(R.  Yosef  Karo)  who rules in accordance with the Rambam who is
clear in his prohibition of listening to musical instruments.
Parenthetically, it may be worth asking that in the future,  when
refering  to  a  documented source, that the precise reference be
provided if possible. In this case, the  (unspecified)  reference
is to responsa number 166, pages 289-290, vol. Orach Chaim 1.
 
Lazer Danzinger    [email protected]  (416)475-8980
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
Point number 4 above of Lazer's  is precisely the point of issue.
Why I pointed out this example is because it is fairly typical of
a very distinctive style which  I  have  noticed  in  Reb  Moshes
Tshuvos  (responsa).  It  starts  off  by  "I  (Reb Moshe) have a
question on a  gemarah".  "No  one  appears  to  deal  with  this
problem."  When  I say "no-one", I mean Rishonim ... in very many
cases Reb Moshe does not deal with Acharonim.  [In this  specific
instance, the Maaseh Rokeach on the Rambam in Hilchos Taaniyos is
one who discusses this question  and  provides  an  answer  which
subsumes  Reb  Moshes (and goes one step further).]  As a result,
of the question, Reb Moshe has an answer  which  fits  in  better
with  the Mechaber than the Ramah. It is true that he attempts to
put these words in Rashi and Tosefos, upon  which  the  Ramah  is
based  opinion. Indeed, it is like an afterthought. The important
point is that, based on a difficulty such that  Reb  Moshe  could
not  see  how  the  Ramah  (or  anyone) could reconcile, he sides
against the Ramah. This in itself is remarkable,  both  in  style
and  individuality.  Other  posekim  would  say  that they have a
question on the gemarah, and they can't see how the Ramah fits in
----  but  they  wouldn't  go  against  the  Ramah on this basis.
Indeed, Harav Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg, the Tzitz Eliezer, has a
responsa  on  this  topic (music) (Chelek 15) where he points out
(as an example of his style and the style of Rabbi  Akiva  Eiger)
that  we  do  not depart from the teachings of the Ramah, whether
Lehachmir (to be stricter) or Lohokel (to be  more  lenient).  In
summary,  it  seems  that  Reb Moshe would have had a little less
faith in the  fallability  of  Rishonim  than  other  latter  day
Acharonim. Would readers accept this as a "fair" observation?
 
                        ...uunet!munnari!isaac
 
 
 
 

From:	DECWRL::"ihnp4!pruxe!ayf" "Avi Feldblum  24-Jan-88 0922 EST" 24-JAN-1988 12:28
To:	mail.jewish_ack.subscribers
Subj:	   mail.jewish #71

Topic:
		Emunat Chachamim
				Arnie Lustiger
______________________________________________________________________
 
      Sam Cramer's recent  posting provided me  with an excuse to raise  an
issue which has   bothered me for a   long  time: the  dilemma involved  in
contemporary "emunat chachamim"    ("belief  in the sages").   Sam  briefly
mentioned the  opposition   of a major  Orthodox   group (presumably Agudat
Yisrael) to  the recent Soviet Jewry  rally  in Washington which  drew over
200,000 people. I would  like to present  a  subjective history of  Aguda's
attitude towards Soviet Jewry rallies since the late 1960's which will lead
directly into my "dilemma".
 
      Soviet Jewry  first entered the American Jewish  agenda in  a serious
way in the late 1960's. Initially, most of the  action was sponsored by the
Jewish Defense League,  who sponsored rallies in  D.C.  and harassed Soviet
diplomats  working  in   the U.S.   Soon   afterwards  however, the  Jewish
establishment got actively  involved organizing  "mainstream" rallies along
with the   newly organized Student  Struggle  for  Soviet  Jewry.  With the
passage  of the Jackson-Vanik amendment linking  trade with freer emigration
of Jews, and the subsequent release of  tens of thousands of Jews annually,
the movement  picked up steam.  The Jewish  community had a very potent and
uniting rallying cry in this new cause.
 
       Only  one  major Jewish  organization  did not   participate in these
activities:  Agudat  Yisrael. Aguda based  its  stance against Soviet Jewry
rallies on  the "Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah", the  clearly preeminent group of
contemporary Halachic  authorities of  the  time,   most notably  Rav  Moshe
Feinstein and Rav  Yaakov Kamenetsky zatsal. Their  position was made known
month  after  month in  the official organ  of Aguda,  the Jewish Observer.
Their  position was that rallies only  made the  Russians more obstinate in
their imprisonment of Jews: American Jewry had no  leverage with the Soviet
Government, and  rallies would  just  make  things worse. Instead,   "quiet
diplomacy" was the most effective means of freeing Soviet Jews, an activity
Aguda had been involved with for decades prior to the recent uproar.
 
       However, the rank and file of Aguda were not  deaf to what was going
on around them. They could not sit on their hands  while the general Jewish
population was  "doing something", as allegedly  ineffective as it was.  In
response to  this need,  Aguda  organized "Tehillim  Rallies" where the New
York  haredi faithful would pack a  auditorium in Brooklyn and responsively
read Tehillim on behalf of the Soviet Jews.
 
        During this time, a number  of Yeshiva bochurim approached Zbigniew
Brzezinski, then  professor of Political  Science at Columbia,and asked him
whether  or   not large public   rallies  on  behalf  of  Soviet Jewry were
effective. His answer was an unequivocal yes.  He indicated that the Soviet
Union was  very  sensitive to  worldwide  public  opinion for  a  number of
reasons, and that the rallies should continue.
 
        Perhaps the time  that Soviet Jewry was at  its peak in  the Jewish
community's  consciousness  was in the early  seventies  at the time of the
trial of the "Leningrad Seven".  Seven  prominent Soviet  Jews were put  on
trial in  Russia for allegedly attempting to  hijack  an airplane to Israel.
All  were under  the  threat  of a death    sentence. The Jewish  community
mobilized and   held rallies on   their behalf.  The   Leningrad seven were
subsequently sentenced  with between twenty   and thirty years  in Siberian
labor  camps.  The Jewish community cited   the impact of the  Soviet Jewry
rallies as the reason that they were not in fact sentenced to death.
 
          Aguda's response, through the  pages of the Jewish Observer,  was
one of scorn.  Aguda indicated that hard  labor in Siberia would result  in
certain  death to the  Leningrad Seven,  and  that the rallies accomplished
nothing.
 
          From the  perspective of a 1980's  observer, it is interesting to
look back  and determine whether  Aguda (and, by implication,  the Gedolim)
was right or wrong. The  Leningrad Seven are today all  freed and living in
Israel.  Interestingly,  Yosef Mendelovich, the  last  of  the  Seven to be
freed, was featured on the cover of  the Jewish Observer after his release!
Since  the late sixties,  almost 200,000 Jews  have left  the Soviet Union,
while virtually none had left  previously due to Aguda's "quiet  diplomacy".
In the meantime, the "chillul hashem' (desecration of G-d's name) of Soviet
Jewry rallies still continue: the Tehillim rallies are all but forgotten.
 
          To me,  this (admittedly subjective)  narrative raises  some very
difficult issues. Can gedolim be wrong? If they are wrong, do we still have
an obligation to  listen to them?  The answer to  the first question  in my
opinion is clearly yes. However, from a halachic  standpoint, the answer to
the second question must also be affirmative. How can this be reconciled?
 
          Another  paradox: what  competence  do  Gedolim  have in   making
decisions  that are in the political,  rather than halachic sphere? Who can
assess    the political  climate  and   the    Soviet leaders'  minds  more
effectively, Reb   Moshe  Feinstein or    Dr.  Zbigniew Brzezinski?   Would
Brzezinski be so crass as   to pasken a  shaila  of bosor bechalav? On  the
other hand, if  a Godol feels sufficiently competent  to render a political
decision which would be binding, how can we second guess that competence?
 
         The severe test of "emunas  chachamim" is even more evident today.
The passing of Reb Moshe and  Reb Yaakov has  allowed the preeminent manhig
yisrael (leader of Israel)  to become Rav  Shach of the Ponevezh Yeshiva in
Israel. Rav  Shach shlita has recently stated  that Lubavitch  Hasidus is a
manifestation of "avoda zara"  (worship of strange  gods)  and that a  boys
high school in  Israel (organized by Rabbi Boruch  Chait a la Yeshiva  High
Schools in the  U.S. such as Torah Vodaas  and Chofetz Chaim) should be put
in cherem (excommunication) because  it  teaches secular subjects.  In  the
absence of other  Gedolim  who publicly  disagree with  these opinions, and
given Rav  Shach's  clear preeminence as  the  Godol hador, if  I  lived in
Israel, it  would  be prohibited  to  give my   son a minimal   high school
education. Indeed,   in these  cases,  there  is no  uncertainty  as to Rav
Shach's level  of competence: these  are not  national political issues but
simple halachic issues. How does one deal with this situation?
 
Arnie Lustiger
mhuxd!polymer!akiva
 
========================================================================
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
	id AA03662; Sun, 24 Jan 88 09:27:59 PST
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA08462; 24 Jan 88 09:07:06 CST (Sun)

    Does anybody have #72 extracted?  I have 73 and 74 but not 72.
    If someone has it please send it to me.  I will delete this note,
    put in 72, 73 and 74.  If there is no response by the end of the
    week I will send out for a new copy.

    Gavriel

Topics:
	Halacha and Politics
			Bruce Krulwich 
	Re: Chumatz on Pesach
			Steven H. Gutfreund
	Re: Sitting Shiva on a Child who Intermarries
			Ezra Tepper
	A Pesach Question
			Frano Storfer
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
On the  topic  of   the  appropriateness  of discussions  of    politics in
MAIL.JEWISH,   I not  only disagree  that  discussions   of politics is  a
negative thing,   but think  that   it is   important to discuss   CERTAIN
political situations in this forum.  The reason for this is the following:
 
Every  dispute in politics has two  Halachic aspects to  it.  The first is
the opinion that Halacha holds, the second is the side that we as Orthodox
Jews feel the government should impose on  the people.  For example, there
is no question  that Halacha disapproves  of abortion (to put  it mildly).
It is not clear to  me, however, whether that  necessarily implies that we
as Frum Jews should be  supporting all attempts at illegalizing abortions,
because  of  other ramifications that  such  political support could have.
More directly, supporting political action on  Halachic grounds is opening
the way  for people  of  other religious beliefs   to  do the same,  which
needless to say may not be good for us as Jews.   This is only one example
of an issue that is clear  from a Halachic  standpoint, but that it is not
clear what we as Jews should support politically.
 
For this reason  I am of the  opinion that  there  is a definite  need for
Observant Jews to   be  aware of both    Halacha  and of  it's   political
ramifications.
 
Bruce Krulwich
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have been asked to state (by a Lubavitcher Rabbi who looked over a copy
of this mailing) that it is definitely NOT a Lubavitcher minhag to acquire
chumatz before Pesach in order to have "chumatz after Pesach that has
been reliably sold". In fact the custom is the opposite, they try and
empty their houses of all Chumatz. He goes on to state that he does
not call into question whether one may have heard contrary from someone
who has Lubavitch connections. However, the authoritative minhag
is as I have stated above.
 
Steven H. Gutfreund  -  rutgers!cs-umass.arpa!gutfreund
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
After taking a  straw poll  of scholars I   know here in  Jerusalem, I was
unable to receive a response regarding the origin  of sitting shiva over a
child that intermarries. I heard from a respected Sfardi dayan (rabbinical
court judge), that  the custom is unknown among  Sfardi Jews, but is  only
practiced by some Ashkenazim, and he was unaware of its origin.
 
May I suggest that the Hagahos Ashri,  who wrote that Rabbeinu Gershon sat
double shiva when his apostate son died, is in conflict with the Ashkenazi
custom, as  clearly Rabbeinu Gershon  felt no need  to sit shiva  over the
soul of  his son while he was  still alive. He  waited for his repentance.
Only  after his death, when repentance  was  no longer possible, was shiva
sat for his soul.
 
I  can rationalize the Ashkenazi  observance from  another angle. Although
historically Jews did  not  sit for seven  days  of mourning when a  child
intermarried   (which  in past generations  also  involved  apostasy and a
church wedding), there  is a general Jewish custom  to rent one's garments
when receiving bad news, a practice has been largely done away with.  (For
instance, there is a halacha  that when a great   Torah scholar dies,  all
Jewry must rent  their garments (but not  sit shiva). Nevertheless, I have
not heard of  people who did this  when, for example,  Rav Moshe Feinstein
zatza"l passed away two years  ago.) I can well imagine  that many Jews in
past  generations would  rent their   garments when hearing  that  a child
became an apostate. This practice led others to sit shiva as well.
 
Ezra L. Tepper, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
rrtepper%[email protected] or psuvax1!weizmann.bitnet!rrtepper
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
The primary question I need to have answered is: What can I eat on Pesach?
There are two pieces of background information I  need to convey to get an
appropriate answer, and they in turn generate more questions:
 
	1) I am a strict vegetarian, or vegan.  That means I eat no animal
products  at all: no meat,  poultry, fish, dairy, or  eggs.   Last year on
Pesach I ended up getting some kosher  chicken, so I could CHEW something.
Since  then  I have  made a  decision to stop   eating  animal foods and I
discovered that I have a pretty severe  case of lactose intolerance, which
rules out milk products as well.
 
	2)  I am 1/4  Sepharad, as  based  on the  following:  My father's
father's family originated in  Spain in the  1400s  (where they were  gold
prospectors: Senta Ora Ferra was the family  name).  In 1492 when the Jews
were expelled  from Spain, they went to  Austria-Hungary, the part that is
now Rumania (where they were horse thieves;  Senta Ora Ferra was shortened
to Storfer, my family name now).
 
	My rabbi  (at my parents' shul;  mine does not   yet have a rabbi)
told me I could eat rice on Pesach.  I feel uncomfortable doing so, partly
because I  was   raised following the  Ashkenazi  traditions,   and I feel
strongly  that I    am violating Pesach     to eat  rice.   (27  years  of
conditioning is pretty powerful to overcome.)   I should probably add that
I am a  Conservative Jew,  leaning  strongly towards  the more traditional
end.
 
The Questions:  1)  Am I in fact Sepharad or Ashkenaz?
 
		2)  Given the answer to #1, what may I eat on Pesach? 
 
		3)   Additionally, I want  my   home to be   kosher for my
friends as well as myself - for example, how would I handle a Seder?
 
		4) My rabbi told  me I could  eat rice in  a meeting I had
with him last time I was home.  I am unsure as to the halachikally correct
way to go about all  of this, and would  appreciate some advice as to what
to do.
 
Fran Storfer - [email protected]

Topics:
		Tuna and R' Moshe'd P'sak
				Isaac Balbin
		Re: Emunat Chachamim
				Isaac Balbin
				Lazar Danziger
		On Metzitzah B'Peh in view of AIDS
				Isaac Balbin
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I  was pleased to  hear that there was  a reaction to Reb Moshes Psak,
but I must say that  the article had no  information content for me. I
don't know who the  leading Posek was,  I don't know how the situation
in industry is different, I don't know on what basis the leading Posek
disagreed with Reb  Moshe etc.  We  all know that  there is  a Shealah
before a T'shuvah, but if you read this  Tshuvah you will see that Reb
Moshe speaks in generalities. He does not speak about one factory that
he did or did not visit, he speaks  about the the  fact that under any
circumstance  you must  have have a   mashgiach AT ALL  TIMES. This is
verifiable, read the T'shuva  - not hearsay.  Now, so  that I can't be
accused of not adding  anything to this issue I  will add a few issues
which I know bother Poskim about Reb Moshes P'sak.
 
Firstly, it should be noted that Reb Moshes P'sak did not change after
this ``rampant confusion''. I have it from Reb Moshe Tendler that this
was Reb Moshes opinion and that was the end of it.  The major halachik
issue that Reb Moshe does  not enter into  is whether ``Mevatlim Issur
Lechatchila'', can we  annul the existence  of a prohibited substance.
For example, you know that X is Treif so you  add lots of Kosher Y and
say, hey presto, the treif is batel - nullified.   It is agreed that a
jew cannot do this.   There is a Sheilah whether  a Goy can.  It  is a
Machlokes Rishonim I believe.  In the case of tuna, there is almost no
way that some non-tuna    doesn't enter the machine  before   canning.
(This is Reb  Moshes point)  therefore,  if *you  know this* and   you
continue to  eat the Tuna you are  being Mevatel an issur lechatchila.
If the Tuna belongs to a  Goy then it might be  okay according to some
opinions.  On the  other hand, one  needs to decide exactly *when* the
tuna becomes batel.  If it  is when the fish are  whole, and you throw
them in *before*  they are  cut etc then   perhaps they are not  batel
because there is no halacha   of bitul involving complete  discernible
structures, such as   a fish.  This issue   was going through  my mind
after I read the Psak.  Indeed, I was puzzled why  it wasn't raised in
the T'shuva at  all.   I discussed it  with a  Rosh Hakollel   here in
Melbourne who said that he wasn't sure why either.  He promised to ask
Reb Heinneman (sp?) who is a Talmid  of Reb Moshe.  Reb Hienneman said
that he does  not agree with  Reb Moshes  Psak, and  that the  Tuna is
permitted because of ``Din Roiv'', simply  that *most* fish are kosher
tuna - nothing to do  with Bittul.  So, over to  you, can our American
friends enlighten us on these issues.  (Rabbi Tendler told me that Rav
Soleveitchik disagreed  with Reb  Moshe  too,  but that  one  couldn't
Pasken from Rav Soleveitchik because  he gave his halacha (theoretical
analysis of  the halacha) but not a   formal Horaha (judicial halachik
decision).
 
Isaac Balbin
______________________________________________________________________
 
Arnie Lustiger  raises the  issue  of fallability of  Chachamim.  They
have always been fallable and accountable - see Tractate Horayos.  The
issue here is not really fallability  or emunah.  It is accountability
and common-sense.  If we accept  that Reb Moshe's judgement was wrong,
is he accountable?  I doubt it.  I think the more interesting issue is
if there is a Chiyuv (incumbency) to go to a rally.   If there is not,
then Reb  Moshe made no mistake  on halachik grounds.  Which brings me
to common-sense :-) It is quite clear that a fair few Posekim exercise
their  political opinions and  _general judgement_ in  the  guise of a
Psak Din.  If you see  the Psak and  find NO  M'kor (source) then  use
your common sense and free will to choose.  (Chassidim view this issue
differently, but I   don't  think that even  they   say that it   is a
_halacha_ to ask a Rebbe whether or not one should change jobs etc) By
the way it is not "clear"  to me that Rav  Shach is the foremost Gadol
today.  He *is* the one many aggudists look to,  but they have to look
towards someone and  only one (human), this is  the  nature of cliques
and organised groups.  The central figure is  what its all about.  For
what its worth the three (and I can't separate them) Gedolei Horaha of
our  generation are  Reb Shlomo Zalman  Auerbach,  Reb Moshe Feinstein
Zt'l  and  Rav Eliezer  Yehuda Waldenberg.    All different but really
great and  innovative halachik   jurists of  _universal_   acclaim and
distinction.
 
Isaac Balbin
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Arnie   Lustiger  raises some   very  interesting  questions regarding
"emunas  chachamim".  His   questions,  however, cannot    be properly
addressed, before the resolution of other questions, I think.
 
1) What  are the criteria for determining  who may  enjoy the halachic
   status of  a "chacham"?   In  other words,  what makes  a  person a
   "chacham", or a "gadol hador"?
2) Who decides if the aforementioned criteria are met?
3)  Is   one   person's  (or  group's)   decision   regarding  if  the
   qualifications are present, binding on another person (or group)?
4) In a case where there is contention  among various "chachamim", how
   does one decide on whose opinion should be decisive?
5) How can a "chacham" be proven to be wrong or right?
6)  What  does "emunas chachamim" mean?   What does it entail?   May a
   "chacham" make a decision which ostensibly in violation of halacha?
   Is such a decision binding?
7) If a person is a 'gadol' in  Talmud, for example, does this qualify
   him,  or demonstrate his expertise in  matters of halacha? In other
   words, can there be different areas of "gadlus"?
8)  What lessons   can   be gleaned  from  the following   well  known
   historical controversies among gadolim:
	- The Rambam   faced tremendous opposition  from   many of his
	  contempory  "gedolim", not   only   to his  Guide   for  the
	  Perplexed, but even   for his Mishne  Torah.  Ultimately, of
	  course, not  only  was he  vindicated,  but  now  enjoys the
	  highest respect  and  esteem as   one  of Israel's  greatest
	  "rishonim".
	- More recently,  the  Ramchal (Rabbi  Moshe Chaim  Luzzatto),
	  author or   "Missilas Yesharim",  etc.,  was also originally
	  'persona  non grata', in his home  town in Italy.  Today, he
	  is considered to be one of the great Achronim.
	-  And   of course,   there  is the   unfortunate R.  Yonnason
	  Eyebschitz and R. Yaacov Emden controversy which ravaged all
	  of European Jewry only a   few hundred years ago.  Both  are
	  today regarded as representative  of the great generation of
	  Achronim.
 
Once   the aforementioned questions    are answered to  one's complete
satisfaction, I think that many of Arnie's questions and problems with
regards to  the  issue of   "Emunas Chachamim" will  be  settled. And,
perhaps needless to say, the answers should be firmly substantiated by
Shulchan Aruch and by our universally accepted Sages.
 
Lazer Danzinger - ihnp4!mnetor!lazer
______________________________________________________________________
 
On Metzitzah B'Peh in view of AIDS: 
[Whether the Mohel should use his mouth _directly_ when drawing the
blood after the Bris]
 
I  was disturbed by the  lack of response to my  question.  I think we
can all do  with a rounded response to  this question.  We don't  have
too many luminaries here  in Australia, so this  also why I am turning
to you especially those in Israel the U.S and  England.  Next time you
see, talk to, your Rabbi couldn't you ask him whether or not the above
practice  should be  replaced by  a  method suggested  by the Rabbanut
Harashit - use  a  pipette and cotton  wool.   Remember this  question
isn't the age-old one; this is AIDS specific.  One in 61 babies in New
York are born with AIDS.  Rabbi Moshe Tendler told us that some Rashei
Yeshiva have it (from transfusions).
 
Isaac Balbin
Please send responses to: UUCP: ...  munnari!isaac
ARPA: isaac%[email protected] CSNET: isaac%munnari@australia
JANET: isaac%[email protected]

Topics:
		Administrivia
				Moderator
		Metzitzah B'Peh -- Chief Rabbinate Ruling
				Ezra Tepper
		Emunat Chachamim, cont.
				Arnie Lustiger
______________________________________________________________________
 
A few short administration issues. First, to those that are submitting
articles, please try and translate non-english words you use the first
time you use them in an article. I will try and  do it  if you do not,
but would prefer that you do  it if  at all  possible. Next, Pesach is
coming up very shortly. If there are any of you  out  there that would
like to share your thoughts, comments and favorite commentaries on the
Hagadah with the   rest of the  mailing list  (so everyone  will  have
something to say at the Seder table) please get them  in to me as soon
as possible,  so  I will be  able to get it out  before Pesach. (As to
whether I have broken my first item in my second, I  do not think that
it is necessary to translate words such as Shabbat, Pesach or halacha.
If there is anyone on the list who  sees words that they have problems
with, please feel free to send me mail). Lastly, I think I have caught
up on all the previously submitted articles.  As of now  I do not have
anything more ready to go out. So if  you have submitted something and
have not seen  it appear, now is the  time to send  me mail (hopefully
not too nasty) and I'll try not to lose it a  second time. I  did lose
however a request from someone  to be removed  from the list, so could
that person please resend the request to me.
 
I hope you all had a happy Purim!
 
Avi Feldblum
mail.jewish moderator
[email protected]    {any backbone!ihnp4, mtune, rutgers!moss}!pruxe!ayf
jewish%[email protected]  rutgers!prayf!jewish
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Isaac Balbin  seems to  have heard a   distorted version of  the Chief
Rabbinate ruling relevant  to Metzitzah B'Peh (drawing the  bris blood
by mouth).
     A mohel friend of  mine told  me that  certain mohalim approached
the Chief Rabbis due to their being  called  on to circumcise children
who *may* have  contracted HIV (the name  of the  virus  causing AIDS)
infection in utero from mothers  with known drug habits or promiscuous
sexual practices. The rabbis responded that *if* a mohel suspects that
a child to be circumcised may have been exposed to HIV via his mother,
he is allowed to substitute an  indirect method for drawing the blood.
There was no blanket prohibition of  carrying out Metzitzah B'Peh or a
blanket permission for foregoing it.
     Today, however, this whole question should be largely academic as
in  doubtful cases a  mohel  could reasonably request  that the baby's
blood be tested for antibodies, just as is all blood routinely donated
for transfusion.
     By the way, this abstention from carrying out Metzitzah B'Peh due
to health concerns of the mohel, predates the AIDS panic  of the '80s.
A talmid-chochom acquaintance of mine tells me of an old mohel he knew
many  many  years ago  in  New  York who refrained    from  doing oral
metzitzah when he had doubts about a child's health  status or that of
his parents.   One should  also be   aware   in  this   respect  that,
epidemiologically speaking, the chances of  catching a case  of  viral
hepatitis  from Metzitzah B'Peh of an  infected child, is much greater
than contracting AIDS   from   an  HIV infected  child. However,   the
seriousness of the two diseases, of course, cannot be compared.
      While it  is  most unfortunate   that Rashei Yeshiva   and other
innocents have contracted AIDS from transfusions.  Coming down with an
illness following medical treatment  is  also  nothing new.  It is now
accepted that over 30 percent  of all hospital  patients are there due
to iatrogenic diseases -- i.e., conditions  induced inadvertently by a
physician or his  treatment. As  far as I  understand, thanks  to  the
introduction   of the  blood  tests  mentioned   above, the  supply of
transfusion blood is now as safe as can be expected  -- until the next
unsuspected virus slips into the picture.
 
Ezra L. Tepper, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
 
Bitnet: rrtepper@weizmann
Arpanet: rrtepper%[email protected]
Usenet:  ...!psuvax1!weizmann.bitnet!rrtepper
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I would  like to thank  Isaac  Balbin and   Lazer Danziger  for  their
thoughtful responses  to  the  "emunas chachamim"  dilemma. Because  I
believe the issue to  be a  critical one, at  the risk of boring other
mail.jewish subscribers, I would like to continue the discussion based
on these comments.
 
Isaac Balbin  indicates that the true issue,  at least  with regard to
Soviet Jewry rallies, is accountability.  Are Gedolim (Torah Leaders -
Mod.)accountable for their errors (assuming that  they err at all)?  I
doubt that  accountability is really the  issue.  Thus,  although many
fault pre WW2 gedolim  for not encouraging  mass emigration before the
holocaust, are  they  accountable for  their actions?   Obviously not.
Were they wrong?  Clearly they were.   The issue is  whether or not we
have an obligation to listen to them. I am not so sure  that if a psak
(halachik decision - Mod.) has no mekor (source -  Mod.), then one may
use  his   common  sense   in   accepting or  rejecting it.   The  lav
(prohibition - Mod.)  of "Lo   Tasur..yemin  o smol" (one   should not
deviate from  their words) would seem  to pertain  whether or  not Reb
Moshe ZT'l cited a source in condemning Soviet Jewry rallies. Finally,
on the issue of who is or is not a gadol,  this  is indeed a difficult
issue since none of us has  ever given any  of them a "farher" (exam -
Mod.). Our only  gauge  is their  wider reputation.  From  independant
sources however, I had also heard that Reb Shlo- mo Zalman Auerbach is
indeed  in this category.  My  question, how-  ever, is that unless we
hear explicitly from   him  that secular   studies   in  Yeshiva   are
permissible, then Rav Shach's decree must at least be taken seriously.
 
The  series  of  questions    that  Lazer  Danziger  poses are  indeed
pertinent. He indicates  that once they  are  answered to  one's  com-
plete  satisfaction,  then many of  these    issues  will be  settled.
However he continues  that the answers  must be firmly substantiat- ed
by the Shulchan Aruch and universally accepted sages.  The point of my
questions in the previous  mailing  is precisely that what constitutes
answers "to my complete satisfaction"  run con- trary to halacha. That
in a  nutshell is my  dilemma. His example  of the Rambam is a perfect
case in  point.  The  Rambam was placed  in  cherem (excommunication -
Mod.) for his views  and  writings, although he was totally vindicated
many years later. However, if we lived in the time of the Rambam, when
contemporary Gedolim almost unanimously censured  him,  we also  would
have had an obligation to honor the cherem!
 
Arnie Lustiger polymer!akiva

Topics:
		Re: A Pesach Question (m.j #72)
				J. H. Proschan
		Re: Emunat Chachamim
				Isaac Balbin
				J. H. Proschan
______________________________________________________________________
 
Fran Storfer raised some questions in MJ72.  Here are some possible 
answers: 
 
1) Am I in fact Sepharad or Ashkenaz? 
 
What minhag [custom] to follow can become complicated.  The general rule
is  that one follows  the father's minhagim [customs].  The  distinction
between Ashkenzi and Sephardi is  a matter of  minhag, and is subject to
this rule.  The complication is that a person who moves permanently to a
country with different customs can change his minhag.  Someone who moves
temporarily is    supposed   to follow  the    local minhagim  to  avoid
controversy, but this does not  constitute a permanent change.   It  may
not be easy, at a remove of many years, to tell the difference.
 
Whether that person's  descendents follow the new  minhag, or can revert
to the original  one,  is not  clear.  1492  was  a  long time ago,  and
someone along the way may have changed permanently to  the East European
minhag.  To answer the question would take a lot  more information about
family history and practices, and a competent Rav.  Note that it  is not
merely  a matter of kitniyos  on  Pesach.  If  you change or  revert  to
Sephardic minhag, you have to  do it  completely; it is  a package deal,
affecting   wording of   prayers,     style   of writing  for  mezuzahs,
pronunciation of  Hebrew, standards for  kashrus, observance of the Nine
Days, and almost every other aspect of life.
 
2) Given the answer to #1, what may I eat on Pesach? 
 
As far as fruits and vegetables go, there are two limitations: 
 
1) Insect infestation.  Vegetables that are likely to have  insects must
    be  cleaned and checked.   Where the nature  of the produce  and the
    infestation makes  it impossible  to remove  the insects, that  item
    cannot be eaten.    Patterns  of infestation  vary   with  location,
    weather,  pesticide use, and so  on; there  are few general rules on
    what to avoid.  You would have to learn what to look for.  This is a
    problem all year long, not just for Pesach; but leafy vegetable such
    as  romaine  lettuce  that are  used at the  Seder are almost always
    infested, and require very careful cleaning and checking.
 
2) Kitniyos.  This includes beans and  non-chometz grains  such as rice,
    corn, millet, and buckwheat.  The  definitions are fuzzy.  They  all
    have in  common some possibility of  confusion with  actual chometz.
    One is that kitniyos are any produce that  is piled  in heaps in the
    fields, the  way chometz grain  is.  Another  is that kitniyos yield
    flour that can be used to bake cakes that look like chometz cake.  A
    possible third is that they are physically similar to chometz grains
    and would  be  hard  to   separate.   There  are    some  well-known
    border-line cases; some people use string beans, others  don't; some
    use peanuts,  some only  use peanut oil,  some don't use  peanuts at
    all.  This  is one of  those  cases where you  have to follow family
    tradition.  (I will not even attempt to analyze why  potatos are not
    kitniyos while corn is.   If anyone  has a  good explanation, please
    post   it.)   For those of   European  descent,  this leaves matzoh;
    fruits; greens; and root vegetables.
 
The  prohibition of kitniyos applies  only to  European  (Ashkenazic and
Chassidic) Jews; Sephardic Jews never accepted this  ruling.  It is also
only  a prohibition on eating kitniyos;  there is no prohibition against
owning it or using it.
 
The first question is not the only one.  Health  is also relevant.  This
is  a common question regarding  medicines.  (Whether the possibility of
health hazards from a vegan diet without kitniyos would be considered in
permitting kitniyos seems unlikely, to me.  Any  hazard could be avoided
by eating  fish or meat,  and there is no halachic  reason for not doing
so.)
 
3)  Additionally, I want my home to be kosher for my friends as well as 
    myself - for example, how would I handle a Seder? 
 
If you mean, can you  eat kitniyos  yourself while feeding people who do
not eat  kitniyos, my understanding  is that Ashkenazim are permitted to
eat food cooked in pots  or served on  dishes  that were previously used
for  kitniyos,  as long as  there is  no kitniyos in   their food.  Some
people may not accept this, so it is best to check with them.
    
4)  ... would appreciate some advice as to [the halachically correct way 
    to prepare rice]. 
                        
I understand, from Sephardic friends who use rice on  Pesach, that it is
necessary to  prepare the rice   beforehand.   First, it must be  picked
over, grain by grain, to ensure that there  is no chometz grain mixed in
with it.  Next, it must be thoroughly washed to remove all dirt, surface
starch, etc.  This  all  must  be done before Pesach.  My  friends avoid
using enriched rice, because the vitamins are added  using starch and it
might be  wheat starch.  Presumably  the same procedures would be needed
for other kitniyos.
 
J. H. Proschan
 
______________________________________________________________________ 
 
Firstly, thanks  to Ezra  Tepper for clarifying  the Metzitza  issue.  I
would like to respond, however, to Arnie Lustiger's remarks.
 
     The issue of  whether a  Gadol (Torah  Giant) "makes  a mistake" is
still,  in my view,  accountability.  Rabbis have  always been fallible,
period.  (Note I am not, expressing in anyway whether I think  Reb Moshe
made a mistake with the Russian Jewry protest - I do not know, and it is
not for me to decide).
 
     What bothered  me was why  Arnie didn't  respond to my pointing out
that Tractate Horayot deals with "mistakes" by "Gedolim" and that *this*
should be his yardstick.  It is from here that one  sees precedents.  It
is no good saying that Horayot deals with  pure halacha and so political
pronouncements - a la G'zerot  (decrees) - are not  dealt with.  This is
not the issue. The issue is that even though "Hoiroo Beis Din" (the beth
din made a halachic ruling) in error, they are possibly accountable, BUT
STILL MAY REMAIN A RESPECTED BEIS DIN.
 
     Arnie mentions as some sort of influence on his thinking  so called
"independent sources" stating who is a "Gadol" and who is not, and, as a
consequence, if the person is a "Gadol", we have some sort of obligation
to  listen  to them.   This is  trite.    We do   not have  primaries or
elections when it comes to a Rav Hamuvhak.  (Incidentally, why did Arnie
not    consider  my  opinion as    *independent*?,   I don't   mean this
egocentricly)
 
     This is the crux of the matter. We have free choice.  We may choose
whoever we want  to  be our Rav   Hamuvhak. Arnie  appears to feel  very
strongly about Rav Shach, that is  his choice. Is  Rav Shach Arnie's Rav
Hamuvhak?  Does   Arnie's  Rav   Hamuvhak   feel bound by    Rav Shach's
decisions? If the answer to these last two questions  is no,  then Arnie
has *no* problem with Rav  Shach's pronouncements,  be they political or
halachik.  Certainly, any one  else  who doesn't consider Rav  Shach, or
anyone else, to be his Rav Hamuvhak doesn't *have to* take any notice of
political statements especially when  they  do  not  appear  to  rely on
sources.  (As an  aside,  I am sure Arnie's   independent   sources will
confirm that the Lubavitcher Rebbe  is a  Gadol, yet Rav Shach disagrees
most vociferously with the Lubavitcher Rebbe's  philosophy/chassidim, so
who do they consider "right"?  They  exercise free choice based on their
understanding/viewpoint of course)
 
     The other issue worth discussing is whether the posekim should make
so called political pronouncements.  Here is Reb Moshe's view as he gave
it in an interview as reported in Helmreich "World of the Yeshiva", p68.
 
    Those who  maintained:   "what do they   (the Talmidei  Hakhamim
    (torah scholar) ) know about politics?  This is a field where we
    are better versed"  - groups that  set their policies in  such a
    manner  cannot be considered  as being in the   Torah Camp.  One
    might well say that ignoring  the advice of Talmidei Hakhamim is
    far worse  than transgressing  a Law (clearly   expressed in the
    Torah).  Whereas  one  may violate  a  command  because he finds
    himself  too  weak to resist the  insistent  attractions of that
    which is wrong, at least  he realizes that  his action is wrong.
    By contrast,  when one  does  not heed  the  advice  of a Talmid
    Hakham he denies  the superior wisdom  of the Torah personality.
    This is a far more serious breach.
 
     Strong  stuff, indeed!  So where  do we  go  from here? Even if you
did/do   follow Reb   Moshe, it also  depends how  he stated the G'zerah
concerning the protests.  If he said something  like "Seeing  that these
protests  cause problems,  I have decreed  ..."   then he  has given the
reason for the decree. Thus, in the event of  the reason vanishing, then
so does the decree. On the other hand, if he said "I have  decreed ...",
and  when asked  "why did you  decree this?"   he responded "because  it
causes problems  with soviet  authorities"  then the decree  stands even
though the  reason may vanish.  This is a subtle difference.   Where the
decree  is couched    in terms of     a  condition and   the   condition
*demonstrably* no longer exists then  neither does the decree.  When the
decree is  blanket, but *a*  reason is later  given,  then you are stuck
with it unless a  bigger/better  beis din annuls  it etc,  *provided you
feel bound by such decrees  because he is  your Rav Hamuvhak or your Rav
Hamuvhak tells you to follow the advice*.
 
-------------
Isaac Balbin    isaac%[email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
Some thoughts on the question of emunas chachomim [faith in the sages]:
 
We have just celebrated Purim, with the reading of Megillas Esther.  The
traditional commentaries teach  that emunas  chachomim is the underlying
theme of Purim -- the threatened destruction arose from a lack of emunas
chachomim,  and the  salvation arose  from the display  of unquestioning
emunas chachomim.  This is presented in detail in the major commentaries
and collections, several of which are available  in English (Me'am Loez,
Artscroll).
 
In summary:
 
   Why did the threat of destruction  arise?  `The Jews had hano'oh from
   the banquet of   [Achashverosh].'  This was a  direct  consequence of
   ignoring Mordechai, head of the Sanhedrin, who told them to avoid it.
   The  Jews  of Shushan  attended anyway,  and  as  a result  Haman was
   allowed to begin his plans for destroying them.
 
   [hano'oh is often   mistranslated as   `enjoyment';  it really  means
   `benefit', pleasure being one form.  This is important  for Passover,
   where  the prohibition on  chometz extends to  hano'oh  in  the broad
   sense.]
 
   This was  the real  reason;  the apparent   reason  was   Mordechai's
   insistence on  defying Haman  in   the most  public  manner possible.
   Since the Jews  had gotten into trouble by  lack of emunas chachomim,
   it was divinely arranged that they be get out of the  trouble through
   having emunas chachomim in the face of overwhelming objections.
 
   How did the salvation arise?  First, emunas chachomim by Esther.  She
   was told by Mordechai  not  to  reveal  her ancestry, and despite all
   inducements did not.
 
   Second, emunas chachomim  by the  Jews of  Shushan.  Though Mordechai
   seemed to be the cause of their troubles they accepted his leadership
   and his  call for repentance.  They followed  all of his  directives,
   even though his actions defied common sense (Brzezinski and Kissinger
   would never have approved), and were opposed by other members  of the
   Sanhedrin.
   
   Mordechai  continued  to go  out of his   way  to provoke  Haman.  He
   ordered Esther to appear before the  King immediately, at the risk of
   her life, even though she would surely have had a safe opportunity of
   speaking  to the  King.  He ordered them to  fast on Pesach, which is
   prohibited,  and  to   fast  for three  days  and  nights  which   is
   impossible.  He  did not try traditional approaches  such  as bribing
   the king to reverse  the decree.  He   arranged for them  to have  to
   fight against potentially  overwhelming numbers of trained opponents.
   And so on.  Nevertheless, the Jews accepted his leadership.
 
   Their  display of complete  emunas   chachomim throughout this period
   atoned for their earlier lack and Haman's plans were overturned.
 
It seems to  me that the questions  that have been raised  about  emunas
chachomim can all be answered by studying  the commentaries to Megillah.
As in the times of Mordechai and Esther,  the  true inwardness of events
remains inward, and  historical  hindsight disposes  of  the   claims of
politicians.  Chamberlain was convinced that  he had the  right answers.
His successors have no greater claim to  understanding, or to having our
interests at  heart.  Even if it  were  up to  me   to decide whether to
listen to Rav  Moshe  or  Brzezinski and Schultz, I   see no  reason  to
replace emunas chachomim with `emunas politicos'.
 
J. H. Proschan

	Some Thoughts for the Seder
				Josh Proschan
				Avi Feldblum
	More on rice on Pesach
				Josh Proschan
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Some  thoughts  for the seder  discussions.  [These are   taken from the
commentary in  the Ashkenazi Haggadah, a  medieval  manuscript.   It has
been reprinted in a beautiful facsimile  edition, and  is still on sale.
The commentary is  attributed  to Rabbi  Eliezer ben Yehudah  of  Worms,
author of Sefer HaRokeach.  (Rokeach is in 3 syllables, Row-kay-ach, not
to be confused under any circumstances with canned  gefilte fish.)  This
year, a haggadah with  several of  the Rokeach's manuscript commentaries
combined  has been published.  Unfortunately,  this is only   in Hebrew.
The facsimile of the Ashkenazi Haggadah  has a clear English translation
of both Haggadah and commentary.]
 
The following are  excerpted  from the  Ashkenazi  Haggadah, and  freely
rephrased.
 
1.  K'ha lachmah anyah -- this is the bread of poverty 
 
    Of poverty, because it is made from a tenth ephah of flour, which is
    derived from the omer [offering of grain brought on Pesach] which is
    a  tenth of an  ephah.  This  is the  same size as  the minchas  oni
    [offering  of a poor  person].  Otherwise, the  matzoh could not  be
    called `lechem oni' [bread of  poverty] as it is  made of the finest
    flour.  When the Torah says that we must eat  `matzos lechem oni' it
    means matzos, bread, in the measure of minchas oni.
    
2.  Rabbi Yehudah uses a mnemonic: D'TSaCH 'ADaSH B'ACHaV
    
    There  are  several  explanations found  in  most  commentaries; the
    Rokeach  adds  that the gematria [numeric  value, in Hebrew]  of the
    mnemonic  is 501.  The Rabbis in  the  mishnah quoted  later  in the
    Haggadah disagree as to how many plagues there  were in Egypt and at
    the Red Sea.  The  anonymous opinion is 50;  Rabbi Eliezer says 200;
    and Rabbi Akivah says  250.  Rabbi Yehudah created his   mnemonic to
    say that all were correct; his mnemonic is the  sum of their counts,
    with the additional 1 representing `the finger of Egypt' (Ex. 8:15).
 
3.  During the listing of the plagues, a total of 16 drops of wine are 
    spilled out of the cup.
    
    The Rokeach explains the number 16 as corresponding to
    
    -    The 16 mentions of `dever' [plague] in Jeremiah
         
    -    The 16 synonyms for `life' in Psalm 119
    
    -    The sixteen aliyas to the Torah in a normal week, which is 
         the meaning of Proverbs 3:18, `It (hi) is a tree of life to 
         all who grasp it'; the Hebrew word hi has the gematria of 16.
         
A happy and kosher Pesach.
j.h.proschan - allegra!nvuxh!jhp3 
          
______________________________________________________________________
 
The following is based on my understanding of  some of R. Samson Raphael
Hirsch's   commentaries on the  Haggadah, as   presented  in "The Hirsch
Haggadah, with commentary compiled and adapted  from the  writings of R.
Samson Raphael Hirsch" in English, published by Feldheim Publishers.
 
Two of the central items of the  Holiday  of Pesach, and  the Sedar, are
the Paschal lamb and  Matzah. What do these  represent, and  what is the
interaction between these two  items?  The Paschal lamb  represents  the
redemption of Yisrael from bondage.  The act of redemption required more
than simply removing the shackles of  bondage from the enslaved children
of Yisrael. It was required that the mass of slaves become a free nation
of men. Hashem commanded that each person take unto themselves a lamb to
be  used for  the  Paschal sacrifice. This  represented  the   notion of
property, owning and controlling something that is  absent in the slave.
Next, the  command goes on to  say that there  should  be one  lamb to a
family.  This here sets  the foundation of the  jewish nation. It is not
the state, it is not the Temple that stands at the  center of the jewish
nation. Those can fall,  and  Yisrael can still stand strong.  It is the
family that stands at the center. If the household is small, the command
continues, two or more  should get  together on a lamb. An  expansion of
the social bonds, one family  to another. Finally, on  the night of  the
fourteenth of Nissan, "the whole assembly of the congregation of Yisrael
shall slaughter  [the  lamb]".  All of Yisrael, individuals    and their
households,  families, groups, the  entire nation,   all are moved  by a
single spirit and  dedicate themselves to  a single mission.  With  this
communal activity coupled with 'The mighty  arm of  G-d' taking them out
of the bondage of Egypt, the mass of slaves is transformed into the free
nation of Yisrael.
 
The concept of freedom is one that has  been given many interpretations.
What is  the meaning to  us of Yisrael  as  a  free nation.  This is the
meaning of Matzah. Matzah symbolizes the bread of slavery or dependance.
Hametz, leavened bread, is the symbol of  independance.  So why does the
laws of Pesach require the total removal of leaven from the house of the
Jew, forbidding eating it or getting any pleasure from it? Moreover, why
is the requirement not only to eat matzah on Pesach, but to  eat it WITH
the Paschal lamb. What is this combination of  sacrifice of freedom with
the  bread  of  dependence? An  interesting point  to  consider  is that
leavened  bread was never  allowed to be   offered on  the  alter in the
Temple.  The interpretation of  this  that   Hirsch gives is  that  when
Yisrael received their freedom from the state of  being slaves in Egypt,
they had not seized this freedom, they had received it from Hashem. They
were no longer to be subservient to the might of any human power, and at
the same time they  were to accept the  yoke of  the service of G-d. One
should regard everything as given by  G-d to  us, and  as such we should
use all that we posses in the  service of G-d. Thus in  the offerings in
the Temple,   there  is  place   for  the  "bread  of independence", for
glorifying   in  that which  "we have made".   So too,  on  the day that
commemerates our achieving freedom, we  must combine  that  sacrifice of
freedom with the bread of  dependency, to remind ourselves of  where our
freedom comes from and what  our obligations as a  nation and people are
due to that freedom.
 
A happy and Kosher Pesach to all the members of the mailing list!!
 
Avi Feldblum
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
Addendum to the question of preparing rice on Pesach:
 
I understand that many rice  packers now use  alcohol rather than starch
as the  vehicle for adding vitamins.   This is   perhaps a worse problem
than the  starch was,  as the alcohol may be  chometz, and it  cannot be
washed  off the  way starch could.   (The alcohol  is adsorbed  onto the
surface starch, and bonds with it.)  It is not clear  whether this would
prohibit  use of that  rice even for Sephardim.  I  have been told  by a
posek that whole  spices such as  peppercorns cannot be used  for Pesach
without  supervision, because many   companies use alcohol in processing
them.  This may apply  to rice.  Anyone   intending  to use  rice should
consult a posek  who is experienced in  questions of kashrus supervision
for  Pesach; preferably a Sephardi, or  one who deals with Sephardim and
would be likely to have the necessary information.
 
 
j.h.proschan - allegra!nvuxh!jhp3 

Topic:
	Emunat Chachamim
	Lenny Oppenheimer
 
	Arnie Lustiger raised a number of questions about this vitally
important issue, questions that have been troubling me for many years.
There  really is so  much to  be said about  this issue  that I almost
don't know where to begin, or if I should.  I would, however,  like to
share a number of thoughts  about this  with the other readers of this
mailgroup, though I must add, tongue in cheek,  that this  is an issue
that we must look to Chazal and our rabbanim for guidance with.
 
	Arnie originally raised the  question  by saying, "Can Gedolim
be wrong?  If they are wrong, do we still have an obligation to listen
to them?"  In addition, and Lazer Danziger asked this same question in
other words,  do Gedolim have specific  areas of  competence that they
are empowered to rule upon, and if they do, when they step out of that
arena , is their view still  considered halachically compelling?  What
if  they disagree with experts in  that  field?  What if they disagree
with  each  other?  What  about   when the Gedolim  are "wrong",  e.g.
pre-war Europe, Soviet Jewry rallies, etc?
 
	These issues are very complex.  What I have come to understand
over the years, is that they must be broken into
several components:
 
	1) Da'as Torah - The opinion of the Torah as understood by its
	greatest scholars.   The   question of when this   applies, is
	crucial to an understanding of this issue.
 
	2) Opinions or Statements by Gedolim - When are they opinions?
	when are they Hora'ah  (Halachic  Rulings)? what authority  do
	they  have?  - particularly  when  they are  disputed by other
	authorities.
 
	3) Who are  the  Rabbanim  who are considered  in this league?
	Are lower-level Rabbanim also included, especially if they are
	your personal mentor?
 
	The guidance that I have received by my Rebbe, Rav
Nachman Bulman, on these matters has been the following:
 
	1) Da'as Torah, a term one hears much  about nowadays, applies
	only to two categories:
		
		a) The  opinions of a  chacham   who has for centuries
		been accepted by  the overwhelming  majority of S.E.Y.
		(Shlomei Emunas  Yisroel  - those of the Jewish people
		who  have been faithful  to  halacha) for  an extended
		period, such as  the  Rambam (we'll get  back to him),
		Rav  Yosef   Karo, Tana'im,   Amora'im  (Sages of  the
		Talmud) etc.
 
		b) An issue about which there is a  *consensus* (and I
		can't stress this  enough), among  the  sages  of  any
		particular time.  This means an  issue about  which it
		is known  that  the  overwhelming majority  of Gedolim
		hold the same opinion about.
 
			An example of an issue about  which there is a
		consensus   of opinions  amongst the  Gedolim,  is the
		prohibition of  women serving in  the Israeli (or any)
		army.   The  overwhelming  majority  of Gedolim   have
		publicly,  repeatedly,   joined   together  in   joint
		statements banning  this.  (I  will  not  get into the
		details of "why"  in this posting.)  	An example of
		an  issue about  which there  is    *no*  consensus of
		opinions  amongst  the   Gedolim, is  whether   or not
		secular studies  are permissible in Israel.  There has
		never   been  a   joint  statement   about  the  issue
		published, though,  as  mentioned,  some  Gedolim have
		individually spoken on the issue.  (In fact, I have it
		from reliable sources that even Rav Shach Shlit"a, who
		seems to worry many of our colleagues,  has only taken
		the prohibition as his public, generalized stance.  In
		personal    consultation    he   has  advised  several
		individuals that  I   know of  to pursue  a university
		education.)   	Another example  of   an issue  about
		which there was *no* consensus of opinions amongst the
		Gedolim, was the ban on the books  of the Rambam, (not
		on the  Rambam personally, as far as  I know), even in
		his  time,  or on Rav  Yonasan Eybeshutz,  etc.  These
		were therefore  not   binding, except to    those  who
		considered Rabbeinu Yonah, etc., their Rav
		Muvhak.
	
	2)   Other Statements -  Statements  about  which there  is no
	consensus, or there is in  fact  dispute, amongst the Gedolim,
	remain  the highly  important,  and  serious  opinion of  that
	Gadol, but not (necessarily) Da'as Torah.  This  means that it
	is the considered  opinion about issue  x of a person  who has
	made it his highly successful life's work to become attuned to
	the workings  of Torah and   Halacha,  both in the spirit  and
	letter of the law. It is  certainly the opinion  of one who is
	far closer  to  an authentically  Jewish orientation  than the
	average layman.  (Most of the statements which were brought up
	by the  other participants  in  this discussion  are  of  this
	category, and  not in  the   class   of "Gezerah",  as   Issac
	maintained.)
 
	3)  The gedolim in  the league of arbiters  of a "Da'as Torah"
	consensus are  those  who are  recognized by the  overwhelming
	majority of S.E.Y.   as being such.    There are  several such
	Rabbanim    with  us today,  though  in   the past there  were
	"transcendent" Gedolim whose word alone  was enough  for  most
	people. There  is almost no   one today who is  recognized  by
	virtually   all of S.E.Y.    as   being a  transcendent Gadol.
	(Perhaps  R. Moshe Feinstein  was,   otherwise  the last were,
	arguably,  the  Chofetz Chaim   or Rav  Chaim   Ozer Grodzenky
	Z.T.L.).  Your personal  Rav has the  authority  to pasken for
	you, as long as he does not go against  Da'as Torah as defined
	above.
 
		(The definition of  the the  criterion for choosing  a
	Rav, and indeed the  very obligation  of "Asey  Le'cha Rov"  -
	make for yourself a Rav  - are topics for  another discussion.
	Certainly  I  would  strongly disagree  with   Issac  Balbin's
	opinion that  "We have  free choice. We  may choose whoever we
	want to be our Rav HaMuvhak..."  While I would certainly agree
	that one has free choice, and in fact should, choose a Rav who
	one feels drawn to for one's  personal guidance,  one  must be
	aware that the Rav is not  in the same league  as the Gedolim.
	If and  when that Rav  goes against the  considered opinion of
	Gedolim, one must wonder  very seriously if  his choice of Rav
	was an appropriate one.  But, as  I said before,  the issue of
	Asey Lecha Rav needs separate discussion.)
 
The implications of the above are:
 
	1) there are not that many  issues about which  one can invoke
	Da'as  Torah or Emunas Chachomim.  Those issues,  however, are
	issues  about  which  we have  an  obligation  to follow their
	opinion, even if it negates "common sense".
 
	2) Other issues, (e.g. when there  is no consensus), are still
	governed by Assey Le'cha Rav, meaning  that  one must follow a
	Rav in a consistent manner, not picking and choosing
	convenient opinions from the smorgasbord available.
 
Building on  this it  is important to  consider the approaches  of two
authorities, that of the Sefer HaChinuch, and that  of Rav Dessler, to
this issue.
 
The approach of the Sefer Hachinuch that I refer to, in his exposition
of the mitzvah "Lo Tosur", the commandment that you should not deviate
from that which they (the authorities in any given time) will instruct
you right or left.  (Mitzvah 496) The Chinuch  says, one should follow
the words of the sages
because.....
		"People have differing opinions and  temperments; they
	will   never agree  on many   things, and  the  Master  of the
	Universe knew that if  the intention  of the Torah   was given
	over  to every individual, each  will explain according to his
	own intellect.  The  result would be  much  dispute  within in
	Israel about the implication  of Mitzvot.  and the Torah  will
	be divided   into  many  Torahs    ...  Therefore the  Supreme
	Intellect included within  the Torah  the commandment that  we
	act according  to  the the  true interpretation that   we have
	received from  our ancient    sages.  In addition    in  every
	generation,we must listen     to the  Sages     who   are  the
	transmitters of  this tradition,  who heard their (the Ancient
	-Talmudic- Sages)  words,  who drank  of  the  waters of their
	books,  and who  toiled and  labored,  making their  nights as
	their days, to understand  the real  depth of their  words and
	the  incredible insight of  their thoughts...   With following
	this path, we might come to a true insight into the directives
	of  the Torah; without  it, if   we will  follow   our 'common
	sense`, and the smallness of our own understanding (of the way
	of the Torah), we will  not succeed at all...  And this is why
	the Sifri  interprets this  mitzvah  'Do not deviate right  or
	left`, as saying, 'even  if they tell  you your right is left,
	and your left is right, you must  listen to  them`. That is to
	say, EVEN IF THEY ARE MISTAKEN, IT IS  INAPPROPRIATE FOR US TO
	DISPUTE THEM,   BUT  RATHER, WE SHOULD  FOLLOW  THEIR MISTAKEN
	ADVICE, (sic) for it  is  better to take  the chance of living
	with one error, with everyone living under their constant good
	judgement, rather than having each individual act according to
	his own opinion, which will destroy  the system entirely, will
	divide the nation, and ruin our people totally...Therefore the
	(responsibility for the) interpretation of  the Torah was left
	with the Sages of Israel exclusively...
 
I  suggest  that  anyone  really interested in  this  topic, read that
entire chapter  in the  Sefer  HaChinuch.  (Available in  English from
Feldheim Publishers.)
 
	The implication is quite  clear.   As Rav Moshe zt"l  wrote in
the  Teshuva quoted by Issac, one  who does not follow  the  advice of
Torah scholars is committing a very serious breach.  The odds are that
if we follow their advice, we will do alot better than  if  we  try to
follow the dictates of our  own  persuasion.  They can claim  far more
objectivity, and a first-hand sensitivity to a true Torah perspective,
than we possibly can.
 
	(As part of this, I must say that  it  shows a lack of respect
for the Halachic process,  and   indeed for  the authority of  a  Rav,
especially a   Gadol,  when   one   conditions  their acceptance   (or
unfortunate  non-acceptance) of  a Psak, based  on the   Rav's source.
When  Rav Moshe Zt'l  rendered a halachic  descision, it was sometimes
based on  later authorities,  sometimes on earlier ones, and sometimes
it  was  just his personal   opinion, based on   his immense and  deep
knowledge of all parts of the Torah, and the  halachic process. Far be
it    from us to  question   his expertise   and  the veracity  of his
decisions.  'Nuff said.)
 
	The  approach of    Rav  Dessler  was -in  the   main- already
expressed to this forum  by J. Proschan (by  the time I finished  this
Megilla) in  #75.  The essence  of it, is  that we can  learn from the
story of Purim that things aren't  always what they seem, and  in fact
the reason that the Jews got into hot water in the first place is that
they thought  themselves  more politically astute than   Mordechai and
members of the Sanhedrin. (Michtav M'Eliyahu Vol I, p. 75).
 
	The  question   that    Rav  Dessler was    addressing    was,
specifically, why some Rabbonim did  not tell their followers to leave
Europe on   time.  He strongly   rejects this.  He starts   by stating
emphatically, in even stronger   terms than those  used by  the  Sefer
HaChinuch, that most of us have no idea of a) how truly great and wise
and incisive our  greatest Sages are,  and b) the tremendous sense  of
Achrayus - concern for the welfare of the Jewish people  and awareness
of the awesome responsibility that they carry - that Gedolim have.
 
	(In fact  I once   asked  Rav  Simcha  Wasserman,  son of  Rav
Elchonon,  who  is  often quoted as being  one  of those  who told his
disciples not to leave, whether or not this was  true, and if so, why?
He replied, in the strongest of terms, that his father *did* encourage
people to leave, when it became clear what the dangers were.  However,
Rav Elchonon himself not only stayed, but in 1940 heroically came back
from America, in order that those followers who could not leave, would
not have to face this horrible ordeal without him.)
 
	Rav Dessler's position then, is that  even if the Gedolim seem
less politically  clever than we,  they understand the meta-historical
processes that  govern  historical  happenstances far  better than the
average person, through their higher understanding of the Torah.  This
does not mean that the advice of Brezinskis and Kissingers is not wise
and  thoughtful.   It is  just that they  have access  to  a  far more
limited  perspective on how  the world works,  in an  essential sense,
then do the Gedolei HaTorah.
 
	On a more mystical level,  it is important to  note that it is
basic to all this is  that "good"  and "evil" are not necessarily what
they seem, and much  more goes into  the tapestry of history than what
"common sense" would   dictate.  To say that   those who died   in the
holocaust did so only because  their Rabbanim "mistakenly"  instructed
them  not to leave, is tantamount  to saying that  Hashem did not want
them to die  there.   Obviously,  no  matter how  one deals   with the
holocaust, or any suffering, one does not say that Hashem did not want
it to happen, that it happened against  His will through the errors of
the Rabbanim.  That is  pure heresy.  Not one hair  on a person's head
can be injured if Hashem does not decree it.
 
	Rather,  if Hashem wished our  Gedolim  to  give us "mistaken"
guidelines, it is because He wanted us to  follow that direction, even
if from our limited perspective it seems to be a calamitous and tragic
error.  We have  a mesorah that  Hashem will not  let the consensus of
Gedolei Yisroel err.  It is certainly possible for an individual Gadol
to err, and even then we have an obligation to follow their direction,
given the conditions above, i.e. that it is a Psak, and that it is not
disputed by  a Gadol of equal or  greater stature. (see Chinuch above)
However, in an ultimate sense, the  Hashgocha (divine running of world
affairs) will not let the consensus of  the Sages of any generation go
against the Divine scheme. Examples of this  abound in  the Talmud and
later works, and it is a belief which  is basic when  dealing with the
issue of Emunas Chachomim.
 
	While on this note, one may receive guidance from the question
of   the wise  son  in the Haggadah.  Many   have asked, what  is  the
difference between the question of the wise son and that of the wicked
son, does the wise son not also exclude himself from the group as much
as the wicked son by saying "..the Mizvot .. that Hashem has commanded
*you* " ?
	
The Meshech  Chochmah explains, it is  all in the  question.  One must
look at the  verse in the Torah where  the  questions are stated.  The
question of the wise son is phrased in the Torah, "Ki Yisholcha Bincha
..."  when your  son  will ask you.  The  question of the wicked  son,
however,  is "Ki Yomru Aleichem Beneichem   ...", when  your sons will
*tell* you.  Are we asking our sages  for guidance,  or are we telling
them, "We wish to hear this!"
 
	I hope that some   people have stayed  with  me   through this
dissertation, and I apologize  for  the length and possible unclarity.
I have not said all that I wanted to say on the
matter, but I did want to share this with you.
 
					Lenny Oppenheimer
					AT&T Network Systems
					Middletown, N.J.
					att!hropus!leo
 

Topic:
 
	Special Request for Refusenik
 
I received a request to post the following message to the mailing list.
It appears to me to be something worthwhile and of general interest to
the group, so here it is!
 
 
HELP A SOVIET REFUSENIK BY WRITING HIM A SHORT NOTE!
WE'VE EVEN PROVIDED A TEMPLATE WHICH YOU CAN JUST EDIT AND PRINT!
 
Yuri Chernyak is a Soviet refusenik who has been trying to leave the
USSR for the past thirteen years.  Meanwhile, despite his high
qualifications as a physicist (PhD), he has no official job and
consequently no way of working or communicating with his colleagues.
He supports his family (a wife and two kids) by repairing cars,
tutoring physics and math, teaching English, and doing all sorts of
odd jobs unrelated to his profession.
 
All these years the KGB has not let him out of sight and has harrassed
him on every possible occasion, of which there were many, for Yuri
takes part in all kinds of dissident and Jewish activities.
 
A year ago he had a heart attack.  He received his most recent denial
for the exit visa in March.
 
	HIS SITUATION IS NOW DESPERATE!  YOU CAN HELP!
 
We are trying to organize as many supporting letters to him as
possible.  It would lift his spirit (which has sunk somewhat after the
last denial).  But more importantly, it would tell the Soviets that
Yuri is a person known to the West (his mail is checked by the KGB
constantly) and that the West will not allow his human rights to be
violated forever!  This technique has proven to be successful in the
past and we hope that it will not fail us this time, and that soon
Yuri will be able to thank you in person for helping him leave.
 
Please, write a letter to him expressing your concern for him and his
cause.  For your convenience there follows a sample letter, first in
LaTeX format, then in TROFF.  All you have to do is edit it and print
it; then mail it off with 45 cents postage.  (Don't forget to put in
your name and address in the appropriate places.)  It would be more
effective if you write your own letter in your own words, but if you
can't, please don't copy the sample word for word - put in your own
personal touches.
 
Thank you very much for your help!  If you would like to be on a
mailing list for further notices of human rights cases, with sample
letters you can easily print and mail, send e-mail with your address
to [email protected] (arpanet).  Please redistribute this message to
any appropriate places.
 
*********************** LaTeX letter follows ***********************
 
\documentstyle[12pt]{letter}
\nofiles
\begin{document}
 
\signature{MY NAME}
\address{MY STREET ADDRESS\\
	MY CITY, STATE\ \ ZIP-CODE\\
	\underline{MY COUNTRY}}
 
\begin{letter}{Moscow 117279\\
		Ul. Profsoyuznaya 85, kor. 1, kv. 43.\\
		Yuri Chernyak\\
		\underline{USSR}}
\opening{Dear Yuri,}
 
We have learned of your situation and would like you to know that we
sympathize with you greatly.  We can assure you that the American public will 
not ignore denials of human rights.  In particular, we hope that you
will soon be allowed to emigrate in accordance with your rights under
international agreements.
 
\closing{Sincerely,}
\end{letter}
\end{document}
 
*********************** TROFF letter follows ***********************
 
.sp 1.5i
.po 1i
.ll 6.5i
.ps 12
.vs 14
.nf
							MY STREET ADDRESS
							MY CITY, STATE, ZIP
							MY COUNTRY
.sp 1i
Moscow 117279
Ul. Profsoyuznaya 85, kor. 1, kv. 43.
Yuri Chernyak
USSR\h'-\w'\|USSR'u'\l'\w'USSR'u_'
.fi
.sp 0.5i
Dear Yuri,
.br
We have learned of your situation and would like you to know that we
sympathize with you greatly.  We can assure you that the American public will 
not ignore denials of human rights.  In particular, we hope that you
will soon be allowed to emigrate in accordance with your rights under
international agreements.
.sp 1i
.nf
							Sincerely,
.sp 0.75i
							MY NAME
 
 
 

Topics:
 
	Administrivia (and apology)
			[Moderator]
	Shabbat and computerized appliances
			Amos Shapir
	Re: Metzitzah B'peh
			Arnie Lustiger
	Re: Emunat Chachamim
			Lou Steinberg
			Joshua Prochan	
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I apologize for the long delay in getting mail.jewish  out. I have not
disappeared and I  expect to get  the mailing list going  again  on  a
timely basis. I still have two large postings on the  Emunat Chachamim
issue which I will try to get out in the next two weeks. I don't think
there is anything else that has  been sent to me.  If you have, please
resend it to me and I will get  it out promptly. If  you have anything
new, now is as good a time as any to send it to me.
 
Avi Feldblum
mail.jewish moderator
[email protected]      or     [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Tadiran,   an   israeli electronics   company,    has  announced   the
introduction of a new computerized refrigerator with a special feature
for observant jews: when the 'Shabbath' button is pushed, the motor is
activated  by a timer  rather  than by a   thermostat, and thus become
independent of opening  the door (and the inner  light is switched off
too).
 
I'm  sure that with the increasing   use of  microcomputers, there are
going to be more and more sophisticated of these  computerized 'Shabes'
Goys'.
 
Amos Shapir  National Semiconductor (Israel)
amos%[email protected]  34 48 E / 32 10 N
 
[This comment seems to be a  good  jump-off point for  a discussion of
'Shabbat clocks',  computerized appliances and  'Shabbat Goy', esp. in
light of R. Moshe's  psak  on Shabbat clocks. I  will try and  have  a
summary of the psak for an upcoming mailing. Mod]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I now  understand that in Baltimore  Maryland,  metzitzah b'peh (mouth
contact  with blood during circumcision)  is prohibited, per the edict
of  Rabbi  Heinemann, the generally    accepted Morah  D'asroh  (local
rabbinic authority) of Baltimore.
 
Arnie Lustiger - mhuxd!polymer!akiva
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Well,  the  discussion of  Purim that  was supposed to  clear   up the
questions about emunat chochamim has  instead left me confused.   As I
understood it, the following points were made:
- other members of the Sanhedrin disagreed with Mordecai's approach
- if the Jews had not followed Mordecai we would have been punished
 
But  how  can   this be?  Surely  if we   were to be punished  for not
following Mordecai, there must have been a way for us  to know that he
was right.   Otherwise, how could  it be just  to  punish us   for not
following him?  But if there was such a way to  know that Mordecai was
right, a  way so obvious  that  HaShem  expected the  entire people to
understand it  and  follow Mordecai, how  could those other  Sanhedrin
members not agree?  If there was a way  for the  entire people to know
that  Mordecai was  to  be  followed rather  than the  other Sanhedrin
members, what was it?
 
Lou Steinberg - rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!lou 
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Let me toss in a pair of questions:
 
Several people have stated that the Gedolim were `wrong' before WW II.
*Were* they wrong?  That is, as a  matter of  historical fact, did the
Gedolim tell  people to stay  in Europe, or  that things  wouldn't get
that   bad?  Also,  there is  a  distinction that  can be made between
telling people  to stay, and not  telling them  to  leave.  Is this  a
distinction without a difference, or is it important here?
 
Some things to keep in mind, that might have affected their statements 
are: 
 
    Where could  anyone go?    Israel was   closed,  and  the  illegal
    immigration  was highly selective.   The U.S. was all  but closed.
    Most  other  countries had too many economic  problems to want any
    immigrants but the occasional doctor or professor.
 
    People would not  have wanted  to  go even   had there been   open
    countries.  They had businesses they didn't want to  abandon, they
    didn't want to learn a  new  language, they  had  survived pogroms
    before, and so on.   (How many Jews  are still in  Iran for  those
    reasons, with the blood still fresh at Auschwitz?)
 
Simply that people stayed in Europe is not proof that the Gedolim told
them to.
 
What is the  evidence,  either way?  No  proofs by assertion,  please;
documentary   evidence  --  speeches,   responsa,   letters, newspaper
interviews, diaries, first-hand testimony.
 
 
Joshua H. Proschan
. . .!{allegra|bellcore}!nvuxh!jhp3 

Topic:
	Re: Emunat Chachamim and Da'as torah
				Isaac Balbin
______________________________________________________________________________
 
     I will respond here briefly to Lenny Oppenheimer's article  based  on  his
Rav, Rabbi Bulman (is he the one whose son-in-law is Rabbi Katz, who was a Hil-
lel director here in Melbourne for two years?) I will only respond  briefly,  a
fuller  substantiated response will follow, based on Shulchan Aruch - sadly, an
ingredient missing in Lenny's article.  I will consider some points.
 
 (1)   "Da'as torah" - where does the name originate from. Is it  an  invention
       of  the Yeshivas from the last twenty years? Do we find Da'as Torah dis-
       cussed in the Shach and  Taz  in  Yoreh  Deah,  Hilchos  Kvoid  Talmidei
       Chachamim  (the  laws  of rendering honour to overwhelming majority con-
       sensus based opinion)?  In what Siman (Chapter) is Hilchos  Kvoid  Da'as
       Torah as "defined"?  Is the definition we are given based on any source?
       If not, what is the precedent for the definition given?  Is  *it*  Da'as
       Torah?  If not, then even Lenny would say we can ignore it?  I certainly
       haven't seen a letter from Da'as Torah saying what Da'as Torah  is;  has
       Lenny?
 
 (2)   We are told that Daas Torah pertains to the opinions of someone who  has
       been  accepted  by the overwhelming - what does that quantify to?  which
       sources discuss this quantification? - majority of Shlomei  Emunas  Yis-
       roel.   Firstly,  define an "opinion". Is it  a psak din? (halachic rul-
       ing) Reb Moshe Feinstein Zt"l  ruled  against  the  Rammo,  Rabbi  Moshe
       Isserles,  when  Reb  Moshe  had  a question on a Gemorah, and could not
       reconcile the Rammo's viewpoint with that Gemorah. (see my discussion on
       music  in  early  issues  of  this  mailing  group)  Yet,  the Rammo was
       overwhelmingly accepted, and therefore, according to Lenny, a  transcen-
       dent Da'as Torah. Did Reb Moshe Zt"l then fail the requirement for abid-
       ing by Daas Torah?  Of course not!  The Vilna Gaon is another example in
       point.  He  often  disagreed with Rishonim.  He went totally against the
       mainstream of Acharonim. To put this in  Lenny's  terminology,  he  went
       against  the overwhelming consensus on many issues.  Was the Gaon acting
       against Da'as Torah?
 
 (3)   We are then told that issues (and the issues  Lenny  uses  are  halachic
       questions ) about which there is a consensus, constitute da'as torah; eg
       the prohibition of women in the army.  What  a  contorted  view  of  the
       halachic  process!  It  is  not the *consensus*, which Lenny underlines,
       which is the real issue here. It is the *issue*  itself.  In  this  case
       there  is a paucity of halachic opinion *which can stand up to scrutiny*
       that permits women actively going to the army.  It is  this,  and  *not*
       some  pseudo-sanhedric  notion  of  overwhelming  majority, which is the
       overbearing point of issue.
 
There are issues, however, where the overwhelming majority of people enjoy  one
view  and  yet we find single lone opinions at variance.  More than that, these
opinions are *still* valid even if, according to Lenny's definition,  they  are
against Da'as Torah.
 
 (1)   I can think of many examples and personalities who were not afraid to go
       against  Lenny's  Daas  Torah. When the Sridei Aish, Rabbi Weinberg Zt"l
       ruled that it was permitted to have mixed meetings of  boys  and  girls,
       given  a particular set of circumstances, (a-la B'nei Akiva or the like)
       I can tell you he was pretty much a lone opinion.  (Indeed, I would like
       to know - even today - of other written responsa where it is permitted.)
       Yet, despite Lenny's overwhelming majority definition of Da'as Torah, is
       one  going  to  rule that Bnei Akiva is without halachic precedent?  Are
       you going to determine that they have  no  place  in  modern  orthodoxy?
       (They  certainly  don't have a place in seperatist orthodoxy, as defined
       by Charles Leibman).  Are you going to say  that  they  are  -  moredim,
       rebellers?  Moreso, the current Lubavitcher Rebbe, saw fit to get one of
       his Smichos (Rabbinic degree) from Rav Weinberg Zt"l. I  suppose  though
       that  one  can't bring proofs from the Lubavitcher Rebbe since Rav Shach
       (as reported many times) wouldn't consider his opinion as  Da'as  Torah,
       but  rather  a  "perversion"  of Judaism!  In defense of Lenny, he might
       claim that the Rabbonim didn't come out in an open  *letter*  condemning
       Bnei  Akiva, but is that the point?  When does a letter constitute Da'as
       Torah? Is this like a "get" (divorce) which requires a document as well?
       At  least  the  "get"  document  has  roots  in Shulchan Aruch.  Da'as -
       knowledge doesn't need to be on paper; I would bet you that 99%  of  the
       Rabbonim  that  Lenny classifies as Gedolim, privately believe that Bnei
       Akiva is halachically forbidden.
 
 (2)   Think of Harav A.I. Kook Zt"l. Think of how much at variance  his  opin-
       ions  were  with your definition of Da'as Torah. Have you now ostracised
       those who follow his line of philosophy/halacha because he wasn't  Da'as
       Torah.  Indeed,  you  should  (re)read  about  the honour which even his
       staunchest opponent, Rav Sonenfeld Zt"l accorded him.  But if  Rav  Kook
       went  against  Lenny's  Daas Torah then Rav Kook had no validity either!
       Believe me, Rav Kook was the subject of many a letter condemning him!
 
 (3)   Lenny claimed that my classification - which incidently Lenny is not lay
       -  of  Rav  Moshe's  pronouncement  of prohibiting attendance to Russian
       Jewry Rallies, was not a Gezerah. Why not, pray  tell.   Was  this  your
       opinion Lenny? I can't find the classification "other statements" in the
       Shulchan Aruch, but I can find "Gezerah".
 
 (4)   In which Siman in shulchan aruch does it say that a  Rav  cannot  pasken
       (rule  on) an opinion not held by a Rav who may or may not be greater in
       learning than that Rav?
 
 (5)   If your Rav paskens against Gedolim because he has a question  on  their
       P'sak,  or  has  a  brilliant  hetter,  then follow your Rav my friends,
       because this is Lo Tossur - even if a Gadol disagrees with the Psak.  On
       the  contrary, take your Rav's Psak to the Gadol and see if he has ques-
       tions on the Psak.
 
 (6)   Lenny tells us that it is a lack of respect to question a P'sak  because
       of  a paucity of sources in the P'sak, or because you have serious ques-
       tions on the P'sak. You can even go from one Rav and tell him  what  the
       other paskened and come back to the former etc ... provided you tell the
       other Rav that you have discussed this question with another Rav. I will
       elaborate in my next posting, I can't recall exactly the details, but it
       is all there in the Shach and Taz, Hilchos K'void Talmidei Chachamim.
 
 (7)   Lenny, there is a concept of Rav Ha'ir. If the Rav Ha'ir  makes  a  Gez-
       erah,  then  no Rav can anul it (according to the Shach).  Note that the
       Rav who made the Gezerah might have been a "lower-level" Rav (to use yet
       Lenny's  classification)  and  the new Rav might have been A trancendant
       Gaon.
 
 (8)   Questioning a P'sak does not question expertise. Where is the  logic  in
       that conclusion! "Torah hi, U'zrichim Anu Lilmoid"!
 
 (9)   Lenny tells us of a "mesorah that Hashem will not let the  consensus  of
       Gedolei  Yisroel  err". Lenny, have you glossed over the concept of "Par
       Helem Dovor Shel Tzibbur?" Where is the source of *your* mesorah?
 
 (10)  I like the point about the wicked son being  wicked  because  he  "told"
       rather  than "asked". Remember though there is an issue of asking a Rav,
       "what is the Rav's opinion on so and so".  This  is  not  asking  for  a
       P'sak, and is not telling either.
 
I had better stop rambling!
 
 
Isaac Balbin - [email protected]

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Hello from:
		Karellynne Watkins
	What's a Rav?
		David Sherman
	Multiple Kashrut Symbols
		H. Wyzansky
	Two Kashrut Questions
		Harry Rubin	
	Re: Halacha and Politics (mail.jewish #72)
		Harry Rubin
 
______________________________________________________________________
Hello everybody!
 
	The mailing list has now grown to over 150  people. One of the
most  recent  people  to  join the  mailing  list, Karellynne Watkins,
included an introduction  paragraph  and said I could  post it on  the
mailing  list.  With our members   spread out all  over  the globe,  I
thought it was a nice idea, so you'll  find it right  below. If anyone
finds themselves  in Tucson,  now you know  somebody  to call :-).  If
there  is  anyone on   the  list  who  wants   to  similarly introduce
themselves to the rest of the list,  feel free  to send in a paragraph
and I'll try and include one in each mailing.
 
Avi Feldblum - mail.jewish moderator
[email protected]  or  [email protected]
(jewish%[email protected] does not appear to be working at the
moment, so don't route that way for the moment.)
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
My  name is  Karellynne Watkins (usually  called just "K").  My family
(husband Jim and three kids:  Rivka,  8; Svi,  5;  and  Malca, 2)  are
members of both Orthodox synagogues here in  Tucson, Arizona--one with
extremely low membership, the other  fairly  young and under continual
acute financial  strain.  There   is  a  fairly  strong   non-Orthodox
presence  in town, enough to  support a primary  day school and a very
active Federation  and Community  Center; but  Orthodox  resources are
limited.  Much  of the membership of  the Orthodox synagogues  is less
than Orthodox in practice;  I don't think there  are more than a dozen
or so  shomer  Shabbat families,  many  of which are   retired people.
There   is   one  minimal  mikva at  the  older  synagogue, staffed by
volunteers at  need;  a  non-Orthodox butcher who sells   kosher meat,
fresh and  frozen; a  non-Orthodox baker who is  willing to  deal with
Orthodox supervision; an active  preschool at the  newer synagogue; an
ever-shifting effort to provide Orthodox education for  older children
(and their elders); and the  opportunity to daven  with a mechitza and
(most days) a  minyan.  There  is a larger  community in Phoenix,  200
miles away, but we have to fly our Orthodox mohels in from Los Angeles
(a long day's drive), Denver (two days), or, of course, New York.
 
K Watkins [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Could someone enlighten  me  (and  other  interested  readers) on  the
different levels of  smicha?  I  understand  there are several levels,
but I don't  understand what they  are, what  learning is required for
each, how one identifies a rabbi  or rav at  a particular "level", and
what the implications are for shailas.
 
We have some Lubavitcher (BT)  friends, and they were  telling us that
the  title "Rav" applies  only to  a rabbi who   has "apprenticed" for
several years at the side of a Rav, poskining shailas under the senior
Rav's tutelage.  According to   our friends, any  rabbi  can  answer a
halachic  question, but only on the  basis of what  previous (greater)
rebbeim   have held;  while a  Rav  can make  "new" decisions  when he
poskins.  Is this definition correct?   Does it  have any implications
for the issue  of whom I select as  my "personal" rav for questions of
halacha?
 
David Sherman, Toronto - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have noticed an interesting trend in recent months,  something which
I  don't recall  seeing  before.  I am referring   to  having multiple
symbols of Kashrut supervision on a package.  The usual combination is
the symbol of a nationally  known organization,  such as the  O-U, O-K
(Rabbi Levy) or Star-K  (Baltimore Vaad), and  a signature, in Hebrew,
of a Rabbi affiliated with  one or another  of  the  Chassidic  groups
(most of which I have never heard of, but then I am a Litvishe [person
of Lithuanian ancestry] mitnagid [non-Chassid] who never lived  in New
York).  I  have  seen this  on products  as  diverse  as frankfurters,
Cholov Yisrael milk, candy and gefilte fish.
 
It is possible that this  is primarily a  marketing ploy, the national
symbol for the great mass of people who  know  and trust it  and, like
me, don't  know who the other  Rabbi is, and the  Chassidic  Rabbi for
those who,  for whatever reason,  don't want to rely  on  the national
symbol.  Nevertheless, I    find  this  to  be a   disturbing   trend,
particularly  in the case of  the O-U.  The   philosophy behind having
just the O-U on a product, without the name of a supervising Rabbi, is
supposedly to  show that  all  of the  products  under O-U supervision
adhere  to a uniform  halachic standard of Kashrut.  Now  we have, for
example, Meal Mart  glatt  frankfurters with the  O-U plus a Chassidic
Rabbi,  Jerusalem  glatt  frankfurters with the  O-U plus  a different
Chassidic Rabbi and 999 glatt frankfurters with just the O-U (Horrors!
:-).   This  raises questions of  who  is in  control,  do  all of the
products adhere   to   the same  halachic standards,  whose mashgichim
[kashrut supervisors] are  actually on the  spot, and what  happens if
there is a dispute.  In short, all of the questions about  the Kashrut
supervision of a product which  the anonymous O-U symbol was  designed
to prevent!
 
Harold S. Wyzansky - ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have two (I think) quick kashrut questions.
 
1.  Are tangelos considered "kilayim" and thus unkosher?  A tangelo is
the hybrid of a tangerine and a grapefruit.
 
[The prohibition of  "kilayim"  - the interbreeding of  two species or
planting two species together - is only a prohibition on the planting,
not on the eating of  the resultant fruit or  grain. The Rambam says (
Laws of  Kilayim, Chapter 1, Law  7   (my  translation)): The one  who
plants grain in Kilayim or who grafts trees in kilayim, even though he
is punished with malkot (lashes), the result is  permitted to be eaten
even to  the one  who  transgressed  and  planted  them, for only  the
planting was   forbidden. If tangelos   do fall under  the category of
kilayim, then a Jew would be forbidden from  planting (grafting) them,
but not from eating them. - Mod.]
 
 
2.  Lea & Perrins Worcestershire sauce is marked "O-U Fish".  I always
assumed   that  was  done  because    of  the  anchovies.   Yet  Heinz
Worcestershire  sauce, which also  contains  anchovies, is marked "O-U
Pareve."  Can anyone explain this discrepancy?  [I have submitted this
question to a member of the O-U Kashrut division, so I hope to receive
an authoritative answer to this question - Mod.]
 
Thanks.
 
Richard Schultz - [email protected]
 
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
>Date:       Tue Feb  2 19:50:09 EST 1988
>Subject:    mail.jewish #72
>
>Topics:
>	Halacha and Politics
>			Bruce Krulwich 
>...
>It is not clear to  me, however, whether that  necessarily implies that we
>as Frum Jews should be  supporting all attempts at illegalizing abortions,
>because  of  other ramifications that  such  political support could have.
>More directly, supporting political action on  Halachic grounds is opening
>the way  for people  of  other religious beliefs   to  do the same,  which
>needless to say may not be good for us as Jews. ...
>...
 
I agree about "opening the way  ...".  More generally, though, I think
the key is to push  for laws that  ENABLE individuals (or communities)
to follow their  own religious laws or preferences.   I think  it is a
big mistake  to push for   civil   laws that REQUIRE  people to follow
certain religious principles, both for the reason  above and because I
think it is wrong to impose my (our) religious  laws  on other people.
Other people have the right to choose and follow  their own paths just
as we have.
 
To follow  up the  abortion example,  then, I conclude that if halacha
disallows abortion, then we as Jews should push for  laws  which allow
people not  to have abortions; no  one  should be  required to have an
abortion, because that would  force Jews  to violate Jewish law.  What
more could we want in a free country?
 
To take up a less inflammatory example, I recall  reading that New York
state recently  enacted  a  law or regulation   which allowed hospital
patients to designate a religious leader to be consulted in  case they
were incapacitated  (like in  a  coma)  and  there was question  about
whether  to terminate life support  (forgive me if  my recollection is
not entirely accurate).  This is a good example of what we should work
toward: it does  not force any  patient to designate a  clergyman,  it
certainly does  not attempt  to force  Jewish law upon  anyone, but it
enables Jews to make sure that Jewish law will be followed.
 
Harry Rubin
 

Topics:
	Administrivia
			Mod.
	Introduction from
			Yitz Katz
	UO response to Kashrut questions in #81
			Mod
	Re: kilayim
			Ellen Bart
	Triennual Torah Cycle
			Fran Storfer
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I've received a few "introduction" submissions,  and will include one in
each posting. I hope this will help  and make a 'one large  family' sort
of atmosphere on the mailing list. Along  those lines, I would just like
to reiterate that I hope everyone who would like to post something feels
comfortable doing so, and that those who  disagree with something posted
will  remember to reply  in  a friendly  and non-adversarial manner.  In
general, I am  open to any comments, questions  and suggestions that you
have about the mailing  list (and  of course, submissions  from all that
want to submit, otherwise there is nothing to send out).
 
Avi Feldblum - mail.jewish moderator
[email protected]   or   [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Hi there from London  (England).   Yes UNIX has reach  these   wonderful
shores and there are a growing number of 'unsere menschen' involved.
 
First a bit  about me.  I  am  orthodox, 2  years  at Gateshead  Yeshiva
(that's a sort of Lakewood of  England) with a  son and three daughters.
My son is at the end of his second year at Yeshiva and  also wants to do
computing.   My wife  is Dutch (yes,  they have  a good  community there
too).
 
I was born in Cardiff (capital of Wales, also with  a  Jewish community)
and then came to London  where most provincial  people come for studying
and a livelihood. London has  2 main  frum  parts. N16/Stamford Hill and
the North-West (Golders Green, Hendon,  Edgware) giving  a total of some
7-10,00 frummies. The UK is not like the USA as regards schooling. We do
not  have mixed  religious  and  secular learning  past 11th  grade -tis
either Yeshiva proper or University/college.
 
Tourist facilities for Jewish people are not very good. No restaurant is
open  on Shabbos, there  are only 3  down-town -  all very expensive and
there are a few cheap(ish)  guest-houses in both  sections.  You stand a
good chance of being invited out when you come to Shul.  There are a lot
of grocers/restaurants but nothing like OU - so its real tough away from
London and some 5-8 towns with Jewish communities.
 
The hottest thing at the moment is an Eruv which some Rabbis  are trying
to set up in North West London - a real blood-bath of politics.
 
Our company Quantime,  of which I am  a senior  vice-president, has been
running UNIX/C since 1981 and  we now have  3x750's 2xM-vax's, ethernet,
loads of comms and last  month switched  to Mt Xinu. We  also run a MIPS
computer - what a dream - tis about  8 times faster  than a M-vax II and
very reliable, cheap (less  than 60K  dollars) and  pretty  compatible -
well recommended We have an office  in  New York and Cincinnati and many
clients  around  the   world.  We   specialize     in     software   for
Survey/questionnaire processing from  CATI  (Computer Assisted Telephone
Interviewing),  through the batch  data cleaning/tabulation/stats system
and  into some fast  interactive data-base  system for very large files.
We run time-sharing bureaux and sell the software on UNIX and PC's
 
Dayeinu! he says. If anyone wants to know more  of  life in London, I'll
be pleased to help
 
Yitz Katz - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
One of the local Rabonim here in Highland Park, Rabbi Luban works in the
UO kashrut  division, and I showed  him  the  two  kashrut  - UO related
questions raised in the last mailing. The following  is my understanding
of his answers.
 
On  the   UO-fish  question,  the  reason    that only   Lea  &  Perrins
Worcestershire  sauce is listed as   UO-fish while Heinz   is listed  as
pareve, has to do with the amount  of fish in  the sauce. The UO accepts
the opinion that  as far as  the issue of mixing meat  and fish,  it  is
permitted even  lechatchila ('initially') to  eat  meat  together with a
fish mixture  when that  mixture contains less than one  part  in  60 of
fish. The only Worcestershire sauce that contains more than 1/60 fish is
Lea & Perrins, thus the UO-Fish designation.
 
As far as the question of more than  one Hasgacha on  an item, the basic
policy  of the UO is  not  to get involved in  such cases. If  they  are
giving the hasgacha,  then  they are  the only hasgacha on  the product.
Most cases where this is not true (e.g. Kedem wine and  Meal Mart) is in
'grandfather clause' cases, where the dual hasgacha predates this UO
policy.
 
			Avi Feldblum  - Moderator
______________________________________________________________________
 
I was recently at the home of an avid  gardener who (among other things)
had just planted a pear tree.  According to him, in order to bear fruit,
a pear tree must contain grafts  of several  different varieties of pear
in order for cross fertilization to  take place.  At  first I thought he
was kidding when he  said the  tree was a "bartlett, bosc,  anjou" tree,
but then he showed me the grafted portions.
 
If the prohibition on kilayim (mixed species)  is on  the planting, does
that mean that a Jew should  not plant  a pear  tree?   Or does the fact
that they are all varieties  of pear (as opposed  to apple and pear,  or
orange and grapefruit) mean that kilayim doesn't apply at all?
 
Ellen Bart
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
My shul (Conservative) is thinking of  switching to reading the Torah on
the  triennial cycle.  We don't have  a Rabbi,  and the ritual committee
has tabled a decision  on the  matter until we get  more information.  I
was asked to find out  detailed information on the cycle,  e.g.: How  is
the portion  divided  in thirds, and  how  is each third    divided into
aliyot?  On weeks when a double portion is  read, what happens?  I would
appreciate any information  anyone can give  me, either on the specifics
of the cycle or a reference to find out all the details.
 
[ What are the halachic issues involved here? That the  Torah be read on
Shabbat I remember  as being credited as something  established by Moshe
Rabbenu, and Monday and Thursday Torah reading being a Takana (not quite
sure how to translate  this, it  is a established by because  of  a need
seen, rather than strictly due to interpretation of the text) of Ezra. I
also seem to remember that the  number of people called  up to the Torah
is of early origin (I know it is discussed in the gemera, don't remember
if it is a mishna or breita). But what is the history of the one year vs
three year cycle? Is it custom or halacha that we use a one year cycle?
						Moderator
]
 
Thank you,
Fran Storfer - [email protected]
 

Topics:
 
	Introduction from
		Alan Silverblatt
	Re: Pear Trees and Grafting
		H. B. Braude
	Tinok SheNishba Bain HaAkum
		Fern Alyza Reiss
	Triennial cycle-- Salt Lake City Version
		Richard Schultz
		Avi Feldblum
______________________________________________________________________
 
Hello, everyone!   My name  is Alan Silverblatt,  and I've been  on this
mailing list since sometime during the winter.   I'm  an attorney, and a
full  time student  completing an   M.S.  in Information Science  at the
University   of Pittsburgh, with an   interest  in  design, analysis and
consulting in the legal and other information markets.
 
Although I'm not observant, I am strongly  identified as a Jew, and have
a continuing interest in the historical, cultural and ethical aspects of
Judaism and  Jewish traditions.   I recently  joined  a local   informal
"Chavurah" group.  Much of the  discussion  in that group  is  concerned
with similar issues, and I have found it to be quite rewarding.
 
I find the articles  on the mailing list  to be usually interesting  and
thought provoking, and occasionally inspiring.  I would be interested in
hearing from others on the mailing list in the Pittsburgh area.
 
     Alan M. Silverblatt          (412) 824-3885
 
     CSnet     ams%[email protected]
     ARPAnet   ams%{[email protected],idis.lis}.pittsburgh.edu
     BITnet    via psuvax1:  [email protected]
     Usenet    {decvax,mcnc}!idis!ams
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
Regarding Ellen Bart's  question  about pear  trees and  grafting...  My
parents have a pear tree in their back yard (in  N.Y.) that they planted
when I was just a seedling. They were/are  not horticulturalists and did
not perform grafting operations on the tree and yet it  bears fruit each
year (that look remarkably like pears!)
 
Although I cannot discount the possibility that  there may be a genus of
tree that requires grafting in order to bear fruit, I think that  such a
genus  of  tree  would not  have lasted  very long in  the  evolutionary
process (apologies to those offended by the term "evolutionary.")
 
What makes more sense  is that the person may  have shown her a standard
pear tree that had been transformed into a "multi-programming" pear tree
of several types of pears through the art  of grafting. A tree with such
an identity crises  will likely require years  of therapy before  it can
lead a happy life.
 
Further discussion on this or any other issue may prove "fruitless"! :-)
(yes, I wrote that on pear-pose :-).)
 
h.b.braude
______________________________________________________________________
 
Can anyone  point  me to the  sources of  "Tinok SheNishba Bain HaAkum"?
[An infant that has been  captured among the  non-jews, i.e. someone who
has not had the  possibility of  finding out about  Judaism at all- Mod]
Under what circumstances is this considered the appropriate designation?
What are  the  ramifications for  someone who  falls into this category?
And  are there    any  accompanying   mandates   for   their   observant
acquaintances and friends--i.e., Is one halachically  obligated to teach
them?  How  does this concept  relate to  "Hochiach Tochiac et Amitecha"
[You must rebuke your fellow jew if  they do something  wrong - Mod] and
"Lifnei Iver Lo Tetain Mikshol" [Before a blind person you may not place
a stumbling  block,  explained to mean you cannot  do something to cause
another to sin - Mod]?  Thanks!
 
/Fern  (REISS%[email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
Fran Storfer asks about the triennial cycle.  I'm sure that someone else
is more qualified to discuss the halakhic aspects than I  am.  A cursory
survey  of Rambam   and   Shulkhan  Aruch (I've    forgotten  the  exact
references-- I think it's Hilchot Tefillah  ch. 13 and somewhere between
135-140   of  Orach Chayyim)    leaves  me  with the     impression that
*halakhically* all that is required is that  seven be called up and each
read 3 pesukim for a total of 21.  The question of whether Rambam  is an
acceptable halakhic  source for  Conservative Judaism   since    he very
specifically forbids women from being  called up  I'll leave for someone
else :-).
 
Anyway, here in SLC  there is a  Conservative/Reform synagogue, which is
left- wing Conservative on Saturday morning.  They do  some version of a
triennial cycle.  In  order to have Simchat Torah  every year, they read
the first third of each of the 54 Sidrot one year, the second  third the
next, and the last third the third year.   Thus, this  year  started out
with the first couple of aliyot of Bereshit.  The next week they did the
first couple of aliyot  of Noach.  And  so on.  For weeks with  a double
parshah, they read one third of one and one third  of the other.  As far
as I  can tell, there  is  no "official" list  of where to  divide.  The
chazzan just informs the baal kore for that week  where the  breaks are.
The really weird  part is that  no matter what year  in the cycle it is,
they read the  maftir from the  end of the one-year  cycle parshah (i.e.
during two years of the cycle, they skip to get to the maftir).  I don't
understand that at all.
 
My  understanding was that in Talmudic  times,  there were two competing
Minhagim.   One,   which we   follow today, divides  the   Torah into 54
parshiyot and goes through it once each  year.  The other  was to divide
it  into about  150  parshiyot and go   through it *completely*, i.e. no
skipping, in three years.  I   also was  given   to understand that  the
latter custom was developed primarily for use  with  a meturgeman (a guy
who stood  next to  the  Baal Kore  and translated   pasuk by pasuk into
Aramaic so that people could understand), because it would take too long
to go through the whole parshah translating  it a line  at a time.   The
custom of course became to  go through it in  one year.  (The  only time
I've ever seen a meturgeman was one Simchat  Torah, when a friend  and I
did it that way for a while to relieve boredom.)
 
The net result of this megillah is perhaps more questions  than answers.
For instance, if one follows  the SLC method of triennializing, problems
will arise for  the tochachot (rebukes) in  parshiyot  Bechukotai and Ki
Tavo.  The triennial cycle will require that they be split among several
people, while custom-- and I think halakhah as well-- requires that only
one person, usually the Baal Kore, be called up to read them, since it's
something of an insult to call someone up to the Torah and then have him
read about all the nasty things God  is going to do  to him.  Here, they
pick expedience and just treat those sections as any other parshah, even
to the extent of not reading them in an undertone as is traditional.  An
unanswered question is what do they plan to do for Vayyelech, which this
year is NOT read with Nitzavim and is only 30 pesukim long.   That won't
leave much for the other two years of the cycle.
 
Finally (finally!  please forgive  the   length of this   submission), I
wonder if the SLC method is halakhic at all.  I remember  reading at the
end  of  Tractate Megillah that you're  supposed   to start on   Shabbat
afternoon where  you left  off on  Shabbat  morning.  Was  that  just  a
statement or was it  brought down as  halakha?  I think that skipping to
the  end is okay,   because the rule  was that  you could  skip  between
aliyot.  But then I also thought you could  only skip if  you're keeping
to the same subject, as is done, for example, on fast day readings.  Can
anyone out there clarify these issues?
				
					Hope this has been helpful,
 
					Richard Schultz
 
[Well, I started looking over the issue over  Shabbat, and I'll give you
my  early  impressions. I'll try  and firm some  of it  up by next week,
unless  someone else  sends something  in and  gets me off the hook. The
main primary sources appear to  be Masechet  Sofrim,  one of the 'small'
tractates found following tractate  Avoda  Zara in the  Talmud, and  the
Gemara  in Megila. Mesechet Sofrim lists  the  number of people that get
called up to the Torah for the different Torah readings during the year,
e.g. 3 during Mondays and Thursdays, 7 for  Shabbat. It also discusses how
long  the reading  must be,  at least three verses  long. So the minimum
reading for Shabbat is 21  psukim (verses). It gives other  requirements
about how to break  up the reading (including  not breaking up  at least
one of the two rebuke portions) that may  make the reading longer. Last,
but in this  case quite important, it  brings down a disagreement  about
how the reading  from one week  is related to the  next, I think this is
there, I  know  this part is in Megila  as well.  In Magila the decision
that is accepted is that where you finish on Shabbat morning, from there
you  start Shabbat   afternoon, Monday, Thursday and   the  next Shabbat
morning. Thus if one  wishes to set up a  more than one year   cycle for
reading  the Torah,  the way Richard described  being done in  Salt Lake
City is NOT in accord with Halacha. More to come next week.
 
	Avi Feldblum  mail.jewish Moderator  
	[email protected]  or  [email protected]
 
]
 

Topics:
	Introduction from:
		Richard Schultz
	Tochachot
		Henry Schaffer
	Re: Triennial Cycle
		Fran Storfer
	Info needed about Minneapolis and Montreal
		Bruce Krulwich
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Hi out there!  My  name is  Richard Schultz, and  can tell you that yes,
there are Jews in Salt Lake City, Mormon capital of the world-- although
the Mormon presence is not  nearly  as stifling as  most people think it
would be.   I am  (fortunately) here  only temporarily;  I came here  to
complete my Ph. D. in chemistry when my adviser moved from Berkeley.   I
have about 1.5 years left ('mirtz Ha-Shem, as they say).
 
There is not much of  a frum community out  here.  To  be more specific,
there is no frum community  out here.  There is me  and the guy I  learn
with, and that's about it.  Perhaps unsurpisingly, there isn't much of a
social life out here.  There is a  small Jewish community, though.  As I
mentioned  in  an  earlier   posting, there  is   a  Reform/Conservative
synagogue  which was formed about  10 years ago from   the merger of two
smaller synagogues.  I go there occasionally, despite the disapproval of
certain more  Orthodox  elements whom  I've  talked  to.  Not   to worry
though-- during the cooler  months  I'm  careful to  wear my  black hat.
Just to make sure everyone knows who the frummie is.
 
Being such a minority within  a minority can be  interesting, but I have
to admit  that  on the  whole,  I'd  rather  be in a  place where kosher
amenities are  easy to  come by; e.g.,  we get  kosher meat shipped in 4
times a year from Sinai in Chicago.  A lot of  the  things one takes for
granted  back East,  e.g.  kosher sour   cream, Entenmann's,  etc.,  are
impossible to come by here, but that's the price one pays  for living in
the land o' Zion.  Denver is  relatively close and  a  reasonable escape
from SLC.  Certainly if you want an Orthodox shul, sefarim, a mohel or a
mikvah, that's where you've got to go.
 
I'm also curious  to hear  from  anyone who has  ever gotten involved in
starting an  Orthodox kahal in  a non-Ortho  community.  I  know they've
just done that in Santa Fe (I think;  or maybe  it was Albuquerque), and
am interested in trying to do that  here.  As  you may have gleaned from
my earlier post, sometimes the congregation here can really get on one's
nerves.
 
So in  conclusion, I'd like  to say that  if anyone  out there should be
driving through SLC and wants a guaranteed kosher meal, or would like to
learn some Bava Metsiah, or is filled with an adventurous spirit, please
feel free to drop me a line, either by e-mail, or  here at the chemistry
department     of     the  University.       My   e-mail     address  is
[email protected]; or you  can phone  me  at the Univ. of  Utah
chemistry department.  If you're in SLC and see a guy with a yamulke and
tzitzit, that's me.
 
Richard Schultz  -  [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
  There was a recent mention of  the old  custom that the  aliyot during
which  the  tochachot  are  read are undesirable,  and  that someone who
doesn't have a choice in the matter (eg. the bal kore) has to take those
aliyot.  In our (Conservative) congregation we have a different twist on
this.  Since the tochachot *are* part of the  Torah,  and so  are  to be
read to the congregation we feel  that the congregation should take part
in these aliyot.  However we do agree that the  tochachot are a "burden"
and so we call some senior  and respected  member of the congregation (a
different member each time) for  such aliyot with  the idea that someone
like that can handle it.
 
  So far no  one has complained, and  it even  seems  to be taken   as a
compliment.
 
--henry schaffer
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Yet another question regarding the breakdown of aliyot for the triennial
cycle: it is my  understanding that  there are numerous  restrictions(in
addition  to  those already mentioned)  regarding the appropriate places
where divisions may be made  for aliyot, that  each aliyah must end on a
neutral or a positive  verse, and that  an  aliyah may  not begin with a
curse.  Is this correct, or am I misinformed?   If this is correct, then
it seems that there should be a very limited number of ways  to divide a
parsha into aliyot.
 
Fran Storfer  -  [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
In August I will be in Minneapolis/St. Paul for the AAAI Conference,
and will probably end up spending a Shabbat there.  It is also
likely that I will be spending a weekend in Montreal (after the
Cognitive Science conference). 
 
I would appreciate any information regarding Shuls, Kosher food, Shabbat
possibilities, etc, that anyone could offer me about either or both cities.
 
Thanks.
 
Bruce Krulwich  -  [email protected]

Topics:
	Administrivia
			Moderator
	Re: Triennial cycle
			Richard Schultz
	Jewish Travel Information
			Ellen Bart
			Avi Feldblum
______________________________________________________________________
 
Two points for  this week's mailing.  One, it's  been a bit  over a year
since the last check  of paths  on  the mailing  list.  I would  greatly
appreciate it if everyone could send me  back a message  telling me that
you have received this mailing. This will help determine what paths I am
having trouble reaching. To  send mail to  me, if you  are on  a machine
that wants [email protected] form   of address, please send  the  path
check confirmation to:
 
	[email protected]  or  [email protected]
 
If you are on a machine that uses bang notation (machine!usr), then mail
it to:
 
	att.att.com!prayf!mail-jewish  or att.att.com!pruxe!ayf
 
(if your machine can resolve Internet domains)
 
or    (any major machine)!att!prayf!mail-jewish
      (any major machine)!att!pruxe!ayf
 
Second, the next mailing will be an index of the the first year of
mail.jewish mailings (from #1 to #38).
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Here's an interesting point I got from the Hertz Chumash.  At the end of
each book,    he  prints  the  "Masoretic   Note" which counts   verses,
paragraphs, etc.  It also has both the number of  parshiyot in each book
and the number of "Sedarim,"  the divisions  according to  the triennial
cycle.  Reading    these notes reveals that  the   number  of Sedarim is
*never* three times the number  of Parshiyot for any  of the five books.
In fact, the total  number of Sedarim is not  three times  the number of
Parshiyot.
 
The conclusion  is    obvious: the currently popular   "triennial cycle"
method  of reading a third  of a parshah  per  week bears essentially no
relationship to the way it was originally done.
 
					Richard Schultz
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
In response to a  question on kosher  places to eat  in Minnesota, check
out
 
	Traveling Jewish in America 
 
Ellen Bart
 
[From  Jewish Action  spring/summer  1988.  For  a pocket-size guide for
Jewish  travel in   the United States, Traveling  Jewish  in America:for
Business and Pleasure, is the  perfect handbook ... It contains listings
with addresses and telephone numbers  of over 2400 synagogues,  500 food
stores and  restaurants, ... it  may  be ordered directly  through   the
publisher, Wandering You Press, 201-772-1052.  ($9.95) Also reviewed was
The 1987-1988 Jewish Almanac. From the review: Need to find  a mikveh in
Birmingham, Alabama, some  kosher food in  Albuquerque,  New Mexico or a
minyan  in Kalamazoo, Michigan?  ...18,000 jewish communal orginazations
and   commercial establishments  in    the  U.S.   and  Canada  ... 4000
synagogues. For info call Pacific Press, 212-687-0500.  Avi Feldblum
- Mod.]

Special Issue: Table of Topics for issues 1-38 (March - Dec. 1986)
 
mail.jewish #1 -  5 Mar 1986
TOPICS:
	Beans for Passover
 
mail.jewish #2 -  7 Mar 1986
TOPICS:
	Followup to Beans
	Query about vegetarianism
	Mailing list report
	Did you know?
 
 
mail.jewish #3 -  11 Mar 1986
TOPICS:
	Jewish Vegatarianism - Andrew Reibman
	Peasach Laws and Prohibitions - Stuart Freedman
	More Peanuts			-Sorry, i lost the author
	Shabos Candles - Followup - Dave Sherman
				  - Dovid Chechik
	Mailing List Update	- Dovid Chechik
	
 
mail.jewish #4 - 16 Mar 1986
TOPICS:
	Sabbath Candles Correction - Fred Liss
	Kitniyos Correction - Dovid Chechik
 
 
mail.jewish #5 - 16 Mar 1986
TOPICS:
	    Halacha in Space	e.c.leeper
 
 
mail.jewish #6 -  18 Mar 1986
TOPICS:
	Request re: article submitions	- Dovid Chechik
	Shabbos Candles obligations	- Sheryl Flieder
					  Dovid Chechik
	Comment on Possible Potato Famine - Kathy Rosenbluh
 
 
mail.jewish #7 - 22 Mar 1986
TOPICS:
	Subjects for discussion		Sheryl Flieder
	Digest of Purim Laws		Dovid Chechik
 
 
mail.jewish #8 - 26 Mar 1986
TOPICS:
	More on Purim 					Fred Liss
	Parents of Converts, Passover Symbolism		Dovid Silverberg
 
 
mail.jewish #9 - 31 Mar 1986
TOPICS:
	Life-Cycle Practices of Gerim	meg mcroberts
	When can a Jewess remarry?	meg mcroberts
 
 
mail.jewish #10 - 2 Apr 1986
TOPICS:
	Laws of Mourning and Gerim - Dovid Chechik
	Laws of Remariage	   - Dovid Chechik
 
 
mail.jewish #11 - 7 Apr 1986
TOPICS:
	Maras Ayin ???????
 
 
mail.jewish #12 - 11 Apr 1986
TOPICS:				    
	May Jews cook for non-Jews on Yom Tov - J. Abeles
	Question on Peasach Cleaning	      - Andrew Reibman
	Partial Response to Peasach Cleaning  - Editor
 
 
mail.jewish #13 - 15 Apr 1986
TOPICS:
	Question about Shavers and razors?	E. Leeper
	Question about Kitniyos			Fred Liss
	Keeping Kitniyos Over Peasach		Dovid Chechik
	Cooking for non-Jews on Yom Tov		Dovid Chechik
 
mail.jewish #14 - 21 Apr 1986
TOPICS:
       A summary of passover laws.		Dovid Chechik
 
 
mail.jewish #15 - 2 May 1986
TOPICS:
	Halachic question on adoption   - Jack Gold
	Mourning for non-Jewish parents - Danny Wildman
	Lighting Shabbos Candles	- Danny Wildman
 
 
mail.jewish #16 - 6 May 1986
Topics
	Kashrhrut Status of Caviar			 - David Sher
	Questions Concerning Children of Mixed Marriages - Michael Brochstein
	Prohibition Against Shaving with a Razor	 - Dovid Chechik
 
 
mail.jewish #17 - 9 May 1986
TOPICS:
	Re: Kashrut Status of Caviar - Susan Slusky
	Conversion of non Jewish Children - Dovid Chechik
 
 
mail.jewish #18 - 14 May 1986
TOPICS:
	Status in Mixed Marriages - Yechezkal Gutfreund
	More on Kosher Fish	  - Dovid Chechik
 
 
mail.jewish #19 - 16 May 1986
TOPICS:
	Vegetarianism Throughout the Ages - Dovid Chechik
 
 
mail.jewish #20 - 20 May 1986
TOPICS:
	Definition of Mamzer - Question
 
 
mail.jewish #21 - 28 May 1986
TOPICS:
		YICHUS	- Dovid Chechik
 
 
mail.jewish #22 - 2 Jun 1986
TOPICS:
	Children of mixed marriages - Jack Gold
	On-line Chumash Search - Elliott Hershkowitz
	Mikveh Question  - Fred Liss
 
 
mail.jewish #23 - 5 Jun 1986
TOPICS:
	Emotion and Halachic Thought - Anonymous
	Children of Mixed Marriages - Lynne Fitzsimmons
 
 
mail.jewish #24 - 9 Jun 1986
TOPICS:
	Re: Emotion and Halachic Thought - Susan Slusky
	Re: Naming Children of Mixed Marriages - Evelyn C. Leeper
 
 
mail.jewish #25 - 22 Jun 1986
TOPICS:
	Kusi - Shomronim Yichus correction - Barry Siegel
	Delivery of newspaper on Shabbos - Dave Sherman
 
 
mail.jewish #27 - 10 Jul 1986
TOPICS:
	      Newspaper	Delivery on Shabbos - Dovid Chechik
 
 
mail.jewish #28 - 16 Jul 1986
TOPICS:
	The Ethics of Dissent in Judaism
 
 
mail.jewish #29 - 5 Aug 1986
TOPICS:
	E-mail and Shabbos?
	Hallachic definition of Clothing?
 
 
mail.jewish #30 - 7 Aug 1986
TOPICS:
	Re: E-mail on Shabbos?
	Re: Clothes on Shabbos?
 
 
mail.jewish #31 - 25 Aug 1986
TOPICS:
       Automation on Shabbos - Dovid Chechik
 
 
mail.jewish #32 - 23 Sep 1986
TOPICS:
	Hallelukah?	 	Dave Sherman
	A trip to the mikvah	Anonymous
 
 
mail.jewish #33 - 25 Sep 1986
TOPICS:
	Tvilas Keylim - Avi Feldblum
	Washing Hands - Dovid Silberberg
 
 
mail.jewish #34 - 12 Nov 1986
TOPICS:
	Halachic abortion? - Charles Haynes
	Easy Question, Difficult Answer -  Steven H. Gurfreund
 
 
mail.jewish #35 - 21 Nov 1986  10:26 EST
TOPICS:
	Men and Gittin? - Joe Abeles
	Kashruth and Kashruth Symbols - Dovid Chechik
 
 
mail.jewish #36 - 5 Dec 1986
TOPICS:
  	RE: Joe Abeles' Men and Gittin questions - Susan Slusky
 
 
mail.jewish #37 - 12 Dec 1986
TOPICS:
	More on men and Gitten - Joe Abeles
 
 
mail.jewish #38 - 15 Dec 1986
TOPICS:
	Re: Gittin in unusual circumstances - Susan Slusky
	Subject: To Get a Get - D.M.Wildman
	Men and Gitten - Dovid Chechik

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Introduction
		Alan Silverblatt
	Preparation for High Holidays
		Harry Rubin
	Requirements for a Torah Ark
		Fran Storfer
	Photocopies of parts of Tanach
		Wendy Desmonde
        Division into aliyot (was Re: Triennial Cycle)
                Avi Bloch
______________________________________________________________________
Thanks to all of you who have sent me acknowledgements that you are
receiving the mailings. Those who haven't please try and do so. I will
send a message after Rosh Hashana indicating whether or not I have
received something from you. 
 
A K'tiva V'chatima Tovah to all members of the mailing list!
 
Avi Feldblum
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Hello, everyone!  My name is Alan Silverblatt, and I've been on this
mailing list since sometime during the winter.  I'm an attorney, and
a full time student completing an M.S. in Information Science at
the University of Pittsburgh, with an interest in design, analysis
and consulting in the legal and other information markets.
 
Although I'm not observant, I am strongly identified as a Jew, and
have a continuing interest in the historical, cultural and ethical
aspects of Judaism and Jewish traditions.  I recently joined a local
informal "Chavurah" group.  Much of the discussion in that group is
concerned with similar issues, and I have found it to be quite
rewarding.
 
I find the articles on the mailing list to be usually interesting and
thought provoking, and occasionally inspiring.  I would be interested
in hearing from others on the mailing list in the Pittsburgh area.
 
     Alan M. Silverblatt            (412) 824-3885
 
     CSnet     ams%[email protected]
     ARPAnet   ams%{idis.lis,[email protected]}.pittsburgh.edu
     BITnet    via psuvax1:  [email protected]
     Usenet    {decvax,mcnc}!idis!ams
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
The High Holidays (or High Holydays) approach.  I have discovered
that, as with most things in life, what you get out of them is
proportional to what you put into them.  In this case, the result
is in terms of getting into the right frame of mind, really being
able to pour out your heart, feeling that you have succeeding in
speaking honestly and openly to G-d, sincerely feeling repentant,
and later really feeling absolved and ready for a new start; also
getting to know yourself better, like yourself better, and so on.
The input is in terms of preparation; reading, thinking, introspection,
discussion, and so on.
 
In the past, my preparation has been somewhat haphazard.  Some
years it worked, some it didn't.  I would like to ask the readers
of the group to post their suggestions on how to prepare for the
High Holidays in order to have a more meaningful, more moving
experience.  I am thinking mostly in terms of suggestions for things
to read, both general types of things to read and specific items,
but I am open to suggestions of other sorts.
 
Please post your suggestions to the digest, so that all can see
them and react.  Thank you.
 
[Sorry this has come out this close to Rosh Hashana, but this may give
people a chance to think about what Harry has said, and if people have
ideas, while I won't get another mailing out before Rosh Hashana, I will
try to get one out shortly after, in time for Yom Kippur. Mod.]
 
						Harry I. Rubin
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
My shul is presently designing a new ark, and (as we don't have
a  rabbi), I was asked to try to find out the halachic requirements 
regarding an ark.  Especially:  is metal, such as brass ornamentation,
permitted?
 
Fran Storfer [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I do research where I need to cite the Tennach.  Not being
anything near a caligrapher, I generally photocopy (e.g. from
Hertz) a passage I wish to quote.  Now, I do try to find
passages that do not contain the Tetragramaton (spelling?)
but I sometimes do end up (sometimes inadvertently) photocopying
the Tetragramaton.  I pose a query:  What is to be done with
the passages I do not need and what is to be done with the
passages I do need and with which I have finished?  I heard
somewhere that if the Tetragramaton is on the paper, then
I can't throw it away; what about kel and elokim and other
such, and what about passages of Tennach in general?
 
Another query:  Has anyone come across Rabbinic references
to music and the arts and entertainment?  If so, where?
 
Wendy Desmonde - [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Being a ba'al koreh for quite a while, I've had some experience in the
division of the weekly sedra into aliyot.
 
There are several restrictions regarding the division of a sedra into aliyot.
 
There is the restriction mentioned previously that an aliyah must start
and end on a positive note, e.g. in parshat shelach, in the midst of the
episode with the spies, (which doesn't have many positive notes) there
is a break right after Yehoshua says (trying to convince the people)
"Tova ha-aretz me'od me'od", i.e.  the land is very very good. This
restriction, however doesn't seem that restrictive in itself, being that
most of the p'sukim in the torah are positive or neutral.
 
Another restriction is that a break must not occur 2 p'sukim before the
end of a parsha or 2 p'sukim after the beginning of a parsha, unless the
break itself is the beginning or end of a parsha. (A parsha is defined
by the breaks in the writing of the torah, what is known as p'tucha and
s'gura.) The reason for this restriction is a takana for the people
entering and leaving, i.e. if we stop 2 p'sukim before the end of a
parsha and someone leaves, that someone might think that the next aliya
will only be 2 p'sukim and assume incorrectly that an aliya can be only
2 p'sukim. This restriction is why, in the reading for Rosh Chodesh, the
last pasuk of the first aliya is repeated in the second aliya.  There is
no way to conform to this restriction without doing this. (The Rosh
Chodesh reading consists of 3 parshot; 8 p'sukim, 2 psukim, & 5 p'sukim,
and there are 4 aliyot. Try it yourself and see.)
 
A third, but not as strict, restriction is that we try not to stop in
the middle of something, e.g. in the middle a quote. This restriction is
overridden if we have no choice because of the 2 previous restrictions.
(See example of first restriction for an example of this.)
 
Another restriction that I've heard of but am not sure about, is that
when we have connected sedrot (e.g. Matot-Mas'ei) the crossover must be
in the fourth aliya (which is the way it is marked in the chumashim).
This means that no aliyot can be added in the first sedra.
 
All in all, there are a lot more restrictions then people are aware of,
and the custom of having 50,000 aliyot for a bar-mitzva or ufruf
(shabbat before a wedding) really cant be upheld (unless the sedra
happens to be Naso).
 
Avi Bloch - National Semiconductor (Israel) - avi%taux01@nsc

Topic:
		Codes of the Torah
			Arnie Lustiger
________________________________________________________________________
 
I have nothing waiting to go out at this time, so if you have any
contributions, please send them in to me. Mod.
________________________________________________________________________
 
Rabbi Michoel  Dov Weissmandel  Zt'l pioneered a  new way of  looking at
Tanach. This relatively new method   is  being  actively promulgated  by
Rabbi Ezriel Tauber of  Monsey New  York,  which he calls  "Codes of the
Torah".  This method forms  the   basis of a  very successful    weekend
seminar, held periodically  in the U.S.  and Israel. The "codes" lecture
is considered to  be so  compelling that  thousands of  people have been
"chozrim l'teshuva" through it.
 
"Codes  of the  Torah"  attempts  to decipher  hidden messages in Tanach
through finding  words and names in  regular patterns. Most  often these
patterns appear through the numbers 50, 49 and  26 (the latter being the
numerical equivalent of the Shem Havaya).
 
For example, if one looks at the "dor  haflaga" incident in Tanach, from
the first  letter  "bet" appearing  in the  chapter   if  one counts  50
letters, another "bet" will come up. Fifty letters after this second bet
a  "lamed"  appears,  spelling "bavel". Thus the  name  of  the tower is
hidden within the text of the chumash in context with the account.
 
One of the most compelling examples can be found in the book  of Shemot.
When asked  where the  Rambam's  name is hinted   in Tanach,  The Ramban
(Nachmanides) was known to have answered that his name could be found in
Shemot 11:9 in the phrase "....R abot M oftai B e'eretz M itzrayim". 613
letters from  the  "mem' of  "mitzrayim"  one  can find  another  "mem".
Thereafter, in the pattern of fifty (i.e. skipping  every fifty letters)
one can find the words "mishneh torah" which is, of course, the title of
the Rambam's magnum opus on the 613 mitzvot.
 
There are dozens  of more examples.  Another  example  suggests that the
word "Torah" appears, in the pattern of fifty, at  the beginning and end
of Sefer Bereshit and Shemot. The shem  havaya  appears in the beginning
and end of Sefer Vayikra in  the pattern  of 26, while  the word "torah"
appears  backwards in the  beginning  and end  of Bamidbar  and Devarim.
(Closer perusal indicates that Bamidbar and Devarim are not precisely at
the beginning or end of the sefer).
 
Other examples include the appearance of "yeshu" and  "mecca" within the
admonition in Devarim against worshipping false gods. Interestingly, the
admonition invokes  against  worshipping gods   made from "etz  va'even"
(wood and rock) a remez (hint) to the wood of the cross and the stone of
Mecca.
 
Rabbi Tauber then goes further. By computerizing Tanach, one can ask the
computer to give  the length of scriptural line  so that hidden messages
are revealed in other, non-horizontal patterns. One example he  used was
the name "Hitler" (ym's). A line length of about 3700 letters (almost an
entire parsha)  allows the name  Hitler  to  appear vertically (I forgot
exactly where).  If one then makes a 25 x 25 grid of the letters in that
area of the Chumash one then finds the words  Auschwitz, ta'aei gaz (gas
chambers), shoah,   and about eight  other  words  associated with   the
holocaust.
 
I think that by now you get  the idea. The question again  is whether or
not  such  patterns,   especially   those involving  only three or  four
letters, would show up in say,  the New  York Times or  the Encyclopedia
Britannica.  Rabbi Tauber insists that the statistics  are there to back
up his claims,  but I personally  would like to  see  something a little
more objective. Another  issue   involves whether  or   not  using  this
methodology as  a basis for  kiruv (bringing uncommitted  Jews closer to
Judaism) in a sense trivializes Torah, and to the newcomer renders it as
rudimentary cryptography. Any comments?
 
Arnie Lustiger  [email protected]   or  mhuxd!polymer!akiva

Topic:
		Re: Codes in the Torah
			(Dave Sherman, Josh Proschan, Lazer Danzinger)
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
The topic of codes in the Torah was discussed a bit on the net a while
ago. Dave Sherman attended one of the lectures, and posted some of the
info. He sent me his posting, along with some replies. With permission
of the three people who wrote the originals, here they are.
[Mod.] 
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I had always thought that while the Torah sets out a way of life
that clearly works (witness the survival of the Jewish people until now),
a certain amount of belief in the Torah had to be taken on faith.
 
Over the past weekend by wife and I attended Aish Hatorah's "Discovery"
seminar.  I have never been through such an experience in my life.
Aish Hatorah seeks to attract Jews to Judaism by demonstrating the
reasons why any rational, thinking Jew who studies the system cannot
fail to at least take the Torah seriously.  The program is aimed at
intelligent people.  Question/answer sessions and checking of sources
are encouraged.  Aish Hatorah's hope is that the participants at
Discovery will see enough that they will want to learn more.
 
Among the lectures were included:
- analysis of the history of the Jewish people: randomness or design?
- Science and Torah: is there a conflict?
- hidden codes in the Torah.  Evidence of patterns in the words of
  the Torah that spell out words which could not have been associated
  by a human being thousands of years ago.  This is presented from the
  skeptic's point of view, by a mathematician who works for the U.S.
  Department of Defense.  What is most important is the statistical
  significance of these patterns.  Astonishing.
- "Failsafe": the preponderance of evidence that supports the
  contention that the Torah is the literal word of G-d.
 
First, let me say that the speaker at the Aish Hatorah lecture was
Harold Gans, who was introduced as a senior mathematician with the
U.S. Department of Defense.  I spent quite a bit of time chatting with
Mr. Gans over the weekend, and have no reason to believe he is not
entirely sincere.  He is in contact with the primary researchers,
who are in Israel.  He is also undertaking some similar research of his
own, sponsored by Aish Hatorah, but is not yet far enough along to have
any results.
 
Sample anecdotal evidence: if you take the first Taf in Bereishis,
count 50 letters, you get to a Vav. Keep going and it spells Torah
(Taf-Vav-Resh-Heh).  Same goes with the beginning of Shmos.  With
Vayikra, using a "skip" of every eighth letter, it spells Hashem's
name (Yud-Heh, then Vav-Heh).  Etc. for the other books.
Yes, you can find significance in the numbers 50, 8, etc., but you
can quite legitimately ask, So What.  As you said, why pick precisely
those numbers?  And even if you have a good reason, what does it
prove except an intelligent author?
 
(Minor digression: Judaism teaches that every letter in the Torah
is there for a purpose. The Torah has been preserved, not only word-for-word
but letter-for-letter, for thousands of years.)
 
Slightly more interesting anecdotal evidence: it was said of the Rambam,
the wonder of his time (Maimonides) who lived from 1135 to 1204,
"from Moses to Moses there was none like Moses".  The Rambam lived and
passed away in Egypt.  In Shemos 11:9, one finds the only consecutive
four words beginning R-M-B-M (Rambam) in the Chumash. Starting with the
same verse (Shemos 11:9), counting every 50th letter spells Mishne.
Then skip 613 letters, and counting every 50th letter spells Torah.
The Rambam's great work was the Mishne Torah, in which he sets out the
613 mitzvos.  The translation of Shemos 11:9 is "Now the Lord said
to Moses, "Pharaoh will not heed you, in order that my marvels
may be multiplied in the land of Egypt".  (This pattern was found by
the Vilna Gaon in the 18th century, though it took today's computers
to confirm that this is the only R-M-B-M pattern.)  Again, you might say,
you can always find these things if you look long enough.  Note,
however, that we're now into the realm of "IF this pattern was
put here on purpose, it couldn't have been done by a human, since
it deals with the future".
 
Now we get to the interesting ones.  First, understand the
concept of a "minimal occurrence" of a pattern.  In the 78,000
letters of Bereishis, just about any word will appear if you
pick the right skip distance (every Nth letter).  So it's no
big deal to say some word appears.  But, the research focuses on
the MINIMUM distance where the word appears.  Every 2nd letter,
every 3rd letter, whatever (rather than, say, every 1,314th letter).
 
Now, there are some startling correlations in where the minimum
occurrences of certain words appear.  (The minimum occurrences
can only be found with computer search, of course.)  The following
are some of the tableaux put up on the overhead:  (a tableau is
just a computer printout of the section of text, using a column
width which makes the various embedded words show up when circled
or marked.  It looks like one of those "word find" puzzles.)
 
In the section (parashas Vayeshev) where Joseph is in prison:
the minimum occurrences of the Hebrew words for FRENCH, REVOLUTION,
LOUIS, BASTILLE, GUILLOTINE.  Probably just coincidence...
 
(Short digression: the Jewish view has always been that the Torah
contains all knowledge.)
 
In another section (I forget the context): the Hebrew words for
IN AUSCHWITZ, HITLER, THE HOLOCAUST and two other Holocaust-related
words I've forgotten.
 
Another tableau: the Hebrew words for THE NAME OF THE DISEASE,
DIABETES, LOCATION OF THE DISEASE, FROM THE PANCREAS (using the Latinized
word spelled p-n-k-r-a-s), FROM THE PANCREAS (using the classical
Hebrew word l-v-l-v), and INSULIN.  Again, all in the same section
of text, up on the overhead.
 
Okay, you say. Look long enough and you'll find these things,
despite the statistical improbability.  Now comes the fun one.
An experiment was organized, and supervised by a mathematician
in Israel who did not believe this stuff was real.  The idea was
to define what was being looked for BEFORE it was found; otherwise
we always have the argument that the search was tailored to the data.
 
150 pairs of words were taken. Each pair related two words which
could not have been related to each other 3,000 years ago.
Examples: a country and its capital city; a city and its latitude;
a great rabbi and his date of birth or death.  The words and the
terms of the test were agreed on before anything was programmed.
 
The minimum occurrence of the words was sought, and then what
was recorded was the distance between the words.  With truly
random words, one would expect the distances between them to
vary all over the 0.0 (right next to each other) and 1.0 (as
far away as possible) range.  The text searches was Bereishis
(the book of Genesis), 78K chars.
 
The bar graph showing the results is *very* heavily weighted
to the 0.0 end. They indicated that the minimum occurrences
of the paired words were much more often near each other than
would be expected.  The chances of this weighting occurring (and
here I have to rely on the statisticians) are 1 in 22 billion.
 
As a control, the same test, using the same 150 pairs of words,
was run on a different text, a selection of Hebrew essays.
No pattern emerged -- some were close, some were far away, as
randomness would suggest.
 
The test was then run on Bereishis again, misspelling the
original words, or where they were dates changing the dates by
1 day in either direction.  No patterns.
 
These results were so unbelievable that the researchers
selected a new set of 150 pairs of related words and ran the
test again.  Again, the results were heavily weighted towards
the 0.0 end of the graph, with something like a 1 in 22 billion
probability of this occurring.
 
I understand that the researchers involved have written
a paper on this and are planning to get it published.
(Unfortunately, the details of the research, such as what the
150 word pairs were, are confidential until it's published.)
According to Mr. Gans (this came in private conversation; he
didn't talk to the group as a whole about this), because the
concept is so controversial, they wish to get approval from one
of the world leading mathematicians on the statistics involved
before they publish, and they are still waiting for this.  There
is also some concern about the technique being misused, since,
as I noted above, almost any word or name occurs embedded in any
text that is large enough.  What's significant here isn't that
the words are encoded, but that their minimum occurrences show
such patterns.
 
(Incidentally, I asked Mr. Gans privately whether he'd verified the
results of this research.  He told me he'd done the math on the
statistical probabilities, and had spot-checked a number of the
150 word pairs.)
 
David Sherman
[email protected]	[email protected]	[email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
One quick comment: it proves more than just an intelligent author; try doing
it yourself.  To hide that kind and quantity of patterns in a text takes more
than intelligence.  I find this a stronger argument than the statistics.
 
Another interesting one: In Megillas Esther, when the names of the ten sons of
Haman are listed (they had just been hung as part of the fighting in Shushan),
three letters are traditionally written small.  They are, in order, 
taf shin and zayin.
 
In '47, after the Nuremburg trials, 11 of the German leaders were sentence to
hang.  One committed suicide, leaving 10 to be hung.  At either the sentencing
or execution, I forget which, one of them screamed that this was "purimfest
1947".  
 
This made no sense until someon noticed that '47, in the Jewish calendar, is
taf shin zayin.
 
j.h. proschan
 
p.s.--Since the question was raised on the net, I should mention that 
      Harold Gans is a research mathematician and former professor with 
      many publications to his credit.
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
    See also, "B'or Ha'Torah", Number 6, 1987, [all in English] 
    the article by Professor Daniel Michelson--Associate Professor of
    Mathematics at UCLA and at the Hebrew University--entitled, "Codes
    in the Torah."
 
    "Be'or Ha'Torah" is published by "SHAMIR", the Association of
    Religious Professionals from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe 
    in Israel.
    POB 5749, Jerusalem, Israel
    Telephone 02-223702
 
Lazer Danzinger

Topics:
	Nationalism, Holidays and Chabad
		Ari Sacher
	Hekesh and Codes in the Torah
		Avi Gross
______________________________________________________________________
 
I  had the opportunity over  Shabbat to peruse the Habad  weekly Parshat
Hashavua leaflet, Sichat Hashavua. This leaflet  is distributed all over
Israel, and most shuls receive gratuitous copies.   In this week's cover
Dvar Torah, something particularly incensed me.  Allow me to quote a few
lines ( the translation is mine):
 
EVERYONE LOVES   CHANUKKA.   WHO   DOESN'T  LOVE THE   BURNING  CANDLES,
SUFGANIOT, CHANUKA GELT, AND DREIDLES?  ONE CAN  SAFELY SAY THAT MOST OF
THE JEWS AROUND  THE WORLD CELEBRATE  CHANUKKA. HOWEVER,   CHANUKKA IS A
MUCH MORE COMPLEX HOLIDAY  THAN ONE WOULD THINK; MUCH  MORE PROBLEMATIC.
MANY  EMPHASIZE THE ELEMENT OF  " MANY IN THE  HANDS OF THE  FEW", " THE
MIGHTY IN THE HANDS OF THE WEAK".  HOWEVER, THOSE  THAT SEARCH BELOW THE
SURFACE  WILL FIND THAT CHANUKKA  IS A  HOLIDAY THAT  DESERVES MUCH MORE
THOUGHT, AND CONTAINS MANY PERTINENT MESSAGES.  SOMEHOW, PESACH HAS BEEN
TURNED INTO A HOLIDAY OF  NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE,  AND SUCCOT AND SHAVUOT
INTO  AGRICULTURAL HOLIDAYS,   ONE  FINDS THAT   CHANUKKA IS  MUCH  MORE
DIFFICULT,  PERHAPS   IMPOSSIBLE, TO TURN  INTO  A  NATIONALIST HOLIDAY,
UNLESS HISTORY IS SEVERELY PERVERTED.  CHANUKKA  IS  A HOLIDAY OF "TORAT
YISRAEL"
 
Why does the Charedi  population as a whole,   and Habad in  particular,
refuse to consider the existence of a bond  between the nation of Israel
and the land of Israel? Why do they find any  form of Jewish Nationalism
null and void? Could it be that 2000 years  of exile has taken its toll?
Why must we deny that on Pesach the Jewish nation  became a free nation,
a nation that  had  shirked off 210 years of  subservience to Goyyim? Of
course Pesach is also the first step we took in receiving the Torah. But
why hide any reference to Nationalism?
 
[The above paragraph is about as  close  to  a  'flame' that I will pass
through  to the  mailing list.  While I  understand  that some of  these
topics evoke strong emotional responses,  let us try and deal  with  the
issues, rather than berating any person or group of people. Mod.]
 
If one searches  the whole Torah,  one finds  no  mention of Shavuot  as
"Zman   Matan  Torateinu".   Only   as   "Yom   Habikurim",  and   other
"agricultural" terms.  It's only  in  the Gemara  in  Shabbat that it is
decided that the Torah was given  on 6 Sivan,  and this is only one side
of an argument, and only after Rabbi Yishmael's  13 Midot have been used
to the point of exhaustion. Of  course shavuot is  Zman Matan Torateinu.
But why is it necessary to scoff at those that see in it a connection to
Eretz Yisrael?
 
Rav Kook used to say that Ziddukim and  Baitusim have always existed, up
to the present day.  The Ziddukim have always  denied Hazal's  power  to
interpret Halacha, in  other  words, the  complete Torat  Yisrael.   The
Baitussim have always hid away  in  caves, denying any  bond   to  Eretz
Yisrael and Am Yisrael. He said that it was up  to  those few who saw in
the renaissance of Am  Yisrael in Eretz Yisrael  the Atchalta Degeula to
prove that  the way the Jewish nation  is supposed  to   exist is by the
acceptance of Eretz Yisrael, Am Yisrael, and Torat Yisrael.
 
[I did not see that Dvar Torah, but looking at  the Sicha from last week
or the week before, the Rebbe goes into Chanuka as a holiday celebrating
the military victory primarily, the  victory  as  a prerequisite  to the
miracle  of  the  oil (religious),   or primarily religious.   There are
Reshonim that he quotes that appear to support all three positions. That
would not seem  to  be in agreement with the  end of  the quote from the
Sicha you have quoted. Avi Feldblum - Mod.]
 
Shavua Tov,
 
Ari Sacher    <ucbvax!jade.berkeley.edu!sacher%techunix.bitnet>
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have been  reading the fascinating   discussions about  finding hidden
messages in the Torah by looking at every Nth letter.   I admit to being
somewhat skeptical, especially from a  statistical perspective --  since
it reminds  me   of  the   gematria  I  used to  hear  which  has little
statistical basis. Some of the information that Dave Sherman relayed did
lend support to the fact that the phrases being found may be significant
because similar things were not  found in looking  in other stretches of
Hebrew text outside the Torah. I would therefore like to pose a question
on the assumption that the Torah really has these messages hidden within
it, not only between the lines, but actually between the letters.
 
My understanding is that the written Torah was supplemented with a group
of oral traditions on how to interpret it. This includes 13 interpretive
rules such as g'zeira shovo and hekish (I never did learn to spell these
things in  English) as well as additional  information that was  used in
selecting where and how to apply these  rules. Much of  this information
appears to have been lost over the ages.  I wonder whether some of these
rules, such as  "hekish" can be  looked at  in a  different light if the
Torah was written in a way that supported embedding hidden messages.
 
An analogy I could offer is Poetry.   Some poems have  to simultaneously
satisfy several   criteria. Certain lines must  rhyme   at the  end with
certain other   lines.  Some lines  need to  have  a specific  number of
syllables or to  flow in a certain way.  When possible, sentences should
end  at  the end of a  line, and should not  span different blocks.  The
syntax,  grammar and spelling are  also  supposed to stay within certain
bounds. Finally, the  poem as a whole should   be continuous, and  maybe
even tell a story. I can't do all this, but  some people have the talent
to choose the right synonyms and manipulate  things so they abide by all
these constraints. I see the Torah as sharing  some of these attributes.
There  are surface  elements that  basically tell  a   story, and deeper
elements that can  be used to  derive laws using  the rules of inference
that are  somewhat  hidden and   enmeshed within the  "story".  Finally,
according to the  new theories that have  been  mention,  there are very
deep  (I would  say microscopic) details that  are embedded in  the very
fabric  -- so deeply that  we doubt that a  human can have  written this
manuscript.
 
The  inference rule called  "hekish"   (my interpretation) is that   the
presence of rare  or  unusual words  in  the Torah  often  has a special
meaning. If  two different  parts of the  Torah  (such  as parts talking
about divorce, marriage and freedom from  slavery) share an unusual word
-- especially if a  more common synonym  is  usually used -- then we can
derive additional laws. In the above example things were derived such as
the fact that you can get married with a contract  just like you can get
divorced with one. Unfortunately, it has never been clear to  me how one
chooses  which  way the situations   are similar.   There   is  a hidden
assumption here, that the reason the synonym  was  chosen is because G-d
wanted us to derive a new law/rule.
 
If  I went and  found an  interesting  sequence by  counting every  50th
letter at a particular  point, and noticed  that the sequence would have
failed if a more common  synonym had been  used  in the original text at
that point, then it would make me wonder whether  it is fair to  use the
hekish rule on that word. It would then appear to have a good reason for
being  used,  even if  the  reason needed  to  wait until computers were
invented. In my analogy with poetry, the poet often uses a  synonym that
rhymes properly, or has the right number  of syllables, or  feels right,
even if it is not the common one, or does not mean quite the same thing.
We accept the use of the strange word simply because  we  understand the
constraints she is working under.
 
So, given that there are  many convolutions to the Torah  (much like the
primary,  secondary, tertiary and   even  quaternary shapes  of  complex
biological chemical compounds) why should  hekish be accepted as a valid
method of deriving new rules from the Torah?  I suspect that some of you
will  say that  this  just proves how great G-d  is since he was able to
simultaneously solve all  these different equations  and embed all these
hidden things  in several ways  while also choosing  the right words  so
that we can have a hekish too. My level of credulity falls far  short of
that, but  I  respect the argument  that a being such  as the G-d people
worship could do anything they wanted. I wonder how  many  others of the
thirteen rules have similar  hidden  assumptions,  and would become less
valid because  there   were other  reasons  why  words and  phrases were
selected, such as switching from a general  to a specific  tone. I don't
intend to make  fun of the rules, but  am asking whether  the people who
wish to convince us of the validity of the Torah  through  this somewhat
mystical  approach   are   also at  the  same   time  pulling  out   the
underpinnings of the current version of the Jewish faith.
 
One closing note. I have a background in many things like statistics and
cryptology and am not yet convinced that  the things found hidden in the
Torah   are statistically  significant.  Many  of   the things presented
depended  on the inclusion of  modern  Hebrew words  (derived from other
languages) of words  and even concepts that did  not exist  thousands of
years ago. Anyone who has played games like Boggle knows that some words
are more  likely to leap  out at you because  of your interests and what
you are looking  for -- while completely  different  words  are seen  by
others. Some  of the searching that  is  going on is finding things that
jump up at them, such as the  name of Hitler and concentration  camps in
certain areas of the Torah. It would not surprise  me if  the same names
could be  found in the  first chapter of Be'reishis   if you  looked for
them. Similarly, names like Golda Meir are probably embedded in the same
area  as Hitler.  I  was more impressed  with the  data about the people
looking for 200 pairs of words they chose in advance in different texts.
So, I  am not conceding  that  such mystical  words can  be found.  I am
merely asking a hypothetical question about what the implications are on
other  parts of the Jewish faith.   I   would  love to  hear any further
speculations, and would like to see some more detailed comprehensive u
examples.
 
                Avi (not Ari!) Gross
                AT&T Bell Laboratories
                ...!att!attmail!avigross

Topics:
	Chabad and politics
			Benjamin Svetitsky
	Tattooing
			Susan Slusky
			Avi Feldblum
	Codes in the Torah
			Peter Weiss
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I found  Ari Sacher's complaint  about  Chabad perplexing.  He  contends
that the Charedi community in general and Chabad  in particular deny the
bond between Am  Yisrael and  Eretz Yisrael.  In fact, something  of the
opposite came out  during the recent  (Israeli) election  campaign.  The
Lubavitcher Rebbe, who threw off the kid gloves and actually  endorsed a
party this time around, made clear that he holds with the idea of "Eretz
Yisrael Sh'lema," which places high priority on keeping possession of as
much of Israel's territory as possible.  I won't generalize  to the rest
of Agudat   Israel, but  this very   issue did emerge  as  one   of many
disagreements between the Aguda and its splinter Degel ha-Torah.
 
I don't want to quote polemics for their own sake,  but I will note that
many commentators were angered by the advocacy of hawkish  policies by a
leader who has never visited Israel and whose followers  are rarely seen
contributing three years of their time  to facing enemy gunfire.  Again,
I quote this only because it is relevant to the  issue at hand; I do NOT
want to start an  argument about yeshivot and  the draft, about  why the
Rebbe stays in Brooklyn, or the like.
 
Benjamin Svetitsky <rutgers.edu!WEIZMANN.BITNET!FNBENJ>
______________________________________________________________________
 
I claimed yesterday in a free swinging conversation  that in Tanach there
is a specific prohibition against tatooing. However, upon going home and
looking it up in the various texts I have, I couldn't find anything. Yet
I still believe it's there. Can you guide me to  it?  (Maybe it's really
something more general about not mutilating yourself.)
 
Susan Slusky - mhuxt!segs
 
The source for the  prohibition is found  in Vayikra  [Leviticus] 19:28:
You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the  dead, nor imprint
any marks upon you: I am the Lord. The Rambam counts  this law among the
laws of idolatry (chapter  12 law  11): The imprinting  of marks that is
referred to in the Torah  is that one  makes an  incision in the skin and
fills the place of the incision with a dye that makes  a permanent mark.
The Rambam then  continues to explain  why this falls  under the laws of
idolatry saying that people would tattoo themselves for  an idol (I guess
this means with a tattoo that  was  recognized as belonging to some idol)
to indicate that they were subservient to it and marked to serve it.
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
     Most of the  commentary on the recent  Codes in the  Torah articles
has dealt with whether  or  not the approach   is statistically valid  -
given  a  text  can you find contextually meaningful  words using search
patterns.  And since word  patterns can  be found for persons and events
that were not known at the time of the giving, the  divine origin of the
Torah is  proven.   Yet none  of the examples  found, and  none  of  the
discussion,  further  explains  or  deepens  my  understanding   of the
mitzvot, of what G-d wants from me.
     The code examples  mentioned  - the  Rambam's  name, Torah  spelled
forward and backward, etc - are fine and good.  I am sure  much more will
be discovered that will make the Torah  even  more  interesting.  And my
feeling is that whatever brings Jews to read the Torah is of value.  But
I would be more impressed with the codes if  the patterns found deepened
my appreciation and understanding of or guided me toward the mitzvot, of
how G-d wants me to be a Jew.
 
Peter Weiss - amdahl!peter

Topics:
	Re: Value of the Codes
		Dave Sherman
	Codes in the Torah - Cont.
		Dave Sherman
______________________________________________________________________
 
> But I would  be more impressed  with  the codes if the patterns  found
> deepened my appreciation and understanding of  or guided me toward the
> mitzvot, of how G-d wants me to be a Jew.
> Peter Weiss - amdahl!peter
 
The explanation given   by Rabbi Motti Berger   of Aish Hatorah is   the
following: until relatively  recently  in   Jewish  history,  the divine
authorship of the  Torah   wasn't really questioned.   Sure, there  were
people  who didn't observe halacha, but   there was no widespread belief
among Jews that  the Torah  was just a book  written by man.   The codes
were put into the Torah and left there to be found in today's age, since
they require computers to find, since we are  now in  an age where there
is a widespread perception that science has all the answers and that the
Torah is little more than a collection of myths.
 
David Sherman
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
[ This has been posted recently to the  net by Dave.  However,  since we
are in the middle of this topic, and there are  mailing list members who
do not get or  read the  net, it is  being posted  here  as well. I have
trimmed some of the references to the first net  posting, which was also
a mailing (see mail.jewish #89 for the full text). These notes of Dave's
are from a second Discovery seminar he attended in which more details of
the work was  presented.  Lines   starting with ||   are from  the first
posting.  Mod ]
 
|| Okay, you say. Look long enough and you'll find these things,
|| despite the statistical improbability.  Now comes the fun one.
 
In fact, Gans went further tonight than he did at  the previous lecture.
He says that all of the  above examples are  merely interesting, but not
convincing of anything, because   they are all  a  posteriori.   As many
people have  asked, how many other combinations  of words did they  look
for and not find before coming up with these  particular ones that work?
We don't know.  So...
 
|| An experiment was organized, and supervised by a mathematician
|| in Israel who did not believe this stuff was real.  The idea was
 
The name of the mathematician is Eli Rips.  Although Jewish by birth, he
was an  atheist when   he designed  this test.   (After  having seen the
results, he no longer is.)  The primary researcher is Doron Witztum.
 
|| to define what was being looked for BEFORE it was found; otherwise
|| we always have the argument that the search was tailored to the data.
 
This  experiment  was  carefully  controlled.   All  of  the rules  were
designed  by Rips ahead of time,  before any searching  was done.   This
included the  algorithms  which would  be  used  to  determine  what the
probability was of a particular set of results occurring.
 
|| 150 pairs of words were taken. Each pair related two words which
|| could not have been related to each other 3,000 years ago.
|| Examples: a country and its capital city; a city and its latitude;
|| a great rabbi and his date of birth or death.  The words and the
|| terms of the test were agreed on before anything was programmed.
 
The actual test was done by taking a modern Israeli encyclopedia, edited
by Margolia, called Encyclopedia of Great Men of Israel.   The agreed-on
criteria for selection were all of the sages who lived  between  the 7th
and the  18th  century.  Only  those sages  for  whom  the  encyclopedia
includes at least 3 columns of  text would be  used.   For each one, the
name would  be correlated to date  of death; if the  date of   birth was
available, that would be used as well.
 
34 names  were   found with 3    columns or more.   With   all  of   the
combinations of alternate  spellings of names, and  including both birth
and death dates  where available, there were  150 pairs of  words to  be
searched for.
 
|| The minimum occurrence of the words was sought, and then what
|| was recorded was the distance between the words.  With truly
|| random words, one would expect the distances between them to
|| vary all over the 0.0 (right next to each other) and 1.0 (as
|| far away as possible) range.  The text searches was Bereishis
|| (the book of Genesis), 78K chars.
|| 
|| The bar graph showing the results is *very* heavily weighted
|| to the 0.0 end. They indicated that the minimum occurrences
|| of the paired words were much more often near each other than
|| would be expected.  The chances of this weighting occurring (and
|| here I have to rely on the statisticians) are 1 in 22 billion.
 
The figure Gans used tonight was approximately 700 million to 1.
 
|| As a control, the same test, using the same 150 pairs of words,
|| was run on a different text, a selection of Hebrew essays.
|| No pattern emerged -- some were close, some were far away, as
|| randomness would suggest.
 
Here are  more precise details: three separate  control  tests were run.
The first was to use the  Samaritan text  of  the Torah.  The Samaritans
use a text which is semantically  identical but has various changes here
and there -- a few extra  words, extra letters  or missing letters, etc.
This control produced random results (0.48 probability).
 
The  second was  to use   the text of  Bereishis,  but  with the letters
scrambled.  So  the same frequency  of  letter distribution as Bereishis
would be used, but  the order would  be  meaningless.  The results  were
what would be expected -- something like 0.5 probability (I didn't write
this one down).
 
A third control was to use the  actual  text of Bereishis, but  with one
letter out of  every  thousand removed.   As  agreed ahead of  time, the
letter removed was the first  instance  of the definite article  (letter
heh) to  appear in each  1K block  of  text.   The results were  again a
fairly uniform distribution, with a 0.079 probability.
 
|| The test was then run on Bereishis again, misspelling the
|| original words, or where they were dates changing the dates by
|| 1 day in either direction.  No patterns.
 
Gans didn't mention this test tonight.
 
|| These results were so unbelievable that the researchers
|| selected a new set of 150 pairs of related words and ran the
|| test again.  Again, the results were heavily weighted towards
|| the 0.0 end of the graph, with something like a 1 in 22 billion
|| probability of this occurring.
 
More detail:  the  results of the first test  were shown to  two eminent
professors at  Harvard,  Prof.  D. Kazhdan,  a mathematician,  and Prof.
Percy   Daiconis, a   world-renowned  (non-Jewish)  statistician.   They
suggested a  second  experiment be run   to  see if  the    results were
reproduceable.  This  time,  all of the  people  with between 1.5 and  3
columns  of text in  the encyclopedia  would be  used.  Again, the  same
distribution   heavily weighted   to   "closeness",  with a  statistical
probability of 1 in 800 million.  Dropping  the  title  "Rabbi" from the
name of   each sage and    running it  again produced almost   identical
results.  Again, the control groups showed nothing unusual.
 
At Daiconas' suggestion, the test was  run  with mismatched dates.  That
is, take the two columns, names and dates, and  shift one column down by
one so that  each name is  being  matched  with  a  wrong date  for that
person.  Results: nothing, as to be expected with randomness.
 
If the research is correct -- and the mathematics  has been checked over
by  many mathematicians  and statisticians  with no  errors  found -- it
means that the chances of the  authorship of the  Torah being other than
divine are infinitesmally small.
 
|| I understand that the researchers involved have written
|| a paper on this and are planning to get it published.
|| (Unfortunately, the details of the research, such as what the
|| 150 word pairs were, are confidential until it's published.)
|| According to Mr. Gans (this came in private conversation; he
|| didn't talk to the group as a whole about this), because the
|| concept is so controversial, they wish to get approval from one
|| of the world leading mathematicians on the statistics involved
|| before they publish, and they are still waiting for this. 
 
The  information is  no longer  confidential.  A book  was  published in
Israel about two  weeks ago; it will  not   be available in  English for
another few months.   I looked  through the book tonight,  and  it seems
quite readable for those with a basic Hebrew.
 
The details are my own transliterations from Hebrew, possibly
incorrect as to vowels:
        Title: Hameimad hanosaf al haktivah hado-mamdit batorah
        Author: Doron Vitztum
        Publisher: B'tamar yiphrach / Agudah l'mechkar torani
 
The book includes a foreword in English which concludes:
        "The present work represents serious research
        carried out by serious investigators.  Since the
        interpretation of the phenomenon in question is
        enigmatic and controversial, one may want to demand
        a level of statistical significance beyond what would
        be demanded for more routine conclusions.  While it is
        premature to say that the author's thesis has been
        established decisively, the results are sufficiently
        striking to deserve a wide audience and to encourage
        further study.
                Prof. H. Furstenberg, the Hebrew University
                                        of Jerusalem
                Prof. I. Piatetski-Shapiro, Tel-Aviv University &
                                        Yale University
                Prof. D. Kazhdan, Harvard University
                Prof. J. Bernstein, Harvard University"
 
David Sherman
Toronto

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Sinas Chinam -
		Joe Abeles
______________________________________________________________________
 
Due to a posting problem, the previous mailing went out with the number
93 on it instead of #92. I have numbered this one #92. Sorry for the
confusion. 
 
Avi Feldblum - Moderator
______________________________________________________________________
 
What is the Orthodox  Halachic standing of  the concept of sinas chinam?
[sinas chinam - senseless hatred among Jews (towards each other) ]
The destruction of the  Second Temple is  related to sinas  chinam.  How
close is  the relationship--i.e.,  is it  cause and effect or not?    Is
there  a negative  commandment against  sinas  chinam?  How seriously is
this issue viewed, and  what are the penalties  associated with it?  Are
there  any  known cases of people  being  punished or censured for sinas
chinam?  Are there  any modern  applications  of  this concept?   Do any
discussions of sinas chinam by  the gadolim refer to issues contemporary
to them?  Was sinas chinam recognized (per se) before the destruction of
the Second Temple?
 
--Joe Abeles

Topics:
	Re: Codes of the Torah
		Sid Gordon
	National Jewish Outreach Program
		Miriam Nadel
______________________________________________________________________
 
Re "codes of the Torah". I  don't think  the topic is  all that new -- I
recall hearing lectures on it  at  least 5 years  ago.  Of course,  it's
fascinating and fun, but like gematriya, I think it should be  left as a
diversion and not taken too seriously, for several reasons.
 
First of all, the most fundamental problem is the  nature of the text we
are working with.  Before I go any further, I should emphasise that I am
not, chas veshalom,  questioning the  divinity of the  Torah.  I am just
pointing out the   fallibility  of  Man  in transmitting  the  text from
generation to generation.     When  we say   "v'zot  hatorah   asher sam
moshe..." [And this is the Torah that  Moshe placed  ... Trans. by Mod.]
we don't  mean it literally.   Two examples, to  show  that the Torah we
read today is not  exactly the  Torah we received  at Sinai (it's pretty
close, and that in itself is a  miracle, but  all these counting methods
are based on *exact* countings of letters).
In Bereishit  18:22 (Vayera  -   just  before  the  conversation between
Avraham and   G-d on the  future  of  Sdom  and Amora),  is  the  phrase
"v'avraham   odenu omed lifne   hashem" (And  Abraham  was left standing
before  G-d).  Rashi  has a  problem  with this  since the context would
logically indicate that it should say "Hashem odenu omed  (G-d was still
standing...)". But, Rashi says,  "tikun sofrim hu"  -- the sofrim (maybe
Ezra, maybe the  Anshei  Kneset  Hagdola)  changed  it, because of  kvod
hashem (i.e. it  wouldn't  be respectful to  say   that   G-d  was  left
standing,  so the  sofrim  *changed*  (!!!)  the text).  Rashi  makes  a
similar comment on Bemidbar 11:15, where Moshe says "v'al eraeh b'raati"
instead  of b'raatam.  Now the Siftei  Chachamim (a  supercommentary  on
Rashi) finds it  hard to accept this and  he  practically stands  on his
head to try to explain what Rashi means by this,  but it's pretty clear,
if you look at it objectively, that Rashi meant  what he said.  That the
text  was  changed.  I think   the gemara  discusses   other examples of
tikunei sofrim, but they are in Nach.
 
Perhaps someone  on the mailing list  (more  knowledgable than  I) would
care to  expand  on the issue  of "tikun sofrim".  If we are not exactly
sure of every letter in the  Torah, then what  is the point of all these
wonderful discoveries? But that is not my only  objection.  I also think
it is problematic as a chinuch [education - Mod.] issue.  It develops an
"ahava hatluya b'davar" (love dependent on something)  among the chozrim
b'tshuva  [those  who have  returned to   observance  - Mod.]  that  are
supposed to be overwhelmed by  these phenomena. And  what happens if  we
find that the results are erroneous, or based  on false assumptions?  Do
the chozrim b'tshuva throw up their hands  and say  it  was all a bluff?
And finally, though I  can't prove it  from a statistical point of view,
my gut feeling tells me that  these  results are not  as amazing as they
first seem.  There just seem to  be too many rule  changes in the middle
of the game (and it *is* a game). You know the  quote about lies, damned
lies,  and statistics.  It's   just  too  easy to  play around with  the
numbers.
 
Sid
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
[This was posted to the net, but I agreed that it is of interest to the
mailing list as well. Mod.]
 
I saw this in the newspaper and thought it might be  of interest to some
readers of this newsgroup:
 
An organization called the National Jewish  Outreach Program is offering
free  Hebrew lessons.  The objective  is  simply learning to read  (i.e.
pronounce) Hebrew, not to understand  it.  What  they say is that at the
end of  the program people  should be  comfortable  reading  prayers and
blessings (and, they hope, interested  in further study).  At any  rate,
you get 5 free 90 minute lessons.
 
The phone number for info is (800) 44-HEBREW
 
Miriam Nadel

 
Topic:
	      Re: Codes of the Torah
			Benjamin Svetitsky
			Avi Feldblum
______________________________________________________________________
 
Sid Gordon  pointed out  that  the  Torah  we have  today is undoubtedly
slightly different from the one handed down at Sinai.  In fact, Tractate
Sofrim  states  that in  the   Bet ha-Mikdash there   were several Torah
scrolls,  differing  in detail.   When doubt  arose over a  point in the
text, the Sanhedrin would follow the majority of the scrolls in the set.
Each  scroll  was labelled by  the way in   which it differed   from the
majority.  Shlomo  Sternberg has pointed  out that this  shows  that the
Rabbis were (and are) custodians of the  Written as well as  of the Oral
Law.  He also told me once that a scroll was discovered in use among the
Jews of  (I think) Hefei,  China, which  differed from the  ones  we use
here,  and  in fact the difference shows  it to be  precisely one of the
variant scrolls kept in Bet ha-Mikdash (or rather, a descendant of one).
 
This perhaps adds  meaning to the phrase,   "Lo ba-shamayim  hi" -- [the
Torah] is not in the heavens, but rather in our hands.  And I agree that
this is yet another reason to be wary of this Codes voodoo.
 
Benjamin Svetitsky <rutgers.edu!WEIZMANN.BITNET!FNBENJ>
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
As I have been watching this discussion,  a few points  come to mind. As
with  many other of  you, I too am  very wary  about the meaning  of the
Codes. At  this point, I will be  more comfortable  with the statistical
validity once the work has been  published  and can be examined by other
experts in the field.  What I am hearing is that we can expect something
to be published in english in the near future. The issue of Tikun Sofrim
and variant scrolls is however dealt with in one of the control tests in
the original experiment. As I understand it, when they ran  the original
matched set of names/dates on the copy  of bereshit (as is  preserved by
the "mesorah") with  one  letter  out of  every  thousand  removed  (the
definitive  article He, if   I  remember  correctly),  there still was a
statistically valid correlation, only it was not as  "good" as  with the
He there. I think that the problems with variant scrolls,  Tikun Sofrim,
Mulay vs Chaser ("full" vs  "missing" spelling) probably reduces to less
than 1  per thousand. So  if what  we have is wrong  in every case, that
should just argue that the correlation one would  find by replacing what
we have with the "corrected" text would  simply be somewhat  better, but
does not invalidate the correlation we see with our text.
 
Avi Feldblum   <[email protected]>

Topic:
	SPECIAL: Announcing a new Judaic Studies Newsletter
 
The following are the the first two issues of a new email-based Judaic
studies newsletter coming out of Hebrew University in Israel. The editor
of the newsletter is Yechiel Greenbaum ( a member of our mail.jewish
list). The question before the mailing list is do you want me to gateway
this newsletter into mail.jewish. I see four possibilities:
 
1)	No one is interested in the newsletter, so do nothing
2)	There is very major interest, and it should go out to all
members of the mailing list, but with a special Subject header (although
gatewaying it back to the Israeli members of the mailing list makes very
little sense to me).
3)	Those who are interested should contact Yechiel and get directly
on his mailing list.
4)	Those outside the US should contact Yechiel directly, those in
the US who want to receive the newsletter contact me and I will act as a
distribution point for the US.
 
Please let me know if you are interested, and what you feel should be
done. 
 
Avi Feldblum
mail.jewish Moderator
[email protected]		{gateway machine}!att!pruxe!ayf
jewish%[email protected]	{gateway machine}!rutgers!prayf!jewish
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
1  Feb 89                      JUDAIC STUDIES             26 Shevat 49 BS"D
 
    This is the inaugural edition of a weekly newsletter, which we hope will
expand into a into a bulletin board.  The main idea is communication.  Who's
doing what and how can they be contacted?  Does anyone have information rel-
evant to my work and have I knowledge that  can guide anyone  else?  Comput-
ers allow quick, efficient gathering of information which can be accessed
and responded to at leisure.  We also hope to be a source of information on
computer applications in Judaic Studies, such as hebrew word processing and
textual analysis.
 
    The Chovos HaLevavos emphasized the importance of thankfulness.  We wish
to thank all of the following people for their part in creating this letter:
         1) Avrum Goodblatt, our mentor, whose constant encouragement seems
            to have finally gotten things off the ground.
         2) Dr. Emanuel Tov, with whose help we have an account at Hebrew U
            from which to begin operations.
         3) Dr. Kuzriel Meir, who has assisted both in computers and in
            Judaic Studies.
 
    You may have been wondering who's been writing all this.  Well may you
wonder, since, impartial as he may try to be, an editor almost inevitably
brings his own views into what he edits.  My name is Yechiel Greenbaum.  I
am an observant Jew.  I am interested in Judaica bibliography & reference,
generally, and in what may be broadly defined as methodology of learning,
specifically.  I'd prefer to err on the side of being accurate and tho-
rough.
 
    Please send the electronic address of anyone who might be interested in
receiving this letter.  More important, please send your ideas of what you
would like to see: questions you want answered; areas you'd like discussed;
good ideas that you are working on (or that you wish someone else would
save you the trouble of working on).
    Our electronic address is WWRMK at HUJIVM1.  My mailing address is 5
Beit Shearim St., Kiryat Moshe, Jerusalem, ISRAEL.  My phone is 02-536105
 
NEXT WEEK - Topology: Where Judaics Are Studied
            Further Acknowledgements
 
 
 
8  Feb 89                      JUDAIC STUDIES               3 AdarI 49 BS"D
 
TOPOLOGY: Where Judaics Are Studied
 
    This overview will begin presenting sources of information which can
help locate places involved in the study of Judaica.  It will cover the
essentials of academic Judaic Studies (hereafter JS) and offer a number of
not-strictly-academic settings as future subjects of investigation.  Among
the reasons for this research is the need to accumulate a mailing list for
this newsletter.  Eventually, with the permission of those involved, the
whole list can be posted, including e-addresses, telephone numbers, hours,
directions, specialties and so on.  Many of the leads to the information
given here were graciously supplied by Libby Kahane, the ever-helpful head
of the Bibliographic Reference Room at the National Library.
 
    There are three basic lists of JS locations:
         1) The World Union of Jewish Studies sells a mailing list which,
            I am told, contains about six thousand entries.  They can be
            contacted at Hebrew U, Givat Ram, Jerusalem 91904.  (Here I
            shall pause to insert a note about American & Israeli address
            confusion.  American- Five digit zip codes, even with the word
            "Israel" written after them, occasionally bounce up & down the
            west coast until someone notices.  It is therefore sometimes
            better to omit the zip.  Israeli- Everyone knows that the WUJS
            is located in Binyan Mazer... there is a yellow sign pointing
            around the side of the building which says "Binyan Mazer".  The
            building itself is only marked "The Institute for Advanced
            Studies".  It is the first of the rectangular buildings to the
            right of the grass campus as one enters Givat Ram- or #3 on the
            map ahead.  The office is two levels above ground, thru the
            door in the rear left corner, on the right- Room 209B.)  The
            office is open Sun thru Thurs 9-1.  The phone number is
            526-910.
         2) The International Center for University Teaching of Jewish
            Civilization publishes surveys of schools which teach JS.  They
            are located in the free-standing building as one enters the
            Hebrew U complex opposite the Van Leer Institute (46 Jabotinsky
            on the corner of Molcho, entrance around back).  They are open
            Sun thru Thurs 8:30-1.  The phone numbers are 633-005 and
            699-032.  Mrs. Florinda Goldberg gave me both time and liter-
            ature, and sold me a new survey of european JS (excluding the
            British Isles) done in 1988 by Doris Bensimon, called "The
            Teaching of Jewish Civilization at European Universities".  It
            is available from the Center, POB 4234, Jerusalem 91042.  A
            world survey came out in 1985- Verbit, Martin F., Ed., "World
            Register of University Studies of Jewish Civilization".  It is
            available from the Center, and from Markus Wiener Publishing,
            Inc., 2901 Broadway Suite 107, NY, NY 10025 (212-678-7138).
         3) B'nai B'rith Hillel Foundation publishes "Jewish Life on
            Campus".  (The information in a recent issue was conveniently
            tabulated on pp.403-418 of Ivan L. Tillem's "The 1987-88 Jewish
            Almanac".)  The Foundation's address is 1640 Rhode Island Ave.,
            N.W., Washington, DC 20036.
 
    A combined count of the "World Register" and "Jewish Life" produces the
following figures:
 
                             Graduate Level      Total
         Departments of JS        14               31
         Programs in JS           40              103
 
JS are taught on a graduate level at 87 institutions.  The european survey
by Bensimon adds that there are now 27 schools which offer a "broadly based
course in JS" (p23).  In the US & Canada, there are 28 schools which offer
doctoral degrees, 12 more which offer masters, and approximately 63 others
which offer undergraduate degrees.  Yet other schools offer large numbers
of JS courses.  Many universities join forces with each other, or with
other institutions, in order to make programs available.  Others establish
Chairs of JS, or grant certificates.  I was especially intrigued by the
yearly 4 week "Spring Seminar on Jewish Medical Ethics" held at Texas
Medical Center - Baylor and U.T. ("Jewish Life").
 
    Of course, these numbers represent widely disparate course offerings
and programs of study, which would best be grouped by level of instruction,
scope, size, and, most important, areas of emphasis (the Center publi-
cations take steps in this direction).  They also do not include studies
done in
         1) Jewish History and Civilization (in Israeli, Holocaust and
            other institutions),
         2) Hebrew Language (from the Academy of the Hebrew Language to
            the many approaches taken to hebrew and it's creoles),
         3) Bibliography (by both libraries and collectors of Hebraic and
            Judaic books and art),
         4) Biblical Studies (by secularists and the adherents of three
            major religions),
         5) Rabbinics (at religious and secular educational institutions
            and publishing houses),
    and  6) Genealogies (an umbrella group of jewish organizations exists,
            and separate records such as US Immigration and the Mormon
            church),
to recite an off-the-cuff, far-from-complete list.
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS- Advice and material aid has been offered by Infotec
Software (4/33 Herzl Ave., Jerusalem), particularly by my good friend D'n
Russler.  Eitan Hurwitz of the Computer Center at Hebrew U Mount Scopus has
taken an interest in the project.  I want to thank Dr. Moshe Idel, Ruth
Wahaba, and also the staff of the Computer Center for their quick and
efficient handling of an un-named crisis last week.
 
IDEAS- Dr. Robert Kraft stated explicitly an idea that I learned from Avi
Feldblum implicitly; don't confine the letter to a regular production
schedule.  Essentially, I agree that results should be published when they
are ready.  They should not have to wait for publishing dates nor should
they be distorted to meet deadlines (the word "deadlines" tempts me to
speculative etymology).  What we really want, eventually, is a Bulletin
Board.  I started this letter as a weekly with the idea of giving the
reader a sense of security (so many things do not continue beyond the first
issue), as well as an impetus to submit ideas as soon as possible, in order
that the letter achieve the broadest possible scope.
 
NEXT TIME- LISTS
 
 
========================================================================
Received: from ATT.ARPA by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
	for gvriel::schoeller; id AA15853; Mon, 13 Feb 89 19:26:42 PST
Received: by att.ATT.COM (smail2.6  att-mt)
	id AA08472; 13 Feb 89 22:02:17 EST (Mon)

Topics:
	Update on Judaic Studies Newsletter
		Avi Feldblum - Mod.
	Short Joke
		Wendy
	Question on Korbanot reading for Chag
		Art Werschulz
	Stamp Story and Question
		Harry Rubin
______________________________________________________________________
 
There have been 24 replies concerning the  Judaic Studies Newsletter. 17
people said they were interested, 6 wanted  to see what newsletter would
be like, so had a wait and see attitude, and 1 felt that  s/he would not
be interested. Of those who indicated a preference for how to  do it, 11
did  not   appear to have any  preference,  8 wanted a  seperate list, 4
wanted it gatewayed  into mail.jewish and one to have everyone contact
Yechial directly. I will collect replies for about another two weeks, and
send to the entire list the next two (probably, I have  one already, and
I have one other mailing to go first)  newsletters, and then will make a
decision.
 
	Avi Feldblum - Moderator
	[email protected]  or jewish%[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
--a letter to The Economist, printed inthe 11 Feb 1989 edition 
 
SIR-- Schroedinger's [Dr. Shroedinger worked for the Dublin Inst for Adv
Studies from 1940-58] cat told a story about the angel saying to  G-d on
the fifth day of creation: "I am a bit concerned.  It is nearly  the end
of the week  and you still  have not  created the joke." G-d  smiled and
created quantum mechanics.
 
                                W.M. Sulke
                                Hong Kong
 
Wendy
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
When  we  read the  Korbanot section  of   Shacharit on Shabbat  or Rosh
Chodesh, we add the appropriate verses from the Torah  that describe the
Mussaf offering  for  that day.  However,  we don't  read the  analogous
verses on a Chag.  How come?
 
Be happy---it's Adar Rishon (not to be confused with Adam Rishon).
 
	Art Werschulz  [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Are conversions of infants easier, since the  infant's commitment cannot
be an issue?  Do the  parents have to be  committed to all the  mitzvot?
Does this effectively  rule  out adoption by conservative,   reform, and
nonreligious parents?
 
				Joel
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
A set  of South African stamps  which  was thought to have been entirely
destroyed is now fetching over one thousand times its face value.
 
The South African authorities produced  a series of stamps on  religion.
One of  them included the  four-letter  Hebrew  version of  God's  name.
Since postmarking  them  would  be a  desecration   of God's  name,  the
authorities agreed to destroy the "Jewish  stamps" and  ordered all post
offices to return them.
 
But some received the message too late and a few were sold, including 50
first-day covers.  These are now prize collector's items.
 
		from "Dateline:  World Jewry," December 1988,
		produced and edited by an agency of the World Jewish
		Congress.
 
What is the halacha concerning this?
 
[email protected] (Harry I. Rubin)
 

Topic
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Rabbi Tendler on the Jewish Family
		Yechezkal Shimon (Steven) Gutfreund
______________________________________________________________________
 
Three quick points. 
 
1)  I think due  to a mistake  in the  way I send  out the list, a large
group of people have not been receiving the mailings. (It seems that uux
doesn't  like  getting  an  input  line  with  2000 char's in   it. Very
intolerant of it.) I  hope I have solved  that problem, and welcome back
to all of you.
 
2) I would appreciate it if any mailing list member who is receiving the
mailing list on BITNET would let me know.  There is a facility on BITNET
known  as LISTSERV that I am  told  would facilitate sending the mailing
out to BITNET members. Anyone who knows more about  it, or whom I should
contact, please let me know.
 
3) I will send out the next two Judaic Studies  Newsletters, and then we
will decide how   we  wish  to handle  the situation.  Please send  your
opinion as described in #96.
 
Avi Feldblum
[email protected]     or   {gateway machine}!att!pruxe!ayf
jewish%[email protected]   or  {gateway machine}!rutgers!prayf!jewish
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
On Sunday night, Feb  12, Rabbi Moshe Tendler  spoke in Brookline MA  on
the topic of the Jewish  Family. The talk  was sponsored by Chabad House
of  Boston in  honor of the  first  yahrtzeit  of the Rebbitzin   (Chaya
Muskha). It was  held in  the Young  Israel of Boston.  (an  interesting
combination of details, no?)
 
Rabbi Tendler brought up several interesting points:
 
1. He began with  an  mashal (metaphor) for understanding context within
which we establish the ethics which control  the Jewish family. The Beit
Hamikdash (the Temple) in Yerushalayim had windows that were wide on the
outside and narrow on the inside.   Normally, windows in the Mideast are
narrow outside and wide inside to keep dirt and sand from coming in, yet
allow light  to enter.  One  could  say that Shlomo  haMelech should not
have used yeshiva  bochurs for   architects (R. Tendler's   joke).   The
actual answer we learn from a Gemara.  The Torah does not need the light
from the outside to  enter in. It  provides the light  and shines out to
the world. From this we can learn out that we do not need the values and
ethics  of  the  outside world  to teach  us the values   and ethics for
running a Jewish family, it  comes from within  our Beit Hamikdash (i.e.
family) and our Torah.
 
2. R. Tendler has gotten very famous among the newspapers. Whenever they
need an expert to  provide the Jewish  ethical perspective  on abortion,
embryo transplants, etc. they know they can come to him for  a quote. He
said  he could  earn a living  just  from giving   speaking tours to the
goyish world speaking on ethical values. The outside world is very dark.
They know  that they don't  have a clue  as  to  how to  balance ethical
questions.   They know  they  are  in   the darkness outside   the  Beit
Hamikdash, and   they know that  the light  comes  from   inside of  it.
However, we Jews have to know this, and not go  looking  to  the outside
world for ethical illumination.
 
3. The  family  and the   Torah is the   way  we transmit these  ethical
principles from generation to generation.
 
4. When Torah knowledge becomes weak, strong respect  for family and for
one's elders can keep the Jewish family alive.  For example, in Morrocco
they went for 3 generations without Torah scholarship, but among Sefardi
there  is  a  tremendous respect for family and  one did not  contradict
one's elders.  Eventually, without Torah, the values  would not continue
to propagate, however, strong  family values carried them over  a period
of time when Torah knowledge was weak.
 
5.  When R. Tendler  grew up,  he  grew up in   an  extended family. His
children learned how to respect him from how he  behaved to  his father.
Because he did not sit in  his father's chair, they  did not sit in his.
Because he did not contradict his  father, they  did not contradict him.
There was no need to explicitly lecture the kinderlach on these things.
 
6. The lack of respect in our families today, is a result of the seepege
of  outside  values into the  Jewish family. Where   we do not shine our
light of Jewish values the values will come from the outside world.
 
7. True, our families do not yet have such extensive problems with: wife
beating,  child  beating, divorce,  incest, etc. But  they are there. We
have the same basic animal  urges as  the rest of the  world, it is only
our tradition, our family, and the values of  the Torah that keeps these
problems less apparent. We are not immune to these problems and the rate
of such  problems are increasing rapidly  in all segments  of the Jewish
community.
 
8. Take  for example the divorce rate.  When R. Tendler  grew  up it was
unheard of that a kollel family would have a divorce.  Today, it is 10%.
(He can see this directly from his position in the Monsey community). He
states that  family problems that would have  been unthinkable,   he now
gets shailah's (questions) on from the frummest (his term) of families.
 
9. Problems in   the  Jewish family  are  directly corresponding to  the
extent of  observance and  connection to the Torah,  Jewish observances,
and Jewish Community. A recent study by the  NYC CJP found  that divorce
among Reform families  was 60%, Orthodox  was  10%, and the Conservative
families  had  a  divorce rate   in  between these  two values  DIRECTLY
corresponding  the  the  amount of  Jewish   observance that was   being
performed  in that family. One  can  make  an explicit function relating
Jewish Observance  to the divorce rate. One  even finds that  those Jews
who are "twice a year Jews", that come to shul only twice a year, have a
lower divorce rate than those who do not come at all.
 
10.  He   also  spoke to  the   issue of fragmentation  in  the Orthodox
community, the move to  the right, and   intolerance  among Jews,  but I
think this is long enough.
 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yechezkal Shimon (Steven) Gutfreund		       [email protected]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA			          [email protected]

Topics:
	Proposal on Judaic Studies Newsletter
		Avi Feldblum
	Third Newsletter
	Fourth Newsletter
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I attach here the third and fourth Judaic Studies Newsletters. The
following is my proposal on what to do. All those on Bitnet who wish to
receive the newsletter are requested to contact Yechial directly, as
well as any others that wish to be put directly on his mailing list. I
will send out the copy I get to all those that requested it. In
addition, if there are portions of the newsletter that I think are of
general interest to the mailing list members, I will include those
portions in our mailings.
 
I will accept no response as agreeing with the above, please send me
mail if you disagree. Thanks.
 
Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   {gateway}!att!pruxe!ayf
jewish%[email protected]	{gateway}!rutgers!prayf!jewish
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
>From:         Yechiel Greenbaum <WWRMK%HUJIVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Third Newsletter
15 Feb 89                      JUDAIC STUDIES              10 AdarI 49 BS"D
Connecting geographically & otherwise disparate groups with a common
interest in the study of Judaica. Under the auspices of Dr. Emanuel
Tov, Bible Dept., Hebrew University. Edited by Y. Greenbaum.
 
CONTENTS
 
1) Protocol
2) Events- booksales & lectures
3) Mail- inscriptions, online texts, hebrew display, calendars
 
PROTOCOL
 
In cases of doubt, I have been advised to address people as "Dr."...
but I am reasonably certain that I have no doctorate.  I shall assume that
I may quote things sent to me verbatim, in the name of the sender, unless
I am told otherwise.  I wish I had the time to acknowledge and respond to
correspondence privately, before publicly springing my reaction on the
readers.  This newsletter is the volunteer effort of a few community-minded
individuals.  All offers of support will be greatly appreciated.
 
EVENTS
 
This newsletter survived the accidental closing of it's account, but that's
neither here nor there (i.e., the letter wasn't distributed -here or there)
The loss of time involved will be reflected in the commensurate loss of
detail in this section.
 
Booksales- from the sublime to the ridiculous, although it was hard to tell
which was which.  The Chovevei Judaica auction involved everything from a
set of about 400 mss letters of the Jolles family, to a cup presented at a
ping-pong match of the Bar Cochba in Satmar.  Ah, the old country!  The
most recent National Library "withdrawn" booksale included many items owned
by Isidore Budick. Heavily annotated, they present an intellectual diary of
a devoted reader of religion, ethics, morals, politics and so forth.  In
the latter sale, prices fall from 20 NIS to 2, instead of rising.
 
Lectures- next week is an especially full week in Jerusalem.
The Ben Zvi Institute (which studies Oriental Jewry, part of Yad Izhak Ben-
Zvi which studies Israel) will devote the morning of the 20th to two
sessions of four titles each concerning Turkish Jewry.  On the 23rd, the
Institute, the Yad and Hebrew U will jointly sponsor the S. D. Goitein
lecture, chaired by Prof. Shaul Shaked, in which Prof. Ezra Fleischer will
speak on "The Contribution of the Genizah to the Understanding of the
Beginning of our Poetics in Spain".  On the 24th, one of a series of 10AM
lectures will be presented (still at Yad Ben-Zvi) by Prof. Yosef Shetreet,
"The Hebrew Enlightenment Movement in North Africa at the End of the 19th
Century".  Perhaps there will be some grey literature from all this which
we can post.
 
MAIL
 
We've gotten quite a number of requests for machine readable text.
In addition to what follows, see the excerpt of the HUG Newsletter
in the Hebrew Display section.
 
Inscriptions-
Date:        Mon, 13 Feb 89 15:10:35 GMT
>From:        [email protected]
With a British Academy grant the Cambridge Faculty of Divinity
is beginning a project to classify & index inscriptions relating
to Jews and Judaism in the Graeco-Roman period.  Our goals are
(ultimately) a new, machine-readable corpus; (more immediately)
a comprehensive index (hard copy and as database)
       The first step is to establish the current state of play.
The more machine-readable texts we can locate, the higher we can
set our sights.  If you know of any inscriptions already on computer,
*PLEASE* let me know!
       We also need to decide on a database.  Any suggestions?
(Dr) Douglas de Lacey ([email protected]).
 
I'll try to put the question to some non-e-connected people as well.
Here are some more items dealing with Online texts-
 
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1989 9:27:28 EST
>From: Michael L Satlow <[email protected]>  ...I am a brand
new computer user, but a second year PhD student in Ancient Judaism at
the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.  My e-mail address is
mls@cunixd. Additionally, once I feel more at ease with this system, I
would like to investigate use of and access to certain databases
(especially of rabbinic texts) maintained in Israel.
 
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 14:00:42 CST
>From: Richard Goerwitz <[email protected]>
                                        rutgers!oddjob!gide!sophist!goer
Please put me on the list!  I'm interested in any form of Hebrew literature
online, from inscriptions, through Qumran and the Bar Kochba letters, the
Masoretic Text, Mishna - virtually anything before 1000 C.E.
 
Date:     Fri, 10 Feb 89 08:29 EST
>From:     <BAUMGARTEN@UMBC>
          ... May I also suggest for discussion ways to make the Bar
Ilan database available overseas.         ...Joe Baumgarten
 
I would also be interested in knowing more about which versions of the
texts in question are finding their way into machine readability, and at
what level of accuracy.  I have a small store of hearsay knowledge on the
topic.  Can anyone out there supplement it? -Yechiel(my letters reach here
only slightly more quickly than yours)
 
Hebrew Display-
Yitzchak Gale sent a long, helpful letter, of which we present the final
intriguing segment here.  Please do send more information, Yitzchak, since
the hebrew alphabet is of no little importance in enhancing the ability to
discuss matters Judaic.
 
Date:         Wed, 15 Feb 89 20:07:45 +0200
>From:         Yitzchak GALE <mtGale@Weizmann>
              ... do you think that  there may be a need  for words or
text in Hebrew characters on either of your lists?  I have been corre-
sponding by e-mail in  a mixture of Hebrew and English  text for a few
years.  My correspondents have a variety  of equipment that covers the
full spectrum of capability for handling Hebrew, from all to none.  We
have a very simple method that works pretty well for everyone.  It can
be used easily without any software  by anyone with minimal competence
in both Hebrew and English, and simple programs exist and can be writ-
ten to  make it "look  pretty".   (There  is also an  official Israeli
standard - designed  by Hank Nussbacher - for encoding  Hebrew text in
e-mail, but it requires special software.)  If you are interested, let
me know.
 
                              Yitzchak
                              [email protected]  (Tel. 02-525437)
 
I'll forward this letter to HUG.  Anyone who hasn't seen HUG (or CHUG on
the east coast) please read on.  Incidentally, the Hebrew U computers are
now being equipped to work with the hebrew alphabet.
 
FROM THE EDITOR [of HUG Newsletter... all items hereunder have been
drastically cut and re-edited by the JS editor.  Contact Ari for the
whole issue, which discusses fonts and other important subjects.]
 
It has been five years now since a small group of fanatics met in
the Berkeley Hillel basement
              --this issue sees Philip Payne's announcement of a
Hebrew grammar on disk.
     HUG believes that its time to think about the tremendous
possibilities afforded by CD-ROM. Now that a variety of our vendors
are providing the public domain copies of the Bible on both PC and
Mac readable floppy disks, imagine what could be done with optical
disks: the entire Torah with all rabbinic and even modern
commentators could easily be contained on one disk. Likewise, the
entire Babylonian Talmud. (We admit we're not sure that the whole
Talmud and its commentaries would fit on one disk!-- Does anyone
out there know?) Perhaps one CD could hold most or all of the great
codes. One thing is for sure, within a short time, we will all have
far greater access to classical Jewish thought.
     The HUG editorial staff now consists of two gentlefolk, Ari

Davidow and Ye Olde Editor, Jack Love. Jack has now relocated to
Ann Arbor, Michigan, but he stays in touch with the HUG editorial
offices in Berkeley. The Newsletter is now prepared both in
Berkeley and Ann Arbor and transmitted via the WELL. HUG computer
     Beginning next issue we are going to once again survey the
universe of Hebrew/English word processing and discuss the whys and
wherefores of a variety of approaches to the topic. If you are a
bit bewildered by terminology like bidirectional word wrap and
think that vowel overstrike capability sounds like it belongs in a
discussion of the strategic defense initiative, you will want
demand that your local news store carry the next issue of HUG.
     If you reach Ari or Jack by telephone, they will attempt to
answer any =brief= queries about Hebrew/English word processing;
however, they will not return long distance phone calls unless you
authorize a collect call. It is also unfair to ask HUG staff to
help you design a computer system. To the age old question of which
computer should I buy to do Hebrew/English word processing, the
answer is still, both the MS-DOS community and the Mac community
offer exceptionally good options. The MS-DOS world still offers
better word processors, and the Mac world still offers better
graphics (in our case that means better vowel and trope handling).
     Ari will attempt to answer correspondence, but we can make no
guarantees regarding timeliness of this service. Most commercial
newsletters refuse to answer any but a tiny sample of queries, and
our volunteer service would be hard pressed to do much better.
     The best way to reach HUG is through HUG Online via the Well.
In addition to a marvelous Jewish BBS, Ari and Jack have promised
to answer all queries regarding HUG issues within 72 hours. See the
HUG Online section later in this newsletter.
     We are sorry but, we cannot provide assistance to non-members
of HUG.
 
SUBSCRIPTION FORM
 
*****Shalom U'l'hitra'ot*****
The future of Hebrew and English word processing is bright
indeed. To make sure you learn of all developments, and to make
sure that HUG's future is bright as well, please renew your
subscription. Many B'NEI-HUG have given subscriptions as gifts,
and we would encourage you to consider this not only for
individuals, but also for your local synagogue or Jewish library.
 
SUBSCRIPTION RATES:
 
Domestic individual:     $7.50/year     Foreign individual:  $10.00
Domestic institution:    15.00          Foreign institution: $17.50
 
Enclosed is $________ for my subscription and an additional $________ as
my tax deductible contribution.
 
Name:___________________________________________________________
 
Address:________________________________________________________
 
City/State/Zip/Country__________________________________________
 
Telephone:_____________________________
 
Please make your check payable to "Berkeley Hillel Foundation" and mail to:
 
HUG, c/o Berkeley Hillel, 2736 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, CA 94704.
 
Computer:     1)____________________  2)________________________
 
Hebrew software you already own and comments:___________________
 
________________________________________________________________
 
________________________________________________________________
 
________________________________________________________________
 
Send us a letter if this isn't enough space!
 
Credits and Kudos: This newsletter was edited by Jack Love using
WordPerfect 4.2 and converted to typeset form by Ari Davidow of
Ari Davidow & Associates, Book Compositors. Queries to Ari
Davidow should be sent to: 753 Walker Ave., Oakland, CA 94610.
Tel: (415) 834-9038. All material in this newsletter is
copyrighted, and the authors of articles retain their copyrights.
 
========================================================================
THE VENDORS GUIDE
 
Note to vendors: If your product isn't listed here, don't get mad,
get even. Send us the details and we'll be happy to add it to this
new regular feature of the HUG Newsletter.
 
Listed alphabetically by vendor
WORD PROCESSING SOFTWARE
EDUCATIONAL
Linguists Software, PO Box 580, Edmonds, WA 98020-0580 (206)
775-3130 offers BIBLICAL HEBREW GRAMMAR, 50 lectures, aids, tests,
for the MAc. Cost is $49.95. See below for their font offering.
They also offer the entire BIBLIA HEBRAICA STUTTGARTENSIA on Mac
disk in either MacWrite or MS Word format for $99.95; and a
MACHEBREW SCRIPTURES CONVERTER for $79.95 that creates 10 option
text formats for the BHS--non-accented or consonantal / Hebrew or
transliterated (Massoretic+ SBL) / +- morphological divisions
(dashes separate prefixes and suffices). Includes a Semitica
transliteration font.
 
OTHER
Midwood Computer Center, TANACH DATA BASE for the PC, 1634 Coney
Island Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230 (718) 692-2211. You can get it in
modules from just the Tanach on up through Shash. The complete
system is about 60MB and several thousand dollars.
FONTS
OTHER USER GROUPS:
CHUG, Computer Hebrew Users Group: Contact: Michael Rand, 21 Bennet
Ave., Apt. 46, New York, NY 10033.
========================================================================
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Dear HUG:
I'm interested in receiving Hebrew word processing and Hebrew
machine readable texts (Talmud, e.g.) for the Macintosh. I heard
your newsletter gives such information. Is that correct? Or do you
live and work in the "IBM-world"? Hoping to get what I need I will
subscribe to your newsletter. Is it possible to bill by Eurocard
account? Thank you for your help, greetings and $lvm.
   Klaus Muller, Pfr,
   Oschingen,
   Panoramastasse 60,
   7406 Mossingen 5,
   West Germany
Regarding machine readable texts for the Mac, please see the "Old
Friends Department" below. Such texts are also available for the PC
community and are readable by Nota Bene, on which see our prelim-
inary remarks on Nota Bene below. Your letter gives us an oppor-
tunity to respond to a couple of issues. First of all, regarding
payment. As a =very= small user group (we're still under 300
souls), we appreciate everyone's assistance in renewing by payment
by check. We're just too small, and the accounting hassle too
great, to handle charge accounts and purchase orders. On the other
hand, for libraries and such that simply must use purchase orders,
and who pay the small additional institutional charge, we will take
p.o.s. I'm sure your remark about the "IBM-world" was made
lightheartedly, but it hit a rather sore spot in Ye Olde Editor.
HUG attempts to support not only the MS-DOS and Mac communities,
but also Amiga, Atari, Apple II, and even CP/M computers. We are
eagerly looking forward to developments with NeXT, Inc. Many of us
in the MS-DOS world are here because for the moment, this is a part
of the computer world where free competition is encouraged; a
variety of hardware manufacturers and software publishers can
easily vie for our dollars. Apple, on the other hand, has done
everything in its power to restrain competition, not only against
IBM, but also against many smaller companies like Atari and
Commodore. There is no doubt that the Mac is a fabulous computer;
I'm not so sure Apple is a fabulous company.--Yvrk
 
Ari Davidow   "Jewish" on the WELL--a damn nice example of virtual community
ari%[email protected]  |  {pacbell,ucbvax,hplabs,apple}!well!ari
             @ucbvax.berkeley.edu
             @lll-winken.llnl.gov
(Ari's address was not part of the newsletter, and if he gets suddenly
swamped with mail, I guess he'll know who to blame.
 
Calendars-
Date:         Tue, 14 Feb 89 11:01:29 +0200
>From:         Daniel Schindler <LIDANIEL@WEIZMANN>
To:           wwrmk@hujivm1
 
Please add my name to your mailing list. I became interested in the
Jewish calendar on the computer and have been checking bulletin
boards for people with a like interest. I have looked at the effect of
the difference of opinion of Rabbi Aharon b. Meir and our current
calendar and more accurate cycles than that of Rabbi Nachshon. I am
interested in the molad of Nisan in the year of the leaving of Mitzrayim.
 
NEXT WEEK-Some remarks on chronology
          Why there was nothing on lists this week
          Corrections in orthography of acknowledgments (the word and the
             section)
 
 
 
 
 
 
>From:         Yechiel Greenbaum <WWRMK%HUJIVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Fourth issue of newsletter
 
22 Feb 89                      JUDAIC STUDIES #4           17 AdarI 49 BS"D
Connecting geographically & otherwise disparate groups with a common
interest in the study of Judaica. Under the auspices of Dr. Emanuel
Tov, Bible Dept., Hebrew University. Edited by Y. Greenbaum.
 
CONTENTS
 
1) Editorial Judgment
2) Events Revised
3) Research Libraries
4) Romanization Standards
5) Compact Disks
6) Linguistic Analyses
7) A bit more about online
 
1) Editorial Judgment
 
Date:     Fri, 17 Feb 89 11:29 EST
Thank you for sending me the newsletter.
 
Would it be possible to exercise a bit more editorial judgment?
 
As a rule I think that the speed and immediacy of computer-transmitted
information means that current information is particularly appropriate
while general background tidbits are less so.  Thus I was particularly
surprised that you failed to give details of the Turkish Jewry lectures
at Yad Ben-Zvi while you went into great detail about Binyan Mayzer.
 
I would very much encourage you to try to gather lists of current lectures
yimey iyun and other public activities in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel.
Since these are generously advertised and often listed.  I would hope that it
would not be too much of a burden.  Of course I understand that managing this
project is quite enough so you may not have the time to gather what I am
suggesting, but I think it would take advantage of the medium.
 
Yechiel replies: Right on! The lack of listserve (may we establish it
speedily and in our time) not only withholds the positive advantages of
adding material as it becomes available, but draws tremendous amounts of
time dealing with other parts of the system not built to take the volume of
mail we send.
But why should the world at large suffer from our inadequate planning? I
was ready to send a supplement, revising the events listing, as soon as I
received this letter. But I found that I'd made a second error- the Turkish
Lectures are on the 26th. And the bulletin board outside the Institute for
Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts has since become more plastered with invit-
ations. Below is the revised listing. And remember that I am translating
all titles and names from hebrew, which is difficult even after hearing the
lecture.
 
I'd like to add a word about academic titles. It's been suggested that I
add Dr. to many of the names in the address list, in view of my statement
last week that I'd do so in cases of uncertainty. If a friend supplies a
name, I take it as is. In an education class, an acquaintance of mine said
that he gives his each of his pupils the option of addressing him formally
or informally, as they wish... we're speaking of a high school class here.
In any case, as we approach listserve, please let me know if you want your
address to be available to others and how you wish your name to appear.
 
2) Events Revised
 
In the following listing, all lectures will be held at The Israel Academy
of Sciences and Humanities, on your left as you face the main building of
Van Leer Institute, 43 Jabotinsky Rd., excepting those affiliated with Ben-
Zvi, which will be held at their compound in Rehavia.
 
22 Feb 18:15 Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
             Gershom Scholem Memorial Lecture (7th year of his passing)
             Prof. Joseph Dan
             The Divine Mystery of Those Who Descend to the Chariot
 
23 Feb 20:00 Ben Zvi Institute, Yad Ben-Zvi, and Hebrew University
             Annual Lecture in Memory of S. D. Goitein
             Speaker- Prof. Ezra Fleischer  Chair- Prof. Shaul Shaked
             The Contribution of the Genizah to the Understanding of the
             Beginning of Our Poetics in Spain
 
24 Feb 10:00 Yad Ben-Zvi
             Prof. Yosef Shetreet
             The Hebrew Enlightenment Movement in North Africa
             at the End of the Nineteenth Century
 
26 Feb       Ben Zvi Institute
             Research Topics in Turkish Jewry in the Modern Period
        9:00 Cultural and Sociological Connections Before the Ottoman Turks
             Chair- Prof. Amnon Cohen
 
             Prof. Joseph R. Hacker (Hebrew U)
             Connections of the Jews of Istanbul With Travelers, Diplomats,
             and European Illuminatae in the 16th and 17th Centuries
 
             Dr. Renee Melammed (Ben Gurion U)
             Economic Connections Between Jews and Non-Jews
             According to the De Boton Responsa
 
             Dr. Yaakov Barnay (Haifa U)
             Conversion and Missionizing Among the
             of the Ottoman Empire
 
             Dr. Galit (Hasan) Rokem (Hebrew U)
             Dr. Tamar Alexander (Haifa U)
             Essentials of Time and Place in the
             Expressions of Turkish Jewry
 
       11:15 With the Change of Eras
             Chair- Prof. Victor Azariah
 
             Prof. David Kushner (Haifa U)
             Guidelines of the Government of Turkey Towards Minorities
 
             Dr. Aron Rodrigue (Indiana U, Bloomington)
             Europe and the Westernization of Turkish Jewry 1839-1923
 
             Dr. Esther Benbassa (Institut d'Etudes Juives, Paris)
             European Jewry, Zionism and Ottoman Jewish Nationalism
             in the Beginning of the Twentieth Century
 
             Dr. Avner Levi (Hebrew U)
             Turkish Jewry and the Establishment of the Turkish Republic
 
 1 Mar 20:00 Misgav Yerushalayim Institute for research on the
             Sepharadi and Oriental Jewish Heritage
             Annual Lecture in Memory of Eliahu Eliachar (on the 7th year)
             Speaker- Dr. Abraham David   Chair- Judge Moshe Hason
             The Jews of Egypt after the Expulsion from Spain
             in Light of New Sources from the Genizah
 
 2 Mar 20:00 Zalman Shazar Center For Jewish History
             Speaker- Dr. Yaakov Tsur   Chair- Prof. Dov Kolka
             New Areas in the Study of German Jewry in the Holocaust Period
 
3) Research Libraries
 
We have received the following communication from John Eilts of the
Research Libraries Group:
 
Date:      Fri, 17 Feb 89 09:42:01 PST
 
I have just received a copy of your first electronic newsletter in
Judaic Studies.  I would like to receive future issues.  My electronic
mail address is:  [email protected].
 
I work for the Research Libraries Group, which is a not for profit
corporation owned and operated by a consortium of 38 major research
institutions in the US (Stanford University, our host institution is one
of them).  We operate an international bibliographic network (RLIN) in
support of our members cooperative programs.  One of the new programs is
in Jewish studies.
 
The following are stated goals of the program in Jewish and Middle East
Studies of RLG.
 
1.  Cooperative Collection Development:  continue  task  force
subcommittee  review  of  Judaica data in the Conspectus; cooperate with
subcommittee of CMDC in  review  of  Middle  East  data  in  Conspectus;
identify  any subject areas that are not adequately covered for possible
cooperative collection development efforts.
 
2.  Cooperative bibliographic control/cataloging:   build  the
database of Hebraic script data; advise in the development of the Arabic
script  capabilities;  following  on the Conspectus review, participants
will coordinate retrospective cataloging of their collections.
 
3.  Cooperative Preservation:  develop a plan  for  collection
condition  evaluations  and identify "collections at risk"; consider, in
cooperation with the RLG Preservation Committee, options and  priorities
for  preservation  project  proposals  which would focus on particularly
strong collections identified during the Conspectus review.
 
4.   Shared  Resources:   once  the  program   membership   is
established,   the   group   will  consider  on-site  access  guides  to
collections in Jewish and Middle East Studies.
 
A planning  meeting  will  be  held  later  this  spring.   For  further
information  contact:   John Eilts, Research Libraries Group, Inc., 1200
Villa Street, Mountain View, CA 94041-1100.  Telephone:  (415)691-2266.
 
Yechiel comments: The most recent issue of Judaica Librarianship carried
an article by Elchanan Adler encouraging the benefits of cooperative
cataloging i.e. we are better equipped to catalog Hebraica in Israel, but
hardpressed to romanize titles and provide other minutae required by AACR2.
We certainly have alot to offer in the area of Judaica reference.
 
4) Romanization Systems
 
Romanization (converting to roman letters, usually reversible, unlike
transliteration) is a topic of interest to librarians (for bibliographic
control and standardization), as well as those of us who wish to use
roman-friendly systems to deal with hebrew characters. The following letter
came from the third Gale we've heard of to date:
 
>From: Robert Gale                 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 09:52:04 est
 
An issue of special interest for me:  What is the usual convention for
transcribing Hebrew characters for e-mail?
 
Yechiel responds: Before attempting to answer this innocent-looking,
two-line question, I'm going to list all the systems I can remember
off-hand. If anyone knows of any others, please let us know.
 
Libraries: Cambridge (T.S. Genizah Project)
           Harvard (Widener)
           Annenberg Institute
           NYPL version of ANSI
           ALA/LC
E Mail:    Israeli standard
 
There also exist several versions of coding for hebrew characters per se.
 
5) Compact Disks
 
>From:     KRAFT@PENNDRLS        Date: Friday, 17 February 1989 1110-EST
In general, at some point in the discussion of available data
and of multilingual displays (Hebrew included), the Newsletter
should probably mention the fact that some texts (e.g. Hebrew
Bible, Targums Ps-Jonathan and Neofiti and Job, Greek Bible,
English Bible, etc.) are readily available on diskettes
(IBM and MAC) and on tape and on CD-ROM from CCAT, for
immediate use on the IBYCUS Scholarly Computer, and with
more difficulty on MAC and IBM (with reference to screen
display, searching, browsing, etc.). If you need some
details on such matters, I can point you in the right
directions -- e.g. John Hughes, Bits, Bytes & Biblical Studies
(Zondervan, 1987) gives heaps of detail on such matters.
 
                       Bob Kraft (CCAT)
 
Yechiel adds: Bits & Bytes Review can be contacted at XB.J24@Stanford
 
>From: Don Feinberg                    Date: 17 Feb 89 09:42
Subject: Gemara on the CDROM
 
(from HUG last time)    ... imagine what could be done with optical
>disks: the entire Torah with all rabbinic and even modern
>commentators could easily be contained on one disk. Likewise, the
>entire Babylonian Talmud. (We admit we're not sure that the whole
>Talmud and its commentaries would fit on one disk!-- Does anyone
>out there know?) Perhaps one CD could hold most or all of the great
>codes. One thing is for sure, within a short time, we will all have
>far greater access to classical Jewish thought.
 
    This is not too hard a question to answer.
 
    The average CDROM holds about 600 million bytes (characters)
    of information (formatted!).  [And I made some experimental disks,
    when I was building the first CDROM mastering system with
    Philips, which were about 700 million bytes, but that's another
    story.]
 
    Anyway, I'll assume for a first case that we are representing
    the Gemara "bli nikudot," and "bli trop." Guaranteed, that will
    fit into an 8-bit-per-character encoding.
 
    So, how big is the Gemara?  I don't have one here in my office,
    but I guess that it's around 8000 folio-sized "sides" (not Gemara
    "pages"). There would be something like 7000 characters on a maximal
    page. That makes the total length something about 50 million
    characters, or bytes. So, even if I'm off in my estimates by an
    order of magnitude, the Gemara will quite comfortably fit on one
    CDROM.
 
    You can easily see that even if the encoding is 16-bit-per-character
    (to allow for nikudot, trop, and font selection [block vs. Rashi,
    etc.]), say, we still only need 100 or so million characters.  That's
    still QUITE comfortable.
 
    (By way of comparison, the Encyclopedia Britannica will fit quite
    nicely, three (or so) times, on a CDROM.)
 
 Don Feinberg
 Digital Equipment Corp
 Marlboro, MA, USA / Herzliya, Israel
 
It was rumored awhile ago that Bar Ilan had already put its material on
CD-ROM, or was ready to do so. I called a few weeks ago, however, and was
told they're at least a year away from anything.
 
6) Linguistic Analyses
 
>From:  Jeroen de Jong       Date: Mon, 20 Feb 89 15:45:31 MET
 
Topics of interest for me would be:
 * linguistic studies in (classic, tannaitic, medieval and modern)
   Hebrew
 * computer applications dealing with the Hebrew language (no matter
   what kind of application; an index program for a Hebrew text is
   as interesting as, e.g., automatic syntactic analysis)
 * studies in the development of Biblical texts, especially linguistic
   based ones. E.g., I would like to hear from people who investigate
   the possibility of dating Biblical texts on linguistic grounds.
   Most interesting would be to hear from people who disagree with
   (one of the) documentary hypothesis/es.
 
Shalom velehitra'ot,
 
Jeroen de Jong.
 
I know at least one person who did such work on Genesis. I don't believe
he's e-connected as yet, but I'll try to put him in touch.
 
7) A bit more about online
 
Date:     Mon, 20 Feb 89 14:06 EST
Bar Ilan does not at present allow new hookups, though Univ. of
Toronto has one. It's a pity that such a valuable data base is
not available to those who could use it. Shalom, Joe  [Baumgarten]
 
Yeshiva U has had a connection, at times. How many people or institutions
out there would like to group together to encourage some sort of action?
Subscribe to a future CD-ROM? Consort to a common connection?
 
NEXT WEEK-
 
Date: 21 Feb 89 18:51
 
Yechiel,
In newletter # 2 you promise "Next time- lists" - I would be especially
interested in seeing lists of U.S. institution which offer graduate studies
in JS.  If this is what you have in fact done in newsletter # 3, I wonder
if you could please send me a 'back-issue'.
 
Thanks,
Kathy Rosenbluh
 
#3's "next week" promised that I'd explain why there weren't any lists in
it. I have such a list, or the makings of one, although not in electronic
form. I hope we will soon be on a listserver, and that it will save me
enough time so that I can cook up some lists to serve.
 
Furthermore, I have no time (or space) now for last weeks promised "remarks
on chronology", and I haven't yet had the opportunity to gather all the
orthography corrections of acknowledgments.
 
"Next week" topics ought be viewed more as an aspiration than a promise.
In any case, I'll always hope to give precedence to what people send,
before creating my own subjects of discussion.
 
so, NEXT WEEK- listserve (I hope)

Topics:
	Question re polygamy
		Evelyn Leeper
	Crisis in the UK
		Yitz Katz
	Re: Karbanot Section for Chag
		Shimon Schwartz
	Re: Tikun Sofrim
		Daniel Schindler
______________________________________________________________________
 
Can someone give me the name  of the ruling  (or whatever it was called)
that prohibited polygamy to the Ashkenazim, the year of  the ruling, and
the "statute of limitations" on  it?  Also, a  brief explanation of why,
now   that  the  time  is   up,   the  ruling still  applies   would  be
interesting/useful.
 
Thanks in advance.
 
Evelyn C. Leeper | +01 201-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
We have a interesting crisis raging in the  UK. A woman was converted to
Judaism in Israel some years ago with a  document stamped by Rabbi Goren
as 'Only valid in Israel'. She lives in North England and since the Beis
Din here do not accept here as being Jewish, her  kids are denied access
to a local Jewish  school.  There   has been  flame letters in  the main
Jewish newspaper, the Jewish Chronicle, between pro and anti-tagonist of
the case - including letters from  a senior member of  the Beis Din. The
fact that her name is Cohen and her husband is one too, has been used to
imply that the marriage  is invalid (Cohen to  a Giyoress) and that  the
basis for the Conversion was false
 
It's  not an easy problem   and the  Beis Din  very  much regrets  Rabbi
Goren's actions, whatever their reasons, at the time.   The  issue seems
to have become a political rather than religious one
 
Best wishes
Yitz (Mark) Katz <[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________
 
> When we  read the  Korbanot section of  Shacharit  on Shabbat or  Rosh
> Chodesh, we  add the  appropriate verses from the Torah  that describe
>  the  Mussaf  offering  for that  day.   However,  we  don't  read the
> analogous verses on a Chag.  How come?
 
The Shulchan  Aruch (48:1) states the reason  being that  on Yom Tov, we
read these verses in the Torah portion; this is not the case on Shabbat.
The Beit  Yosef holds that we  do not read  the verses for Rosh  Chodesh
during Korbanot for the  same reason.  The Rama states  that  our custom
-is- to read for Rosh Chodesh during Korbanot in order to publicize Rosh
Chodesh; this is not necessary for Yom Tov, which was already  known the
night before (Mishna Brurah).  While the same argument can be applied to
Shabbat --- everyone already  knows it's Shabbat  ---  we still need  to
read Musaf-Shabbat during Korbanot,  because it will  not be read in the
Torah portion.
 
--- Shimon Schwartz - [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
In a recent letter it was stated:
> "....  pointed out  that  the  Torah  we have  today is undoubtedly
>  slightly different from the one handed down at Sinai."
 
I would like to put things into perspective, and suggest that
there are no changes.
 
The   following  is  a  translation of a piece   of Gemara  found in the
Jerusalem Talmud  (Taanis 4:2)and   also found in a   slightly different
version in the minor Tractate Sofrim.
 
"Three scrolls were found in the courtyard of the Bais HaMikdash ; Sefer
Maon, sefer zatoti, and sefer hee. In one it was found written  maon and
two it  was written  maona. They affirmed   two  and rejected one. (They
changed the one to be like the two.) In one it was found written "and he
sent to the zatoti of the children of Israel" and  two it was found "and
he sent to the young men of the  children of Israel".  They affirmed two
and  rejected one. In  one was written  10  hee's and in   two was found
written 11 hee's and they affirmed two  and rejected one. (Hay-vav-aleph
is always written in the Torah  , whether  it refers to  male or female,
the only difference is in the reading. However, there  are 11 exceptions
to this generalization.)"  The maon is in Devarim 33:27, the "young men"
is  in   Shemos  24:5, and   the   hee's are    as   follows:  Bereishis
14:2,20:5,38:25,Vayikra   11:39,13:10,13:21,16:31,20:17,21:9,   Bamidbar
5:13,5:14 One might think from this incident that the  Torah we have now
is identical  to the original as it  is more likely  that one scroll was
wrong and not  two.  Note  that one  reading  was upheld  and  the other
rejected. There are not three versions floating around.
 
The only real problem  I have  is Petsuah  Dakah in   Dev. 23,2.  In  my
chumash it says  that in Ashkenazi sefer Torahs  there  is   an aleph in
dakah. Mostly I see Hays.
 
With respect to Tikun Sofrim see the Rashi and the  Sifsei  Chachamim in
Bereishis 18,22. Also the Minchas Shai on Zechariah  2,12 in the back of
the big Mikros Gedolos. In general it  is felt this  term does not refer
to a change in the text of the Torah given to Moshe Rabbenu.
 
In  Kiddushin 30a,  the  question is  asked  whether the vav of   gachon
(Vayikra  11,42) is  the end  of the  first  half of   the  Torah in the
beginning of the second half.   They did not  want to count because they
were not expert in the extra and missing letters. Now that the number of
letters have been counted by the computer, what is the answer?  There is
not likely to be a big difference but in any case does the vav of gachon
belong to the first half or the second half or is there an odd number of
letters in the Torah.
 
Daniel Schindler <[email protected]>

Topics:
	Re: Spelling variations in the Torah
			Samuel E. Schacham
	Re: Cherem d'Rabbenu Gershom
			Art Kamlet
	Re: Get Issue in the U.K.
			Sammy
______________________________________________________________________
 
As for the various spellings,  we can see that  Rashi's is not identical
to ours. I  even recall  a place that Rashi had  an additional 'vav', on
which he says he does not know what it signifies, and  it is not present
in our  chumashim.  Which  of  course  makes the counting    of  letters
questionable.
 
                     Shmuel <[email protected]>
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
> Can someone give me the name  of the ruling  (or whatever it was called)
> that prohibited polygamy to the Ashkenazim, the year of  the ruling, and
> the "statute of limitations" on  it?  Also, a  brief explanation of why,
> now   that  the  time  is   up,   the  ruling still  applies   would  be
> interesting/useful.
 
This was  the  Cherem   d'Rabbenu  Gershom ben Yehudah of  Metz  (Mainz)
(960-1040).  He convened a rabbinical synod in Worms [  Worms was in the
Franco-German  Rhineland ] which  issued this  decree, in about the year
1000, to remain in effect for 1000 years.
 
Rabennu  Gershom  was called   the  foremost   religious leader  of  the
Ashkenazik community in his day.  He was known as "Light of the Exile."
 
References: 
- Nathan Ausubel, The Book of Jewish Knowledge, 1964,
Crown Publishers, New York, ISBN 0-517-09746-X
 
- Maurice Lamm, The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage, 1980,
Harper & Row, San Francisco, ISBN 0-06-064916-X
 
>From Rabbi Lamm's book - "This was renewed for all Jews by
Israel's Chief Rabbi when it expired in 1950."
 
(I'm not  sure  how to reconcile  the 1000 year  ban from about the year
1000  expiring in 1950,  but it was  renewed in 1950 for both Ashkenazik
and Sephardic Jews.  Jewish men who had more than 1  wife were permitted
to  remain  married, but   forbidden  to enter into    future polygamous
marriages.)
 
I do not have these references, but they are referenced in Rabbi Lamm's
book:
 
- Herem  of Rabbenu  Gershom,  at Worms,  1030.  See  Louis Finkelstein,
Jewish   Self-Government in the  Middle Ages  (New  York,  JTSA,  1924),
reprint (New York, Feldheim, 1964).  See Also: Otzar ha-Poskim, Shulchan
Aruch, Even ha-Ezer 1:10, No. 61:2.
 
 
I hope this is what you were looking for.
 
--
Art Kamlet  cbrmb.att.com!ask  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
> We have a interesting crisis raging in the  UK. A woman was converted to
> Judaism in Israel some years ago with a  document stamped by Rabbi Goren
> as 'Only valid in Israel'.
 
In light of  the whole "Who  is a  Jew" issue, I  have read quite a  few
articles on  this type  of conversion.  The rationale as I have  seen it
explained is  that in  order  to convert k'Halacha,  the convertee  must
accept upon   him/herself the yoke of  the   Torah, he/she must honestly
affirm that  he/she will comply with  all the mitzvot.  An exception has
and  is being  made by  certain rabbis that  for  people that promise to
remain in Israel, they (the rabbis) are  willing to make an exception to
this klal  and will  convert people  that  are  properly  motivated  but
unwilling to accept  the full yoke of  responsibility as required by the
Torah.  Their rationale is that the K'dushah [Holiness  - Mod.] of Eretz
Yisrael will eventually bring them  over to  full  observance  and  also
there are   some  Acharonim   ["late" Commentators -   Mod.]   (which, I
unfortunately  can't recall off-hand) that   state that the   mitzvah of
Y'shuv Ha'aretz [Living in Israel - Mod.]   is great enough  that it, in
and of itself, is a large enough commitment to warrant the granting of a
conversion. Regardless of  which of the  above reasons you  choose,  the
rabbanim  feel that by   violating  that   commitment and  leaving Eretz
Yisrael,  the  convertee has violated  the terms of  the conversion.  In
true halachic terms, the conversion is considered violated retroactively
back to the  time of the  conversion since  it is now  obvious that  the
commitment  to remain in Israel  was never  really an honest commitment.
One would think that if she were to return to the Beis Din in Israel and
affirm  that she is  fully committed  to being a   Shomeret Mitzvot they
would be   willing  to remove the   stipulation   regarding remaining in
Israel. It seems to me that the problem is that by marrying  a Cohen and
violating the law forbidding marriages between  Cohanim and G'rushot she
has openly  shown her  disregard for  a major  prohibition.   She can no
longer  seek the asylum of Halachah  as a  solution for  her having left
Israel,  thereby   retroactively  nullifying her  conversion.    A  very
difficult situation indeed. I hope, for her sake and her  family's, that
a mutually acceptable solution can be worked out K'Halachah.
 
[email protected]

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Question on chronology of Purim period
		Harold Wyzansky
	Re: get issue in UK
		Roxane Neal
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
What I  have decided to do with   the  Judaic Studies Newsletter comming
from Israel is to send it out separately to those who have asked for it.
The first few issues (past the ones that went out as mail.jewish issues)
will go out this weekend. If you  haven't recieved it and  want to be on
the   list,  send  me  mail,   or  you  can   send  mail   directly   to
[email protected].
 
If anyone has any issues relating to Pesach that they wish to discuss on
the list, now is the time to send them in.
 
Avi Feldblum
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
     I was recently reading the Artscroll Megillat Esther in preparation
for Purim and was reminded of something which  has perplexed me for some
time.
 
     The chronology given  in  the    preface says  that  Nebuchadnezzar
founded the Babylonian Empire in 3318 (442  BCE); that  the first temple
was destroyed by the Babylonians in 3338 (422); that Nebuchadnezzar died
in 3363 (397) after a 45 year reign  and was  succeeded  by his son Evil
Meradoch; that  Evil Meradoch died in  3386 (374) after a  23 year reign
and was succeeded by his   son Belshazzar; that Belshazzar reigned  only
two years and was murdered (see book  of Daniel) and succeeded by Darius
the  Mede, who reigned  less  than a  year  and  was  succeeded   by his
son-in-law, Cyrus the Persian in 3389 (371); that Cyrus' reign was brief
(less than 3   years) and then  Achashverosh  seized the throne  in 3392
(368); and that it  was the son of  Achashverosh and Esther, Darius, who
came to the throne in 3406 (354) and gave  permission for the rebuilding
of the Temple in 3408 (352 BCE).
 
     The problem  I have is that even  a cursory  reading of the history
that  we have  from   secular sources reveals that    these    dates are
significantly at variance with  what  is generally accepted and that the
accounts  of  the  Persian  and Babylonian    dynasties are also   quite
different.
 
     To   give  a   major example,  according  to  the accepted history,
paraphrased from  the Encyclopedia Brittanica,  Cyrus,  who  started his
reign in 559, conquered the Medes in 550 and Babylon in 539, and died in
529, and  his son, Cambyses,  were the  first two kings  of  the Persian
Empire and the third  king was Darius I,  who was  a cousin of Cambyses,
and who took the throne in 522, with his descent from the founder of the
dynasty well laid out in his own inscriptions,  as well as  in the Greek
histories.  Darius was the one who allowed the Temple in Jerusalem to be
rebuilt in 516.  Darius attempted to conquer Greece and  was defeated at
the battle of Marathon in 490.   Persia continued as  a major player for
150 years, invading  Greece   again  in 480  under  Xerxes  (Battles  of
Thermopolae, Salamis, and Platae),  and meddling in  the politics of the
Greek states until conquered by the Macedonians in 330.
 
     The  problem is that these  two accounts  don't mesh  up very well,
particularly in the dating of events.   There are  no known  gaps in the
Greek history of  those times,  with the  succession  from  Pericles  to
Aristotle in Athens quite clear, and the Greeks defeated the Persians at
Marathon 120 years  BEFORE the Artscroll  chronology  has Cyrus founding
the Persian  Empire, which it  reduces from   a major world   power that
existed for more than two centuries and made repeated attempts at Greece
to a forty year flash in the pan.
 
    The  attempted  dating of the Book  of   Esther and  identifying  of
Achashverosh also causes problems.  It is impossible to fit it in in the
early   years of the   Persian Empire.   Identifying Achashverosh with a
later Persian king (such as Artaxerxes I,  prominently mentioned in Ezra
and Nechemiah), is far easier and makes  more  sense, but that  puts him
after the  rebuilding   of the   Temple and  contradicts   the Artscroll
chronology and commentary even more.
 
     Do any  of you scholars  or historians out there have   any answers
which would resolve these problems?
 
     Thank you,
     Have a Happy Purim,
     Harold Wyzansky
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
In his response to this issue, Sammy  stated that presumably the woman's
conversion  would be retroactively  annulled, since  it was obvious that
her  original intentions were not proper.   I  seem to  remember reading
that halachically, if someone's intentions were not "kosher" at the time
of conversion (even though they said the  right things),  but they later
proved to be shomer mitzvot, the conversion,  even though not acceptable
at the time of conversion, could not  later be  annulled.  The  issue of
"annulment"  of conversion seems  a   very tricky one, especially  since
intention is    so  difficult  to  determine.    Can   anybody  who   is
knowledgeable about this    comment?  Specifically,   1)   under    what
circumstances  can/must a  conversion be  annulled,  and 2) is there   a
halachic method of proving intentionality?
 
--Roxane Neal
 

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Problems with dates
		Avi Feldblum
		Shmuel Schacham
	Re: Polygamy
		Daniel Schindler
		Dan Berleant
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I made an error in  sending out  JS newsletter #5,  it went to the wrong
group. JS #6 went to the correct group. If you did not get #6 and either
did or did not get #5 and  would  like to be  on the redistribution list
for  the Jewish  Studies Newsletter,  please let  me know. If you are on
BITNET and would like the  newsletter,  please contact Yechiel Greenbaum
(WWRMK\@HUJIVM1.BITNET) directly.
 
Speaking  of  redistribution   lists,  we have  one being     set up for
mail.jewish in the San Francisco Bay  area. A  local mail alias is being
set up at  ernie.berkeley.edu, and if you are  connected to berkeley.edu
either locally  or by dedicated  link,  you can get  on the distribution
list there by sending mail to:
 
	mail-jewish-local-request\@ernie.berkeley.edu. 
 
As a last note, I have noticed a problem  recently in connecting to many
of the Internet addresses on the list. The gateway to the Internet I use
has had  time out messages  on many addresses. I  don't know  if this is
just a problem of short duration or a taste of problems yet to come.
 
Avi Feldblum - Moderator
______________________________________________________________________
 
The topic of dates in the Biblical period in general and how they relate
to the secular history that we know is a difficult issue. I look forward
to some replies from the historians  on the list  (there must be some, I
hope?). Rabbi Schwab, from the Breuers community, has written an article
addressing  the  issue of the  dating of   the Purim  story. One of  the
readers of the list has said that he will try and  find it and summerize
it for the list.
 
One source of problems relating to this dating issue  has to do with the
Seder   Olam  Rabbah. The Seder  Olam  is  a chronological work which is
mentioned in the Gemarah. The author is stated to be R. Yose b. Halafta,
a second century tanna. In it the Persion period  from the rebuilding of
the  Temple by   Zerubbabel in 516   BCE to  the  conquest  of Persia by
Alexander is stated  to be  only 34 years  (info from the  Encyclopaedia
Judaica).  This does not  match  what  we know   from secular historical
sources. My father told me that copies of early manuscripts of the Seder
Olam have been found (and I don't remember how early  or where) in which
there  was a textual  variant for  that value Instead  of  34  (for some
reason I remember him saying 54, so I hope I  have remembered the second
number correctly), what is  found is  250. That value is  quite close to
the length of the period according to secular  historians. [If anyone is
at Bar Ilan, take a copy of this to my father, Prof.  Meyer S. Feldblum,
and find out if my memory is at all correct, or if I'm totally off base,
and then let me know.]
 
Avi Feldblum
______________________________________________________________________
 
The dates of the destruction of the first temple:
 
I had the same problem as stated by Harold (and  still have..)  I recall
from my history studies (many  years ago) that  the temple was destroyed
on 586 BC. However Rashi mentions that the first  temple existed for 410
years and  the  second for  420.  Since  it took  70  years between  the
destruction of the first temple and the building  of the second one, and
since this was destroyed on 70 AC,  the simple math show  that the first
temple had to be destroyed around 40o BC as stated in the Artscroll !
 
Purim Sameach,               Shmuel
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
     Recently  the topic of   polygamy  being forbidden  nowadays arose.
There are a few cases were polygamy is permitted.  Here  is one polygamy
story.
     In a  taped Purim   lecture  Rabbi   Herschel  Schachter  told  the
following incident. A man  in Jerusalem (last  year?) was involved in an
accident close to  Shabbat  and was in the hospital.  It looked like  he
might not live  through Shabbat. He  was married, childless,  and had  a
brother  in  Russia.  If  he  died his wife would  have  to  perform the
halitzah ceremony in  order to  be able to  remarry   as the brother  in
Russia has  an obligation to marry  her.  This  ceremony  has to be done
face to face and not through a  messenger.  As this appeared impossible,
there was the danger that the woman would remain an agunah forever. Even
though a get may be  given on Shabbat in  order to  prevent a woman from
being an agunah, this is only where it was written before Shabbat. A Jew
cannot write a get on Shabbat and a non-Jew cannot write  the get. As it
was already Shabbat a divorce seemed impossible.
     Rabbi Elyashub gave the following advice. The brother in Russia had
a daughter who was  unmarried and lived in  Jerusalem. The dying brother
should marry the daughter of the brother in Russia  (the dying brother's
niece).  Now he had two wives, his first wife and  his niece. He died on
Shabbat but since  one  of the wives  was a  forbidden  relation to  the
brother in Russia (one cannot marry his daughter)  , neither wife had an
attachment to the brother in Russia, which  is  the halacha according to
Beit Hillel  in Yevamot who  holds that the possibility has  to exist to
marry either one of the wives.
     Although there are two stages in marriage,  erusin and nissuin, and
only the first is possible on Shabbat, erusin  is  enough to prevent the
attachment of the other wife to the living brother. Nissuin includes the
giving of the ketubah which was not done. The niece only got a ring. How
one  gets from polygamy  to  Purim is  the  Talmudic discussion on pages
13-14 of Tractate Yevamot and  is a little  longer  story. But since the
question of polygamy came up and it is Purim, I  thought I'd relate this
story. Happy Purim!
 
Daniel Schindler <LIDANIEL%WEIZMANN.BITNET\@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
>This was  the  Cherem   d'Rabbenu  Gershom ben Yehudah of  Metz  (Mainz)
>(960-1040).  He convened a rabbinical synod in Worms [  Worms was in the
>Franco-German  Rhineland ] which  issued this  decree, in about the year
>1000, to remain in effect for 1000 years.
>
>>From Rabbi Lamm's book - "This was renewed for all Jews by
>>Israel's Chief Rabbi when it expired in 1950."
 
Wouldn't it be correct to  say that the renewal  (by one Rabbi  in 1950)
has considerably less force  than  the original decree 1000   years ago?
Indeed, male Jews who don't recognize the authority of the Israeli chief
Rabbi might legitimately feel that they can now have more than one wife,
perhaps? This is essentially a moot point in most places, like the U.S.,
where polygamy is illegal for other reasons,  but  might actually result
in cases of polygamy in some areas (which ones?).
 
 -Dan

Topic:
	Retroactive nullification of conversion
			K Watkins
			Avi Feldblum
______________________________________________________________________
[Note: K Watkins submitted this to be posted to the list. I sent her
some comments on it, and she reponded to them. My comments are included
between []'s with AYF at the end, her responses are included between
<>'s and the rest is her original posting. Sorry if it is somewhat
confusing. The topic is, I think, an important one and hope to hear from
some of you out there on it. AYF]
 
Imagine the following scenario:
 
A couple, both Kohanim, decides to marry.  In the course of preparing for
the wedding, they happen to discover that the woman's mother's mother's
mother (well known in the family to have been a convert), though she lived
within the norms of the Orthodox community she inhabited when her children
were growing up, towards the end of her life moved to another area and
there unmistakably abandoned the observance of the mitzvot - driving on
Shabbat, serving fresh-grilled ham-and-cheese sandwiches at parties she
threw on Yom Kippur, and so on.  (Say they find some letters that were
stored away, and back them up with more in-depth inquiries.)  She is now
dead, but the evidence is clear:  she converted before her marriage, lived
for many years as a shomeret mitzvot, and then abandoned them in the last
part of her life. 
 
[ There appears to be no question that if a person converts according to
halacha, that person becomes a jew in the full sense of the word. Then
the rule, Yisrael Af Al Pi Shechata, Yisrael - A Jew, even if he sins,
remains a Jew - applies. You cannot "unconvert". If the woman lived a
life as a shomeret mitzvot following the conversion, then the fact that
she stopped following the mitzvot later can have no effect. AYF ]
 
Is there any way the couple can marry?
 
[ A woman is not a Kohan, she would be a bat Kohan and there are no
marriage restrictions on a bat Kohan. For the man, a Kohen is forbidden
to marry a convert. Thus if you say the original conversion was not valid, then
she cannot marry the Kohen even after she would convert. For the case
given, I believe there would be no problems with the two of them
marrying. AYF ]
 
What is the status of the marriage of the woman's sister, who married a 
Kohen a couple of years earlier and already has a daughter and a son?  What 
is the status of the marriage of the woman's parents?  (Let's assume that 
the woman's grandmother died long ago - before, in fact, her mother's break 
with the mitzvot.)
 
Would the case be any different if the convert were still alive?  What if 
she were, but adamantly persisted in her rejection of the mitzvot - only to 
return to them a few years later?  Do we still tell all her descendants 
that they are not Jews?
 
[ To get to the point of the question, however, let me try and set up a
slightly different case. The original convert stopped being a shomeret
mitzvot after some event, and we find letters dated from the time of her
conversion which clearly state that her intentions were never sincere,
and were only due to some external factor. We have the corroborative
evidence that once that factor was no longer relevent, she indeed stopped
observing the mitzvot. In this case, what do we say is the ruling
concerning her children, grandchildren etc.? AYF ]
 
The phenomenon of abandoning observance is not unknown among born Jews.  
Must we take that to mean that they were insincere in the observance they 
did carry out?  Does "sincere" mean "utterly unchangeable"?  Who is exactly
as observant of exactly the same mitzvot at age thirty and age sixty?  And
for the vast majority for whom there is a difference, which set of behavior
is the "sincere" one? 
 
I am concerned that an approach which enables retroactive nullification of 
a conversion condemns every convert to live in constant fear of some
scrutinizing authority that may declare his or her actions to demonstrate
insufficient evidence of continuing commitment, and all descendants of
female converts to live in fear of the same scrutiny taking place even
after the convert's death.  Is this really our halachah, our way? 
 
[ I hope that what I have written above clarifies many of these issues.
The case I described above is the only one I see reason to worry about,
and while her descendants may have to suffer for her actions, her
actions were clearly not in "good faith". AYF ]
 
< If we must first have evidence that "her actions were CLEARLY not in `good
faith'," AT THE TIME, then much of my concern disappears - but I am
still left with anxiety about what constitutes such evidence.  Such
decisions would be tough indeed to make.  Even the letters you suggest
could be debatable, and would need all sorts of auxiliary examination.  For
instance, if a letter about the time of conversion said, "I'm not sure I'm
doing the right thing, but Joe wants it very much, and I would do anything
for him," then it would make a big difference whether another letter a year
later, and/or ten years later, thanked God for Joe's encouragement or spoke
bitterly about the pressure Joe had exerted to "get her to convert," or
remarked, "I was kidding myself about my conversion; even if Joe hadn't
cared, I had to do it" or "even all Joe's urgency couldn't make me really
want it for myself." (Remember, we're talking here about how she sees
things, not whether or not Joe was in fact pressuring her.)
 
Even if her abandonment of the mitzvot coincided with Joe's death, I would
be most uneasy about declaring her original conversion insincere...and,
yes, uneasy about assuming it was sincere.  Someone's sincerity in
performing a long-past act is such a slippery criterion on which to base a
decision like this!  Even if she is still alive and we ask her, it is
entirely possible that we will end up with an edited memory - unlike, for
instance, the version she told her friends and family in the intervening
years.   Which version are we to consider insincere?   This is, I agree, a
more limited case, but the issues are not much changed. >
 
[ I agree with you, and the whole issue of retroactive annulment of a
conversion is one I am very uncomfortable with. AYF ]
 
< And what about less subjective evidence - evidence that, say, she failed to
follow certain mitzvot - ate a Jack-in-the-Box bacon cheeseburger, say, or
had sex with her husband's boss, or operated electrical machinery at her
place of work on Shabbat?  How perfect a shomeret mitzvot does she have to
be, and when and for how long?  (Maybe if she only ate one cheeseburger,
but not if she stopped for one at lunchtime every Wednesday...?)  Is there
some sort of time limit after which such behavior becomes the sin of a Jew,
but before which it is evidence she never was a Jew in the first place?  Or
are there certain mitzvot which are criterial in making such
determinations? 
 
And, as you point out, even if the evidence really is clear and sufficient,
the question of what to say to her bamboozled descendants remains. >
 
In most areas, halachah spells out the exact conditions that define whether
or not an event has taken place.  For instance, if I understand correctly,
a get has taken place when the get document has been accurately written and
properly delivered from husband to wife...and the document is then
destroyed lest someone come along afterwards and manage to create (or even
find!) an error in it, and declare the divorce null.
 
[ Anyone have information on this? This sounds incorrect to me, I know
there are gemorah sections on the husband comming and claiming the get
was forgary, and when he is believed to say that and when not. AYF ]
 
Whether or not a divorce is valid affects many people - not only the 
immediate participants, but their subsequent spouses and descendants.  So 
it makes sense to take extreme care in making sure it is properly carried 
out in the first place, and then to ensure that it cannot be challenged 
afterwards.  Great.  But why not take the same care with conversions as 
with divorces?
 
[There are cases with get that the gemorah says that the get is invalid
and the children of the woman if she has remarried are mamzarim, other
cases where the level of invalidation of the get is different, the
children are not mamzarim. AYF ]
 
I can see making conversion very exacting, and taking all sorts of steps to 
ensure that the convert knows what s/he is getting into and stands firm in 
the desire and intention to do so.  It may even be reasonable to debate 
whether or not conversion should be permitted at all.  But once someone is
converted, is not that person a Jew (in spite of such relatively
small-scale distinctions as the rules about marriage for Kohanim)?  Jews
do sometimes sin, ignore and mock mitzvot, and all sorts of other things
abhorrent to halacha.  Halacha does not rejoice in these things, but it
recognizes them; it does not declare that people who do such things are not
Jews. 
 
Think about it:  a born Jew risks being "cut off from his people" for only
a limited set of averot (sins), and moreover the penalty is enacted by God,
not by a bet din.  Yet if a conversion can be retroactively nullified at
any time for whatever a bet din decides is sufficient evidence of
inadequate sincerity --well, then converts clearly are not operating under
the same covenant, the same system of mitzvot and consequences as born
Jews.  But membership in that covenant is what defines a Jew.  Does this
mean that conversion isn't "real"--that a convert is neither a "real" Jew
nor a "real" goy, but a member of another group altogether? 
 
[ A basic question here is: under what conditions may a conversion
be declared retroactively nullified, and what is the implications if
the conversion was several generations in the past. I don't know the
answer to either question. Anyone think they have some information
on this to share with the list? AYF ]
 
K Watkins  -   [email protected]

Topics:
	Re: Statute of Limitations on Cherem of Rabbenu Gershom
		Michael Shimshoni
		Ezra Tepper
		Daniel Schindler
	Re:  Variant Torahs and Counting Letters
		Daniel Schindler
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
>>This was  the Cherem d'Rabbenu  Gershom ben Yehudah of  Metz  (Mainz)
>>(960-1040). He convened a rabbinical synod in Worms [  Worms was in the
>>Franco-German Rhineland ] which  issued this  decree, in about the year
>>1000, to remain in effect for 1000 years.
 
This is wrong on one point Metz ain't Mainz.   In present day boundaries
Metz is French and Mainz (Magenza, the old Jewish name for it) is in
West Germany.
 
Michael Shimshoni (MASH@WEIZMANN on the BITNET)
 
>>>From Rabbi Lamm's book - "This was renewed for all Jews by
>>>Israel's Chief Rabbi when it expired in 1950."
>
>Wouldn't it be correct to say that the renewal (by one Rabbi in 1950)
>has considerably less force than the original decree 1000 years ago?
 
Perhaps it has more force, if one considers the principle "minhag
Yisra'el kedin." If the Ashkenazi community has been limiting itself to
a single wife for 1000 years and the Sefardic communities do not allow a
second wife without the agreement of the first (it's written into their
ketubah), it appears that without any pronouncements from the Chief
Rabbinate or other body, we would not be allowed to leave our
forefather's long-standing custom. (By the way, there are few if no
references in the Talmudic literature of Sages who had more than one
wife. Indeed, the Talmud advises if one desires to take a second wife,
better take at least two new wives, as having a single pair of women
around the house is asking for trouble.)
 
Moreover, the contributors mention of the fact that two wives is against
the law in the United States and Israel needs to be checked. The problem of
bigamy appears to refer to having two wives legally registered by the
secular authorities. If one has a second religiously consecrated wife
or just a live-in girl friend (I, of course, refer here to goyim; what
Jew would do such a thing?), I don't believe that there is a criminal
offense involved. If the first wife, though, objects, she might have a
good case in the damages or divorce courts. If she "understands" and
continues to "understand," he would have no problems. In any case, no one
will drag the religiously-consecrated bigamist off to jail or even give
him a "parking" ticket. I am not sure what they would do to a rabbi who
performed such a ceremony. Perhaps he would lose his licence.
 
Ezra L. Tepper, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
Arpanet: rrtepper%[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
     The halachic aspects of the statute of limitations of the Cherem of
Rabbenu Gershom  are brought down in the first chapter of Even Ha-Ezer in
the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch 1:10, and the Aruch HaShulchan 1:23,24. The
Shulchan Aruch says the the prohibition of Rabbenu Gershom lasted until the
end of the fifth millenia (1240 CE). There is some question as to whether
there was any time limit at all. The reason is that there are no books
written by Rabbenu Gershom about his cherem. The only things we know about
it are at best second hand. The cherem is mentioned in the responsa of
Maharam of Rotenburg, Ritva, Mordechai, and Kol Bo, all about 13th century
but no mention is made of a time limit. The Beit Yosef on the relevant
section of the Tur says that the Maharik (15th century) says there is a
time limit of the cherem until the end of the fifth millenia (which had
already passed). The Beit Yosef brings this opinion down in his Shulchan
Aruch. Darchei Moshe (Rema) takes it for granted that the herem has expired
and that now it is a stringent custom.
      The way to get a heter of this cherem is by 100 rabbis from 3 lands
signing. This is certainly pretty hard but if you rely on the opinion of
the Maharik that the force of the cherem is terminated and the reason Jews
don't marry another woman when they already have one wife is now just a
stringent custom, a simple heter might suffice .  Another related takkanah
of Rabbenu Gershom is that a woman does not have to accept a get. There can
arise reasons for it to be desirable for a man to marry another woman when
he is already married. (See my Purim story a few issues back)
     One reason given for the time limit is that to make a wide ranging
takannah that has no limit is a violation of the precept of adding on to
the Torah. Those that say there is no time limit say this is why the heter
of 100 rabbis in three lands was put in, in order to limit the power of
the takannah.
     In 1950 the chief rabbis of Israel made polygamy prohibited for Jews
in Israel. They don't have much to say about marriages in other countries
or for the non-Jews in Israel but they do regulate marriages among Jews in
Israel, so this does mean something to all Jews who live in Israel. This is
enforced by the penal code.  However the law stipulates that bigamy is
permitted if it is done with the consent of both of the chief rabbis.
(Encyclopedia Judaica entry: Bigamy)
 
Daniel Schindler <LIDANIEL%[email protected]>
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
     Shmuel brings up the Rashi in Parshas Terumah, Shemos chapter 25:22
where Rashi says a vav is unimportant and and in our Torah we have no vav.
This is one of six places that the Gilyon HaShas brings down on page 55b of
Tractate Shabbat as places where the Talmud, Rashi, and/or Tosfos clearly
disagree with our Torah. Shmuel says this is a reason not to count the
letters in the Torah. Au contraire! The Minchas Shai on the verse mentioned
says that also Ibn Ezra and Hizkuni also have the vav which is suprising as
a vav there is contrary to the masorah. I don't want to seem presumptuous
and say my Torah is right and Rashi's is wrong, but Minchas Shai seems to
think so in this case. The masorah includes all sorts of statements like
the vav of gachon is the middle letter in the Torah. These masoretic
statements are supposed to enable us to keep the Torah error free. If the
vav of Rashi contradicts the masorah, his Torah may not be correct. This is
not to imply that our Torah completely agrees with the masorah. I don't
know that much about the masorah. Counting the letters should help us
distinguish between different variants to see who has the original Torah.
Is anyone counting? Please count alephs also for petsuah dakah.
      An interesting note on versions of the Torah. Writing a sefer Torah
is the last commandment in the Torah. The Minchas Chinuch on this last
commandment brings a Shaygas Aryeh where it is said one cannot fulfill this
commandment nowadays as all our Torah scrolls are unfit as we don't know
the correct text.
 
                                 Daniel Schindler

Topics:
	Re: Nullification of Conversion
		R. Yaacov Haber
		Josh Proschan
	Questions about Shabbat
		Michael Blaustein
______________________________________________________________________
 
[ A basic question here is: under what conditions may a conversion be
declared retroactively nullified, and what is the implications if the
conversion was several generations in the past.  I don't know the answer
to either question. Anyone think they have some information on this to
share with the list? AYF ]
 
I say almost never. First of all it is very possible that even if the
convert says clearly that he is not accepting the whole Torah once it
goes thru a Beit Din it's a conversion no matter what.  The Din of 'ayn
mekablin' [One does not accept... Mod] might only be a lechatchila [A
good english equavalent escapes me at the moment, but it means the right
way to do something, before it's actually done - Mod]. This is
definitely the opinion of the Melamed Lehoel who says that a women can
convert with full knowledge of marrying a Cohain, because this is a
zchus [positive action - Mod] for the man who is presently married to a
gentile.  I don't know that we pasken that way, but this point is clear.
 
Even if the above is not so; If the person says they are accepting the
whole Torah but in their heart they are thinking 'no' it is probably
still a good conversion because we pasken 'dvarim sheblev aynun
devarim' [Words in ones heart, i.e. thoughts or intentions, are not
considered to be words, meaning they have no halachic standing - Mod].
 
Please look at the Rambam (Isurei beah 13, 15-18) , I lack the patience
to type the whole thing, that discusses the wives of Solomon and Samson
that were later discovered to be fraudulent converts.  To me it seems
clear that although they are not Geyray Tzedek they are still Geirim.
Please look there because this RMBM is the main source in this question.
 
[ This Rambam is also brought down almost verbatim by the Shulchan Oruch
(Yorah Da'ah Ch. 268), who states clearly that even if the convert
returns to his previous way of life, s/he is considered to be a Yisrael
Mumer, a Jew who has abandoned the faith. So I am confused (nothing new
here), is there any source for retroactive nullification? If the lack of
full acceptance of mitzvot does not invalidate the conversion, what
exactly is the problem with Conservative conversions, at least b'deavad?
AYF] 
		       	      _-_ 
Rabbi Yaacov Haber         /~~   ~~\     internet: [email protected]
Torah Center of Buffalo  /~         ~\   bitnet:   haber@sunybcs
2780 Main St.            \ __     __ /   uucp: ..!{boulder,decvax,rutgers}
Buffalo, NY  14214        ~  \\ //  ~              !sunybcs!torah!haber
phone: (716) 833-7881         | |       
fax:   (716) 833-7903        // \\        
		       "A tree of life for
                       those who embrace it"
[I liked this .sig, so I bent my rules and left it in. Being Moderator
has to have some privileges.]
______________________________________________________________________
 
A couple of thoughts off the top of my head--
 
Is another question involved:  even if such letters were found, can they 
be regarded as evidence of anything?  I wouldn't think that letters could 
be used instead of live witnesses in the case of a living convert whose 
conversion is being questioned, and don't see why they would carry any 
more weight after two generations.  (How do you know that the letters 
describe what she really did, and were not deliberate falsehoods written 
for some unknown purpose?  People have been known to do such things.) 
 
There is, if I remember correctly, a principle in halacha that one does 
not inquire too deeply into such things.  This is the reason for only 
going back three generations, and I believe the Gemorrah states that one 
should not go looking for problems in shidduchim [prospective 
engagements].  <Perhaps because they come looking for you . . . :-> 
 
As far as destroying a get is concerned, I thought the reason was to 
prevent its re-use for another woman with the same name; since the get 
must be written specifically for the wife, such re-use would be invalid.  
(I believe that one of Rabbenu Gershom's cherems [punitive ban] dealt 
with casting doubt on the validity of a get after the fact.) 
 
Josh
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
I have two questions on halakhot of Shabbat: 
 
(1) Concerning use of a microphone (in the synagogue) on Shabbat.  What
is the basis, if any, for forbidding this?  I recently saw a letter in a
back issue of Tradition which referred to a teshuvah on this in Iggerot
Moshe.  The writer claims that the prohibition of using microphones is
related in this teshuvah to a tosefta quoted in BT Shabbat 18a
prohibiting loading with wheat a mill powered by a water-wheel, if the
wheat will not be completely milled by Shabbat.  The writer argues that
this tosefta is irrelevant to the question of microphones for various
reasons (including the fact that the Shulhan Arukh rules that the mill
case is in fact permitted).  His letter looks convincing, but I have no
access to the article he was responding to, nor to the teshuvah.  I'm
interested in a summary of the issues involved as well as opinions on
the answer.
 
(2) Concerning re-heating dry food on Shabbat.  I have heard of two
approaches: (a) it's o.k. to re-heat dry food which was completely
cooked and set aside before Shabbat; (b) one can only re-heat dry food
if it was being heated from before Shabbat until at least about a
half-hour into Shabbat and then removed from the heat.  Are both valid?
Again, I'm just as interested in the reasons as in the answer.
 
  Michael Blaustein -   [email protected] 
 
 
========================================================================
Received: from RESEARCH.ATT.COM by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
	id AA23779; Tue, 4 Apr 89 19:47:35 PDT
Received: from RESEARCH.ATT.COM by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
	for gvriel::schoeller; id AA23779; Tue, 4 Apr 89 19:47:35 PDT
Received: by att.ATT.COM (smail2.6  att-mt)
	id AA09241; 4 Apr 89 21:21:53 EDT (Tue)

Topics:
	Questions on the Calendar
		Harry Rubin
	Re: Heating up food on Shabbat
		Stanley Rotman
______________________________________________________________________
 
I received the following questions from a friend of mine who is very
interested in calendars:
 
    What is the usual practice for celebrating anniversaries of events
    that fall in Adar-2?  The Gregorian calendar presents problems for
    people born on Feb. 29 in leap years, but that's nothing compared to
    having a whole leap month!  I would assume that if you were
    born/married/whatever on Adar-2 13, say, then you would celebrate it
    on Adar 13 in years that don't have the leap month.  True?
 
I replied that that was true, and that things celebrated during
Adar are celebrated during Adar-2 during leap years, but that it
was fairly flexible, as the calendar has to meet both people's
spiritual and practical needs.
 
A friend of mine who observes yartziet for the death of her father
during Adar asked a rabbi (Orthodox) when to observe it during leap
years.  The rabbi indicated that it was not a firm rule but suggested
Adar-2.  When she pointed out that that would put the yartziet very
near Purim (a very happy holiday), he said she could do it during
Adar-1, or in both months.
 
I have discussed with my calendar-interested friend the proper name
for the extra month inserted during leap years.  He had read that
it is called "VeAdar".  I said that in Hebrew it is "Adar shaynee",
literally "the second Adar", or "Adar Bet", meaning "Adar two".
I suggested that he use either "Adar 2" or "Adar B".  During leap
year, is the first Adar known as "Adar rishon" (first Adar) or
"Adar Aleph" (Adar one), or is it just "Adar"?
 
Another question from my friend who is interested in calendars:
 
    [Y]ou also might be interested in finding out when the current rules
    for the Jewish calendar result in differences with historical dates.
    It is my understanding that prior to the diaspora the setting of the 
    calendar was a rabbinic task, and that it was maintained by visual
    observation of astronomical phenomena.  So somewhere in the past
    there may be a date that can be fixed unambiguously whose calendar
    date at the time differs from what the current calendar rules would
    compute.  If I want [my calendar program] to keep accurate, I have to
    know these things!
 
My reply:
 
You are probably correct that the Hebrew calendar is weak in backward
computation, but I don't think anyone cares.  The purpose of the
calendar, religiously speaking, is to tell us when to observe
holidays and other events.  You can look up when events occurred
in the past, so it is not important that the calendar be able to
compute past events.  And as you say, before a certain point, there
was no calendar.
 
Is that correct?  Further information or comments?
Thanks.
                                                Harry
______________________________________________________________________
 
I've done a little looking into the question of warming food on
the Sabbath.  I'll give some of the sources I have found.
 
Concerning the warming of dry food on the Sabbath: the original souce of
the issue is the Mishnah which states that "anything which came into hot
water before the Sabbath may be soaked in hot water on the
Sabbath".(Sabbath 145b).  Rashi interprets this to be only for items
which were dry; the Rambam does not distinguish between wet and dry
foods, but rather allows you to warm anything as long as you don't put
it on the fire directly.
 
The Rama in the Shulchan Aruch rules (Orach Chaim 318 para. 15) that wet
food may be heated on the Sabbath if it never got completely cold.
(Rabbi Moshe Feinstein Z'l (Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim, 4th Sec., Chapter
74, Subquestion 2) defines not completely cold to be that someone who
wants to eat it warm would still eat it as such.)  Essentially we are
ruling like the Rambam, but adding on a "chumrah", a stringency.(Igrot
Moshe, op. cit.)  Dry food can be warmed even if completely cold;
however, one cannot put it directly on the fire due to a special
prohibition (Magane Avraham 36 on Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 253
paragraph 5).
 
Now, two interesting questions.  First, what is the status of a "blech",
the metal put on the fire to cover it on the Sabbath.  Rabbi Feinstein
states (op. cit., Subquestion 42) that for this issue the blech is
considered like placing on the fire, and hence one cannot put dry food
on a blech on the Sabbath initially.  Rabbi Chaim David Regensberg Z'l,
head of the Beth Medrash L'Torah of Chicago writes in his book Mishmeret
Chaim (Chapter 6), that since the "blech" makes the fire "Kitumah"
(covered), one can put a pot on it with dry food on the Sabbath.  (Rabbi
Regensberg also quotes the Vilna Gaon as being against the special
prohibition of the Magane Avraham of putting dry food directly on the
fire).
 
A second question is what is "dry".  Rabbi Feinstein was asked
concerning food which is "a majority dry and a minority wet"(op. cit.,
Subquestion 7).  He concludes that one should treat it as wet; in an
emergency ("Shaat Hadchak") perhaps one may be lenient.
 
In my search through the sources, I have not found the origin of the
concept of putting it on going into the Sabbath, taking it off and
letting it completely cool down, and putting it back on later (although
several people have told it to me verbally).  I would be interested in a
written source (as well of course on comments on what I have written
here).
 
Stanley Rotman
Dept. of Elec. Eng. - Ben-Gurion Univ. - Beer-Sheva, ISRAEL
SROTMAN@BGUEE
 

	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re; Heating up food on Shabbat
		Stanley Rotman
	13 rules for interpreting the Torah
		Ari Gross
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Welcome back everyone and I hope you all had a very good Yom Tov. I will
try and get all the stuff from around Yom Tov time out in the next week,
probably one more mailing. Then I will need new stuff from all you out
there. 
 
One point that was raised by someone was that ragged end paragraphs were
easier to read, than when I format them to have even edges. I left the
last two as ragged edge, and (except for my comments here) this one is
again smooth edge formatted. If anyone has preferences one way or the
other let me know. If there is a consensus one way, I will follow it.
 
I have been told that there are problems with the AT&T-ARPA gateway, and
some people have not been getting mail.jewish. I will send two copies of
this to all those I route through the gateway, one through the gateway,
and a second from prayf through rutgers. If you receive a copy from
prayf, please let me know, if you can, whether you also got one from
pruxe.
 
As summer approaches, I thought it might be a nice idea to have a
get-together for those on mail.jewish in the New Jersey/New York area.
Those who would be interested (mabe a picnic/barbecue at my house) let
me know, and when would you want to have it.
 
Avi Feldblum - mail.jewish moderator
[email protected]    att!pruxe!ayf
ayf%[email protected]   rutgers!prayf!ayf
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I've done a little  looking into  the question  of  warming food on  the
Sabbath.  I'll give some of the sources I have found.
 
Concerning the warming of dry food on the Sabbath: the original souce of
the issue is the Mishnah which states that "anything which came into hot
water before    the  Sabbath may    be  soaked   in  hot   water on  the
Sabbath".(Sabbath  145b).   Rashi interprets this  to  be only for items
which were dry; the  Rambam  does not distinguish   between wet and  dry
foods, but rather allows you to  warm anything as long as  you don't put
it on the fire directly.
 
The Rama in the Shulchan Aruch rules (Orach Chaim 318 para. 15) that wet
food may be  heated on  the Sabbath if  it never  got  completely  cold.
(Rabbi Moshe Feinstein Z'l (Igrot  Moshe, Orach Chaim, 4th Sec., Chapter
74,  Subquestion 2) defines not completely  cold to be that  someone who
wants to eat it  warm would still  eat  it as such.)  Essentially we are
ruling like the Rambam,  but adding  on a "chumrah", a stringency.(Igrot
Moshe, op.  cit.)   Dry  food can  be  warmed  even if  completely cold;
however, one  cannot put  it directly on   the fire  due  to  a  special
prohibition  (Magane  Avraham  36  on Shulchan   Aruch, Orach Chaim  253
paragraph 5).
 
Now, two interesting questions.  First, what is the status of a "blech",
the metal put on the fire to  cover it on  the Sabbath.  Rabbi Feinstein
states (op. cit.,  Subquestion 42)  that  for this issue   the blech  is
considered like placing on the fire,  and hence one  cannot put dry food
on a blech on the Sabbath initially.  Rabbi  Chaim David Regensberg Z'l,
head of the Beth Medrash L'Torah of Chicago writes in his book Mishmeret
Chaim  (Chapter 6), that  since  the  "blech" makes the  fire  "Kitumah"
(covered), one can put a pot on it with dry food on the Sabbath.  (Rabbi
Regensberg  also quotes the   Vilna Gaon as  being  against the  special
prohibition of the Magane Avraham  of putting  dry food  directly on the
fire).
 
A  second  question  is what  is "dry".    Rabbi  Feinstein  was   asked
concerning food which is "a majority  dry and  a minority wet"(op. cit.,
Subquestion 7).  He  concludes that one  should treat it  as wet; in  an
emergency ("Shaat Hadchak") perhaps one may be lenient.
 
In my search through the  sources,  I  have  not found the origin of the
concept  of putting it  on going into  the Sabbath,   taking  it off and
letting it completely cool down, and putting it  back on later (although
several people have told it to me verbally).  I would be interested in a
written source (as well  of  course on comments  on  what I have written
here).
 
        Stanley Rotman
        Dept. of Elec. Eng.
        Ben-Gurion Univ.
        Beer-Sheva, ISRAEL
        SROTMAN@BGUEE
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
[ I realize that there are quite a few technical and hebrew terms here.
Ari has put in english explanations of much of the terms he is using. I
hope most people are able to follow. This is a somewhat more technical
peice than many, but one I at least find interesting. Mod.]
 
I am interested in the  structure of the 13  midos she'hatorah nidreshet
ba'hem, i.e. the 13 rules used to  learn things out  of the Torah.  Some
of these constructs appear logical (kal vachomer) others  less so (davar
shehaya baklal veyatzaz mehaklal lit'on sheloh ki' inyono, yatza lehakal
u'lehachmir, ....).   In addition, whether  or not  they  are inherently
logical, G-d  could certainly  have written the  Torah and created these
rules as a basis for inferring parts of the oral tradition; what  is not
clear in the rishonim is  what authority a person  (or sanhedrin) had to
use these midos. For example, there is a gemara in sanhedrin (don't have
the daf on hand, but there are several such gemaras, it may be Sanhedrin
66a), where   there is  an  argument between ravah  and   abayea whether
"onshin min   hadin" or not, i.e.,  can  someone who  trangresses   on a
prohibition only derived  using  kal v'chomer be  punished for it. Ravah
holds "ein onshin min hadin" and as  this is not one  of "yal k'gam" the
halacha is like him.  But this implies that a person  could decide a kal
v'chomer on his  own, for if  a kal  v'chomer could only be learned when
there was a mesorah then the reason behind "ein onshin min hadin", maybe
the kal v'chomer will  be rebutted by  another (kal v'chomer  mufrach) ,
would not  make  sense since the kal  v'chomer is  only  b'mesorah (oral
tradition) anyway.
 
In any event, it is clear among  rishonim (as  far as I know) that  a) a
kal v'chomer a person can be "dan me'atzmo" b) ein adam dan gezera shava
me'atzmo - one does  not decide  on  a gezera shava by   himself,  i.e.,
without mesorah.
 
What is less clear is the other 11 midos. There is a machlokes rashi and
tosfos succah 31  a (v'ri savar....)   where rashi maintains that ONLY a
kal v'chomer  a person  can decide by  himself but NONE  of the other 13
midos.  Tosfos  seems to hold (using a  kal v'chomer from semuchim) that
all BUT gezera shava a person CAN decide by himself.
 
The questions I have relating to this are the following:
 
1. Are there  other views  (say among rishonim) that say  SOME of the 13
midos a person can  decide for himnself,  not only  kal v'chomer but not
everything but gezera shava (i.e., are there  opinions holding somewhere
in between the views of Rashi and Tosfos ?)
 
2. Do the 13 midos have  a logical basis  to  them or  are they strictly
gezera hakasuv? Do  be  specific : Take  "klal uprat uklal".  We  say in
such a case  "eina elah ki'prat".  This means that in  a  case where the
Torah first states a general class to which a certain law pertains, then
narrows down the class later in the  verse,  then agains generalizes, we
limit the  scope of the  law to the  narrower class.   One could  ask as
follows: If you  only want to tell us  that the  halacha  applies to the
exception singled out in the pasuk then just  state the exception alone,
or state it as part of a klal uprat (eina elah k'prat). Why is thr Torah
using a  more  complicated construct when  the  same information  can be
conveyed  to us  using a simpler mechanism? In  the case of   Klal uprat
uklal there seems to be  a very  logical reason why  this  construct  is
used:  the prat   is generalized to include  anything  in  its class. An
example: "al kol  davar  pesha (klal) al  shor al chamor (prat)  al  kol
aveidah (klal); here the  gemara (baba metzia 57b)  lears not  ONLY  the
prat itself  but a  genralization  (since it  is  surrounded by klalilm,
generalizations), "ma  hu davar hamitaltel  v'gufoh mamon, af  kol davar
hametaltel v'gufoh  mamon, yatzu kaka'ot  v'avadim she'hukshu l'karka'ot
v'shtarot, she'einam gufo mamon..., i.e.,  we generalize  that the pasuk
means all cases LIKE the exceptional case stated in the pasuk.
 
It  turns out then that  the   construct "klal uprat  u'klal"  is a very
logical way to state that the halacha  applies to the case  of  the prat
mentioned and that it generalizes to all cases similar to the exception.
 
Is this true of the 13 midos in general ?
 
It would seem, for example, that  in the case of  davar she'haya bi'klal
ve'yatza lilamed, lo lelamed al atzmo yatza elah lelamed al ha'klal kulo
yatza, i.e.  a case where the Torah started out  with a general category
and then  proceeded to  teach  us  additional halachos  but only about a
subset of the original category,  that whatever we learn  out applies to
the original  more general category;  why not just  state the additional
halachos with regard  to the  more general category;  what is gained  by
constraining the class (an example of this type of construct if found in
Vayikra 7, 19-20).
 
3.  I  have heard that some  work was  done   a while back   at Bar Ilan
concerning the logical  foundations of the  13  midos. Can anyone cite a
source on this or some other work that examines the topic?
 
Ari Gross
[email protected]
Columbia University Computer Science

Topics:
	Kitniot Derivatives and oils on Pesach
		Susan Slusky
	Re: Reheating cold,dry, cooked food on Shabbat
		Daniel Schindler
	Re: Pidyan Bechor
		Samuel E. Schacham
______________________________________________________________________
 
This is a late Pesach question for the mailing list.  It's taken me a
while to recover from Pesach enough to have the free time to formulate
the question.
 
During Pesach, it seemed that whenever I was foolish enough to read the
ingredients list on whatever Pesach products I or my hosts were serving,
they were full of oils that I go out of my way to avoid all year,
cottonseed, palm and coconut.
 
Cottonseed I avoid because the cotton in the fields is not considered to
be a food crop and may therefore be sprayed with pesticides that are
forbidden for food crops. Oil later pressed form the seeds may contain
residuals from the pesticides.
 
Palm and coconut oils are on the forbidden list for my husband in his
effort to reduce his cholesterol. They have unusually high levels of
saturated fats, now believed to be a worse culprit than ingested
cholesterol in inducing high levels of blood cholesterol.
 
On the other hand, Rokeach put out this year peanut oil with an O-U
hechscher.
 
I had believed that oils from kitniot were not kasher l'pesach and that
was why salad dressings, cookies, etc. could not be made with the more
familiar shortenings, i. e., soy bean oil, corn oil, etc. But if peanut
oil is okay, then I'm very confused.
 
Is it just that the unhealthy oils are cheaper so Season and Rokeach and
Streits lower our food quality for nine days a year?
 
And if it is the case that oil from kitniot is okay, presumably on the
grounds that you can't make any bread-like substance from the oil alone,
then why is corn syrup not okay?  The same arguments would presumably
apply. But my kasher l'pesach yogurt containers were careful to specify
on the lid that the corn syrup listed on the cup was not included in
items marked for passover.
 
So, what's the story on kitniot derivatives?  I'd like to contrive some
way to lower saturated fats in next year`s pesach diet. On a related but
different question, was there heckshered olive oil this pesach?
 
Thanks.
 
Susan Slusky - att!mhuxo!seg
______________________________________________________________________
 
The question was raised how one can re-heat food on Shabbat that has
been completely cooked before Shabbat. There are three classical
methods.
 
     1) To put the dry food in a pot of food that is still hot after the
pot was taken off the stove. (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim (OC) 318:4,
Mishna Berurah (MB) note 32)
     2) To put it opposite the fire. (OC 318,15) Good for people with
fire places or kerosene heaters.
     3) To put it on top of a pot on the fire (OC 253,5) Popular.  So
cold, dry, cooked food can be heated on Shabbat even if it was not on
the blech on Shabbat. To put the dry food on the stove even if it is
garufah or kitumah (swept free of coals or to cover the coals with
ashes) is prohibited, unless certain conditions are met.  (Ramah ,
beginning of OC 253:5) In order to put food back on the stove the five
conditions in OC 253:2 for chazarah (returning to the fire) must be met.
   1) The stove must be garuf or kitumah.
   2) The pot must not be completely cool.
   3) The pot must not leave one's hand from the moment it was removed.
   4) One must have had in mind to return it.
   5) The food must have been completely cooked.
 
     Rabbi Moshe Feinstein agrees that putting a blech on the stove
gives it the law of a kitumah stove, thus fulfilling one condition
(Igros Moshe OC I:93). Thus Rabbi Regensberg and Rabbi Feinstein are
probably in agreement that dry, cold food cannot be put on the blech
initially in a place where it would get hot. Rabbi Feinstein does permit
putting dry food on the blech in a spot which will not reach 45 degrees
Celsius. (Igros Moshe OC I:94)
 
     The reason for these restrictions is to prevent actions resembling
cooking (mechzei k'mevashel) for two reasons.
   1) So that one does not accidently come to put an uncooked pot on the
stove and transgress a Torah prohibition.
   2) Maris Ayin. Others won't think one is actually cooking.
 
     It was mentioned "Rabbi Regensberg also quotes the Vilna Gaon as
being against the special prohibition of the Magane Avraham of putting
dry food directly on the fire".  Certainly the Vilna Gaon says in OC
253:5 that one can not put cooled food on the stove even if it is
covered and holds that we must prevent the appearance of cooking by
putting the food on a pot. Even the Vilna Gaon as well as the Ramah and
the Shulchan Aruch and the Magan Avraham do not allow the placing of
previously cooked food on the stove even if it is covered as it
resembles cooking unless the conditions of returning to the fire are
fulfilled. I suspect Rabbi Regensberg only allows putting dry food on
the blech by means of returning it to the blech when the necessary
conditions are met (chazarah) and not just permits putting cold, cooked,
dry food on the blech.
 
     The disagreement between the Vilna Gaon and the Magen Avraham is
applicable to chazarah. The condition that the food must be warm when
returned to the blech must be fulfilled for dry food according to the
Magen Avraham but not according to the Vilna Gaon. The Magen Avraham
holds that putting the cold food back on the blech resembles cooking but
the GRA holds that the other conditions are enough to prevent the
appearance of cooking, just one should not return a pot of cooled food
with liquid to fire because there is cooking after cooking. But this
seems to be a theoretical question as no one is going to hold a piece of
kugel that long for the other conditions to be met while it is cooling
off.
 
    It's noteworthy that the halacha in the Shulchan Aruch which we
don't follow is that the food has to be hot when it is returned to the
blech, but we are lenient if it has not cooled completely. (OC 253:2
Mishna Brerurah 54, Be'er Hateiv 12) On the other hand the Shulchan
Aruch is lenient about putting the pot down implying that one could put
the pot down on a chair or a counter as long as it is not on the ground.
If we mix opinions and say not like the Shulchan Aruch that the food has
to be hot and not like the Ramah that the pot must not leave one's hand,
one might say one could put cold food on the blech as if he were
returning it from when it was taken off on Shabbat. This might be the
source of putting food which was on the blech when Shabbat started and
taken off on Shabbat on the blech later to heat it up, but I really
haven't heard of such a thing.
 
      In summary, food cannot in general be put on the blech. Certain
conditions must be met. Other ways to heat up food are available
 
Daniel Schindler <LIDANIEL%WEIZMANN.BITNET\@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
______________________________________________________________________
 
As to the question of 'Pidion Bechor':
To the best of my knowledge (I DONT give a 'Psak') there is definitely no place
for a Pidion. A prerequisit is 'Peter Rechem' (openning of the womb), even a
first born is not enough. For example a woman who had a miscarriage prior to
this birth or if the child was born through a C-section ('Yotze Dofen') then
there is no 'Pidion'
 
			Samuel E. Schacham <schacham\@mcnc.org>
 

Topic:
	Re: kitniyot on Pesach
		Josh Proschan (and David Chechik)
		Morris Podolak
		Avi Bloch
______________________________________________________________________
 
The subject of kitniyos is a vexing one.  The bottom line for oils is
that peanut oil, like garlic, can be used by those who have a family
custom to do so and cannot be used by those with a family custom of not
using it.  Corn oil does not seem to have acquired this leniency.  Other
vegetable oils that are not derived from kitniyos or chometz, such as
olive oil, sesame oil, and walnut oil, may be used by anyone.  (Finding
oils with a reliable supervision is quite another matter, and things
change from year to year as the food industry discovers new ways to make
things easier for them and harder for us.)
 
Herewith a carefully researched (viz. I stole everything from previous
mail.jewish articles) overview of the subject:
 
From Dovid Chechik, about 3 years ago (condensed from 3 postings and 
ripostings): 
 
So far as Mosaic law is concerned (for my purposes, this includes the
Talmud), the only things not permitted on passover are things that are
leavened.  This includes any of the five grains that have had yeast or
sourdough added, or that have been sitting in water for a period long
enough to start "leavening".  The five grains are barley, rye, oats,
wheat, spelts.  I don't know what spelts are but, hey, rote is rote.
Mnemonic as taught to me in elementary school is brows.
 
Water includes those things that contain water including saliva, sweat,
etc.  (in fact, according to the Talmud, saliva starts leavening
immediately while water takes ~18 minutes), but not fruit-pure (i.e. not
from concentrate) fruit juice.
 
Using the principle of building a fence about the law, there were some
additional rabbinic restrictions, most of which, I think, arose in the
middle ages.  The major (most impacting and inconvenient) restriction is
that of "Kitniyos" or usually [but incorrectly] legumes.  The western
(== Ashkenazic) community said that they are forbidden on passover.
Things contained in this category are "other grains" including rice,
corn, and beans.  (Bet you never heard of beans as a grain, but in the
middle ages they were ground and used like flour).  [They still are. --
JHP]
 
There is a principle of "lo ploog betakanas chachamim", (literally,
there is no argument in the edicts of the rabbis).  This means (my
definition) that, to avoid boundary conditions, the rabbis, when making
an halachic decree about a category, mean the decree to cover the entire
category, not just the specific elements in the category that were the
cause of the decree.  This principle exists and is applied all through
halachic literature, especially in the Talmud.  Therefore the
prohibition of "legumes" applies to all "legumes", including green
beans.
 
The Talmud states clearly that eating rice on passover is permissible.
The first written record of the prohibition against "legumes" is from
one of the authors of Tosaphot, Reb Yitzchok of Courbeille.  He writes
(circa ~1250) that "the world has the custom of prohibiting them
[legumes] since the days of the ancient scholars".  He goes on to
explain that the reasons for the prohibition are that 1) "legume" flour
was often mixed with wheat flour and was therefore chometz and 2) more
importantly, since the flours and things made from them looked alike
someone may confuse rice flour with wheat flour and come to use the
chometz.  "Legume" flour and all "legumes" are therefore prohibited by
CUSTOM.  The custom had seemingly grown as a "grass roots" movement.
 
   [This definition of kitniyos includes anything which can be ground into 
    flour and used in baking things that look like chometz.  There is 
    another very old definition of kitniyos:  those types of produce that 
    are piled in heaps in the field during the harvest, as wheat is, and 
    that could therefore lead someone to think "this is permitted, so that 
    is also permitted".  Both definitions would appear to include 
    potatoes, corn, and peanuts as well as rice and beans. --JHP]
 
The custom is described by several Sephardic authorities such as the tur
(~1450) as being only applicable to the Ashkenazic community.  The
Sephardic community never adopted it.
 
There were several challenges to the custom in years of famine including
1427 (either a wheat or other famine, either way "legumes" were a needed
alternative for passover consumption).  By 1460 the Ashkenazic rabbinate
decided that the custom was so old (at least 300 years) and widespread
(all of the Ashkenazic community) that, although several rabbis
expressed the desire to drop the custom, they all agreed that they did
not have the power to do so.  The custom has since had the power of a
law.  A ruling of a Halachic Court can only be overturned by a greater
halachic court.  (Greater in both wisdom and number.)
 
Also, the principle of "minhag yisrael kadin" (the customs of Israel are
laws) and "minhag avosaynu beyadaynu" (the customs of our forefathers
are in our hands) apply as in all other laws.  If all of Jewry accepts a
custom, then it becomes part of the law, and has the strength of
rabbinic edicts.  The prohibition of Kitniyos was accepted in Ashkenazic
Jewry for hundreds of years.
 
Remember though that the custom which all Ashkenazim are currently
obligated to keep (by virtue of the fact that their ancestors accepted
it for them) is only not to EAT certain types of "legumes".  Ownership
of "legumes" is still permitted.  Several authorities also permit oil
made from "legumes" although most do not.  In case of great need (if
there's a famine) [or in case of illness] a competent rabbinic authority
should be consulted.
 
So far as soy beans and peanuts are concerned (they didn't have soy
beans and peanuts in Europe so it would have been pretty tough to
include them in the prohibition), most authorities agree that since "lo
plug, etc." has been applied, they too are in the category of "legumes".
[This also appears to be the case for corn; the difficulty is to explain
how potatoes, which fit both definitions, escape inclusion. -- JHP] This
is accepted across the American orthodox community (so far as I know).
No "reputable" kashruth organization (ou, ok, chaf k, etc.) will endorse
products containing these beans.
 
However, with respect to peanuts and soybeans Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, in
his responsa, writes [I try to translate exactly] "... since they did
not decree in a gathering of scholars, not to eat those things that were
mixed with grain or of which flour was made, but by custom they did not
eat those varieties; they did not forbid but [just] those varieties that
they did by custom not eat; to the exclusion of those they did not have
a custom for, since the varieties did not yet exist ..." Rabbi Feinstein
goes on to say that since the Sephardim do not agree to the prohibition,
one does not add on to such a custom.  He then says that in the case of
peanuts, family custom should be observed, i.e., if the family has a
custom not to eat peanuts, they must keep the custom.  If however, they
never accepted such a custom, they may eat peanuts on passover.  He
therefore allows a "kosher for passover" supervision for peanut oil, for
those people whose families never accepted the custom not to eat
peanuts.
 
   [There are also those who will not eat peanuts, but do use peanut oil, 
    arguing that the original prohibition was against the solid food or 
    its flour, and not against oil (since they didn't extract oil from 
    grains in those days).  I don't know the validity of this position, 
    but have heard a similar question raised regarding corn syrup and 
    whether, like peanut oil, it could be used by those who cannot use 
    corn. -- JHP]
 
The Shulchan Aruch in Orech Chayim 453 paragraph 1, clearly states that
there is no prohibition against owning kitniyos; the Magen Avraham and
Mishna Berura give reasons for this (loc cit.).  The clearest
explanation is given by the Terumas Hadeshen who exclaims "they
[Sephardim] eat it and we shouldn't own it?!?"  The halacha may also be
found in the Shulchan Aruch Harav 453 paragraph 5.  For a definitive
English reference, see Halachos of Pesach, by Rabbi Shimon Eider,
Published by Halacha Publications, Lakewood, N.J., available from
Feldheim publishers (Vol. 1, p. 50).  I asked around Lakewood (where I
live) and none of my friends knew of any custom not to own kitniyos on
Pesach.  Remember, kitniyos is only prohibited by MINHAG (custom).
There are NO disagreers on this so far as I know.
 
   [I have never heard a convincing explanation of why potatoes were 
    excluded from the "lo ploog"; if as New World vegetables not known in 
    Europe, then corn should have been excluded also; if as not fitting 
    the definitions of kitniyos, cakes made only with potato starch that 
    are indistinguishable from chometz cakes are common, and potatoes are 
    piled in the fields during the harvest.  Does anyone have an 
    explanation? -- JHP] 
 
Josh Proschan
______________________________________________________________________
 
I would like to add my two cents to some of the ongoing discussion.
 
With regard to kitniot.  The major problem is that it is a custom that
arose after the close of the Talmud, and therefore we have no
well-defined basis for deciding various side issues that may arise.
Perhaps the most confusing thing is the definition of kitniot.  It is
usually translated "legumes", but rice, millet, and corn, which are
usually included in the prohibition are not legumes.  Now while no one
would consider permitting rice on this basis, forbidding things is a
very different matter, and indeed many things today are not used (and
even forbidden by some authorities) simply because they are,
botanically, legumes.  For this reason, many people refrain from using
cottonseed oil on Pesach...cottonseeds have a pod, like legumes.  Rav
Moshe Feinstein ztz"l in his responsa (OH III, 63) argues that the
prohibition falls on those foods which were cutomarily not eaten in a
given area, and that the name kitniot is incidental, it does not define
the nature of the prohibited item.  We therefore need to see which items
were prohibited and which weren't.  Peanuts, says Rav Moshe were usually
not forbidden, so that if someone doesn't have a specific custom
regarding them, he may eat them.  I urge interested readers to go back
to the original source, and not to rely on my paraphrasing of his text.
Certainly, I do not intend to give a psak, merely to pass on some
interesting information.  A very enlightening discussion of the whole
issue of kitniot can be found in Moadim be Halacha by Rabbi Shlomo Yosef
Zevin z"l, which is, I believe, available in English.
 
 Morris Podolak D77@TAUNO
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
As with many things on Pesach it is a matter of minhag. The heter, if
you hold by it, is only for oils. The reasoning behind it was given by
Rav A. I. Kook ZTL (if I'm not mistaken) being that the process they use
today for making oils is such that even if they used wheat in such a
proceess, it wouldn't become chamitz.
 
Again, it's a matter of the minhag you hold, so if your family (or your
husband's family) haven't used kitniot oil until now, I don't think you
can change now, at least not without a 'hatarat nedarim', i.e. a
nullification of a vow.
 
Disclaimer: This information is from a shi'ur (I can't call it a
lecture) I heard about 2 years ago, so I'm not 100% sure of everything I
said, but this was the gist of it.
 
So have a happy and kosher lag be'omer everyone :-)
 
Avi Bloch
avi%taux01@ns

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: Reheating food on Shabbat
		Morris Podolak
	Showering on Yom Tov
		Ari Gross
	Showering on Shabbat
		David Brusowankin
	Re: Jesus or Christ
		Dan Berleant
		Avi Feldblum
	Pidyon HaBen
		Samuel Schacham
		Daniel Schindler
______________________________________________________________________
 
The New Jersey/New York area mail.jewish get together will be on Sunday
July 2. If you are interested in coming and have not responded, please
send me mail letting me know, and telling me how many people you expect
to be. More detailed info will be in a mail message to all those who
responded. 
 
Work has been heavy lately, so sorry about the delay in getting this
out. 
 
A Happy Shavuot to all of you, and may your learning go well!
 
Avi Feldblum
mail.jewish moderator
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
With regard to the problem of reheating food on Shabbat, Daniel
Schindler gave a number of criteria and alternatives.  I would just like
to add the psak of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Yechave Da'at II, 46) which says:
"A cold dish that was completely cooked before Shabbat and was put in
the refrigirator may be warmed up on Shabbat on a "plata shel shabbat"
[electric shabbat hot plate] even to "yad soledet bo" [a halachic
measure of temperature] Similarly it is permitted to heat it on an
asbestos (or perforated metal) [covering - "blech"] that is on a gas
stove, provided that most of the dish is dry, even though there is a
little liquid.  But if most of the dish is liquid, it is forbidden to
heat it on Shabbat on a "plata" because there is a din of "bishul achar
bishul" for liquids.  The responum of Rav Yosef is, as far as I can
tell, applicable to both Ashkenazim and Sepharadim, but interested
readers should refer to the original work before acting on the basis of
the above quote.
 
 Morris Podolak D77@TAUNO
______________________________________________________________________
 
Showering on Yom Tov:
 
The main problem with showering on Yom Tov is, as Isaac Balbin
mentioned, the problem of "shave lchol nefesh", i.e., the heter of doing
certain melachot on Yom Tov is extended to not only cooking, but also
other types of hana'ah as long as they apply to everyone. In the time of
the gemarah, only an "istinus" (very sensitive) person was thought to
need a shower every other day; thus, taking a shower was not considered
shave lchol nefesh and was not permitted.
 
Beyameinu anu (in our time), things have changed and the notion of going
several days without a shower seems difficult to fathom.  There is at
least one well-known (halachic) authority in Israel who DOES permit
showering on Yom Tov because it is now, in his opinion, "shave lchol
nefesh". This rabbinic authority is Rabbi Sheinberg, Rosh Yeshivah of
Yeshivat Torah Ohr in Jerusalem. I know of his psak on the matter since
I heard it directly from someone who asked him. I am doubtful if he
actually committed the psak to writing, though he may have.
 
Ari Gross - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
	Is there an intrinsic problem in taking a shower on Shabbos?  A
practical example would be an apartment populated by enough nonjews so
that the water used by the shower would not cause more water being
heated. The issur is discussed in Shulchan Aruch 326 and the reason
given in the Mishneh B'rurah (aleph): "Gzera shema yavo'u al yday ze
l'hacham b'shabbos (A gzera that perhaps a person will come to heat
water on the Sabbath)". However one can bathe in naturally hot pools.
Is an apartment different enough from a house?  After all, noone these
days heats bath water themselves.
 
David Brusowankin <prayf!david>
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding the use of the term Jesus or Christ, the correct term is Jesus,
because that was the guy's name. The word christ, as I understand it, 
is Greek for messiah. Hence a Jew would not use that term in referring to
Jesus.
 
Dan Berleant
______________________________________________________________________
 
[ This came up on the net recently, and this is from my post there. I
recieved the paragraph following mine in private mail, but thought it
would be of general interest. As I have not had time to contact the
individual who sent it to me, I present it with no signature. Avi ]
 
The word Jesus is the english name of a person who lived about two
thousand years ago. We do not view this person as a diety.
The use of the term christ, on the other hand,
would be offensive to many members of this group when used to
refer to Jesus. The term means annointed and refers to the claim
that Jesus was the Messiah. 
 
Avi Feldblum
[email protected]
 
 
I am aware of some rabbaim who refer to him as yoshke. I thought this was
because of the position of the Rambam that the x-tian religion is a form
of avoda zora and we do not want to mention the name of an idol. However,
my recollection of the facts here might be a bit shaky. Should we be using
yoshke instead of that other first name? 
 
______________________________________________________________________
From: Samuel E. Schacham <[email protected]>
 
As to the question of 'Pidion Bechor' To the best of my knowledge (I
DONT give a 'Psak') there is definitely no place for a Pidion. A
prerequisit is 'Peter Rechem' (openning of the womb), even a first born
is not enough. For example a woman who had a miscarriage prior to this
birth or if the child was born through a C-section ('Yotze Dofen') then
there is no 'Pidion'
                                          Shmue
______________________________________________________________________
 
I agree that the halacha is that no pidyon haben is done in the case
mentioned but I think to say that there is definitely no place for a pidyon
haben in this case is an overstatement. The questioner was just considering
the view of R. Yose HaGalili in the Mishna Bechorot 8th chapter, 1st
mishna. Apparently R. Yose did think there was a good reason to consider
the question. I have questions.
1) Who does the pidyon haben if the father is not Jewish?
2) If the first born was a C-section and the second a normal delivery ,
why is there no pidyon haben for the second (the pe'ter rechem)
 
Daniel Schindler <LIDANIEL%[email protected]>

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: Kitniyot
		Zev Sero 
	Re: Showering on Shabbat/Yom Tov
		Merryll  Herman
		David Cohen
	Re: Pidyon Haben
		Zev Sero 		
		Yitz Katz
		Avi Feldblum
	Re: Reheating food on Shabbat
		J. A. Durieux
________________________________________________________________________
 
The picnic is on for July 2. As of this time, the place will be at my
house, 62 Grant Ave, Highland Park, N.J. (201) 545-4530. If you are
planning to come, and have not sent me mail telling me so, please either
do so or call and leave a message telling me how many people will be
coming. Spouses, friends etc. are welcome. This will be a shared cost
event, and we will need to figure out how many people to plan for.
 
I got a bit behind in sending out mail.jewish, so expect a second
mailing soon (tomorrow?).
 
Avi
________________________________________________________________________
 
The issue of kosher lepesach products containing kitniyos oils came up
here last year, when the Melbourne Beth Din gave a hechsher to a
margarine that contained soybean oil. The facts are:
 
a. there was a dispute in Eretz Yisroel in the 1940s over the use of
kitniyos oil, with Rav Kook saying that kitniyos oil is permitted.  I
think this is because no water is used in the processing, so even if it
were wheat it would not be chametz.  However, this was in an emergency,
so it may not be reliable for general use.  Ref: Hamoadim Bahalacha.
 
b. and most important. Regardless of the above dispute, the critics of
the hechsher forgot one important rule : Kitniyos are nullified if they
represent <50% of a mixture ("batel berov").  This is stated clearly in
the Rav's Shulchan Aruch Chapter 453, and elsewhere, and is not disputed
by any authority that I've seen.  This means that any product which
comes with the kitniyos already added, is OK, but you can't add it
yourself for the same reason that you can't add 1% treif meat to your
cholent ("Ein mevatlin issur lechatchila"). 
 
				Zev Sero 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I used to attend a shiur given by Rabbi Allan Ginsberg in Highland Park
who was going thru Hilchot Shabbat.  This question of using hot water on
Shabbat if you live in a mainly non-Jewish apartment house, came up in
the shiur.  He said that the way the heaters work for apartment
buildings still does not allow the use of hot water.  What happens is
that there is a tank of hot water which is depleted by the users.  As
hot water is used up cold water replaces it.  When the temperature in
the tank gets below a certain temperature the heater goes on.  Hence
there is no way of knowing when the hot water heater will be turned on
because of your act of turning on the hot water faucet.
  
However, since this seems to be the only problem with taking a hot
shower or bath on Shabbat along with the prohibition of bathing (which
was earlier discussed and gotten around because of people's bathing
habits in our time), it would seem that you could take a warm bath by
transfering water from a pot that was keeping the water hot all through
Shabbat.  Of course the tranfer would have to be done using a klee
sheeshee to be sure that the cold water mixed in is not getting cooked.
 
Merryll  Herman - whuts!mkh
________________________________________________________________________
 
I would like to add to this question the use of hot water from a water
tap. I heard about it that opening the tap has the effect of introducing
cold water to be heated, which is forbidden.  Now suppose that you
permit heating water on Yom Tov for any purpose, would it be permitted
by the way to use the hot water tap on Yom Tov.  It seems that the
objection for shabbat is no more valid, but I then have two doubts:
 -If you open a tap on Yom Tov the cold water introduced in the heater
  may be used only after Yom Tov which would make the action forbidden
 -When living in a building where the majority are goyim, it may look like
  heating water for a goy which would also be forbidden.
 
But in that last case of a large building where the majority are goyim,
I am not sure that opening a hot water tap has the immediate effect of
introducing cold water in the heater, perhaps it happens at regular
periods like what happens in a refrigerator and perhaps it was done by a
non-jew.
 
David Cohen - [email protected]
________________________________________________________________________
 
In mail.jewish #112, Daniel Schindler asks:
> 1) Who does the pidyon haben if the father is not Jewish?
> 2) If the first born was a C-section and the second a normal delivery ,
> why is there no pidyon haben for the second (the pe'ter rechem)
 
1. This is the same as when the father dies before the child is 30 days old.
or who refuses to redeem the child.  In this case, the child must redeem
himself when he is 13 years old.  (Shulchan Aruch, YD 305:14-15).
Ramah suggests that he be given a silver charm to wear around his neck, 
on which is written that he is a bechor and has not yet been redeemed.
 
2. The mitzvah is to redeem a `bechor'.  In Bechorot 47b, the majority 
opinion is that `a bechor for one thing is not a bechor'.  Rashi says
`this child is the first from the womb, but he is not the first child,
for there was a child before him', and therefore no redemption is 
required.  R. Shimon disagrees, holding that `a bechor for one thing
only is a bechor'.
				Zev Sero 
________________________________________________________________________
 
Daniel Schindler asks 'Who does a Pidyon Haben if the father is non-Jewish'
 
The Beis Din appoint a Sheliach to be 'zoche' for the child. As a Cohen,
I have done a number of these and there is a special nusach to be used,
as given to me by a representative of the local (London) Beis-Din
 
There is an interesting suggestion about why some children used to
wear a necklace with a silver HEH on it. It was to remind
the child that they had not been redeemed for a Pidyon Haben and
should do it themselves when they are old enough using 5 Shekolim. Perhaps
the above may be just such a case where the child could do it
personally at a later stage rather than have it performed
through a non-family intermediary
 
Yitz Katz
ps For those that are interested, the Paula Cohen case (The Israeli
lady who got a conditional conversion from Rabbi Goren) continues
to boil here in the UK - hardly a week goes by without some
letters/editorial in the Jewish papers
______________________________________________________________________
 
An interesting aside to the Pidyon Haben discussion, that highlights
the requirement on the individual. It is said that whenever the Vilna
Gaon met a Cohen (that he had not met before), he would redeem himself
to that Cohen. The Vilna Gaon was a bechor, and the requirement of
redeeming the bechor falls on the bechor if it was not done by the
father, as mentioned above. There is a question whether we in truth know
that someone who is a cohen is "really" a cohen. Therefore, the
redemption that the Vilna Gaon's father performed was Safek (in doubt).
Since the rule is that a Safek Da'Orita one goes La'Chumra (when the
doubt is in a Torah, opposed to rabbinic, law one must take the strict
side of the doubt) he felt that he was always in Safek if he had been
redeemed. With each Cohen, there was a possibility that he was a real
cohen, so redeemed himself again to satisfy that side of the existing
doubt.
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]
________________________________________________________________________
 
What about reheating food that is not liquid, but becomes so when heated?
(E.g. fat-like substances)  Is that heating a liquid?
 
J. A. Durieux - [email protected]

Topics:
	Panhandlers
		Art Werschulz
	Microphones on Shabbat
		Daniel Schindler
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I encounter panhandlers every day on my commute into New York.  They
invariably ask me (or anybody else) for money.
 
My question:  what does Jewish tradition (halachic and agadic) require
or suggest that I do?  Do I give each and every one money?  Just give
money to some of them?  Ignore them all?
 
A few things to note:
 
(1) Almost none of the panhandlers are Jewish.  (If they were, I would
    assume that they would remark on the fact that I wear a kippah.)
    Does this matter?  I seem to recall that we are to support the
    non-Jewish poor as well as the Jewish poor "mipnei darkhei shalom"
    (for the sake of peace) (Rambam?)  To what extent?  If I don't
    give to a non-Jew, does this become a "chilul HaShem"?
 
(2) Should I distinguish between those who are begging for themselves
    and those who claim to be collecting for larger groups (e.g., a
    drug rehabilitation facility at Covenant House)?  
 
(3) Should I worry about whether the claim is legitimate?  Sometimes
    it's hard to judge.  On the other hand, when the "blind" guy is
    leading his seeing-eye dog through the subway train (apocryphal),
    one's suspicions are justifiably aroused. On the other hand,
    I recall coming across a statement that Jeremiah's "curse" of the
    people of Anatot (that they not have deserving poor to whom
    tzedakah be given) was actually a blessing in disguise---by giving
    to the *un*deserving poor, they would be repaid "middah k'negged
    middah" (measure for measure), and HaShem would treat them
    charitably, even though *they* didn't't deserve it.
 
(4) I have also heard it reported that the people who dress up as
    clowns and claim to be collecting money for poor Appalachian
    children are actually Hare Krishna types, trying to fleece a
    gullible public.  If this is true, I don't want to give *these*
    guys money---nobody who cares about Jewish survival in the
    slightest should give money to cults that often prey on Jewish
    kids!  
 
I imagine that the poor and homeless on the streets of our cities will
become more numerous as time goes on (let's hear it for the safety
nets).  Hence, the problem will be come more acute, rather than less,
in the future. 
 
What do you folks think?  What does our tradition say?  How do *you*
react in this situation?
 
[ Note:  This msg has been posted the soc.culture.jewish newsgroup
as well, but has sufficient interest for this group to post here well. 
I think there is a sizeable portion of the mailing list that does not
have access to s.c.j (or even if they have access, don't have the desire
to read it). Mod.]
 
Thanks.
 
Art Werschulz - [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
 
     Microphones and Shabbat is discussed in the book Contemporary Halachic
Problems by Rabbi J. David Bleich and was probably originally in Tradition.
It discusses the permissive ruling of Rabbi I. Y. Unterman, Israel's chief
Ashkenazic rabbi at the time, in 1969 for a specially designed public
address system for synagogues in South Africa. An analysis of the special
features of the system indicate some of the problems involved in the use of
such systems on Shabbat.
1)The system must be transistorized without heated materials or lights.
2)The microphone must be of the capacitor type and not generate new
electricity.
3)It must be operated by batteries which hold twice the amount of current
necessary.
4)The equipment should be in a locked case or closet ,on Shabbat or Yom
Tov. No turning on or off, regulating volume.
5)Several loudspeakers should be used to reproduce a voice as natural in
tone as possible, not too loud.
6)Steps should be taken to inform people that it is a special system.
 
One might note that the problems with the public address system occur in
the communications systems required by the Israeli army, hearing aids, and
automatic turning on of radios, so that relevant issues are discussed in
responsas to these problems also.
 
One interesting side aspect is whether one can fulfill the mitzvah of
hearing Megillat Esther through a public address system. Rabbi Feinstein in
Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim II:108) rules one cannot for one of the same
reasons he is against public address systems on Shabbat. The voice coming
out of the loudspeaker is a created voice, not just the original voice
amplified. He is worried that the creation of this voice might be a
prohibited labor (Igros Moshe OC IV:85, Yoreh Deah II:5). For reading the
Megillah since the loudspeaker is not obligated to read the megillah it
cannot fulfill the mitzvah for us. Although a deaf person may wear a
hearing aid, Rabbi Feinstein is hesitant about permitting one to talk to
him directly when the he is not listening to something else also. (Igros
Moshe OC IV:85) Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is of the opinion that since
this prohibited labor is done by an indirect action and is not a prohibited
labor which is prohibited to do indirectly. He therefore discounts this
particular reason of Rabbi Feinstein, although he agrees the use of a
public address system on Shabbat is prohibited.
 
With respect to the reason mentioned about the water mill grinding, the
Rama rules that it is prohibited in general, although in case of loss one
might be lenient. (Shulchan Aruch 252:5) It is also mentioned one can
allow cuckoo clocks to go off on Shabbat even though they make noise, since
every one knows it is a cuckoo clock and not some prohibited activity. The
Shulchan Aruch allows putting wheat in the mill before Shabbat, contrary to
the Rama. Despite this Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef uses this reason to rule against
the public address system in Yabia Omer I:20;12. Rabbi Feinstein writes
this is also a problem just as he suggests if someone uses an alarm clock
on Shabbat, they should use one which is only heard in their own room to
avoid a possible prohibition. (Igros Moshe OC IV) This may be the reason
that the special system approved by Rabbi Unterman had many speakers to
transfer the voice rather than amplify it.
 
A bibliography put out by the Institute for Science and Halacha called
"Electricity and Shabbat" brings a large majority of the opinions against
the public address system in general. It is not clear if any specifically
responded for or against to the system approved by Rabbi Unterman. Rabbi
Bleich quotes a letter from Rabbi Unterman saying he gave permission for
the special system "only in communities where , to our regret, desecration
of the Sabbath through [use of] the electrical microphone became so deeply
rooted that it was if they had completely forgotten that turning on
electricity is a serious form of 'labor' on the Sabbath. But in a place
where this did not previously exist we did not permit the installation of
the improved [apparatus] because there are questions with regard to it that
cannot be resolved.
 
Daniel Schindler <LIDANIEL%[email protected]>

Topics:
	The Jewish Travelers Database
		Xev Gittler
	More on kitnios
		Daniel Schindler
	Bread Machine
		Dave Sherman
	Re: Term for Jesus
		Ezra L. Tepper
	"Shorts"
		Harry I. Rubin
		Wendy
		Francine Storfer
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
[The following is a project that Xev Gittler is working on. I thought
this would be of general interest to the mailing list, both in helping
him get info for places, and as resource for all of us to use. Mod. ]
 
	      * * * The Jewish Travelers Database * * *
 
Welcome to the Jewish Travelers Database. a database of information
for the Jewish traveler. This is the index of available information.
 
To get information, send a mail message addressed to one of the
following addresses:
	[email protected]               (for sites with MX mailers)
	kosher%[email protected]  (for sites without MX mailers)
	..!husc6!bunny!kosher        (for UUCP sites)
 
The message should contain the line:
	send XXXXXX
where XXXXXX is either 'index' (to get this message), or a name of a
city, from the list below.
 
If you would like to provide information, please send it to
[email protected].
 
This information is being maintained by Xev Gittler. I can be reached
at either [email protected] (or one of the other address types
listed above), or, alternatively, you can reach me at (617) 466-2142.
 
The following is a list of cities currently available:
 
atlanta - Atlanta, GA
buffalo - Buffalo, NY
chicago - The Chicago area, including Skokie.
columbus - Columbus, OH
denver - Denver, CO
detroit - Detroit, MI, and Oak Park
florida - Florida
kansas - Kansas
los-angeles - Los Angeles.
mt-vernon - Mount Vernon, NY
new-jersey - New Jersey
new-york - New York City, including all 5 boroughs.
san-fransisco - San Fransisco, CA
santa-ana - Santa Ana, CA
toronto - Toronto, Canada
 
 
I'm always looking for some new information, so if you have any,
PLEASE send it in!
-- 
					Xev Gittler
					[email protected], or
					xg00%[email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
In the recent issue of the newsletter the Tur was described as a
Sephardic authority. The Tur was the son of the Rosh (R. Asher b.
Yechiel) who fled from being the rabbi of Rothenburg which is in Germany
and the great-great grandson of Rabbi Eliezer b. Natan, thus having deep
Ashkenazic roots.  Although the Tur ,who lived about 1275-1340 fled with
his father and lived in Toledo for twenty to thirty years, spent time in
Spain I do not think he is considered a Sephardic authority. It is
particularly confusing as his father is reputed to have maintained
Ashkenazic customs, but the Tur says that not eating kitnios is not
their custom.
 
With respect to things not being legumes botanically and being
prohibited, the word legume was used by the early authorities who were
French. I do not know exactly what was meant by legume then but now
legume in French means vegetable.  In any case they were using it in the
common sense and not the botanical sense
 
Daniel Schindler <LIDANIEL%[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
We're considering buying a "Bread Machine".  This is a new appliance
into which you put flour and water, plus whatever else you add.  It
mixes, kneads, lets the dough rise, and bakes, all without you having to
do anything further.
 
Question: does anyone know (a) whether all would hold that you must take
challah when using such a machine -- ie., whether the mitzvah is related
in any way to the amount of activity involved in baking, so that if you
don't actually knead dough it doesn't apply? and (b) whether it's doable
with a Bread Machine?  I haven't examined the machine carefully enough,
but I presume one could stop the process after the dough had risen, open
it up and take some out.  Or is one permitted to "take challah" from a
fully-baked loaf?
 
David Sherman
Moderator, mail.yiddish
{ uunet!attcan  att  utzoo }!lsuc!dave          [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
From:         Ezra L Tepper <RRTEPPER%[email protected]>
Subject:      CHEESES
 
I would like to add my two cents to the lively discussion of the use or
nonuse of the name of the Christian prophet.
 
Many years ago, one of my rabbis opined that all names of idols recorded
in the Tanach are, in fact, nicknames poking fun of the cults. For
example, there is a baal zevuv (master of the fly) which was probably
called by worshipers, baal zevul (master of the heavens) or baal pe'or
(master of excretions) may have been called baal p'er (master of glory)
by believers.
 
Since orthodox Christianity regards its prophet as a god (one third of a
trinity), there is no reason why (at least among our own) that we
shouldn't take the hint from our Biblical sources and refer to their god
as "cheeses" not jesus (which works nicely in English). Our Rabbinic
tradition has, in fact, adopted this very approach. He is referred to in
Medieval texts as yeshu (an acronym standing for yemach shmo vezichro
{may his memory be blotted out}) and not by his official Hebrew name
yeshua.
 
Ezra L. Tepper - Arpanet: rrtepper%[email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
"In 1988 the Austrian government spent large sums promoting awareness
of the Holocaust.  But one 'before-after' study indicates that the
program had little success.  At the end of the year 60 percent of
Austrians, the same as at the beginning, said that regarding war
crimes it would be 'much better to close this chapter and never
talk about it again.'  Even after the enormous publicity given to
Kurt Waldheim's Nazi past and th 50th anniversary of the Anschluss
(Germany's annexation of Austria in 1938) 50 percent of Austrians
said they never mentioned the subject at home, about the same
percentage as before the commemoration began."
 
				[from "Dateline: World Jewry," produced and
				edited by an arm of the World Jewish Congress,
				editor Barry Shenker, March 1988 issue.]
Harry I. Rubin - [email protected] 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Submitted by: [email protected]
[tidbit from soc.culture.jewish] 
 
Lately there has been a high demand for armored body shirts by Hasidim
in Jerusalem.  Turns out that they intend to continue to daven at the Kotel
(daily and especially Friday night) but are afraid of the rash of stabbings
while walking in the Old City.  Therefore, they now wear armored body shirts
under their kaputas.
 
Hank Nussbacher
Ginot Shomron
Israel
 
_______________________________________________________________
 
a query to the list:
 
I am moving to Minneapolis in the Fall to attend graduate school.
I am looking for information about any of the shuls in
Minneapolis (or St. Paul), a one-bedroom apartment on a bus line to the 
University, information about High Holiday services, information 
about a Sunday school job, a ~$2500 used car, and new friends.
 
Please respond to [email protected].
 
Thank you very much.
______________________________________________________________________
 
If a male child is born to a Jewish mother and is not circumcised,
what is the status of the child?
 
Francine Storfer
[email protected]

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: Showering on Shabbat or Yom Tov
		David Cohen
	Jewish View on Abortion
		Fran Storfer
	Re: Pidyon Haben
		Ruth Glazer
	Re: Circumcision
		Avi Bloch
	Bracha on Lunar Eclipse
		Stuart Freedman
	cigarettes and halacha

Just want to let you all know that mail.jewish is back. Things have been
a bit hectic for me these last few weeks, but I hope to have mail.jewish
in a regular mode now. I will try and get all the backlogged stuff out
by next week, so you can start sending in new stuff.

Avi Feldblum - [email protected]

______________________________________________________________________

David Brusowankin's question about Showering on Shabbat or Yom Tov.
I would like to add to this question the use of hot water
from a water tap. I heard about it that opening the tap has the 
effect of introducing cold water to be heated, which is forbidden.
Now suppose that you permit heating water on Yom Tov for any purpose,
would it be permitted by the way to  use the hot water tap on Yom Tov.
It seems that the objection for shabbat is no more valid, but 
I then have two  doubts:
-If you open a tap on Yom Tov the cold water introduced in the heater
 may be used only after Yom Tov which would make the action forbidden
-When living in a building where the majority are goyim, it may look like
 heating water for a goy which would also be forbidden.

But in that last case of a large building  where the majority are goyim,
I am not sure that opening a hot water tap has the  immediate effect
of introducing cold water in the heater, perhaps it happens at regular
periods like what happens in a refrigerator and perhaps it was done by 
a non-jew.

David Cohen - [email protected]

______________________________________________________________________


I think it's time to start a discussion on the Jewish views of
abortion.  I'll start off with what I learned as a USYer;
corrections, amplifications, additions are requested.  

When the child is still _in_utero_, the mother's life is considered to
be more important.  Therefore, if the mother's life--mental and
emotional as well as physical--is endangered, then she is required to
have an abortion.  Further, the doctor is required to perform the
abortion even if the only way to do so involves killing the fetus.
The reason, I was taught, is the mother's life is more valuable, as
she has already _lived_ and experienced.  This relative value changes,
however, as soon as the child starts to protrude from the mother
during labor.  At that instant, the lives of the mother and the child
become equally important, and it is forbidden to decide between them.

One final note:  My Hebrew comprehension is very poor;  extra efforts
to translate Hebrew phrases and terms used would be greatly appreciated.

Fran Storfer - [email protected]

______________________________________________________________________

With respect to the question: 
"Who does the pidyon haben if the father is not Jewish?"

Even tho' it is considered to be the same case as:
	1) father dies before child is 30 days old
	2) father refuses to redeem the child
which are both pretty sad situations,
they do make allowances for the situation where a child is born
to a Jewish mother and non-Jewish father.  SO... does this mean
that it is becoming an accepted thing???  (Intermarriage?)  Why
would they suggest a solution if they felt it was wrong?  They 
could just say "we don't deal with that issue because it is wrong".

I don't understand.  I know they're comparing it to other sad situations,
but they're still saying that they recognize the relationship as one
in which traditions ARE carried on and such.  Or, is it only because
if they DON'T make arrangements for such males to be redeemed, then
they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces?  In other words,
by making arrangements to "save the child" there's a possibility that
the "mistake of the intermarriage can be erase if the son grows up
and produces Jewish children".  

Am I making sense?  Either way, it looks like they're saying that
it doesn' t really matter if the father is not Jewish, things
will be ok anyway because the son will carry on the faith.

GLAZER <[email protected]>

______________________________________________________________________

In regards to your question in the jewish newsletter, I take it the question
is if he is jewish or not.

Once a person is born a jew, nothing he can do or not do can change this
fact.  He may be a good jew, a bad jew, a mumar (a jew who has left
Judaism) but as far as Judaism is concerned, HE WILL ALWAYS BE A JEW,
and therefore will always be judged as one. For example, if a goy should
violate the shabbat in public, no problem. But if a jew were to do this,
even a mumar, he can be put to death by a beit-din.

In any case, circumcision is basically just another mitzva. It is
considered an important one, because (usually) it is the first mitzva
one observes and because over the generations it became one of the
mitzvos that jews endangered their lives in order to observe it. As to
what such a person who hasn't been circumsised should do, as soon as he
can take charge over his own life, he should arrange for it to be done.

Avi Bloch 	National Semiconductor (Israel)    avi%taux01@nsc
______________________________________________________________________

What special blessing does one make when one sees a lunar eclipse, such
as the one that we are slated to see next Wed. evening (16 August
1989)?  Please hurry on posting and/or getting an answer to this one,
as that date is fast approaching!  Thanks,

Stuart Freedman			Internet:	[email protected]

______________________________________________________________________

Please discuss the kashrus of cigarettes.

Topics:
	mail.jewish picnic
		Sam Saal
	Re: Circumcision
		Edgar Braunschweig
		Ari Gross
	Re: Abortion
		Ari Gross
	Re: Bracha for Eclipse
		Ari Gross
		Josh Proschan
	AOJS
		L.Cohen
______________________________________________________________________
	
This past Sunday (mea culpa, says your moderator. Sam got this in, but I
have not been able to work on the mailing list for a while. I hope it
will come out a few times during the Yom Tov period, and then get back
into regular mailings after Yom Tov. Your Moderator.) was the first
mail.jewish picnic.  Avi Feldblum, our moderator, was also our host.
About 15 people attended, including family members.  At least three
states were represented, and the age range of the attendees spanned at
least three decades.

The picnic fare was well chosen and prepared by the Feldblums and
several of the early attendees.  Hot dogs, hamburgers (with a special,
secret, sauce) and plenty of salads, provided the nourishment for what
was to be an energetic day.  Although most of us hadn't met each other,
we quickly became comfortable ("oh, so _you're_ ....").  Some people
looked as I expected, some seemed to have changed since the last time
I'd seen them.

The discussion started, as I'm sure most net.get-togethers would, with a
discussion of other personalities on the net.  Of course, we spent time
reviewing the current state of the [OCR] debate.  But lest you think we
were unified on our opinions of that topic, or any others within the
"realm" of orthodoxy, please think again.  Discussions spanning the
range of women in orthodoxy, changes "LeShem Shamayim" versus for
political ends, and many others were the real fare for the day.  When I
left, the debate was still raging and others, who had said they had to
leave, were still there in the thick of things.

On the whole, a very enjoyable day.  To those who were there, thanks for
attending; to those who couldn't attend, maybe next year....?  And
finally, to our host and moderator, thanks for being both.

Sam Saal - floyd!saal

______________________________________________________________________



Re:  Question Francine Storfer: If a male child is born to a Jewish mother
and is not circumcised, what is the status of the child?

The short answer: a male child of a Jewish mother is a Jew. If he is not 
circumcised, he is an uncircumcised Jew. 

The long answer: a male child of a Jewish mother should be circumcised 7
days after birth (on the 8th day) unless there are medical reasons for
postponing it. It is the father's responsibility and duty to perform the
circumcision or, if he is unable to do so, to appoint a Mohel to do it
for him.  If for one reason or another the father does not or cannot
fulfill his duty (because he is away or not Jewish or whatever), it
becomes the duty of the Bet Din of the place where the boy is born, (or,
subsequently, where the boy lives) to make sure that he is circumcised.
If there is no Bet Din, it becomes the duty of the Jewish community as
such.

Once the boy is 13 years old, it is up to him to make sure that he is 
circumcised as quickly as possible. 
The laws of circumcision are dealt with in the Shulchan Aruch, volume 
Yore De'a, ch. 260-266, cf.esp.ch.261.

The circumcision is the second Mitsva in the Bible (Genesis 17) and the 
first addressed specifically to the people of Israel, it is one of three 
"signs" of the covenant between Israel and God (the other two: 
Shabat & Tefilin ). But it is only a sign of the covenant, the latter exists 
even without it and we're part of it "ever since Sinai" (cf. Dt. 29:13/14) 
whether we want to or not, whether we're circumcised or not. Though of 
outmost importance, the circumcision is not a sacrament without which one 
would not be Jewish ! It is a Mitsva which one has to fulfill, undue delay or 
refusal to fulfill it is regarded as a most serious offence against Halacha. 
The punishment for it is karet , traditionally understood as an untimely death 
brought about by divine intervention. 

A talmudic passage (Eruvin 19a) says that Avraham fails to recognize 
uncircumcised Jews and thus does not save them from Gehinom, and we learn 
in the Sayings of the Fathers (3:15) [to be found in any shabat prayer book] 
that Rabbi Elazar HaModa'i (d.135 CE) used to say, "One who profanes sacred 
things, who desecrates the festivals, who humilates his fellow in public, 
who nullifies the covenant of our ancestor Avraham [by refusing to circumcise 
his son or himself or by surgically concealing his circumcision], or who 
perverts the meaning of the Torah even though he has learning and does 
good deeds, he has no share in the World to Come."

To sum up: the circumcision is a Mitsva which has to be fulfilled, 
not to fulfill it is a grave sin, but the Jewishness of a person does not 
depend on it.

- Reb Aharon M. Marcus of Berne
[From: Edgar Braunschweig <[email protected]>] [I'm somewhat confused
here. Mod]
______________________________________________________________________

>In any case, circumcision is basically just another mitzva. It is
>considered an important one, because (usually) it is the first mitzva
>one observes and because over the generations it became one of the
>mitzvos that jews endangered their lives in order to observe it.

>Avi Bloch 	National Semiconductor (Israel)    avi%taux01@nsc

Circumcision is NOT just another mitzva. It is one of only 2 mitzvot of
which bitulo b'karet, failing to perform it results in the person being
'cut off from his people'.  There are different interpretations as to
what being 'cut off' from one's people translates into; e.g., one dies
before the age of 60.

This may be the reason it has been taken so seriously over the ages.

Ari Gross
[email protected]

______________________________________________________________________

>I think it's time to start a discussion on the Jewish views of
>abortion.  I'll start off with what I learned as a USYer;
>corrections, amplifications, additions are requested.  

>When the child is still _in_utero_, the mother's life is considered to
>be more important.  Therefore, if the mother's life--mental and
>emotional as well as physical--is endangered, then she is required to
>have an abortion.

>Fran Storfer - [email protected]

Rabbi Waldinger, posek for Shaarei Tzedek, would agree with
the USY's "ruling" only if 'mental endangerment' means a possibility
of the mother taking her own life. If mental endangerment means only
mental anguish and precludes the mother trying to take her own life
then the fetus would in no way have a din of rodef and consequently
abortion would be prohibited.

Ari Gross
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________

From: Ari Gross <[email protected]>

I took a look at the sources for such a bracha.  The source is a mishna
in brachos 9 2.  There is mention of 'oseh ma'ashe breishit' on an
earthquake 'zizin', and other certain phenomenon.  An eclipse is not
mentioned; nor is it cited in the accompnaying gemarah; nor is it
brought down l'halacha in the mishna brurah. It would seem, on the face
of it, that no bracha is required (allowed) on such an occasion.

Ari Gross
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________

Here, in ample time for the '92 eclipse of the moon, is the answer (as
heard in Lakewood): No brochah on an eclipse.  How to interpret the
statement of chazal that an eclipse of the sun is a bad omen for the
nations, and an eclipse of the moon is a bad omen for Israel, is an
interesting question that came up.  (After all, eclipses go like
clockwork, and the patterns were known at the time of the Exodus.)

Josh.

______________________________________________________________________

I know there was an association of orthodox scientists which made some
publications and proceedings.  But it seems to me the last proceedings I
saw were published about ten years ago.  Do you know if this association
still exists and what are its activities.  It seems to me it would be
interesting that such an group would make a regular contribution in
jewish.mail since most people reading it are likely to be orthodox
scientists.

L.Cohen - [email protected]

Topics:
	Observance in the Absence of Belief
		Alan M. Silverblatt

[I think that some of the issues underlying this posting are valuable
issues that need to be addressed. It is unclear whether the organization
described here, Pnei Or, falls within the boundries of halachically
valid Judaism. It is clear to me from the article that it is not posted
to offend, but represents one persons resolution of a difficult problem.
Views and comments on the underlying issues are welcome. I think
there is great deal more to this topic, than what is touched upon
here. Any questions or requests for information about Pnei Or should
be addressed to Alan.  Mod.] 

WARNING: This posting contains ideas somewhat out of the mainstream of
those usually expressed here.  They are intended neither to offend
anyone, nor to provoke a debate or flame war.  Rather, it is my purpose
to share a bit of my own struggle with my Jewish identity, and some
information about an organization which has been wonderful in helping me
along the road to a resolution of that struggle.

Dan Berleant has posed an excellent question: How can one extract
something worthwhile from going to services while remaining agnostic?
(Dan's question was posted to the soc.culture.jewish newsgroup, as was
an almost identical version of this reply to it.)

I've been wrestling with a similar dilemma for years.  While I don't
presently consider myself a traditional believer, or an agnostic, or an
atheist (although I WAS a staunch atheist for many years), I have a
strong sense of the interconnectedness of all things, and that the
universe operates under a set of harmonious principles which are (at
least at present) mostly (if not completely) beyond human comprehension.
I have long yearned for a heartfelt connection to the rich cultural,
ethical and spiritual heritage embodied by Judaism.  At the same time, I
have (until very recently) always found traditional Jewish observance
and worship (at least as practiced by the numerous congregations,
communities, families and individuals I have known) to be quite at odds
with my intellectual integrity (e.g., how can one remain honest while
praying to a self-aware anthropomorphic male deity that one does not
believe exists?), my sensibilities (e.g., the obsequiousness, repetition
and sexism apparent in much traditional observance) and, in general, the
emotional, experiential and historical context of my life.

Thus, I believe in something much bigger than myself and beyond my
limited human comprehension, but have been unable to find in Judaism (or
any other religion) any sort of an honest and heartfelt connection with
that something.  For almost 40 years, it's seemed as if my only choices
have been either outright rejection of Judaism or, more recently, a
largely frustrating attempt to "separate the wheat from the chaff", if
you'll pardon the expression.

Anyway, I recently discovered a Jewish religious organization through
which I have begun to feel a real connection to Judaism while still
being true to my sensibilities and beliefs.  That organization is P'nai
Or Religious Fellowship.  It was founded in Philadelphia by Rabbi Zalman
Schachter-Shalomi.  While still headquartered there, it now also has
affiliated groups in a network extending to Ft. Lauderdale, Berkeley,
Boston, Chicago, Eastern Connecticut, Gainesville (FL), Milwaukee, New
York City, Taos (NM), Ashland (OR), Amsterdam and Basel (Switzerland).
It's expressions of Judaism include the ancient and the modern, the
teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and the teachings of science, Torah,
stories, song, dance, healing, study, discussion, community making, and
an abiding concern for the renewal of the individual, the community and
the planet.  The P'nai Or community shares a love of Israel and a vision
of friendship and prosperity among Jews and Moslems in Israel and the
surrounding lands.

P'nai Or welcomes all Jews as full participants: women and men, children
and elders, families and single people, gays, lesbians and
heterosexuals, rich and poor, Jews by birth and Jews by choice.  Every
other summer it sponsors a week long gathering of study and celebration
called Kallah.  At the Kallah last July, I was amazed at the incredible
sense of community shared by all present, regardless of their
background, belief or level of observance.  There was a wonderful
atmosphere of harmony, sharing and cooperation among all: atheists and
the strictly observant, young and old, men and women, etc.  For the
first time in my life, I had found a Jewish spiritual community in which
my concerns, experiences, beliefs and sensibilities were honored and
accepted and in which my participation was eagerly (but gently)
welcomed, all without being conditioned upon my level of observance
(minimal, at most) or the nature of my beliefs (non- traditional, to say
the least).  Those of us from Pittsburgh who attended the Kallah are
starting an affiliated group here.

P'nai Or sponsors holiday retreats throughout the year.  The next two
are for Yom Kippur (10/6 - 10/9) and Simchat Torah (10/20 -
10/22).  Both retreats will be held at the Fellowship House Farm
in Pottstown, PA, about an hour from Philadelphia.

If all this is foreign to your beliefs and experience, again I
have no desire to offend you or engage in a debate - please
accept my respectful wish that you find peace and truth in
whatever path you have chosen.  But if any of this touches your
heart, and you'd like to find out more, please contact me by e-mail,
snail-mail or voice line.  

Shalom.


Alan M. Silverblatt
3421 Ridgewood Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15235
(412) 824-3885
INTERnet   [email protected]

Topics:
	Polygamy in Jewish law
		Wendy J. Desmonde
	Re: AOJS
		Hal Schloss
	Jewish Software and Braille
		Shalom Krischer
	Bees, Wasps and the Succah
		Josh Proschan
______________________________________________________________________


I am responding to your query in mail.jewish regarding
polygamy in Jewish law.  What I have seen in writing is in
_The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage_, by Maurice Lamm, 1986:
Jonathan David Publishers, NY.  Excerpt from pp.86ff:


BIGAMY

   Judaism's lifelong concern for the protection of the family as
the core functional unit of society required that its stability be
ensured, and its responsibility for raising the next generation be
encouraged.  To accomplish these goals, parentage had to be
unmistakably established.  _Maternity_ [italicized in the original] is
usually biologically provable--a woman gave birth to a specific child,
and witnesses were present (or could have been present) to prove it.
Because of the nine-month hiatus between conception and birth,
however, _paternity_ must be established by law.

   Thus, in order to ensure correct identification of the father, a
woman could not be married to more than one husband.  The presumption
of the law, in the absence of contradictory evidence, is that her
husband is the father of her child.  If it is legally established
that another man fathered the child the woman is guilty of adultery,
her paramour is an adulterer, and both are biblically to be punished
by death.  The child is considered illegitimate (_mamzer_) and may not
marry a Jewish of legitimate paternity.

   The term _kiddushin_ (marriage) implies exclusivity; hence there
can be no valid _kiddushin_ between a woman and her second husband if
her first husband is still alive and they are not legally divorced.
Biblically, if an adulterous marriage is performed it need not be
dissolved by divorce since it is not recongized as a marriage in the
first place.  The Rabbis, however, instituted the requirement for
divorce in most such cases so that unknowing outsiders would not
assume that a Jewish marraige may be dissolved simply by agreement or
abandonment.  Indeed, a woman must be divorced by her first husband
(_mi-de'oraita_) according to bibical law because a huasband may not
remain with a provenly adulterous wife; and, many authorities hold,
also by her adulterous paramour (_mi-de'rabbanan_) according to
rabbinic law, to prevent public confusion.

   While polyandry (more than one husband) is regarded as abhorrent by
the Bible, polygamy (more than one wife) is technically permitted.
The Jewish tradition, however, subsequently banned polygamy.  In a
polygamous marriage, both maternity and paternity are clearly
established.  Hence a man's marriage to anouther wife is biblically
valid, and can be dissolved only by death or divorce.  The children
are considered legitimate.

   Domestic peace was equally significant to the life of the family as
it was considered the only environment in which to raise children and
encourage human hjappiness.  The second wife of a plygamous marraige
was termed _tzarah_, (troublesome rival) to connote a natrual and
destructive competition between two women married to the same man.
Indeed, the talmudic Sage Rav  said, "Marry not two wives.  But if you
marry two, then marry a third."  The rivalry inherent in polygamy
jeapardizes the peace of the home and threatens the happiness of the
children.  In time it became obvious that the Torah's permission for a
man to have more than one wife could _not_ be handled by most men;
psychologically, economically, and in every other way, it became an
unmanageable burden.

   Accordinginly, polygamy was rare even as early as the prophetic
period.  In the Talmud, the Sages legally circumscribed polygamy by
declaring that it was permissible only if the husband could prperly
fulfill his maritial duties toward each of his wives.  One early
opinion held that upon taking a second wife, a man must divorce his
first wife if she so desires.  Similarly, he may not marry a second
woman if he promised his first wife at their marriage that he would
not do so.  Moreover, he may not do so if local custom favors
monogamy; where such custom prevails a girl married with the implied
understnading that she will be treated like all the other married
women in the community.  By the year 1000, the leading authority in the
Ashkenazic Diaspora, Rabbenu Gershom, invoked the overriding ethical
principle that one must at all costs prevent matrimonial strife.
Accordingly, he decreed a one thousand-year ban (_cherem_) against all
those in his jurisdiction (excluding Sephardim and Yementie Jews) who
commit polygamy.  This ban was renewed for all Jews by Israel's Chief
Rabbi when it expired in 1950.  Known as "Cherem de Rabbenu Gershom"
it is in force regardless of the wishes of the husband or the consent
of the wife....

[email protected] (Wendy J. Desmonde)

______________________________________________________________________

With regard to the AOJS, there is an active chapter of it here in
California. I know that the New York and Florida branches are also
quite active, but I only have handy the information for the
California branch. If memory serves me right the last national
conference was in Florida, and the next one will be in Los Angeles
during January or February of 1990. For more information on the
California chapter write to . . . 

	Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists
	California Division
	c/o Alan Danziger
	1022 Indiana Court
	Venice, California 90291
	(or call 213-399-5828)

In addition "The First Annual International Conference on Jewish Medical
Ethics" will be taking place in San Francisco the week beforehand. This
conference looks fantastic, as many if not all of the big names in Jewish
Medical Ethics will be there. The conference cost is $275.00 for one and
an additional $150.00 for spouses and children. I believe this
includes meals, but I am not sure, as I am not in possesion of all
the information. The conference will be at the Miyako Hotel. For
further information write 

	Institute for Jewish Medical Ethics
	of the Hebrew Academy of San Francisco
	645 14th Avenue
	San Francisco, California 94118
	(sorry no phone number.)

I hope this information is of use to someone. Both conferences look as if
they will be very interesting. I am only going to be able to attend
the L.A. one myself. I don't believe the program for the L.A. one is
complete yet, but it should be quite soon.

	Hal Schloss - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________

 Jewish Software and Braille

A (blind) friend asked me to find out if there has been any work done to
address a Braille printer for Hebrew Braille output.  Also, if anyone can
point me to companies that specialize in Judaica Computing, I could pass
the word on about that too.  Thanks, and have a "Ketiva V'Chatima Tova"!!
						...!uunet!actnyc!srk
						Shalom Krischer
______________________________________________________________________


Does anyone have any good ideas for keeping wasps and hornets out of
a succah? (Short of encapsulation :-( )  This is supposed to be a
record year for them. [A little late, I know. But if there are good
ideas we can use them for next year. Mod]

Topics:
	Re: Polygamy
		Keith Bierman
	Re: Bee/yellowjacket traps for the succah
		[From the net;  Bruce Krulwich and kjl]
	Standing during the reading of the Torah
		Avi Feldblum
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
>The Jewish tradition, however, subsequently banned polygamy.  In a
 
Only those subject to Rabbenu Gershom's court ... viz. the european
community. Sephardim were never so constrained until the founding of
the modern state. It is not permitted for a Rabbi (in Israel) to
perform a polygamous marriage; but if one exists (say new olim from
Morroco) they are not required to divorce.
 
>children.  In time it became obvious that the Torah's permission for
 
Obvious ? Only Rabbenu Gershom took strong action. 
 
>commit polygamy.  This ban was renewed for all Jews by Israel's Chief
 
There are two Chief Rabbis and there are still Sephardim with two wives.
 
Keith Bierman - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
[This question was raised on the net, as well as in our last mailing.
These two replies were taken from there. Mod]
 
I've seen two apparently effective bee/yelowjacket traps in the past two days.
 
The first is an electric "zapper," which lures bees with a light (of a certain
type?) and electrocutes them.  
 
---
Yes and this is a product made by Amcor (the Israeli electrical
appliance company) called the 'Katlan' (probably goes under a
different name in the U.S.) so you can zap the bees out of your sukah
with a yiddishe-kopf invention.
 
kjl
---
 
The second is much more subtle, and as far as I can tell is as or more
effective.  It is a jar with some bait (honey?) in the bottom of it, and the
only way to get in or out of the jar is through several tubes that are about
an inch long and are straight.  The explanation that I heard is that bees and
yellowjackets cannot fly straight unless they're following their senses, so
they can fly through the tubes to the bait but not back out.  The trap of this
kind that I saw had 20+ bees in it, and this was only at lunchtime on
Saturday.
 
Please note that none of these traps involve any actions on the holiday, so
there are no questions of holiday or Shabbat infringements.
 
 
Bruce
______________________________________________________________________
 
This is also a thread that started on the net, but may be able to be
more fully developed here. The custom of standing during the reading of
the Torah is the issue at hand. One person stated:
 
> You might be interested in knowing that Rambam in a responsa
> says it is forbidden (!) to stand during Torah reading.
> (He also has everyone sitting for the b'rachot.)
 
I am unaware of that responsa, and if anyone has the source for that
responsa, I would be interested. I am aware of a responsa where the
Rambam forbids standing up specially for the Aseret Hadibrot, because
that gives the impression that these verses of the Torah have additional
holiness. Rav Moshe Feinstein in a response says that even though the
Rambam forbids it, if you find yourself in a synagogue where everyone
stands up for the Aseret Hadibrot, you must also stand because otherwise
it is a case of 'Al tifrosh min hatzibur' - you are forbidden to
seperate yourself from the congregation. R. Moshe's responsa has various
implications, which he does not go into, nor does he develop some of the
concepts that would be needed. It would appear to me that if the entire
congregation stands for something like the Tefila for the State of
Israel or for Shalom Hamidina (peace of the nation we live in) then it
is forbidden for one to sit down during it according to R' Moshe's
responsa.
 
My memory is that the custom of standing either during the Torah reading
or during just the brachot (blessings) is based on the verses in Ezra
where the Torah was read in public. Before I start trying to find it by
reading Ezra, does anyone know where it is, or have any comments on the
standing/sitting customs during Torah reading?
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]

    Re. The "custom" of standing during the reading of the Torah:

    I recall from shiurim of the Rav (Rabbi Soloveitcik) many years ago
    that his reasoning was that "Kriyas HaTorah" comes within the framework
    of "Davar Shebikdusha". 

    Now, I don't remember off hand what sources he used to come to this
    conclusion; I'll have to refer to my notes for this (which I'll do and
    post here "Bli Nedder").

    
    Cb.
    

I took a look at my notes from the shiurim of the Rav regarding "Kriyas
HaTorah"...

The Mishna in Megila (23:) includes "Kriyas HaTorah" among a list of
recitations that require at least 10. The Gemara subsequently explains this
piece in the Mishna based on the concept that "Ein Davar Shebikdusha Pachos
Me'asara" (An entity of sanctity may not be recited with less than 10). The
Rambam (Hilchot Tefila) mentions this Halacha regarding reading the Torah in
public. Parenthetically, the Rav is bothered by the fact that "Kriyas HaTorah"
is considered a "Davar Shebikdusha" and goes at great length to attempt and
explain this concept.

Now, the fact that "Kriyas HaTorah IS indeed considered a "Davar Shebikdusha"
does NOT alone imply that one MUST stand up for it. With regard to the "Baal
Kore" (the reader) there does NOT seem to be any argument, he must stand. This
is because all the "Rishonim" agree that the "Shliach Tsibur" must stand up for
the recitation of a "Davar Shebikdusha", and the "Baal Kore" is tantamount to
the "Shliach Tsibur" in this case. With regard to the remaining "Tsibur" there
is an argument among the "Achronim".

The Maharil is of the opinion that the "Tsibur" need NOT stand during the
recitation of a "Davar Shebikdusha". The "Kedusha" which is recited during the
repetition by the "Shatz" is an exception because the verses in the 'Navi"
which form the basis for the recitation of "Kedusha" explicitly mention
standing. So the Maharil concludes that standing for "Kedusha" is a special
Halacha which pertains to "Kedusha" and NOT a general Halacha within "Davar
Shebikdusha".

The Rama, on the other hand, is of the opinion that any "Davar Shebikdusha"
requires the entire "Tsibur" to stand.  The Rama apparently holds that
"Kedusha", which is the example par excellence of "Davar Shebikdusha", sets down
the general guidelines for all "Davar Shebikdusha". The Rama is generally the
accepted opinion among the Ashkenazim.

It is interesting to note that "Kriyas Shma" (recited "B'Tsibur" as part
of the service) which apparently contains ALL the qualities of "Davar
Shebikdusha" does NOT require standing because it explicitly states
"U'beshivtecha" (and while you are sitting). This might apparently strengthen the
opinion of the Rama, since according to the Maharil no such explicit exclusion
would have been necessary.  

Parenthetically, the Rav mentioned that on the many occasions that the "Tsibur"
stands up when the Holy Ark is opened is NOT based on the concept of "Kavod
LaTorah", but rather is based on the fact that the prayers which are being
recited in conjunction with the opening of the Holy Ark fall within the
framework of "Davar Shebikdusha
 
Cb.

Topics:
	Re: Custom of standing during Torah reading
		Daniel Schindler
		Fred Astren
		Joshua Proschan
		Ari Gross
		Jan David Meisler
		David Sherman
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
The custom of standing during the Torah reading is mentioned in the
Shulchan Aruch in the end of chapter 146 in the Ramah. The source given
is the Mordechai in the 19th chapter of Shabbos where the Mordechai says
Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg used to stand during the Torah reading and
during a bris milah because of a pasuk in Melachim Beis 23:3.
 
Another reason is given by the Bach on the Tur at the very beginning of
chapter 141. The Bach says it is appropriate to stand just as we stood
to receive the Torah at Mount Sinai as the Zohar equates the public
Torah reading to the receiving of the Torah. It is interesting to note
that we might think that the reason for the public Torah readings during
the week is that we should not go without Torah for three days. Of
course, we learn Torah twice a day at least when we say Sh'ma, so the
public Torah reading must be for something else, for example we cannot
let three days to go by without receiving the Torah.
 
One other point is the gemara in Sotah 39b, where it comments on the
public Torah reading by Ezra mentioned in chapter 8 of Nechemiah. The
gemara says the standing there in pasuk 5 means that they were quiet.
This pasuk is also brought by the Talmud Yerushalmi third chapter of
Megillah to show the person reading the Torah must stand.
 
Daniel Schindler <LIDANIEL%[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________
 
I believe you are correct in recalling the responsa of Maimonides
regarding the aseret ha-dibrot. The larger issue may relate to the
karaites, who stand for the reading. Some of their literature presents
the aseret ha-dibrot as an encapsulation or epitome of the whole of the
law, an unacceptable point of view to the rabbanites. The regular
reading of the aseret ha-dibrot was eliminated from the liturgy in
response to this sectarian criticism. See mishne tamid 5:1, jerusalem
talmud berakhot 3c, babylonian talmud berakhot 12a. So often the
halakhah avoids anything that might resemble sectarian or karaite
practice, and I believe this could be the guiding principle in the case
of standing for the reading of the torah.  For comparison see Maimonides
takkanah on nidah.
 
Fred Astren - fastren@ucbgarne
______________________________________________________________________
 
There is a complication, in that someone who has difficulty standing
would be allowed to sit in any case.  (People whose custom is to remain
seated for all of Kabbolos Shabbos will do so even if the rest of the
congregation stands, using the reasoning that for someone to remain
sitting can appear to be for reasons of health, and so does not
constitute a "separation from the congregation".  Whether this conforms
to halacha I cannot say.)
 
The question seems to assume that the custom of standing for the reading
of the Torah is an accepted one.  In Lakewood, there are many Yeshivah
minyons where most people sit, and the last time I was in the Bais
Medrash itself I remember seeing men sit during the reading.  In one
Kollel in Lakewood, it is *required* that everyone sit during the Torah
reading, and this rule is strictly enforced.
 
(One of the advantages to requiring that everyone remain seated is that
you hear the reading itself, rather than the clattering of chairs,
tables, reading stands, movable shelves, etc. :-)
 
Joshua Proschan
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
One reference to check might be the mishna concerning the Torah reading
for Yom Kippur, where I believe it says that everyone was standing; of
course this is a weak proof since in the azarra one was always required
to stand (except a King from Beis David). Anyway, the mishna is in Yoma,
in the last or second to last perek. If I have time, I'll have a look
there myself.
 
Ari
______________________________________________________________________
 
   In response to your point about standing during the Torah reading,
one thing that I heard a few months ago (but I am not sure of the
source) is that any "event" in Davening that requires a Minyan requires
that people stand up.  When it comes to the Torah reading, people say
that standing for the Brachah is the main point of the Halachah, and
therefore we don't need to stand for all of the Torah reading....I hope
this helps.  Sorry I don't know the source.
 
Jan - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
> 				It would appear to me that if the entire
> congregation stands for something like the Tefila for the State of
> Israel or for Shalom Hamidina (peace of the nation we live in)...
 
In our shul, a large Orthodox shul (Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto,
in Thornhill, also known as the "Tanenbaum shul"), after the
laining the gabbaim read:
	- a tefilah for "hamalkah v'es col sareha" (parallel to
		the Shalom Hamedina, I suppose)
	- the standard tefilah for Medinas Yisroel
	- a tefilah for chayaley Tzva Haganah L'Yisrael
 
While the sentiments are admirable, I wonder about the effect.
It goes on for a while, and people get restless.  It's not done
by the chazan or rabbi, so there's little drama to it.  Any comments
on the appropriateness of this?
 
David Sherman

Topics:
	Re: Polygamy
		Ezra L Tepper
	Date question
		Morris Podolak
	Judaism and Mythology
		Harry I. Rubin
______________________________________________________________________
 
Now that the subject of polygamy is under discussion, I would like to relay
one of my pet peeves on the topic of customs that the public at large are
unable to accept (gezarot shehatzibur i efshar la'amod baheim).
 
May I suggest that one of the topics that we attempt to sweep under the
rug is that in our post 1950 society, and particularly in modern day Israel,
there is an excess population of unmarried women, as compared to available
(unmarried) men. Because of this, unmarried religious women in their thirties
-- who have only a slim chance of finding a suitable husband -- live extremely
lonely (could I add, abnormal) lives. Their nonreligious sisters find their
outlets in forbidden sexual relationships and are often the cause of the
break-up of families that would otherwise have remained intact.
 
By not permitting an unmarried woman to join a healthy family situation,
we are not only indirectly promoting the increase of forbidden sexual
relationships, of family and individual hardships, but are also interfering
with the natural population increase of the Jewish people.
 
I am not suggesting that a husband should be able to marry a second
wife against the will of his first wife or if he was not financially or
physically able able to meet his obligations. What I do believe is that when
a married women becomes aware of her responsibility towards rectifying
the national demographic situation and appreciates the deep kindness involved
in allowing an unmarried woman to join a healthy, functioning household,
there would be many couples willing to take on the responsibilities of
a polygamous family (much like married couples with children adopt additional
youngsters).
 
Since, of course, I have no stature as a rabbinic authority, I can only
agree that -- in practice -- we are forbidden to marry a second wife. However,
it appears that there are positive (halachic) points speaking for permitting
polygamous marriages that have to be weighed against the negative points that
indicate against it. I trust that these have been considered carefully before
the final halachic pronouncement was released.
 
Ezra L. Tepper, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
rrtepper%[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
From: [email protected]
 
There is a question that has been bothering me for some time, that perhaps
someone out there can answer.  Jewish sources agree with secular sources
in putting the destruction of the Second Temple at the year 70 C.E.
(There is a dispute between RASHI, RAMBAM and Rabennu Tam about the exact
year, but that is the date plus or minus one year.) We also have a tradition
that is mentioned many times in the Gemara, that the Second Temple stood
420 years.  Again, following tradition, we have 70 years of the Babylonian
exile, and that puts the destruction of the First Temple in the year 420
B.C.E.  This date, however, is more than 100 years later than the date 
that secular historians put on this event.  Any comments on how to deal with 
this?
Morris Podolak
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
[This is not our usual fare, but I hope some of you enjoy it. It does
not appear to me that the author of the book knows much about Jewish
mythology (if one wished to call it that).]
 
I have been reading a book about mythological creatures.  The book is
"Fabulous Beasts" by Peter Lum, dated 1951.  In reading it, I've come
across a few sections that might be of interest.  Here they are:
 
From a listing of "monstrous" bird creatures (pp. 48-49):
 
"... and the bird anka which is said by the Arabs to have been created
by God in order to devour the wild beasts of Palestine and so make
room for the children of Israel -- He unfortunately left it too
long, and it was not until it had eaten everything and rendered
large parts of Palestine completely barren and uninhabitable that He
finally thought to remove it ...."
 
From the beginning of the chapter on Western Dragons (p. 94):
 
"The dragon is pre-eminent amoung fabulous beasts.  ....  He was
already old when the first myths of which we have any record were
developing, and it is thought possible that the curse laid on the
serpent in the Old Testament was an attempt to discredit a powerful
dragon-serpent cult that was flourishing when the Jewish religion
was first formulated.  It has even been suggested that the horror
inspired in Europe and the Near East by the dragon relects a time of
which we have no record, a time when the white race was engaged in a
terrific struggle for survival against the black race, who until
then had been masters of the world and whose emblem was the dragon."
 
Again from the chapter on Western dragons, from a discussion of
Saint George, the dragon-slayer (pp. 101-103):
 
"His position as saint and dragon slayer is further confused by his
indentification in Palestine with another saint dear to Christian,
Jew and Moslem alike, one of the most sympathetic characters in the
lore of the Holy Land.  This is the saint known to the Moslems as
El Khudr, the Evergreen One. The Christians call him by the name of
Mar Jiryis, the Jews by that of Eliyahu ha Navi, and all rely on him
to protect their chldren, for he is widely known as the guardian
of the young and defenseless.  He long ago discovered the fountain of
youth, that fabled pool set in so many lands and the goal of so many
quests; he found it, indeed, at no great distance, since it
apparently lies somewhere between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.
Having drunk of its waters, he can never die.  And since that time
he rides from place to place, usually invisible but appearing now
and then to come to the aid of those who are suffering and oppressed.
He is most often to be found either at the well of Solomon in
Jerusalem or the well of Zemzem in Mecca; only at those two pools
does he ever quench his thirst.
	"It is a Christian story told of this Mar Jiryis that comes
nearest to the traditional tale of Saint George and the Dragon.  In
the old days there was a great city near to the present city of
Beirut, or perhaps it was the city itself, whose only water supply
was a fountain situated just outside the city walls.  This fountain
because possessed by a dragon, a creature of Satan.  At first the
dragon refused to allow the people to draw any water whatsoever from
the well and, although many of the bravest youths and the most
experienced knights of the city went out to attack him, each one
dropped dead before even coming within reach of the beast, so
venomous and foul was his breath.  At length, seeing the desperate
position of the city, the dragon pretended to relent; the citizens,
he said, might draw all the water they liked and he would not molest
them, if only whenever they came to the well they would bring him a
youth or a maiden for his food.  In their extremity, the people
agreed.
	"Eventually every maiden and every youth young enough to be
acceptable to the dragon had been sacrificed, except only the king's
daughter, and the king knew that if he was to save his people from
dying of thirst she too must be fed to the dragon.  The young
princess was led out.  But even as the monster lifted his head and
looked with satisfaction on this last victim, Mar Jiryis appeared.
He rode upon a white steed, his armor and his robes were gold, his
helmet and the long spear he held in his right hand were bright in
the sun, and his face was so radiant that the dragon must have
known at the sight of this opponent that his end had come.  Mar Jiryis,
immune to the poisonous fumes of his breath, rode up to him and
struck him fair between the eyes, so that the monster feel dead at a
single stroke."
 
There are a few other mentions of things related to Judaism, but they were
either very brief, or else not terribly interesting.  Anyway, I hope you
find this interesting.
							-- Harry Rubin

Topics:	
	Re: Date question
		Daniel Schindler
	Re: Prayers for the State of Israel
		Ezra Tepper
	Re: Standing for the Torah reading
		Ezra Tepper
______________________________________________________________________
 
My computer has a good memory. Back in March Avi mentioned an article by
Rabbi Schwab on the subject and promised to summarize it. Possibly it
wasn't found. I don't have it but I believe I read it in a Jubilee
volume for Rabbi Breuer. I read it in the Berkeley library if Harry or
any other Berkeley reader can find it. Is Sheldon still the librarian
for Hebrew books? The article itself was in English. Before I try and
say what the article said I would like someone to tell us who has read
it more recently.
 
Daniel Schindler <LIDANIEL%[email protected]>
 
[I am aware of the article but do not have it. What I said in March
(#103) was that someone on the list said they had a copy and was
going to summerize it. I don't have that email message readily
available, but I guess it never got summerized. But look at #103 for
some comments, as well as a request for some historian on the list
to maybe clarify things. If I get anything good, I will surely post
it here. Mod.]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Your readers may be interested in the way soldiers of a large Israeli
army base (in which I had several occasions to pray on Shabbos) handled
the prayers for the welfare of the State and of its soldiers.
 
They were recited by the chazan at the same speed and with the same
reverence as the prayers for the welfare of the Torah scholars and the
congregation (the Yekum purkon prayers) and that recited in remembrance
of whole Jewish communities that were slaughtered in Kiddush Hashem (Av
Horachamim). None of the soldiers stood for any of the prayers, which
were recited in a contiguous grouping.
 
Somehow, these youngsters seem to have had it right. We should either be
standing for all these prayers or sitting for all of them. Our feelings
for the State and soldiers should not appear to be greater than those
for the scholars or for Jews that perished in Kiddush Hashem.
 
Ezra Tepper, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot
<RRTEPPER%[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________
 
I recall hearing that the reason why some have the custom of standing
for the Torah reading is because we have equal respect and reverence for
every word in the Torah. It therefore is not proper to stand for the
reading of the Aseres Hadibros (Ten Commandments) or the few verses
before we say "Chazak Chazak Venischazok" if we do not stand for
anything else.  As we say "Kol eilah bnei Yoton" is as holy as "Onochi
hashem."
 
Ezra Tepper <RRTEPPER%[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________
 
My understanding is that there is a difference between standing for the
verses before ending a book of the Torah, and standing for the Aseres
Hadibros or Az Yashir Moshe. In the latter case, we are standing for the
individual verses and in that case, they have no more holyness than any
other verses in the Torah. However, when we stand for the the last three
verses of the book and then recite "Chazak Chazak Venischazok", what we
are doing is giving honor to the Torah as a whole on the occasion of
finishing one volume. Thus even according to the Rambam, it should be
permitted to stand for the last few verses of each book.
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected] or [email protected]

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: thermostatically controlled systems on Shabbat
		Susan Slusky
	Halachic view on Requieum etc.
		David S. Green
	Re: Term for Jesus
		David Cohen
	Silicon Valley shul
		M. Podolak
	Origin of the chelek in the Jewish Calendar
		Daniel Schindler
______________________________________________________________________
All right, I think I got all the stuff that I had missed, thanks to all
those who resent them to me. We also have some interesting new postings.
Please keep the contributions coming in, and please DO bug me if
something you submit does not show up. I will try and get a Index
special for this past year out before Jan 1. To all who are taking
vacation, enjoy yourselves and I'll "see" you back in 1990.
 
A happy Chanuka to all!
 
Avi Feldblum - Moderator
______________________________________________________________________
The use of various devices with thermostatically controlled
heater/cooler mechanisms seems to be generally accepted as okay for
Shabbat. For example, it's all right to open a refrigerator (with the
light unscrewed) even knowing that by so doing you hasten the time as
which the compressor will kick in. Also, it's okay to open the front
door even knowing that by so doing you hasten the time when the air
conditioner or heating furnace will turn on. Correct me if I'm mistaken
about these first statements.
 
However, from the discussion I read here this summer, I inferred that
usage of hot water from one's private home's hot water heater is
a problem because by so doing one hastens the time at which the hot water
heater will turn on. There were other problems cited that did not apply
to this question. I am particularly interested in the reason for the 
distinction being made. How is one thermostatically controlled system
different from another? Or did I misunderstand the problem?
 
Susan Slusky - att!mhuxo!segs
______________________________________________________________________
 
what is the Halachic view (not too right wing) on listening
to music such as Mozart's (or other) Requieum?  How about
Handel's Messiah?
 
David S. Green att!hlwpi!dsg
______________________________________________________________________
 
Re: Term for Jesus
 
By reading the parachat Vayeleh' I thought about the discussion about
the use of the name jesus.  I remember about two answers arguing that
 
>The word christ is Greek for messiah. Hence a Jew would
>not use that term in referring to Jesus.(Dan Berleant)
>The term means annointed and refers to the claim
>that Jesus was the Messiah.(Avi Feldblum)
 
I agree with that but what to say about the many mentions of 'elokim
ah'erim', 'elokim neh'ar aarets' in the Torah. The Torah is talking
about the gods of other nations. Isn't it more shocking that talking
'only' of their messiah?
 
I also have a question about another contribution:
>all names of idols recorded in the Tanach are, in fact, 
>nicknames poking fun of the cults. For example, there is 
>a baal zevuv (master of the fly)..or baal pe'or (master of excretions).
>(by Ezra L. Tepper)
 
In this case why does Rachi find a reason of the names above
related to the way of their idolworship.
 
David Cohen - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Silicon Valley is an important center for many of us who deal with
computers.  It might be useful to know that the Valley also has a rather
unique orthodox Jewish community centered in San Jose.  The shule is
called "Am Echad", and its rav is Rabbi A. H. Lapin.  I used the word
"unique" for two reasons.  First, the people are warm, friendly, and
generous.  I have encountered congregations like this before, but never
quite to such an extent.  Visitors are always made to feel at home, and
can always be assured of a place to eat and sleep.  Although the
community is small numerically, it supports shiurim, independent
learning groups, a beit din, and a butcher under the rav's hashgacha
where one can buy meat (glatt kosher), bread (pat Yisrael), cheese (some
chalav Yisrael, some not), Israeli products, etc.
 
The second reason I used the word "unique" is the person of the rav
himself.  He is a talmid and nephew of Rabbi Elia Lopian zt"l, the
author of Lev Eliyahu.  In addition, he studied in the Telshe Yeshiva
before the second world war.  He thus embodies the character Jewish
learning in pre-war Europe.  Speaking with him is worthwhile experience,
attending his shiurim is a real treat.  His style, his insights, his
anecdotes all make for an unforgetable experience.
 
If anyone will be in the San Jose area, and needs an invitation for
Shabbat, or simply a place to daven during the week, arrangements can be
made by calling Mrs. Pat Bergmann at (408) 264-3138, or "Am Echad" at
(408) 267-2591.
 
M. Podolak - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Several Shabbats ago the molad for Kislev was announced as going to be
on Tuesday, 10 o'clock, 53 minutes, and 14 chelekim.  Each month the
molad moves forward in the week 1 day, 12 hours and 793 parts. The
question might arise what is a chelek and where did it come from? There
are 25,920 chelekim in a day, 1080 in an hour, and 18 in a minute.
Rambam in Hilchos Kiddush HaChodesh (6:3) says a part was chosen to
divide an hour as 1080 is a number which is divisible by many numbers.
Some people may have felt this is not the real reason. An explanation
given by Feldman in his Rabbinical Astronomy and Mathematics attributed
to Mahler is that the Babylonians noted that the precession of the
earth's axis was about 1 degree every 72 years so to make one complete
cycle it would take 72 x 360 years or 25,920 years so they divided the
day into 25,920 chelekim. This is not satisfying to me as I fail to see
the connection between 25,920 parts of a day and 25,920 years.
Neugebauer suggests that the chelek came froma a unit dividing each
degree into 72 parts making 25,920 parts in a circle. To me this seems
arbitrary and unnatural as we know degrees are measured in the
sexagesimal system, that is 60 minutes to a degree, 60 seconds to a
minute, 60 thirds to a second, and so on. (See Rambam) Rambam also uses
the term chelekim to refer to parts of a degree that we call minutes,
then smaller parts are called seconds, thirds, and so on. Analysis of
the value of the molad in the sexagesimal system gives a natural and
simple way for the derivation of the number of chelekim in a day.
 
The sexagesimal system is an ancient way of making fractions adopted by
Ptolemy when he wrote his book on astronomy over 1700 years ago. The
sexagesimal system describes fractions as having each place in the
fraction represent a power of 60 just as the decimal system we use has
each place representing a power of ten. This is an ancient system used
by the Babylonians.  Rabbi Menachem Kasher in his book Torah Shelamah
vol. 13 quotes the Almagest by Ptolemy as giving the average lunar month
being 29 days 31' 50'' 8''' 20''''. putting this into a fraction we can
recognize we get 6876500/12960000, the denominator being 60 to the
fourth power. The largest common divisor of these numbers is 500 giving
13753/25920 or one half plus 793/25920. The denominator is now the
number of chelekim in a day and the numerator is how much more than 29
and a half days a Jewish month is. Now one can see that the origin of
the chelek is a natural result of using the sexagemisal system and
dividing by the largest common divisor for the value of the Jewish
month. In contrast, the Islamic calendar which uses a value of 29 days
31' 50'' has a value in normal fractions of 29 and a half days and
11/360 so that the normal Islamic day would have 360 chelekim with 15
chelekim to the hour. One can see that the number of chelekim in a day
is dependent on the value of the length of the average month. Only a Jew
would say that the Islamic calendar has chelekim as it is not calculated
but fixed into a 30 year cycle.
 
In summary, a chelek is not a Jewish and certainly not Babylonian time
measurement but a natural outgrowth of calendar calculation. The chelek
is completely defined by the value of the molad and specific to it. It
is dependent on using a sexigesimal system and on the value of the
excess being 793 chelekim as opposed to 792 chelekim, for example. The
fact that it is derived from the sexagesimal system is consistent with
it being of ancient origin. The consequence of the number of chelekim in
an hour (3 x 60 x 60) being derived from multiples of 60, a number with
many divisors, is that it ends up also having many divisors and it can
be derived by multiplying numbers in many different ways. The only
unarbitrary way of deriving 1080 parts per hour is to show it is
dependent on the excess of the molad being 793.

Topic:
	1989 Table of Contents
______________________________________________________________________
 
This is a table of contents for all the mailings that have gone out in
1989. This covers numbers 94 through 125 (this one). The next regular
mailing will go out in 1990. A few statistical pieces of information:
the list currently has at least 220 members (three of the addresses are
BB's or redistribution aliases) and goes out to at least 10 countries
(based on my understanding of the .xx domain country codes:
.au     Australia
.ca     Canada
.ch     Switzerland
.fi     Finland
.fr     France
.il     Israel
.nl     Netherlands
.se     Sweden
.uk     United Kingdom
and the US).
 
So, here it is!
 
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #94
	Re: Codes of the Torah
		Sid Gordon
	National Jewish Outreach Program
		Miriam Nadel
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #95
	      Re: Codes of the Torah
			Benjamin Svetitsky
			Avi Feldblum
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #96
	SPECIAL: Announcing a new Judaic Studies Newsletter
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #97
	Update on Judaic Studies Newsletter
		Avi Feldblum - Mod.
	Short Joke
		Wendy
	Question on Korbanot reading for Chag
		Art Werschulz
	Stamp Story and Question
		Harry Rubin
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #98
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Rabbi Tendler on the Jewish Family
		Yechezkal Shimon (Steven) Gutfreund
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #99
	Proposal on Judaic Studies Newsletter
		Avi Feldblum
	Third Newsletter
	Fourth Newsletter
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #100
	Question re polygamy
		Evelyn Leeper
	Crisis in the UK
		Yitz Katz
	Re: Karbanot Section for Chag
		Shimon Schwartz
	Re: Tikun Sofrim
		Daniel Schindler
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #101
	Re: Spelling variations in the Torah
			Samuel E. Schacham
	Re: Cherem d'Rabbenu Gershom
			Art Kamlet
	Re: Get Issue in the U.K.
			Sammy
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #102
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Question on chronology of Purim period
		Harold Wyzansky
	Re: get issue in UK
		Roxane Neal
 
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #103
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Problems with dates
		Avi Feldblum
		Shmuel Schacham
	Re: Polygamy
		Daniel Schindler
		Dan Berleant
 
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #104
	Retroactive nullification of conversion
			K Watkins
			Avi Feldblum
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #105
	Re: Statute of Limitations on Cherem of Rabbenu Gershom
		Michael Shimshoni
		Ezra Tepper
		Daniel Schindler
	Re:  Variant Torahs and Counting Letters
		Daniel Schindler
 
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #106
	Re: Nullification of Conversion
		R. Yaacov Haber
		Josh Proschan
	Questions about Shabbat
		Michael Blaustein
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #107
	Questions on the Calendar
		Harry Rubin
	Re: Heating up food on Shabbat
		Stanley Rotman
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #108
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re; Heating up food on Shabbat
		Stanley Rotman
	13 rules for interpreting the Torah
		Ari Gross
 
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #109
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: Writing a Sefer Torah
		Harry I. Rubin
	How to refer to Jesus
		Evelyn Leeper
	Pidyon HaBen after a conversion
		Fran Storfer
	Those Yom Tov Showering Blues
		Isaac Balbin
 
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #110
	Kitniot Derivatives and oils on Pesach
		Susan Slusky
	Re: Reheating cold,dry, cooked food on Shabbat
		Daniel Schindler
	Re: Pidyan Bechor
		Samuel E. Schacham
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #111
	Re: kitniyot on Pesach
		Josh Proschan (and David Chechik)
		Morris Podolak
		Avi Bloch
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #112
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: Reheating food on Shabbat
		Morris Podolak
	Showering on Yom Tov
		Ari Gross
	Showering on Shabbat
		David Brusowankin
	Re: Jesus or Christ
		Dan Berleant
		Avi Feldblum
	Pidyon HaBen
		Samuel Schacham
		Daniel Schindler
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #113
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: Kitniyot
		Zev Sero 
	Re: Showering on Shabbat/Yom Tov
		Merryll  Herman
		David Cohen
	Re: Pidyon Haben
		Zev Sero 		
		Yitz Katz
		Avi Feldblum
	Re: Reheating food on Shabbat
		J. A. Durieux
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #114
	Panhandlers
		Art Werschulz
	Microphones on Shabbat
		Daniel Schindler
 
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #115
	The Jewish Travelers Database
		Xev Gittler
	More on kitnios
		Daniel Schindler
	Bread Machine
		Dave Sherman
	Re: Term for Jesus
		Ezra L. Tepper
	"Shorts"
		Harry I. Rubin
		Wendy
		Francine Storfer
 
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #116
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: Showering on Shabbat or Yom Tov
		David Cohen
	Jewish View on Abortion
		Fran Storfer
	Re: Pidyon Haben
		Ruth Glazer
	Re: Circumcision
		Avi Bloch
	Bracha on Lunar Eclipse
		Stuart Freedman
	cigarettes and halacha
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #117
	mail.jewish picnic
		Sam Saal
	Re: Circumcision
		Edgar Braunschweig
		Ari Gross
	Re: Abortion
		Ari Gross
	Re: Bracha for Eclipse
		Ari Gross
		Josh Proschan
	AOJS
		L.Cohen
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #118
	Observance in the Absence of Belief
		Alan M. Silverblatt
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #119
	Polygamy in Jewish law
		Wendy J. Desmonde
	Re: AOJS
		Hal Schloss
	Jewish Software and Braille
		Shalom Krischer
	Bees, Wasps and the Succah
		Josh Proschan
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #120
	Re: Polygamy
		Keith Bierman
	Re: Bee/yellowjacket traps for the succah
		[From the net;  Bruce Krulwich and kjl]
	Standing during the reading of the Torah
		Avi Feldblum
 
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #121
	Re: Custom of standing during Torah reading
		Daniel Schindler
		Fred Astren
		Joshua Proschan
		Ari Gross
		Jan David Meisler
		David Sherman
 
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #122
	Re: Polygamy
		Ezra L Tepper
	Date question
		Morris Podolak
	Judaism and Mythology
		Harry I. Rubin
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #123
	Re: Date question
		Daniel Schindler
	Re: Prayers for the State of Israel
		Ezra Tepper
	Re: Standing for the Torah reading
		Ezra Tepper
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #124
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: thermostatically controlled systems on Shabbat
		Susan Slusky
	Halachic view on Requieum etc.
		David S. Green
	Re: Term for Jesus
		David Cohen
	Silicon Valley shul
		M. Podolak
	Origin of the chelek in the Jewish Calendar
		Daniel Schindler

Topics:
	Looking for someone in Los Angeles
		Avi Feldblum
	Re: Hot water on Shabbat
		David Sherman
		Samuel Schacham
		Ben Svetitsky
	Now for something on the lighter side
		Josh Proschan
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I will be in Los Angeles for the Shabbat of Jan 20. If anyone on the
list lives in that vicinity and knows someone who could put me up for
Shabbat, please get in touch with me. In addition, if you have any
recomendations (pro or con) about about any of the kosher eating places
there please let me know (I will be in LA during the week prior to that
Shabbat). Thanks in advance.
 
Avi Feldblum - mail.jewish moderator
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
[There were three similar replies to Susan's question (in #124), but
with enough different points, that all three are included seperately.
Dave quotes Susan's entire question, so you can see it there, rather
than going back to "last years" mailings. Mod]
 
 
> The use of various devices with thermostatically controlled
> heater/cooler mechanisms seems to be generally accepted as okay for
> Shabbat. For example, it's all right to open a refrigerator (with the
> light unscrewed) even knowing that by so doing you hasten the time as
> which the compressor will kick in. Also, it's okay to open the front
> door even knowing that by so doing you hasten the time when the air
> conditioner or heating furnace will turn on. Correct me if I'm mistaken
> about these first statements.
 
There are those who will disagree with you on the first statement;
our Lubavitcher friends wait until the fridge is running before opening
it.  However, this may be a chumra [stringency -Mod. But see next reply]
rather than something considered halacha even by them.
 
> However, from the discussion I read here this summer, I inferred that
> usage of hot water from one's private home's hot water heater is
> a problem because by so doing one hastens the time at which the hot water
> heater will turn on. There were other problems cited that did not apply
> to this question. I am particularly interested in the reason for the 
> distinction being made. How is one thermostatically controlled system
> different from another? Or did I misunderstand the problem?
 
I think it's a different problem.  If that were the only problem,
one could shut off the hot water heater (down to the pilot light)
over Shabbos; the water stays hot for quite a while, as long as you
don't use too much of it.  When I inquired about this some time ago,
I was advised that the problem is that when you bring cold water in
to mix with the hot water in the tank -- EVEN IF THE HEATER IS OFF --
you run into problems with "cooking".  Mixing cold water into hot
heats the cold water, and should only be done in a "cli shani" (second
vessel).  Since the heater is the "cli rishon" where the hot water
is actually heated, putting cold water into it on Shabbos is
prohibited.  One could, in theory, use the existing hot water
from the heater, but the pressure from the incoming cold water
is needed to push it through the faucets.  (This suggests that
shutting off the cold water intake, and then taking hot water
from the release valve at the bottom of the water heater, should be
permissible.)
 
Disclaimer: I don't profess to have any real halachic knowledge.
I'm sure others more learned can explain the concepts involved
more accurately.
 
David Sherman
Toronto
______________________________________________________________________
 
The main problem of using hot water is that when hot water comes out of
the faucet, cold water gets into the heater, and upon getting in touch
with the hot water previously there, the new water is "cooked"
('bishul'). This takes place even if one turns off the power source
(electricity/ gas), as long as the water reservoir is hot enough ('yad
soledet', roughly 45 C).
 
The issue of thermostatically controlled systems is quite complicated.
Indeed there are 'poskim' who say one can open a refrigirator only while
its compressor is operating, thus extending the duration of operation
but not causing it to start. In Israel they sell refrigerators which
operate on timer rather than on thermostat for Shabbat. Similarly ovens
with fixed heating (like a hot plate). Then the big question is why can
a person open the door into a house, letting present day -20 K air
getting in? This is not that simple. Don't spend your Shabbat with
locked doors (at least stay inside...), I was told there is an answer of
R.S.S Urbach (or is it Aurbach?)  to the effect that the thermostat in
the house is not located directly next to the door. I guess it may have
to do with issues of Grama and Garmay.
 
Chanuka Sameach,  Shmuel.
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
The problem is not that using the water will hasten the action of
the thermostat; rather the problem is the introduction of cold water
into the heater.  It's similar to having a kettle on the stove, which
is 'kli rishon,' i.e., the vessel in which water was heated.  Adding
new cold water to the kettle is forbidden because the hot water in
the kettle 'cooks' the cold water.  Similarly, if one pours the hot water
into a cup, one may still not add cold water to that cup, because
the cold water will be 'cooked' even in 'kli sheni,' a vessel once
removed.  So adding cold water to the hot water in the water heater
is 'bishul': cooking.
 
Note that if there is a fire under the kettle on Shabbat, that kettle
remains 'kli rishon' even after it is removed from the fire, until
it reaches room temperature.
 
One question that remains is, what if you turn off the heater before
Shabbat?  Is it still 'kli rishon'?  Opinions here differ.  One might think
that since the source of heat was never on during Shabbat, there is
no kli rishon.  However, a metal plate that was heated before Shabbat
still counts as a fire for cooking during Shabbat, and so there is
a problem with cold water coming into contact with the solid parts
of the water heater if they are still hot.  I don't know how hot.
 
Solar water heaters are another issue entirely, very complex because
solar heat is not considered fire for any purpose while there is still
a question about the hot pipes of the heater as above.  Naturally, this
is very topical in Israel, and various authorities have ruled in various
ways.
 
Ben Svetitsky
[email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
[And now for some light enjoyment, here are some questions to ponder]
 
A boy becomes bar mitzvah at the beginning of the day on which his birthday
falls; i.e. at tzais hakochovim which, for the convenience of un*x, will be
henceforth called the end of twilight.  We will skip lightly over the easy
question, of just when this event occurs, and ask:
 
1.  If he had been eating while it was still day, and wishes to continue
    eating, can he do so, or must he make a new brochah (blessing) now
    that he is no longer a koton (minor)?
 
2.  If he does not continue eating, can he (should he) make a brochah
    acharonah (blessing after eating) for what he ate before the end of
    twilight?  (This question follows the opinion of Rav Yosi, that the
    transition from day to night is as the blinking of an eye, so that
    there are no side issues concerning the time lapse since he stopped
    eating.)
 
3.  If the boy eats a meal (with bread) shortly before night begins, and
    says bircat ha-mozon (grace after meals) before night begins; does
    he have to say it again after he becomes bar-mitzvah?  (Bircat
    ha-mozon is dependent not only on finishing the meal, but also on
    the satiation; the verse says v'achaltoh v'sovotoh (you will eat and
    be satisfied). In the case described, he would still have the
    satiation from the meal.)
 
4.  (Extra credit.)  At the instant of his becoming a bar mitzvah, what is the
    first mitzvah, out of the 613, that he is required to do?
 
And they think becoming a bar mitzvah is just a matter of some catering, a
speech, and a hat . . . :->
 
Josh.

Topics:
	Halachic view of transplants wanted
		Peter Weiss
	Parsha Question
		Marty Olevitch
	Jewish Live-in to help with kids
		Hal Miller
	Re: Opening your Fridge or Front Door on Shabbat
		Hershel Belkin
		Josh Proschan
______________________________________________________________________
 
I am interested in information on the orthodox view of transplants,
organ donations,etc.  Human to human, man to woman, woman to man, Jew to
non-Jew, non-Jew to Jew, i.e., heart transplants.  What about animal
parts to humans. Non kosher animals to Jews.
 
Thanks,
Peter - attunix!amdahl!peter
______________________________________________________________________
 
In the parsha of a couple weeks ago, Vayishlach, we read about how
Benjamin was born on the way from Beth El to Ephrath, which is in Aretz
Yisrael (Genesis 35:16).
 
However, right after that (Genesis 35:23) is a list of all of Jacob's
sons, including Binyamin. At the end of the list, it says "These are the
sons born to Jacob in Padan Aran."
 
Can anyone explain this apparent contradiction? Why is Benjamin referred
to as being among the sons born in Padan Aran when he was born in Aretz
Yisrael?
 
Marty Olevitch - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Hello all.  I realize this is a little off the point of most postings, but I
don't know where else to turn for reliable response.
 
I am Hal Miller, a Conservative Jew living in Washington State.  For
some years now, my wife and I have been involved with a program that
brings French high-school kids to the USA for a month in the summer, and
places them with families, just to allow them to see what US families
are like.  (We have two little ones of our own).  Last summer, we found
(through the Net) a college girl from Vienna, Austria, who then spent
the entire summer with us, occasionally helping with our kids or
household chores.  We have had outstanding luck with this.  It's just
time to try Israeli (or Jewish from other nations too) kids.
 
I don't have any good contacts (our local synagogue leaves something to
be desired -- we often drive 3 hours, and spend the weekend in Portland,
Oregon).
 
Any chance any of you would have an idea how we could get in contact
with individuals or organizations that may have an interest in sending
high-school/ college age kids (my wife prefers female, but we are open)
on a one-at-a-time basis, for periods of one to twelve months?  We have
numerous friends who are envious of the good experiences we've had, and
could probably set up six or so.
 
I would be grateful for any tips you could provide.  Obviously, this is
a little more risky, for us and for the kids, since it isn't a "bonded"
program, but we've had such good luck that we are ready to go with it.
 
Thanks much.
Hal and Jana Miller
7709 Warren Drive NW
Gig Harbor, Washington 98335
USA
1-206-265-6894
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding the discussion about the differences between opening a
refrigerator on Shabbos, and opening the door to a house, it seems to me
that there are indeed some basic differences:
 
1. It is always possible to determine before opening a refrigerator
   door whether or not the motor is running.  However, the same is
   not true for opening the door to a house.  Consider returning from
   shul to your (empty) house -- you have no way to tell if the
   furnace is running or not.  If you are permitted to open the 
   door to go in to a house, it seems to me that it would be
   difficult to restrict opening the door for other purposes.
 
2. Since waiting for the refrigerator motor to start is at worst an 
   inconvenience, it is hard to make a case for needing to open it 
   immediately.  (Of course, if there are other circumstances involved, 
   such as needing ice for a wound, etc. then another set of priorities 
   may apply...).  Again, it seems to me that there may be a number of
   other issues involved with opening the door to a house.  Consider
   someone knocking on the door -- are we to make them wait (perhaps
   in rain or snow) until the furnace comes on?  Surely that would
   involve problems with respect or causing insult, pain, etc...
 
3. It also seems to me that the sole purpose of a refrigerator is
   to keep the food cool.  Thus the operation of the motor and the
   insulating value of the closed container is its only function.  The
   house, on the other hand, serves a number of purposes (shelter,
   security, etc.) besides providing heat.  It could (perhaps) be
   argued that heating the house (and thus the thermostatic operation
   of the furnace) is a secondary function of the house itself.  If so,
   then the problems of causing the furnace to start become less 
   serious (assuming of course that the purpose of opening the door
   was NOT to start the furnace!!)
 
Some of the other responses mention things like the distance of the
thermostat from the door -- which I would think add to the argument
that the control of termperature is not the primary purpose of the
house.  (Of course, this also lessens the possibility that opening
the door will _directly_ cause the furnace to start, which I think
was the intended implication).
 
Disclaimer: None of the above is based on any halachic insights; it
            is simply one opinion.  (PS. I happen to be one of the 
            Lubavitchers mentioned by David Sherman -- we wait for 
            the motor to be on before opening the fridge!)
 
Hershel Belkin - teecs!belkin
______________________________________________________________________
 
I once asked a recognized posek (Rabbinic authority) how people who will only
open a refrigerator when the motor is running are able to open their doors
or windows on Shabbos, when either the furnace or air conditioner is running.
His reply: "That's why I am not machmir on opening refrigerator doors."
 
I have been told that the question is whether the motor turns on immediately
(or almost so) after the door is opened; or whether it turns on (even) a 
(short) while later, the delay depending on the inside temperature, outside
temperature, etc.  If it always turns on almost immediately, that would be an
inevitable consequence of opening the door, and might be forbidden.  If the
delay is variable, and it does not always turn on immediately, then it would
not be.  There are (or were) both kinds of refrigerator made; I have talked to
people who owned units that turned on immediately, every time the door was
opened.
 
Josh.

Topic:
	Answers to bar mitzvah question in #126
		Yisrael Deren
		Jonathan Horen
		Ezra L. Tepper
______________________________________________________________________
 
[I will repeat the questions here, and then the three responses are
listed. Mod.] 
 
[And now for some light enjoyment, here are some questions to ponder]
 
A boy becomes bar mitzvah at the beginning of the day on which his birthday
falls; i.e. at tzais hakochovim which, for the convenience of un*x, will be
henceforth called the end of twilight.  We will skip lightly over the easy
question, of just when this event occurs, and ask:
 
1.  If he had been eating while it was still day, and wishes to continue
    eating, can he do so, or must he make a new brochah (blessing) now
    that he is no longer a koton (minor)?
 
2.  If he does not continue eating, can he (should he) make a brochah
    acharonah (blessing after eating) for what he ate before the end of
    twilight?  (This question follows the opinion of Rav Yosi, that the
    transition from day to night is as the blinking of an eye, so that
    there are no side issues concerning the time lapse since he stopped
    eating.)
 
3.  If the boy eats a meal (with bread) shortly before night begins, and
    says bircat ha-mozon (grace after meals) before night begins; does
    he have to say it again after he becomes bar-mitzvah?  (Bircat
    ha-mozon is dependent not only on finishing the meal, but also on
    the satiation; the verse says v'achaltoh v'sovotoh (you will eat and
    be satisfied). In the case described, he would still have the
    satiation from the meal.)
 
4.  (Extra credit.)  At the instant of his becoming a bar mitzvah, what is the
    first mitzvah, out of the 613, that he is required to do?
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Q1    A) Birchat Hanehenin (blessings over food etc.) is a Chiyuv D'rabanan (a 
rabbinic requirement). The Katan making a brocho is also fulfilling the 
Mitzvah of Chinuch (education) also Rabbinically mandated. The situation 
is similar to the case of one becoming Bar-Mitzva during the counting of 
the Omer - pre-Moshiach when the counting of the Omer is only Rabbinically 
required when all agree a he continues to count with a Brocho.
 
Q2    A) As above.
 
 
Q3    A) Here obviously the situation is becomes complicated by the fact that 
Birchat Hamazon is Biblically required. Without reference to texts in 
response to the question presented I would note that the requirement is     
not simply to be satiated but to be satiated by eating (as opposed to by 
transfusion etc.) If he ate as a minor then he should be able to bench as 
a minor.
 
Q4    A) Reading the Shma - which according to some is the reason the first 
Mishna in the Talmud begins with those laws. If he became Bar Mitzva 
Friday night he also has the requirement of Zachor et Yom Hashabat 
remembering the Shabat Day.
 
Yisrael Deren - Stamford, CT
______________________________________________________________________
 
1 No.
 
2 Yes.
 
3 No.
 
4 Kriyat Sh'mah
 
Jonathan Horen
______________________________________________________________________
 
I will relate here to his first question:
 
In answering I assume two facts:
  1. that everyone knows that I have no authority to pasken (give an
     authoritative halachic decision) and
  2. that the fruits the bar mitzvah boy wants to eat were before him
     when he made the original brochah.
 
The Talmud in Berochos 35a provides two reasons why one blesses before
eating. The first is an a fortiori argument from the blessings said
after the meal (birchas hamozon), namely if one must thank G-d after
eating one surely must thank him before. According to this reasoning
the responsibility to bless is a requirement falling on the eater. If
the person blessing is a minor, his command is derived from the general
mitzvah to train himself for his attaining his majority (mita'am chinuch)
falling on the Rabbinical command to bless. Thus its performance is not
a fulfillment of the direct command to bless, which only falls
after bar mitzvah. Thus there would be a requirement to bless after night-
fall, as the koton did not fulfill the direct command to bless. However,
the opinion that we derive the command to bless before eating from birchas
hamozon is rejected.
 
The second opinion given there (which is accepted as halachah) is that
we bless because one who (i.e. whose body) benefits from the fruits of
the world should not do so before blessing (i.e., recognizing the
"hand" responsible for this food). The Gemorah there explains that
one who eats without blessing is similar to one eating from sanctified
produce (before having redeemed it). Therefore according to this approach
the blessing has the effect of redeeming or permitting the fruit to
be eaten and not to be considered as yet "sanctified." It would seem
that according to this approach, which is accepted as halachah,
the koton would not be required to bless again, as the rabbis permitted
him to eat the food on which he blessed when a minor. Thus he can continue
eating the food when attaining bar mitzvah, as the Rabbis already per-
mitted it to him. (I do not want to go into the point as to whether the
godol is considered a different individual, as I think that there are
many halachot that prove that this is not so.) In Lithuanian Talmudic
terminology, this could be formulated as: Is the requirement to bless
a chiuv gavra (something that essentially falls on the person) or a
chiuv cheftzah (something that falls on the object)?
 
Ezra L. Tepper <[email protected]>

This one got lost.  I will put it here if I find it.

Gavriel

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Positions in Prayer
		Fran Storfer
	Announcement
______________________________________________________________________
 
There was a problem with the AT&T email gateway, and some mail sent
during that period may have gotten lost. I resent #129 out to everyone,
if you get this but did not receive #129, please let me know. I do not
have anything backed up to go out, so if you sent anything and you have
not seen it, please let me know and resend if possible. In the meantime,
if you don't write, there is nothing to send out
 
Avi Feldblum - Moderator
[email protected]    or    jewish%[email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I teach the school services at my shul, and this year have been making
them into teaching services for the adults, as well.  Each month I
have taken a different portion of the Friday night service (e.g.
Kabbalat Shabbat, Shma, Amidah) and taught about that portion a bit.
I would like to spend one month talking about the various positions of
prayer, i.e. why we stand or sit or shochel or don't shochel or bow
from the waist or bow from the knees and then from the waist. . .  I
know a fair amount about this topic, but my knowledge is more
scattered than I would like it to be, going into a teaching situation.
Can anyone suggest something I can read (short and easily accessible
would be nice--anyone want to post something? :-) ) that can pull it
all together?
 
Thanks for your help.
 
Fran Storfer
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
                     *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
 
                        The Jerusalem World Forum
 
                                 on
 
                         Medicine and Halachah
 
                              ***********
 
     We are pleased and proud to announce the establishment of the
 
          JERUSALEM WORLD FORUM ON MEDICINE AND HALACHAH.
 
     We welcome any query, problem or original insight pertaining
 
     to medical and/or bio-ethics.
 
 
     Rabbi Yaakov Weiner
     Dean
     Jerusalem Center for Research
     BITNET: WELFARE@ILNCRD

Topics:
	Bar Mitzvah question
		Ezra Tepper
	Re: Positions in Prayer
		Gary Sitzman
	Tzedakah Calculation Request
		Rob Levene
	Calculation of Pi
		Josh Proschan
	Short Purim Torah
		Josh Proschan
______________________________________________________________________
To return to Josh Proschan's interesting bar mitzvah questions in
mail.jewish #126, you had two replies to the question 4, "At the instant
of his becoming a bar mitzvah, what is the first mitzvah, out of the
613, that he is required to do?" Both of the contributors cited _Krias
shma_.
 
However there is a problem with this answer, as the Rabbis have told us
to delay the recital of _Krias shma_ until we say the two blessings,
_Asher bidvoro_ and _Ahavas olam_. We are therefore required to say them
first, fulfilling the mitzvah of listening to the rulings of the
Sanhedrin. Before the blessings, of course, is _Borechu_, the response
to which could be seen as an expression of the commands to believe in
and love G-d. Moreover, according to custom (whose observance is
required but may not be a in fulfillment of one of the Torah commands),
we recite the Psalm _Shir Hama'alos_ and/or the verse _Ve-hu rachum_
before _Borechu_. Since according to many, this custom is practiced in
order to occupy ourselves with words of Torah before prayer, one can
count _mitzvas talmud torah_ as well.
 
It thus seems that before he gets to _Krias shma_ the bar mitzvah boy
has put together a nice bundle of mitzvos, and I'm not sure that this
list is inclusive.
 
As a result of thinking about this question, I asked myself why a bar
mitzvah boy is not required to make the blessing over the study of Torah
once darkness falls. I have never heard that it is done. However, the
reason why adults do not bless at night is because the mitzvah of Talmud
Torah is continuous -- and as long as one does not go to sleep for a
"fixed sleep," the original blessing is in effect. This reason does not
seem to apply to the blessing made by the bar mitzvah boy in the morning
before he became 13. That blessing was in fulfillment of the rabbinical
command of chinuch (education), however, at night he has the Torah
command to study. Why then should he not bless at night over the new
Torah command. Perhaps one of your contributors could enlighten me on
this.
 
Ezra Tepper <[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________
 
You should check out The Second Jewish Catalog (the light blue one) 
for information on when to bow during services, etc.  It is in
the section on the Geography of the Synagogue and is rather
concise and describes differences between Reform/Recon/Conserve/Ortho
practices.
 
Gary Sitzmann - att!ihlpn!ghs1 or [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Does anyone happen to have any discussions on the correct way to calculate
annual tzedakah?  I remember reading that it is different for the first
year of working at a job.  I was also wondering if the fact that a portion
of secular taxes go to social programs previously supported by private
contributions affects the percentage calculation.
 
Rob Levene
______________________________________________________________________
In the haftorah for parshas vaYakhel, there is a description of the Yam 
(literally "sea") that Shlomoh made for the first Bais HaMikdosh.  It is 
10 amah from lip to lip, round, five amah high, and the circumference is 
30 amah.  A classic question is why the circumference is so far off.  
(For a diameter of 10, the circumference should be about 31 1/2.)  One 
traditional explanation is that the diameter and circumference do not 
refer to the same circle; the top of the bowl curves inward and the 
circumference is measured there, while the diameter measured across the 
widest point. 
 
This is not completely satisfying to a mathematician.  (Mathophobes can 
hit the delete key here :-)  Another is to say that the measurements are 
rounded off; the circumference was 30 amah, the diameter 9.54, and they 
round to 30 and 10.  This is adequate, but there is a better explanation. 
The sentence describing the Yam has a word that is written one way 
(v'kavah) and read another way (v'kav).  Kav means circumference.  Extra 
or missing letters are often used to indicate something about the subject 
of a sentence, as with the question of why Binyomin is listed as having 
been born in Padam Aran.  A missing letter in the word for 
"circumference" indicates that something is missing from the value given.  
The Vilna Gaon goes further.  He notes that the ratio, in gematria, of 
kavah to kav is 111/106 which, to 4 decimal places, is pi/3.  Thus the 
same word that tells you something is missing supplies the correction 
factor.
 
Josh.
______________________________________________________________________
 
Note that the holiday of Purim itself follows the principle of
"na-hapach hu" (lit. turned around. Refers to fact that we do things in
an inverted way on Purim or something like that. Mod ).  All other
holidays are celebrated on the first day in Jerusalem, and on the second
day in remote lands.  Purim is celebrated on the first day in remote
lands, and only on the second day in Jerusalem.
 
Have A Nehcelierf Mirup.

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: when to bow (etc.) during services
		David Sherman
	Re: Bar mitzvah questions
		Josh Proschan
	Question on killing fish
		Matthew Rosenbaum
		Avi Feldblum
______________________________________________________________________
 
Two short administration items. There is a problem in the gateway
software at the att internet gateway. Mail sent to [email protected] will
fail (in general, mail to [email protected] that arrives at the att-in
gateway will fail). They hope to get that resolved soon, but to be safe
send all mail to me at either [email protected] or [email protected].
There have been a rash of gateway problems in the last few weeks, all
the others appear to have been resolved. If, however, you sent me mail
and I have not responded, please try and resend, as it may have gotten
lost.
 
One of the mailing list members asked if the old issues are available
for anonymous ftp retrieval. I have no place to put them up for
anonymous ftp, but if someone on the mailing list is on a machine with
anonymous ftp and the powers to be would allow it to be placed there, I
will supply the files. If anyone is interested in doing this, please let
me know.
 
With Pesach comming up, get in anything you want related to Pesach soon.
I will try and collect any good Pesach torah from the net and make a
special mailing of it, as many mailing list members are not
soc.culture.jewish readers. I will also resend out the special issue on
kitnious, as that topic always comes up.
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
The ArtScroll Siddur has very helpful instructions, at
appropriate places throughout the siddur, on what to do when.
This includes such things as when one strikes one's chest,
when one kisses one's tzitzis, and so on.
 
David Sherman ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
The questions posted had to do with a boy who has just become bar 
mitzvah; that is, the third star has just appeared and it is now night.  
The first three questions were variations on the theme of whether a 
brochah he made while it was still day is still valid, or whether he 
{can|should|must} make a new one.  On these questions, the authorities 
are divided; and the practical halachah seems to be to avoid the 
situation if possible, and not to make a brochah if it can't be avoided.  
(For ways to avoid the situation, see the two books that came out 
recently on brochos; one by Rabbi P. Bodner, and one from Artscroll.) 
 
The last question, of what the boy's first mitzvah (obligation) is, has 
been repeatedly discussed in the literature.  The underlying thought 
seems to be that the first mitzvah is connected to accepting the mitzvos 
of the Torah.  Many authorities say that kri'as sh'mah (reading the 
sh'mah), which begins with acceptance of the mitzvos, is the first 
mitzvah. Others say that the first mitzvah is to say bircas haTorah (the 
blessings over learning Torah.) 
 
Still others, including the Ben Ish Chai and the Khaf Hachaim, go back a 
step and say that the first mitzvah is to make the brochah "shehechiyanu" 
over having reached the age of responsibility and having become obligated 
in all of the mitzvos.  (The custom seems to be not to make a separate 
brochah for this, but to create an occasion for a shehechiyanu [such as a 
new fruit, or new suit] or to include it in the shehechiyanu made on the 
tephillin.) 
 
The Chasam Sofer, in a speech he made at his son's bar mitzvah dinner 
that is included in his commentary on parshas Va-yichi, carries this 
progression one step further: 
 
    "The bar mitzvah's first mitzvah, immediately at the 
     beginning of night, is to be happy and joyous at 
     meriting the opportunity to accept the Torah's 
     mitzvos.  This mitzvah is a positive commandment of 
     the Torah.  It is not explicitly stated in the Torah, 
     as with (the commandment to rejoice on) Shavuos, the 
     remembrance of the giving of the Torah, where the 
     festival and rejoicing are made dependent on  the 
     first fruits and the wheat harvest.  This is because 
     it is impossible to command us to rejoice on that day, 
     as then the commandment would become a responsibility, 
     and the joy would become a burden. Therefore there is 
     no explicit command, and we rejoice on our own.  Also, 
     from the effort of this rejoicing, we forget the 
     worldly pleasure of the harvest which is of no value 
     by comparison.  And so on the day of the bar mitzvah." 
 
 
Have a happy and kosher Pesach.
 
Joshua Proschan
______________________________________________________________________
 
I am under the impression that as long as the specific fish is kosher it
does not matter how it was killed.  This differs from the kosher laws of
other animals.  I had also read that animals that were to be eaten must
have been killed with the least amount of suffering.  This does not seem
do go along with the above statement saying that any kosher fish can be
eaten regardless of how they were killed. I hope this makes sense and
would appreciate a response.
 
Matthew Rosenbaum
Student at the Uniuersity of California, Santa Cruz([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
[short response to above question]
 
In general, the reason for the mitzvot (commandments) are not
known. There are laws regarding the proper way to slaughter animals, and
it is true that many of the details are to prevent cruelty to the
animal. However, if for instance, you came up with a way to kill the
animal that inflicted even less pain on the animal, that would not be
valid way to do it. With fish, there are no laws about how to kill the
fish, thus any method will allow the fish to be eaten. There is another
law, called tzar ba'aleh chaim, which says that one is forbidden to
cause unnecessary pain to a living creature. It would seem to me that if
one choose some unnecessary painfull way to kill a fish to eat it, the
fish would still be permitted to be eaten, but the individual has
violated the principle of tzar ba'aleh chaim.
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]   or  [email protected]

[This is a pesach special, a replay of a previous mail.jewish dealing
with the the issue of Kitniyot on Pesach, a topic that appears each year
for discussion. If you have stuff to add to the review below, please
send it in, and I'll both get it out in a future mailing as well see if
I can include it in next years version.
 
One other note, anonymous ftp access to the mail.jewish archives is
almost ready. It will be hopefully be announced in the next mail.jewish.
 
Avi Feldblum, your friendly Moderator]
 
Topic:
	kitniyot on Pesach
		Josh Proschan (and David Chechik)
		Morris Podolak
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
The subject of kitniyos is a vexing one.  The bottom line for oils is
that peanut oil, like garlic, can be used by those who have a family
custom to do so and cannot be used by those with a family custom of not
using it.  Corn oil does not seem to have acquired this leniency.  Other
vegetable oils that are not derived from kitniyos or chometz, such as
olive oil, sesame oil, and walnut oil, may be used by anyone.  (Finding
oils with a reliable supervision is quite another matter, and things
change from year to year as the food industry discovers new ways to make
things easier for them and harder for us.)
 
Herewith a carefully researched (viz. I stole everything from previous
mail.jewish articles) overview of the subject:
 
From Dovid Chechik, about 3 years ago (condensed from 3 postings and 
repostings): 
 
So far as Mosaic law is concerned (for my purposes, this includes the
Talmud), the only things not permitted on passover are things that are
leavened.  This includes any of the five grains that have had yeast or
sourdough added, or that have been sitting in water for a period long
enough to start "leavening".  The five grains are barley, rye, oats,
wheat, spelts.  I don't know what spelts are but, hey, rote is rote.
Mnemonic as taught to me in elementary school is brows.
 
Water includes those things that contain water including saliva, sweat,
etc.  (in fact, according to the Talmud, saliva starts leavening
immediately while water takes ~18 minutes), but not fruit-pure (i.e. not
from concentrate) fruit juice.
 
Using the principle of building a fence about the law, there were some
additional rabbinic restrictions, most of which, I think, arose in the
middle ages.  The major (most impacting and inconvenient) restriction is
that of "Kitniyos" or usually [but incorrectly] legumes.  The western
(== Ashkenazic) community said that they are forbidden on passover.
Things contained in this category are "other grains" including rice,
corn, and beans.  (Bet you never heard of beans as a grain, but in the
middle ages they were ground and used like flour).  [They still are. --
JHP]
 
There is a principle of "lo ploog betakanas chachamim", (literally,
there is no argument in the edicts of the rabbis).  This means (my
definition) that, to avoid boundary conditions, the rabbis, when making
an halachic decree about a category, mean the decree to cover the entire
category, not just the specific elements in the category that were the
cause of the decree.  This principle exists and is applied all through
halachic literature, especially in the Talmud.  Therefore the
prohibition of "legumes" applies to all "legumes", including green
beans.
 
The Talmud states clearly that eating rice on passover is permissible.
The first written record of the prohibition against "legumes" is from
one of the authors of Tosaphot, Reb Yitzchok of Courbeille.  He writes
(circa ~1250) that "the world has the custom of prohibiting them
[legumes] since the days of the ancient scholars".  He goes on to
explain that the reasons for the prohibition are that 1) "legume" flour
was often mixed with wheat flour and was therefore chometz and 2) more
importantly, since the flours and things made from them looked alike
someone may confuse rice flour with wheat flour and come to use the
chometz.  "Legume" flour and all "legumes" are therefore prohibited by
CUSTOM.  The custom had seemingly grown as a "grass roots" movement.
 
   [This definition of kitniyos includes anything which can be ground into 
    flour and used in baking things that look like chometz.  There is 
    another very old definition of kitniyos:  those types of produce that 
    are piled in heaps in the field during the harvest, as wheat is, and 
    that could therefore lead someone to think "this is permitted, so that 
    is also permitted".  Both definitions would appear to include 
    potatoes, corn, and peanuts as well as rice and beans. --JHP]
 
The custom is described by several Sephardic authorities such as the tur
(~1450) as being only applicable to the Ashkenazic community.  The
Sephardic community never adopted it.
 
There were several challenges to the custom in years of famine including
1427 (either a wheat or other famine, either way "legumes" were a needed
alternative for passover consumption).  By 1460 the Ashkenazic rabbinate
decided that the custom was so old (at least 300 years) and widespread
(all of the Ashkenazic community) that, although several rabbis
expressed the desire to drop the custom, they all agreed that they did
not have the power to do so.  The custom has since had the power of a
law.  A ruling of a Halachic Court can only be overturned by a greater
halachic court.  (Greater in both wisdom and number.)
 
Also, the principle of "minhag yisrael kadin" (the customs of Israel are
laws) and "minhag avosaynu beyadaynu" (the customs of our forefathers
are in our hands) apply as in all other laws.  If all of Jewry accepts a
custom, then it becomes part of the law, and has the strength of
rabbinic edicts.  The prohibition of Kitniyos was accepted in Ashkenazic
Jewry for hundreds of years.
 
Remember though that the custom which all Ashkenazim are currently
obligated to keep (by virtue of the fact that their ancestors accepted
it for them) is only not to EAT certain types of "legumes".  Ownership
of "legumes" is still permitted.  Several authorities also permit oil
made from "legumes" although most do not.  In case of great need (if
there's a famine) [or in case of illness] a competent rabbinic authority
should be consulted.
 
So far as soy beans and peanuts are concerned (they didn't have soy
beans and peanuts in Europe so it would have been pretty tough to
include them in the prohibition), most authorities agree that since "lo
plug, etc." has been applied, they too are in the category of "legumes".
[This also appears to be the case for corn; the difficulty is to explain
how potatoes, which fit both definitions, escape inclusion. -- JHP] This
is accepted across the American orthodox community (so far as I know).
No "reputable" kashruth organization (ou, ok, chaf k, etc.) will endorse
products containing these beans.
 
However, with respect to peanuts and soybeans Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, in
his responsa, writes [I try to translate exactly] "... since they did
not decree in a gathering of scholars, not to eat those things that were
mixed with grain or of which flour was made, but by custom they did not
eat those varieties; they did not forbid but [just] those varieties that
they did by custom not eat; to the exclusion of those they did not have
a custom for, since the varieties did not yet exist ..." Rabbi Feinstein
goes on to say that since the Sephardim do not agree to the prohibition,
one does not add on to such a custom.  He then says that in the case of
peanuts, family custom should be observed, i.e., if the family has a
custom not to eat peanuts, they must keep the custom.  If however, they
never accepted such a custom, they may eat peanuts on passover.  He
therefore allows a "kosher for passover" supervision for peanut oil, for
those people whose families never accepted the custom not to eat
peanuts.
 
   [There are also those who will not eat peanuts, but do use peanut oil, 
    arguing that the original prohibition was against the solid food or 
    its flour, and not against oil (since they didn't extract oil from 
    grains in those days).  I don't know the validity of this position, 
    but have heard a similar question raised regarding corn syrup and 
    whether, like peanut oil, it could be used by those who cannot use 
    corn. -- JHP]
 
The Shulchan Aruch in Orech Chayim 453 paragraph 1, clearly states that
there is no prohibition against owning kitniyos; the Magen Avraham and
Mishna Berura give reasons for this (loc cit.).  The clearest
explanation is given by the Terumas Hadeshen who exclaims "they
[Sephardim] eat it and we shouldn't own it?!?"  The halacha may also be
found in the Shulchan Aruch Harav 453 paragraph 5.  For a definitive
English reference, see Halachos of Pesach, by Rabbi Shimon Eider,
Published by Halacha Publications, Lakewood, N.J., available from
Feldheim publishers (Vol. 1, p. 50).  I asked around Lakewood (where I
live) and none of my friends knew of any custom not to own kitniyos on
Pesach.  Remember, kitniyos is only prohibited by MINHAG (custom).
There are NO disagreers on this so far as I know.
 
   [I have never heard a convincing explanation of why potatoes were 
    excluded from the "lo ploog"; if as New World vegetables not known in 
    Europe, then corn should have been excluded also; if as not fitting 
    the definitions of kitniyos, cakes made only with potato starch that 
    are indistinguishable from chometz cakes are common, and potatoes are 
    piled in the fields during the harvest.  Does anyone have an 
    explanation? -- JHP] 
 
Josh Proschan
______________________________________________________________________
 
I would like to add my two cents to some of the ongoing discussion.
 
With regard to kitniot.  The major problem is that it is a custom that
arose after the close of the Talmud, and therefore we have no
well-defined basis for deciding various side issues that may arise.
Perhaps the most confusing thing is the definition of kitniot.  It is
usually translated "legumes", but rice, millet, and corn, which are
usually included in the prohibition are not legumes.  Now while no one
would consider permitting rice on this basis, forbidding things is a
very different matter, and indeed many things today are not used (and
even forbidden by some authorities) simply because they are,
botanically, legumes.  For this reason, many people refrain from using
cottonseed oil on Pesach...cottonseeds have a pod, like legumes.  Rav
Moshe Feinstein ztz"l in his responsa (OH III, 63) argues that the
prohibition falls on those foods which were cutomarily not eaten in a
given area, and that the name kitniot is incidental, it does not define
the nature of the prohibited item.  We therefore need to see which items
were prohibited and which weren't.  Peanuts, says Rav Moshe were usually
not forbidden, so that if someone doesn't have a specific custom
regarding them, he may eat them.  I urge interested readers to go back
to the original source, and not to rely on my paraphrasing of his text.
Certainly, I do not intend to give a psak, merely to pass on some
interesting information.  A very enlightening discussion of the whole
issue of kitniot can be found in Moadim be Halacha by Rabbi Shlomo Yosef
Zevin z"l, which is, I believe, available in English.
 
 Morris Podolak D77@TAUNO
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
As with many things on Pesach it is a matter of minhag. The heter, if
you hold by it, is only for oils. The reasoning behind it was given by
Rav A. I. Kook ZTL (if I'm not mistaken) being that the process they use
today for making oils is such that even if they used wheat in such a
proceess, it wouldn't become chamitz.
 
Again, it's a matter of the minhag you hold, so if your family (or your
husband's family) haven't used kitniot oil until now, I don't think you
can change now, at least not without a 'hatarat nedarim', i.e. a
nullification of a vow.
 
Disclaimer: This information is from a shi'ur (I can't call it a
lecture) I heard about 2 years ago, so I'm not 100% sure of everything I
said, but this was the gist of it.
 
So have a happy and kosher lag be'omer everyone :-)
 
Avi Bloch
avi%taux01@ns

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	May 5 Pogrom in USSR
		Joel Wein
	Role of Shaliach Tzibur
		Fran Storfer
	Info on Pittsburgh Area
		Asher Meth
	Sending wine through mail
		Finley Shapiro
______________________________________________________________________
 
Things have been slow during the Pesach period, but I expect that we
should be back into the swing of things now, with everyone (including
me) at least sort of caught up from whatever piled up during Pesach. So,
if you have something to say, ask or answer please get it to me. 
 
We are currently testing out the anonymous ftp archive for past issues
of mail.jewish and expect to be able to announce it in the next issue.
 
I would also like to welcome back to the list the original moderator and
creator of this mailing list, David Chechik. Welcome and it's good to
have you back!
 
Avi Feldblum, mail.jewish moderator
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
As many of you know there has been a pogrom called against the Jews in
Russia for May 5th.  It is difficult to know whether it will happen, but
there is absolutely no question that Jews in Russia have received verbal
and written threats about this event, that it has been publically called
for, and that they are scared it is a reality -- to the point of
attempting to reinforce the doors to their apartments, etc. It certainly
is believable given the background of rising anti-semitism.
 
We must do what we can to prevent this.  Please contact the President and 
your Congressman and ask them
 
1) to urge Mr. Gorbachev to prevent such a tragedy, i.e. by policing the
streets on May 5th.
 
2) to work towards long term solutions to this problem: let those Jews
who have been frightened into leaving get out (ask Moscow to allow more
flights out and to keep the doors for emigration open.)
 
The opinion line at the White House is (202) - 456 - 7639. It is open 9
AM - 5 PM.
 
Also please write to the President and write/call your congressmen.
 
Most importantly, please pass this electronic mail message along to others.
 
Time is short before May 5th, we must do what we can.
 
Joel Wein - [email protected] 
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
This year several members of the ritual committee at my shul will be
assisting our chazzan during the High Holy Days.  I was asked to post 
to this mailing list, seeking information about the role of the
shaliach tzibur.  (We do not have a Rabbi, and although we have a
chazzan during the High Holy Days, he is also a lay leader.)
 
Fran Storfer
[email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
My brother is looking into graduate study in engineering at
Carnegie-Mellon U in the Pittsburgh area. Looking for Orthodox people in
the program, school, area, to call for more info on the religious
possibilities, atmosphere, etc.  Any help (names, telephone numbers,
pointers to such) would be greatly appreciated.
 
Asher Meth ... [email protected] ... [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
[While it is too late for Pesach, maybe someone has some ideas for the
future.]
 
I'm trying to send some wine as a Pesach gift to some friends
in Dayton, Ohio.  Probably a couple bottles or a small case.
I'v come up against two complications: 1) stores here won't
ship out of state, and 2) UPS doesn't take bottles.  Do you
know of any stores that do such things as a matter of practice?
 
Finley Shapiro
bitnet: shapirfr@duvm
______________________________________________________________________

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	FTP availability of mail.jewish
		Moderator
	Transgenic mice and the weekly Torah portion Emor
		Daniel Schindler
	Re: Shipping wine
		Shimon Schwartz
	Eschatology
		Pat Barry
	Law and Punishment Cross Reference
		Ed Stuart
______________________________________________________________________
 
There was an interesting talk that I and a few other mail.jewish members
attended this past week in NY. Rabbi Riskin spoke on the topic of
Pluralism in Orthodoxy. Some of the issues he raised was the role of
dispute in the halachic system and the goal/authority of rabbinic
leadership. I will try and put together some of the sources and points
he made for the next mailing. I think this is an important issue that we
may want to discuss in this forum.
 
With summer coming up, I want to bring up the possibility of a second
annual mail.jewish barbecue or picnic. Last years event I thought went
well. Is there interest in holding a second this year? I would guess it
would be in the NY/NJ area, but there could be others elsewhere if there
is interest. If you are interested in coming, hosting, helping plan,
etc. please send me back mail and we'll start things rolling!
 
Avi Feldblum
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Thanks to the help of two members of the mailing list, mail.jewish is
now available for anonymous ftp at two sites. The sites are:
 
berkeley.edu
 
	Files are in a subdirectory pub/mj from the ftp login directory.
There are five files in the directory, one index file that covers the
years 1986-1989 and single files for each year. The yearly files are
Unix mailbox style files of the mailings. All the files are in cleartext
format, not compressed. The sizes and names follow:
 
 29004 Apr 29 21:29 mj.index.all
174316 May  1 12:44 mj86
190233 Apr 29 21:29 mj87
191499 Apr 29 21:29 mj88
246147 Apr 29 21:29 mj89
 
arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]
 
	Files are in a subdirectory mj from the ftp login directory.
There is one sub-directory containing the 1990 mailings and six files
containing a README, an index file that covers the years 1986-1989 and
single files for each of those years. The yearly files are Unix mailbox
style files of the mailings. The 1990 directory contains single files
each one being a mailing. All the files (except the README) is in
compressed format. The sizes and names follow:
 
   512 May  1 08:49 1990   [Note: this is a directory]
   625 May  1 08:53 README
  8533 May  1 08:17 index.Z
 77661 May  1 08:13 mj86.Z
 84703 May  1 08:15 mj87.Z
 87351 May  1 08:16 mj88.Z
108677 May  1 08:16 mj89.Z
 
1990 directory:
 
4468 May  1 08:45 126.Z
3806 May  1 08:45 127.Z
3208 May  1 08:45 128.Z
4217 May  1 08:45 129.Z
1424 May  1 08:45 130.Z
3475 May  1 08:45 132.Z
2228 May  1 08:45 133.Z
 
A Yasher Koach to Harry Rubin and Marty Olevitch for all their help in
getting this set up. Those with ftp access can now get all the old
mailings. Those people who have asked for old mailings and have not
received them AND DO NOT HAVE ftp access, please resend your requests to
me.
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
                Transgenic mice and the weekly Torah portion Emor
 
     A currently popular procedure in biological research is to introduce
defined pieces of DNA containing specific genes into mouse embryos and
implant the embryos into a foster mother so that they will develop into a
baby mouse with the new genes in it. These mice are called transgenic mice
and are important tools in genetic research. There is an interesting
problem in making these mice. In order to make the foster mother receptive
to receive an embryo she is mated to a vasectomized male mouse so that she
becomes pseudo-pregnant. The male is vasectomized as a normal male might
fertilize the female and introduce complications in the development of the
implanted embryo.
 
     In the Torah portion of Emor (Vayikrah 22:24) we are told not to bring
sacrifices with the male generative organs damaged and not to damage male
generative organs. This prohibition is more fully explained in the halachic
midrash (Toras Cohanim ,Emor 7,11-12), Tosefta (Makkos 4:4,Yevamos 8) and
in the Talmud (Shabbos 110b and Chaggigah 14b, they asked Ben Zoma). The
halacha as brought in Rambam (Issurei Biah 16:10) is that it is prohibited
to damage the male generative organs whether in man, domestic animals,
wild animals, or birds, whether they are clean or unclean, in Eretz Yisroel
or outside of it.  It seems a Jew cannot make transgenic mice without
violating a Torah prohibition. Is there a way for a Jew to make transgenic
mice?
 
     The first thing that comes to mind is to have a non-Jew vasectomize
your mouse. This is prohibited. Even the trick of selling your animal to a
non-Jew and buying it back after he spays it was anticipated and prohibited
(Baba Metsiah 90b). On the other hand, another person, even a close
relative can buy it back. This may be a way to get vasectomized mice.  An
opinion that non-Jews are prohibited to sterilize male animals is discussed
in Sanhedrin 56b and in Baba Metsiah 90b, and is cited in the Sheiltot
(Emor:105),  but most early halachic decisors (Rishonim) hold a non-Jew may
sterilize male animals. In any case there is no prohibition in buying a
vasectomized mouse owned by a non-Jew.
 
     The problem of vasectomizing unclean animals comes up more commonly
when one wants to spay their cat or dog. A Jewish veterinarian cannot
sterilize a male animal and one cannot ask a non-Jew to sterilize their dog
or cat. One can buy a previously serilized male animal. In fact a question
they asked Ben Zoma is if one can damage the male generative organs of a
dog and he replied that even that is forbidden (Chaggigah 14b).
 
      Another case of damaging the reproductive organs of male animals is
the sterilization of insects like fruit flies by radiation. These sterile
males are released into the infested area and mate with females, competing
with the normal male fruit flies.  A case like this is discussed in the
halachic literature. It is prohibited to hold someone in the snow until he
becomes sterile, although one is not whipped as a punishment for doing so.
In this case the generative organs are not directly injured, but it is
nevertheless prohibited. In addition the taking of a sterilizing drug is
prohibited even though the sterilization is not done directly by cutting or
damaging any organs or even if the sterilization is not the desired effect
but a cure of a disease is.
 
     The halachic discussions of this prohibition are found in the Shulchan
Aruch Even HaEzer 5:11-14 and in mitzvah 291 of Sefer Ha Chinuch.
 
Daniel Schindler <LIDANIEL%[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________
 
> I'm trying to send some wine as a Pesach gift to some friends
 
Many liquor companies will mail gift bottles where permitted by law.
I believe Kedem is among them.  Try calling directory information
for an 800 number for the company in which you're interested.
 
Alternately, you can call a local liquor store and ask if they deliver gifts.
Public libraries often have out-of-state telephone directories, 
including yellow pages.
 
--- Shimon Schwartz - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Hello.  A friend of mine is planning to study eschatology this summer
and wants to know if anyone can suggest some sources on Jewish
views of the afterlife.  I'd appreciate any help you can offer.
 
Thanks.
 
Pat Barry - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I'm looking for a text that cross references laws from the Torah to their
punishments.  I want to be able to look up the word "steal" and find a list
something like
 
       steal sheep   : punishment
       steal money   : punishment
 
and I want to be able to look up the work "death" and find a list of
infractions that could get a person executed.
 
Any and all pointers would be appreciated. Thanks,
 
Ed Stuart - [email protected]

Topics:
	Turning off hot water on Shabbat
		Dave Sherman
	Re: Transgenic mice and the weekly Torah portion Emor
		Danny Wildman
		Frank Silbermann
	Re: Law and Punishment Cross Reference
		Shimon Schwartz
______________________________________________________________________
		 
I have no problem with the prohibition against using hot water on
Shabbos, on the basis that by turning on the hot water tap one
brings cold water in to mix with the the water in the hot water tank,
thus causing it to be heated or "cooked".  What I'm interested in,
however, is the principles which should apply once the hot water
has been turned on.  Can/should one turn it off?
 
This comes up fairly often with young children who forget
about not using the hot water, particularly with "single-lever"
faucets where there's only one tap, and it has to be turned in
the right direction.
 
1. If my four-year-old turns on a mix of hot and cold water,
   can I shut it off (or turn the lever to all-cold), or is it
   better to let her do it?  Assuming it's permitted, once it's
   already on may I take advantage of the fact, and use the warm
   water before shutting it off?  In other words, is there an
   obligation to turn it off as soon as possible to prevent any
   further cooking?  If so, why?
 
2.  Does the answer change if I turned it on by mistake myself,
    by turning on the faucet before carefully checking to make
    sure that it's on all-cold?
 
The right solution, of course, it to have a hot-water shut-off
valve under the sink.  (We did this for our kitchen when the house
was new and the plumbing was first going in; the plumber couldn't
understand why I only asked for one on the hot!)  Of course, even then
one may have forgotten to turn off the hot before Shabbos.
 
David Sherman
Toronto
______________________________________________________________________
 
Daniel Schindler's review of laws pertaining to damaging of male
generative organs was enlightening. The Halachic precedents he
cites, however, do not clarify the law completely in many situations
today in which mitigating circumstances could, in theory, override
the blanket prohibition. For example, I assume that the normal
"pikuach nefesh" (saving a life) exclusion would allow surgical
removal or chemical destruction of the testes which is typical
in cases of testicular cancer or drug-induced sterilization
resulting from female hormones adminstered for prostate cancer.
My naive assumption is that the case cited by Schindler in
which drug-induced sterilization was prohibited even when intended
to cure a disease must have been a case where the illness was
not life threatening.
 
The next logical step, then, would be the degree of immediacy of
life threat, or the degree of non-life threatening illness, that
might override the prohibition. For instance, if genetic research
with transgenic mice was very likely to lead to immediate cures
for cancer, would the concern to save lives allow one to have a
non-Jew sterilize a Jew's male mice? If fruit flies were carrying
a deadly disease, would the sterilization of males to decrease
their population then be allowed - by Jews? - by non-Jews hired by
Jews?
 
There are likely to be similar cases in the halachic literature
on medical ethics. I would welcome additional light shed on this
fascinating topic, and thank Mr. Schindler for his introduction
to it.
 
Danny Wildman
______________________________________________________________________
 
	Another case of damaging the reproductive organs of male animals
	is the sterilization of insects like fruit flies by radiation.
	These sterile males are released into the infested area
	and mate with females, competing with the normal male fruit flies.
 
Considering the long-term environmental damage caused by pesticides, it
would be very harsh to ban the most promising alternative.  This is
especially true in areas plagued by mosquitoes.  Until mosquitoes were
controlled, New Orleans suffered frequent deadly epidemics.
 
Is it generally agreed that this ruling applies to irradiation of
insects, or is this still an opinion?
 
	Frank Silbermann	[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
The Soncino Chumash with Hertz commentary contains a comprehensive index
in the back.  You should easily obtain all Chumashic references to,
e.g. "stealing."  I don't overly recommend the commentary -- 
excessively apologetic -- but the index is useful.
 
--- Shimon Schwartz - [email protected]

Topics:
	Re: Turning off hot water on Shabbat
		David Goldschlag
		J H Proschan
	Re: Law and Punishment Cross Reference
		Bruce Krulwich
	Re: Transgenic mice
		Larry Israel
	Different Melodies
		Fran Storfer
______________________________________________________________________
 
Just one quick word first. Please remember that while we discuss
halachic issues here, in terms of Halacha La'Maase - what the Halacha is
in a real situation - it is preferable to contact a competent Rabbi if
that is possible. With that in mind, let the discussions continue! 
 
Your friendly moderator
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding Dave Sherman's question about turning off a hot water tap on
Shabbat.  As a basis for the answer, one may refer to the discussion of
the use of hot water from a hot water tank, in the book "Shemirat
Shabbat Kehilchata" (Keeping Shabbat According to its Laws) by Yehoshua
Noibert, chapter 1, sections 39 and 42, and chapter 14, section 4, in
the Hebrew version.  By the way, this book is a good source for the
application of Shabbat laws to modern day conveniences (like
electricity, elevators, strollers, etc.) and is available in English
translation.  What follows is my (incomplete) understanding of the
pertinent halachot.
 
There are two difficulties with Shabbat use of a hot water tank.
These are: the possibility of heating cold water (i.e., by mixing cold
and hot water), and the possibility that the use of existing hot
water, with the consequent addition of cold water, will activate the
heating element.
 
Heating liquids is only a problem if the resulting temperature exceeds
Yad Soledet Bo (the hand recoils from it).  This temperature is 45
degrees Celsius (113 degrees Fahrenheit).  Heating uncooked liquids or
cold (even previously cooked) liquids to temperatures above 45 degrees
is prohibited, and the use of uncooked or cold liquids heated above 45
degrees on Shabbat is also prohibited.  However, if a liquid's
temperature is maintained above 45 degrees from before Shabbat, the
liquid may be used.  Furthermore, previously cooked liquids that have
not cooled completely may be reheated above 45 degrees.
 
The problem with activating the heating element is alleviated because
it is not directly activated, but is a secondary result of taking hot
water out of the tank.  This instance of a secondary effect is called
a secondary Pesik Reisha (consequence).  Since permissible actions
whose secondary consequences cause prohibited actions are not
themselves prohibited, one need not worry about activating the heating
element.  (Actions whose direct consequences cause other prohibited
actions are not permitted.)
 
Therefore, to use a hot water tank on Shabbat, one must make sure that
the hot water temperature prior to Shabbat is below 45 degrees and that
the thermostat is set below 45 degrees.  However, the water from this
tank may still not be used for washing oneself (or even just one's
hands, etc.); it may only be used to wash dishes, etc.  (I do not know
the basis for this restriction.)
 
The preferred situation would be a hot water tank that heats
automatically for a certain amount of time every hour (but never heats
the water above 45 degrees), since using water from such a tank does
not activate the heating element and relying upon the Pesik Reisha is
avoided.  (For a similar reason, an Israeli manufacturer of
refrigerators produces a model that may be switched from temperature
sensitive operation to timed operation.)  Heated water from such a
tank may be used, but, again, only for dishes, etc.
 
To answer Dave Sherman's original question: given that his hot water
tank heats water above 45 degrees, and the hot water tap is already
running, may the tap be closed?  The answer is no, because that action
will cause the added cold water to be heated (or heated more quickly).
Furthermore, the running hot water may not be used, since it may be a
hot mixture of cold and hot water, or the mixture may have been heated
by the heating element.
 
David Goldschlag <[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________
 
I do not have references here, but as I understand it the tap may not be
closed, if the hot water was accidentally turned on.  The explanation was
that the water flows through the tank, and so does not reach its highest
temperature.  If the tap were closed, the cold water that had just entered
would stay, and would be heated to the highest temperature the tank can
produce.  Thus, closing the tap results in heating some of the water even
more than it otherwise would be.  
 
Regarding use of the water, this should be the same as any other melachah
that is done inadvertently on Shabbos.  These rules are too complex to set
down from memory, but usually prohibit the person who did the melachah 
from benefiting on Shabbos.  There are several good treatments in English;
the most widely available is probably the book "The Radiance of Shabbos"
(approximate title) and its companion volume on work permitted to house-
keepers and other employees (title to be supplied by friendly moderator).
 
	[Sorry, I don't know this work, so if anyone else can supply it,
	please do and I'll include it in the next posting. - Mod.]
 
An additional consideration here is whether a person's habitual use of 
faucets might lead to use of the water being forbidden, lest he or she
adjust the tap.  I think that this is permitted if the tap was left running
from Friday afternoon (I vaguely remember seeing this done by people who
knew what they were doing), but this case may be different, and an 
authoritative ruling would be needed.
 
Josh.
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding Shimon Schwartz's recommendation of the Hertz Chumash for the
index that they have in the back, I strongly recommend Ariyeh Kaplan's
_The_ _Living_Torah_ as having a better index as well as having the best
English translation around and also a reasonable commentary.  It's
available in Hebrew-English and also in all English.
 
 
Bruce Krulwich
 
______________________________________________________________________ 
 
Years ago our cat was hurt by being run over. Her pelvis was broken, and
healed in such a way that the veterinarian said would cause her death
were she ever to get pregnant again. We had her sterilized.
 
Now I wonder if we did wrong, and should have let her take her chances.
 
Larry Israel
______________________________________________________________________
 
Some friends and I were talking about how many different melodies 
there are for different prayers.  The only one we could think of 
with only one melody is the opening paragraph of the Birkat Hamazon.
Does anyone:  a) know more than one melody for it?  b) know of other
prayers with only one melody?
 
Fran Storfer
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________

Topics:
	Halachic Issues between Rav Shach and the Lubavitcher Rebbe
		Isaac Balbin
	Correction: Transgenic mice
		Daniel Schindler
	Custom of Unveiling in Halacha
		Kenneth T Wolman
	IVRITEX mailing list
		J H Proschan
	Definition of Cooking
		Ellen
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
We have all recently witnessed the turmoil  in  Israel  with  respect  to  the
machinations  of  forming  a government. We have also witnessed the coming and
going of various religious members between the two main parties.  Furthermore,
we  have heard the claims and counter claims of adherents to both sides of the
coin regarding sell outs etc.  I  do  not  wish  to  focus  on  the  politics;
although  I  am fully cognizant of the fact that politics and money play a big
role in such things. I would like, instead, to  focus  on  halachic  concerns,
which seem to have gone by the wayside here.
 
 
It is well known that Rav Shach, the spiritual head of Ponevitch Yeshiva,  and
arguably  the  mentor  of  the non-Chassidic movement, has often expressed the
opinion that Pikuach Nefesh --- the saving  of  lives,  transcends  all  other
considerations  when  we  examine the issue of Judea and Samaria (I don't know
what Rav Shach's opinion is regarding Yerushalaim, but I would guess  that  he
would  give  it  back).   Indeed,  Rabbi  Schneerson,  the  Lubavitcher Rebbe,
arguably the most charismatic, visible and effective mentor of  the  Chassidic
movement  concurs with this view whole heartedly. They differ, however, in the
way to materialise this Pikuach Nefesh. Rav  Shach  has  been  firmly  of  the
opinion that by giving back land, a placating effect will occur, and the Arabs
will either leave us alone, or in the worst case, kill fewer  Jews  than  they
currently  do.  The Lubavitcher Rebbe effectively believes that by giving back
land we will directly heighten the probability of more people being killed.  I
use  the  word effectively in this context, because his arguments, as far as I
know, have not been on this pseudo-defence-analytical level.  The  Lubavitcher
Rebbe  has  marshaled  sources  from the Shulchan Aruch which imply that where
hostile people mass on a border even on account of economic staples,  that  we
are  commanded  to  engage  them  in  battle.   As  such,  he deduces that the
protection of borders is imperative and is the  preferred  method  to  protect
Jews.  I  have  heard  that  he brings support from the "unanimous" opinion of
generals who concur with this view as far as strategic defensible  borders  is
concerned.   It  has  been about 5 years since I read this argument, so I am a
little rusty. At the time, Rabbi Shach claimed that  the  Lubavitcher  Rebbe's
reasoning  was  ``just  chatter''  ---pitputei  dvorim  be-almo.   Rabbi Shach
brought a midrash from Yaacov to support his view,  basically  to  the  effect
that  G-d  has  the  power  to  move  borders  were appropriate.  As such, the
holiness of Israel will be intact---we only need worry about possibly  getting
killed.
 
 
Back then, I felt more convinced, or at least  I  felt  that  a  more  serious
halachic  responsa  was  provided  by  Rabbi  Schneerson.  My question now is:
since it would appear that  Rabbi  Shach's  party,  Degel  Hatora,  will  join
Shamir,  and  that  it  seems that territorial compromise is not the agenda of
Shamir, but rather the agenda of Peres,  what  has  happened  to  the  Pikuach
Nefesh  of Rabbi Shach? Surely, because of Pikuach Nefesh, Degel Hatora should
have joined Peres?  It is no use telling us that  Kibbutzniks  eat  Treyf  and
that  is  why  one ought not join Peres. Pikuach Nefesh would transcend such a
consideration.  This is a  halachic  issue  and  I  understood  Rabbi  Shach's
position  to  be diametrically opposed to people who do not desire territorial
compromise.  It is interesting that the Viznitzer Rebbe recently  stated  that
defence and similar areas of expertise were not the domain of the Rabbi. Would
Rabbi Shach agree with this view. Indeed, this has often  troubled  me.  Where
does  the  domain of expertise as it relates to halacha end with a Rabbi?  Reb
Moshe Feinstein, Ztl held the view that a Rabbi could express  a  halachically
binding opinion in any area of expertise.
 
 
It should be pointed  out  that  there  are  halachic  difficulties  with  the
Lubavitcher  attitude  to  Pikuach  Nefesh as well.  It is well know, and well
disputed, that Rabbi Cohen the Tosafist in Kesubos 110 (around  there)  claims
that  there is no commandment to live in Israel because of the danger which is
fraught. Now, the Lubavitcher Rebbe has claimed that there IS  Pikuach  Nefesh
involved  here. Would he therefore claim also that there is no mitzvah to live
in Israel (as his predecessor Rabbi Shalom Dov Baer--Rashab) did and  as  does
Rabbi  Cohen?  Should he tell his Chassidim, that it is Assur to go to a Makom
Sakanna?  Would this explain his not even visiting Israel?  Rabbi Shach  would
presumably  say  there  is  no mitzvah in the first place to go, but if one is
there, one achives a mitzva.  The Lubavitch view is  more  interesting  though
because  it  is often the perception that their view on territories makes them
very zionistic.  Yet, they fall short of taking  action---a  la  Gush  Emunim.
Should  it  not  be the halachic extension to have Lubavitch enclaves in Judea
and Samaria? There is a great deal of confusion, in terms of halacha  here.  I
wonder if anyone can make sense of all this?  I repeat, I am not interested in
politics here.  As  a  disclaimer:  I  am  not  a  Lubavitcher,  nor  am  I  a
``Shachnik''. I attended a Lubavitch day school, and studied at Yeshivat Kerem
B'Yavneh, after that.  I would, in  the  main,  consider  myself  unaligned---
perhaps a Chassid of Hakadosh Boruch Hu :-)
 
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
T  In a recent submission on damaging male generative organs, I said:
T     "The problem of vasectomizing unclean animals comes up more commonly
T when one wants to spay their cat or dog."
 
Larry Israel pointed out that the problem of vasectomizing unclean
animals never comes up when spaying a cat or dog as spaying means
removing ovaries and vasectomizing is obviously something different
entirely. I should have said sterilizing instead of spaying.
      Daniel Schindler
______________________________________________________________________
 
Because I am attending the unveiling of a relative's gravestone 
tomorrow, I'm curious as to whether this custom has any justification
in halakhah.  On the surface, and given the body of laws and customs 
around the actual treatment of the deceased at the time of the funeral, 
the custom of unveiling the stone strikes me as odd.  The nearest I can 
come is that the unveiling might mark the end of the 11-month mourning 
period: but since my aunt died last March, that is long past.  Any 
information would be welcome.
 
Ken Wolman
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
There is a mailing list I just heard of, IVRITEX, which covers the
use of TeX to print Hebrew documents.  To subsribe, send an e-mail
message to:
 
     listserv@taunivm (if you are on bitnet)
   
     listserv%[email protected]  (from {inter|use}net)
 
with a single subject line:
 
SUBS IVRITEX full name
 
This will subscribe you to the list.
 
Josh.
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Is there a definition of 'cooking'? Does the heating of anything by any
means constitute cooking? If I leave a book lying in the hot sun, have I
cooked it?
 
Thanks.
 
______________________________________________________________________

Topics:
	Re: Transgenic mice
		Gil Yehuda
		Rabbi Zvi A. Yehuda
	Re: Halachic Issues between Rav Shach and the Lubavitcher Rebbe
		Avrohom Alter
		Yitzchok Samet
	Re: Definition of Cooking
		Zev Sero
	Re: Turning off Hot Water Heaters on Shabbat
		Harry Saal
	Kashrut of carbon dioxide
		Harry Rubin
______________________________________________________________________
 
[The following is Gil's synopsis of conversations between his father and
himself discussing the topic "Transgenic mice" discussed in several of
the past mailings. Two general comments arose.]
 
There is a certian tendancy in modern Halachic Judiasm to ignore the Klal
(general rule) and cleave to the Pratt (specific).  Any thing which can be
measured is, and then the measurements themselves are subject to argument.
But things which are not measured are many times disregarded.  The article
regarding the rats is an example of focusing on a specific halachic issue
of castration and ignoring the major issue of Tzar Baalei Hayyim.  This is
similar to measuring Tzniut in inches.  Or Chessed in dollars.  This is not
to say that we should ingore the 'dikdukei mitzva', just that we should not
loose sight of the principals involved which are at least equally
importaint. The laws of Tzniut deal with being modest, not with inch
lengths.  The laws of Tzar Baalei Hayyim deal with the way we deal with
animals; not "we can cut the leg off but not the genitals".   Although
there is a specific Issur regarding this ( as was the theme of the article)
there is a broader scope which was overlooked.   It is certianly proper to
discuss the intricacies of Halacha, especially when applied to our world,
yet we should take caution or we may loose sight of the Quality of
perfoming a mitzva, and only focus on the Quantitative aspects. 
 
The second point arose regarding the general attitude towards Goyim.
Although the discusion of having Goyim do things for you which are
prohibited for you to do yourself is very prevelant and deeply based, there
are times when we use this 'teretz' to support an attitude which may be
damaging for us.  We may be more careful about using this 'teretz' wildy
without considering the ramifications of its use.
 
What is presented above is my our conversation pursuant to my father's
response.  [His father's response follows.]
 
Gil Yehuda
___________________________________
 
... As for the question of damaging male reproductive organs of animals,
it seems to me that looking for goyyim to do the dirty work for us is an
ugly and repugnant solution.  The halakhik mind should look for a
(legally valid and morally proper) way of considering scientific
research (for the benefit of humankind and the potential prospect of
saving life) on a different level.  After all za'ar ba'alei hayyim
[Causing pain to living creatures - Mod] (even if we say it is not
de'oraita, which according to majority opinion it is) -- is as an
important rule as the issur of casteration.  Should we therefore outlaw
research which causes pain to animals?  Either we outlaw scientific
research and close it for Jews (and leave it altogether to the goyyim),
or we don't.  But to engage in it (and thereby violating the general
principal of za'ar ba'alei hayyim) and leave one aspect of it (which
seems to violate a specific prohibition) to goyyim, smacks with
arrogance, self- righteousness and insensitivity.
 
-.- Rabbi Zvi A. Yehuda [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
In reference to the post regarding Horav Shach and the Lubavicher Rebbe.
 
I don't believe there is any possible Haromas Keren HaTorah possible from
this post or its answers. Such question are not for the public forum. If
one truly has a shailah on the actions of an Odom Gadol, I would suggest he
send them to that Gadol, NOT the members of this group.
 
Bemechilas Kvodcha
 
Avrohom Mordechai
 
[From my point of view as moderator, this topic will not be closed.
Individuals can and should consider Avrohom's point, but if they choose
to send in contributions, I will post them. Mod.]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I saw a very intelligent editorial  in  the  Jerusalem  Post  (!)
which  gave  what sounded like a very  informed overview of HaRav
Shach's position. Two points in that rendering seem  to  conflict
with what Isaac wrote:
 
1 - Any plan to trade land for peace has to be evaluated on  it's
merits.  He  seemed  to  take a position only with regards to the
principle.
 
2  -  The  opinions  of  defense  experts  should  definitely  be
seriously  considered,  which includes evaluating their expertise
and possible biasing factors in their views, much the same way as
we would consider various medical opinions.
 
Soon after Sadat came to Jerusalem, a circular was distributed in
the  name  of  Rav  Shach,  in  which he tried to sober people to
certain realities. (People  had  celebrated  by  dancing  in  the
streets.) Some points that I recall were:
 
1 - We ought not to be deluded  by  wishful  thinking  concerning
peace into a premature or exaggerated trust or sense of security.
 
2 - We need  to  keep  in  perspective  that  despite  the  cocky
perception  that  the  Israeli  army  can take on all comers, the
facts are that we  would be  no  match,  for  instance,  for  the
Russians, who were poised to intervene in the Yom Kippur war.
 
3 - The Ran, in one of his drashas, explains that the  lesson  of
tanur  achnai  (the  incident  in  the  gemara in which the sages
rejected various miraculous "proofs" -  including  a  voice  from
heaven)  is  that  we  must  not be swayed by appearances if they
contradict our traditions. In  this context, that means  that  we
must cling to the perspective given us by the Torah and the sages
which sees our drifting away from the Torah as the  *fundamental*
factor  jeopardizing Jewish survival. (This is the constant theme
of the Prophets.)  That being so, our focus must be  to  get  our
act  together  as  the  people  of  the  Torah.  A false sense of
security can lead us to slacken in this primary mission.
 
Given 3, it is not surprising that  HaRav Shach  called upon  all
Jews to be true to our roots in his widely publicized appearance.
He made it clear at the outset that this was the one key  to  our
*physical* survival.  From where he stands, all hinges on this.
 
Yitzchok Samet
______________________________________________________________________
 
The definition of cooking is hardening or softening something by the
application of fire, or of heat derived from fire. Cooking meat makes
it soft; cooking an egg makes it hard; cooking metal makes it soft;
cooking a brick makes it hard.
 
The sun is not considered a fire, and `cooking' in direct sunlight on
Shabat is permitted.  Cooking with heat derived from sunlight is
forbidden for reasons of mar'it ha'ayin (it is not immediately obvious
that one is using a permitted heat source), not because there is
anything actually wrong with it.  The same applies to geothermal heat,
e.g. the hot springs in Tiberias:  Cooking food in a hot spring does
not fall within the definition of cooking, but is forbidden because of
mar'it ha'ayin.
 
Source:  Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim chapter 320
 
Zev Sero
______________________________________________________________________
 
On turning off hot water heaters on Shabbat
 
Speaking from the physics point of view, turning off the water tap will
ultimately involve less external energy (e.g. "work" being done) to
be transferred into the system, whether measured by the amount of gas
or electricity consumed by the boiler.  Also, what temperature water
flowing through the system achieves depends on the mechanism used in 
the heater. There are "flash" systems which can boil water while it
is passing through only a few coils in the middle of a heating section.
So one can't automatically conclude that letting the tap flow doesn't
cause hot water to be produced.
 
Harry Saal
______________________________________________________________________
 
The following article puzzled me.  Can anyone shed any light on it?
 
    "Koch Refining Company's carbon dioxide gas is kosher for Passover,
    according to Rabbi Asher Zeilingold of St. Paul, Minnesota.  That
    means it can be used in the bottling of Passover Pepsi Cola.
 
    "The usual supply of carbon dioxide comes from gas collected as a
    byproduct of a corn-based ethanol production, derived from grain,
    and is thus forbidden for consumption on Passover.
 
    "Koch's carbon dioxide is a byproduct of its hydrogen production
    process, with no grain involved."
					from "Dateline: World Jewry,"
					    May 1990 issue, produced by
					    the World Jewish Congress
 
This surprised me a bit -- isn't carbon dioxide just carbon dioxide
no matter where it comes from?  It is the same stuff.  Or is the issue
one of possible impurities?
 
Thanks.
						-- Harry Rubin

Topics:
	Tzar Baalei Hayyim and damaging male generative organs
		Daniel Schindler
	Re: Kashrut of carbon dioxide
		David Brusowankin
	Re: Definition of Cooking
		Ellen F. Prince
		Avi Feldblum
______________________________________________________________________
 
     It was suggested that the laws of tzar baalei hayyim (inflicting
pain on animals) are somehow connected to the issue of damaging male
generative organs. The Aruch HaShulchan says it succinctly and
explicitly: "It is certain that there is only associated with damaging
male reproductive organs that prohibition and not the prohibition of
inflicting pain on animals since there is no prohibition of inflicting
pain on animals when providing for the needs of man." Similar wording is
found in the Darchei Moshe and his glosses on the Shulchan Aruch. In
addition, The Gaon of Vilna uses the Talmud to support his assertion
that the prohibition of damaging male generative organs is separate
from the prohibition of inflicting pain on animals. He gives the
example of when they asked Ben Zoma if one can castrate a dog? Ben
Zoma did not say,"What do you think I am, one of those modern Halachik
Jews who ignores the Klal and cleaves to the Pratt? Of course it is
forbidden because of Tzar Baalei Hayyim." I guess he just did not think
of it at the time and instead he brings our pasuk way back in Parshas
Emor.
 
     In any case I am very wary of harming animals. I don't want to have
kidney stones for seven years and ulcers in my mouth for six years
(or is it the other way around)? (Baba Metzia 85)
 
     When discussing the prohibition of damaging male generative organs
the question of asking a non-Jew comes to mind. This is because the
question of whether the prohibition of asking a non-Jew to do a
prohibited activity for you comes up in the Talmud in the following way.
It is known that one cannot ask a non-Jew to do a prohibited
activity for you on Shabbos. Does this prohibition extend to all
prohibitions in the Torah? The fact that a non-Jew cannot castrate an
animal for a Jew is brought up. The possibility is raised that this is
because the non-Jew is also not allowed to castrate animals. Most
halachik decisors are of the opinion that there is no prohibition
concerning a non-Jew castrating animals, so that the reason is that a
Jew cannot tell a non-Jew to do any prohibited activity for him. (B.
Metsia 90)
 
     Since I am here anyway I should bring up females which is also not
so simple. Here we get into problems as the Shevet HaLevi for one permits
asking a non-Jew to remove the ovaries of an animal when necessary as
damaging the reproductive organs of a female animal is prohibited
rabbinically and asking a non-Jew might not be prohibited in such a case.
 
Daniel Schindler <LIDANIEL%[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________
 
Hmm...
 
	With regard to Koch's CO2, I would have thought the same -
that the source of CO2 doesn't matter. Of course, I could easily be
wrong. I wonder, though, if CO2 produced ON Pesach is forbidden
because one is deriving hana'a (pleasure) from Chametz owned on
Pesach. 
 
	This topic does, however, touch upon the 70 year old topic
of rennet and gelatin. Unfortunately I don't have the sources with
which to comment intelligently on that topic. Can anyone out there
shed some light ?
 
[A very interesting topic if we want to get into it, but please let's
try for light, not heat. There are a number of responsa from early in
the century that I saw at one time, but have no idea now from whom and
where they were. Mod.]
 
david brusowankin
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
[ The first set of lines is from Zev's posting in the last mailing.
Following is a set of mail messages between Ellen and myself regarding
his definition. Any more thought, anybody? Mod.]
 
Zev 		Re: Definition of Cooking
Zev The definition of cooking is hardening or softening something by the
Zev application of fire, or of heat derived from fire. Cooking meat
Zev makes it soft; cooking an egg makes it hard; cooking metal makes it
Zev soft; cooking a brick makes it hard.
 
Ellen with respect to the discussion on the water heater, however, if
Ellen one causes cold water to mix with hot water and thereby to become
Ellen warmer, one is NOT cooking the water, following this definition.
 
Avi Good point. By Zev's definition you can never cook water. That is
Avi incorrect, and points to a problem in his definition. I think that
Avi bringing any food item up to some specified temperature through the use
Avi of fire is included in the definition of cooking for shabbat. The
Avi temperature is refered to as 'Yad Soledet'. It means roughly a
Avi temperature at which the hand (Yad = hand) does 'something' if it comes
Avi into contact with something at that temperature. The most common
Avi 'something' I've heard is the triggering of an automatic removal reflex,
Avi you touch something hot, and your hand moves back even before you fully
Avi realize that it is hot. There is a variety of opinions as to what this
Avi temperature is.
 
Ellen i hate to keep pursuing this, but, if your hot water mixed with
Ellen cold causes such a reaction, you're keeping your water heater at
Ellen too high a temperature from the point of view of safety.
 
Avi Many opinions put the temperature fairly low, between 115 and 135 F,
Avi I think. This is in the range of what I expect a hot water heater
Avi will heat water up to. How is this "Yad Soledet" if I can easily
Avi keep my hand under the water? Another good question.
 
 Ellen F. Prince <[email protected]>

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Two Prayer-Related Questions
		Fran Storfer
		Avi Feldblum
	Re: Yad Soledet Bo
		Morris Podolak
______________________________________________________________________
 
A few general items:
 
First, the address mail.jewish@prayf is no longer valid. prayf was a
Unix PC who has gone to its world (where ever that may be) and rests now
in peace. Send all contribution to me at:
 
	[email protected]	or	[email protected]
or      att!avi_feldblum	or	att!pruxk!ayf
 
Second, an article on mail.jewish is being featured on a weekly column
on Jewish telecommunications for the Northern California Jewish Bulletin
by Ari Davidow. In addition Ari is putting mail.jewish up on the WELL.
Hello and welcome to all you WELL readers!
 
For those with access to BITNET, there are two Jewish related discussion
groups on BITNET that I know of. One is the JUDAIC STUDIES list edited
by Yechiel Greenbaum (WWRMK%[email protected]) and the
other is the IOUDAIOS edited by Steve Mason ([email protected]).
Here is the description of the latter from their intro message:
 
         Welcome to IOUDAIOS!  You have joined an international
    electronic discussion forum on Judaism in the Graeco-Roman world. We
    began, in the spring of 1990, as informal respondents to two
    articles that were circulated electronically by Robert Kraft of the
    University of Pennsylvania.  At his suggestion, we organized
    ourselves as a regular group, making our physical home at York
    University in Toronto. 
 
The above list is very academic oriented and obviously has a very
different orientation than our list. The JUDAIC STUDIES list is also
academic oriented, but more general judaic studies than IOUDAIOS. People
interested in either list should contact the respective editors.
 
Lastly, it appears that there will be no mail.jewish picnic this year.
There has been no offer from anyone to organize it, and I will not be
able to do it. Maybe next year?
 
And now back to our regularly scheduled discussions.
 
Your friendly Moderator, Avi Feldblum.
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have two prayer-related questions:
 
1)  In some psalms and some prayers, one sees two yod's preceded by
another letter, for example a bet or a lamed.  (for an example, look
at the first line of the Shochen Ad).  Are the two yod's still HaShem?
If so, why are the vowels different?
 
2)  My understanding of why we repeat the Amidah [the `18' (really 19)
blessings that are recited standing, giving rise to its two common
names, Amidah - Standing and Shemonah Esra - 18. Mod.] is so we can say the
Kedushah, and also so those who don't have books can hear the chazzan
davening and respond with Amen.  So why is one paragraph (Modim
Anachnu Lach) said silently?  Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a
repetition?  Or are there more reasons for repeating the Amidah of
which I am unaware?
 
Fran Storfer
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
 The original purpose of the Amidah was so that those who did not know
the prayer by heart, since there were very few books at that time, could
listen to the chazzan (=reader, =shliach tzibur) and fulfill their
requirement by answering Amen to each blessing. Because of a
disagreement in the talmud of what the format of the blessing Modim was,
the solution was to have one recited when the individual recites the
blessings quietly, and the other is recited by the individual when the
chazzan gets to that blessing. It is my understanding that it is
incorrect for the chazzan to recite Modim silently. I have seen places
where the chazzan waits while the congregation says the second version
of Modim, and then recites the regular version out loud.
 
  The question of the purpose of the Repeatition of the Amidah today
when we all have prayer books, in general, is an interesting one. Rav
J.B. Soloveichick has an interesting opinion on this which he derives
from an opinion of the Rambam. He says that the repeation constitutes a
"T'filat Ha'Tzibur" - a prayer of the congregation as a single entity.
For this reason, he requires one to stand with ones feet together, not
talking, during the repeation, as one does during the silent Amidah. In
addition, one should not say "Baruch Ho U'Baruch Shemo" but only Amen,
since you are being "yotzei" with the blessings.
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
With regard to the definition of "Yad Soledet Bo", all early sources 
give a definition based on physical reactions rather than temperature
in degrees.  The question comes up with respect to the laws of kashrut
as well as cooking on Shabbat.  The definition in the Gemara (Shabbat
40b) is that the belly of an infant will be scalded by it (not a practical
test by any means!).  Other definitions include if you can hold your hand
on it some short time it is not "Yad Soledet Bo"; if you can put it in your
mouth and eat it it is not "Yad Soledet Bo" (this is also the opinion of
Rav Ovadia Yosef).
  
More recently people have tried to quantify this measure in terms of degrees
(F or C).  Rav Lapin of San Jose told me recently that now that such measures
are available, one should use them in preference to the more qualitative 
measures described above.  One number found in the literature is 40 C (=104 F).
This is based on a statement in the Halachot Gedolot that milk even at the 
time of milking, is considered as cold.  Since the temperature of such milk
is 40 C, then 40 C is not "Yad Soledet Bo".  Clearly 40 C is a lower limit,
but some authorities seem to imply that that is the actual value corresponding
to "Y.S.B." A more complicated argument by Rav Auerbach of Jerusalem (and 
summerised in "Shmirat Shabbat Kehilchata" ch.1 footnote 3) puts the lower
limit at 45 C (=113 F), and states clearly that "Y.S.B." is not less than
this temperature.  Just to make life complicated (and interesting) I have
seen one case where it is necessary to be more strict, and Rav Moshe
Feinstein z"l ruled that in that particular case "Y.S.B." was 79.2 C(=175 F).
My own exprience (one measurement) was that tea at 50 C (=122 F) was too
cool to be enjoyed, so that I would put "Y.S.B." even higher than that.  I
would be glad to hear from anyone out there who has other numbers.
 
Morris Podolak

Topics:
	Re: Two yud's and G-d's Name
		Art Werschulz
		Len Moskowitz
		Avi Feldblum
	Re: Repeatition of the Amida
		Art Werschulz
		Yaacov Haber
		Len Moskowitz
	Re: Yad Soledet Bo
		Ezra Tepper
		
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding the two yud's (a way of writing HaShem's name) preceded by a
consonant ... said consonant is probably a preposition.  (It is in the
case she mentions.)  Hence, the two yud's are still HaShem's name.  I
should point out that not all siddurim use the two yuds.  For instance,
I believe that ArtScroll uses the four-letter form in all cases (I can't
double-check this right now, since my son has my travel copy at camp),
as does the Israeli siddur "Rinnat Yisrael" (which I have just consulted
in the case of Shocein Ad).  Unfortunately, I can't answer why the
vowels change, since my knowledge of Hebrew grammar is somewhat weak.
 
Art Werschulz - [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
In my siddur (Rav Shmuel Vittal's Chemdat Yisrael), I have Shem Havaya
and not two yuds.  It's clear that even with the preceding letter (the
bet in Shochen Ad), that the Shem is still there.
 
The two yuds you see in some siddurim are not explicitly a Shem (as far
as I know, consult your local Rabbi for more detail) but just a
reference to the first yud and the last yud of the tzayruf (the merging)
of shem Havaya and Shem Adneh, corresponding to the Kadosh Baruch Hu and
the Shechinah respectively.  The first yud comes from the former; the
second yud from the latter.
 
Len Moskowitz
______________________________________________________________________
 
As mentioned in the above responses, the two yud's are not actually one
of the Names of Hashem, but rather is a form that is commonly used in
many printed books instead of the four letter Name of G-d. To clarify
some of the terms used above, there are two four letter names of Hashem,
one is [yud heh vav heh] and is refered to as Shem Havaya and is often
found written in English translations as YHVH. This is the Name of G-d
that is not pronounced as it is written, except by the High Priest
during Yom Kippur in the Holy of Holies. The pronunciation that is used
is for this name is Ado-nei, which means 'my Master'. This is the second
four letter name of Hashem, [aleph daled nun yud] and is refered to as
Shem Adnei and when this written form appears, it is usually translated
in the English as Lord. There are a few cases where Shem Havayeh is NOT
pronounced as Shem Adnei. The most commen is when there are two Shem
Havayeh's one after the other as a compound name. In that case the
second Shem is pronounced  Elo-him. This is found most often in the
prophets. yud yud is most often used to replace the Shem Havayah
pronounced as Shem Adnei. In that case the vowels give the vocalization
of Shem Adnei - chataf patach, cholom, komatz. If the Shem is preceded
by bet or heh, e.g. Ba'Hashem, then the vocalization under the aleph
would be dropped and the chataf patach is dropped. If the Shem being
replaced was to be pronounced Elo-him, then the vocalization would be (I
think) chataf segol, cholom, cherek. This is the most common set of
vowels under the double yud that I have seen. I have seen a siddur which
had I think four different vowel sets for the Shem Havayeh, depending on
what aspect of G-d was being refered to at that portion of the prayer (
very kabbalistic stuff). I don't remember whether the two yud form or
the yud heh vav heh form was used there.
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Re the two forms of "Modim anacnnu lach ...":  I came across an
interesting commentary someplace (perhaps in the ArtScroll siddur).
The basic message of this brachah is that of thanks.  Whereas it *is*
appropriate to have a representative (the shliach tzibbur) present
your requests, it is better to express thanks on your own.  Hence,
when the shliah tzibbur is saying the repetition of the Modim, we say
another version, so as not to be standing there silently while someone
else is doing the thanking.
 
Art Werschulz - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________ 
 
The Mishnah Berurah says clearly that the leader of the service must say
Modim loudly even if nobody is listening.
 
Rav Chaim of Velozhon says that as we get deeper into prayer we get less
and less physical. Hence the prohibition of talking and certain other
interuptions becomes more and more stringent because talking is an
attachment to the physical as we should be getting more and more
detached. By the time we get to Amidah we are so spiritual that no
talking is tolerated.  Then we get into the Repitition of the Amidah
which is the most spiritual part.  We can just listen and we don't have
to be physical at all.  We don't even have to move our lips. Listening
is the most spiritual act we can do. Listening to someone else is a
G-dly act.
	
ajop!haber
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
In our bait k'nesset, if during the repetition the chazzan says the
Modim silently, he is corrected and told to repeat it out loud.
 
[ Note: This posting contains a fair amount of untranslated Hebrew
words, but my translating them would be of little value, I think. They
refer to kabbalistic concepts and an explanation of them is beyond my
abilities. As Len says below, if you're interested, ask and he'll try
and explain. Mod.]
 
Rav Shmuel Vittal gives another reason for the repetition, one that
might be considered Kabbalah, involving concepts that the Ariz"al
elucidated.  I'll simply quote Rav Shmuel.  If it's less than clear (as
it most likely will be), you're welcome to ask questions and I'll try my
best to explain.  Sorry for the length.
 
(All mistakes in translation are my own.  My comments and notes are in
square brackets.)
 
"Know that the intention of the repetition of the Amidah by the Shliach
Tzibbur [the chazzan] is for exactly the same reasons that we
described for the silent Amidah said by the individual.  There's no
reason to differentiate between them at all except that [during the
individual Amidah] the positions of Yaak"ov and Rach"el are at the level
of the chest of Z"er Anpin and below.  Their Ket"ers [their uppermost
part] are at the level of Z"er's Tif'eret and all the rest of their
partzufim are at the level of Z"er's Netzach, Hod, and Yesod [around
the lower part of the body] alone. 
 
"And now [during the repetition] they rise to the level of Chesed,
Gevurah and Tif'eret [the upper part of the body] as we will describe.
It's because of this that we need to repeat all the tikkunim
[rectifications, corrections].  For each elevation to a yet higher level
there's a need for additional distinct enlightenments [that's the best I
can translate "heh'arot"].  For that reason the complete Amidah is
repeated.
 
"But there is a difference between them [the silent Amidah and the
repetition].  The first Amidah is said silently because [Yaak"ov and
Rach"el] were down at the level of Z"er's Netzach, Hod, and Yesod.  At
that level there's fear and a handhold for the Chitzonim/Klipot
[literally "the outsides/the shells"] as we found with Rabbi Shimon Bar
Yochai in the Zohar -- he was exteremly careful about not letting his
voice be heard during the Prayer [the silent Amidah] lest the Klipot
grab onto his prayer.
 
"And the reason for this [fear] is because at that moment he was still
at a low level.  Now [during the repetition] when we are at the level of
Z"er's Chesed, Gevurah and Tif'eret, there's no fear or handhold for the
Klipot.  Because of this we say the repetition out loud.
 
"From this you'll understand why the repetition isn't said when an
individual prays by himself, but only in a group.  It's as stated in the
Zohar [a citation is provided] in connection with the passage "Acharei
Rabbim L'Hatot -- D'Ain Rabim Pachot Mi-T'latah Ve'Eenoon Av-han"
["follow the group -- a 'group' is no less than three, and the three are
the Patriarchs"].  Now [during the repetition] when Yaak"ov and Rach"el
rise to the level of Z"er's Chesed, Gevurah and Tif'eret (the three that
are alternately termed 'three Patriarchs'), there's a requirement to be
in a group [a minyan]."
 
Hope you found this interesting.
 
Len Moskowitz - [email protected]
 
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Morris Podolak writes regarding "yad soledet bo": "The definition in the
Gemara (Shabbat 40b) is that the belly of an infant will be scalded by it
(not a practical test by any means)."
 
The translation "scalded" here is too extreme. As I remember it (and I
don't have the Gemorrah in front of me) the definition of "yad soledet bo"
is the minimum temperature required to produce a reddening of the baby's
skin. May I suggest that such a test might well be no more impractical than
waiting 10 or 15 minutes before changing a baby's diaper.
 
Ezra Tepper <[email protected]>

Topics:
	World Travel
		Fern Reiss
		Dan Romm
	Kohen married to widow becomming Kohen Gadol
		Art Kamlet
	Re: Two yud's
		Art Kamlet
		Avi Feldblum
	Re: Repeatition of the Amida
		Fran Storfer
		Len Moskowitz
______________________________________________________________________
	
My husband and I will soon be leaving on our dream trip: an ultra-low-budget
journey around the world!  If anyone has friends (kosher and shomrei Shabbat 
friends would be particularly welcome!) whom you wouldn't mind having us look
up, we'd love to get their names.  (After our trip we'll be settling in Israel 
for two years, so would be happy to return the hospitality over there.)  Our 
current itinerary is Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, R'wanda, Botswana, India, Nepal,
Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Bali, China, Japan, Taiwan,
Australia and New Zealand.  You can reach us, until mid-October,  at
HARRIS%[email protected], or via snail mail at 1200 Mass Ave #34E,
Cambridge, MA 02138.  We're both DECcies in our late 20's/early 30's, active
in Harvard Hillel's modern Orthodox minyan, and would be interested in 
hearing about any interesting Jewish communities on our route.  
 
Thanks!
Fern Reiss
______________________________________________________________________
 
I am looking for a few people who are interested in taking an 
adventurous trip in Central Asia or the Himilayas in the 
near future. If you are interested or know someone who is 
interested please call me at:
 
Home 201-905-0017
 
Work 201-949-8827
 
email: att!hotld!romm
 
Thanks,
 
Dan Romm
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
Question: "May a Kohen married to a widow be appointed Kohen Gadol?"
 
Background: Alexander Yanni, who was a kohen (though not in the line of
the kohen gadol) married his brother's widow and later became Kohen
Gadol. Did the Rabbis have a problem with this and/or is there any
discussion about this?
 
Art Kamlet  [email protected]
 
____________________________________________
 
The Sim Shalom siddur, recently published by the Rabbinical
Assembly, never uses the 2 yud's;  instead it uses the Y H W H
without any vowels.
 
Art Kamlet  [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
In another sidder I used this week in Shul (I don't remember the name)
it appears to somewhat randomly change from using Y H V H to two yud's
and back. In one case, the first page or two of the Amida is one way and
then it switches. 
 
This past week's parsha had the Y H V H doublet Shem in both the Torah
reading and in the portion from the Prophets. 
 
Avi Feldblum  [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
[The following is a edited version of email between Fran Storfer and Len
Moskowitz regarding Len's posting in the last mailing. Lines beginning
with '> ' are from m.j #141, 'F> ' from Fran's letter to Len, and 'L> '
are from Len's reply. Mod.]
 
L> The ten sefirot can be partitioned into five "partzufim" (translated
L> badly as "aspects").  Z"er Anpin might literally translate as "young
L> face" and is one of the aspects.  It includes the six sefirot from
L> Chesed to Yesod.
 
> "And now [during the repetition] they rise to the level of Chesed,
> Gevurah and Tif'eret [the upper part of the body] as we will describe.
 
F> I like this idea!  If I understand it correctly, "we" (whatever is
F> referred to by 'the positions of Yaak"ov and Rach"el') rise---in
F> holiness?---during the first davening of the Amidah, so that we can
F> dare to say the repetition aloud.  Kind of like saying the "Baruch
F> Shem..." during the Sh'ma aloud only on Yom Kippur?
 
L> Yes.  I like it too.  The prayer service's organization provides a
L> structure to raise ourselves to progressively higher levels.  Looked at
L> in this way, the repetition is the pinnacle from which we bring down
L> the holiest of influences.
 
> It's because of this that we need to repeat all the tikkunim
> [rectifications, corrections].  
 
F> I don't understand what tikkunim refers to here.
 
L> If I understand it correctly (and I'm not quite sure -- still a novice
L> on the subject), each part of the service serves to correct (provide a
L> "tikkun" for) one of the worlds or an aspect of one of the worlds.  I
L> think that the idea goes like this: only people can provide the
L> correction that all of creation needs.  We do this through our actions
L> in this world, with prayer being among the most effective.  So this part
L> of Rav Shmuel's explanation means that all of the corrections we
L> performed as a result of our personal silent prayer have to be repeated
L> during the repetition.
 
> For each elevation to a yet higher level
> there's a need for additional distinct enlightenments [that's the best I
> can translate "heh'arot"].  For that reason the complete Amidah is
> repeated.
 
F> So each time we repeat the Amidah we ascend in spirituality?  I'm not
F> sure I understand.  "Level" is referring back to 'the positions of
F> Yaak"ov and Rach"el'?  And what are the 'enlightenments'?  Do they
F> result from repeating the Amidah?  
 
L> If I have it correctly, as we complete each section of the service (in
L> Shacharit: the Birchot Ha-Shachar, the P'sukei D'zimrah, the Sh'ma and
L> it's blessings, and the Amidah/repetition) we ascend.  Yaak"ov and
L> Rach"el are two of the male and female components of Z'er Anpin that
L> inhabit specific locations within Z'er Anpin.  The enlightenments are
L> flowings of the "light" (influence) from the Ain Sof (b"h, the
L> Infinite).  Each time we correct an aspect of the worlds through our
L> actions (e.g., during the Amidah), it is as if we remove a blockage or
L> open a valve and the influence of the Ain Sof is released.
 
> "But there is a difference between them [the silent Amidah and the
> repetition].  The first Amidah is said silently because [Yaak"ov and
> Rach"el] were down at the level of Z"er's Netzach, Hod, and Yesod.  At
> that level there's fear and a handhold for the Chitzonim/Klipot
> [literally "the outsides/the shells"] as we found with Rabbi Shimon Bar
> Yochai in the Zohar -- he was extremely careful about not letting his
> voice be heard during the Prayer [the silent Amidah] lest the Klipot
> grab onto his prayer.
 
F> This part is sounding like a different topic, almost.  I had thought
F> klipot were sparks within everything, not the shells that contained
F> the sparks.  The way Rav Shmuel puts it, it sounds like
F> Chitzonim/Klipot are something that we have to fight, like the Yetzer
F> Hara, in order to rise, and that they (the Chitzonim/Klipot) can
F> actively work to draw us down.  Or does 'grab onto his prayer' mean
F> exactly that, that the shells can somehow trap our prayers from
F> ascending to HaShem?
 
L> Again I am far from an expert, but I'll recount what I think I
L> understand.  The sparks are the "nitzotzot," parts of the holiness that
L> fell to a lower level as a result of Adam's sin, some even as low as the
L> klipot.  The klipot are the shells, parts of the Other Side, and are
L> nourished only by way of the holy light we draw from above.  As such,
L> they will attempt to join with our prayers to draw their sustenance from
L> it.  If I remember correctly, the reason we say Kaddish between sections
L> and why it is said in Aramaic is that Aramaic is the reverse side (i.e.,
L> the back side) of Hebrew, and the klipot can understand it.  When we
L> sanctify the One via the Kaddish, the klipot lose their ability to draw 
L> from our increasingly lofty source and are left below.
 
> "From this you'll understand why the repetition isn't said when an
> individual prays by himself, but only in a group.  It's as stated in the
> Zohar [a citation is provided] in connection with the passage "Acharei
> Rabbim L'Hatot -- D'Ain Rabim Pachot Mi-T'latah Ve'Eenoon Av-han"
> ["follow the group -- a 'group' is no less than three, and the three are
> the Patriarchs"].  Now [during the repetition] when Yaak"ov and Rach"el
> rise to the level of Z"er's Chesed, Gevurah and Tif'eret (the three that
> are alternately termed 'three Patriarchs'), there's a requirement to be
> in a group [a minyan]."
 
F> Let me see if I understand:  an individual praying cannot rise to the
F> same level (of holiness?) as a group?  And therefore we are not to
F> daven the Amidah aloud when alone to ensure that the prayers we do say
F> will ascend properly? 
 
L> I think so.  I'm not sure it's so that our prayers will ascend properly
L> but rather so that the klipot will not draw sustenance and nourishment
L> from them.  Check with your local Rav Mekubal (if you can find one!) to
L> be sure.

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Middle East Peace Plans
		Meir N. Hertz
	Kosher Cheese
		Richard Schultz
		Avi Feldblum
	Working on Chol Hamoed
		Moshe Mamou
	Tokyo Information
		Elliott Hershkowitz
______________________________________________________________________
 
Between Yom Tov and work, I've been a bit busy recently, so sorry for
the long interval between mailings. I hope to get things rolling again
on a regular basis now, so please send your contributions in to me. We
also had a system crash here, and I lost at least (and only, I hope) one
contribution. If you have sent something to me and you haven't seen it,
please send it in again, if possible. I apologize for the inconvenience
this causes anyone.
 
So far in my position as moderator I have not denied anyone access to
the mailing list. While the postings must be consistant with Halacha,
our members cross all boundries of Judaism, and also include a few
non-Jews with a serious interest in Halachic Judaism. I have now
received a request from Cindy Smith to be added to the mailing list. She
has posted many articles on soc.culture.jewish which indicates that she
is a so-called "jewish-christian" / "jews-for-jesus", and has posted
things that appear to me to be aimed at convincing people of her
beliefs. I do not feel that it is proper to include her (or anyone else
that advocates such a position) in our mailing list. I would like to get
your feedback on this issue. Unless the membership feels she should be
made a member, I will ignore her request to join.
 
I hope everyone had a meaningful Yomim Noraim, a very happy (and dry)
Succot, and may we all rejoice in the Rejoicing of the Torah (Simchat
Torah). 
 
Avi Feldblum - Moderator
[email protected]   or   att!pruxk!ayf
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
[For a lighter moment- Mod]
 
August 21, '90
 
To the Editor:
 
With the prospects of war in the Middle East looming more ominously each day, 
the search for a peaceful alternative gains urgency.  Fortunately, the long 
history of conflict in this region provides the international community with a 
rich reservoir of diplomatic wisdom and experience, including numerous prior 
peace plans to choose from.  The following proposals present possible peace 
alternatives: 
 
Plan No. 1  The U.N.  Plan: Partition Kuwait.  This plan worked wonderfully 
     for British Mandatory Palestine.  
 
Plan No. 2  The Hafez Assad Plan:  Maintain the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait 
     intact.  Send in supplementary token occupation forces from other Arab 
     countries under Arab League auspices.  Rename the occupation forces a 
     "peacekeeping force".  This plan has already gained tacit international 
     approval and proven its value in Lebanon.  
 
Plan No. 3  The Vatican Plan:  Internationalize Kuwait.  Place all Moslem 
     holy places in Saudi Arabia under international Islamic control.  
 
Plan No. 4  The Jimmy Carter Plan: Ignore Saddem Hussein.  His bombastic call 
     for Jihad is mere hyperbole intended purely for the consumption of his 
     own population.  [Note 1: this peace plan valid thru August 2 for both 
     Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, after August 2 only for Saudi Arabia.]  {Note 
     2: Original authorship of this Plan is in dispute.  Credit for the plan 
     is vigorously claimed by several nations, as well as administrations 
     prior to Jimmy Carter's.}  
 
Plan No. 5  The James Baker Plan:  Hold elections in Kuwait to determine the 
     political choice of the population.  Do not torpedo the plan by 
     unreasonably insisting that only native Kuwaitis exercise the right to 
     vote, or that elections must be held free from Iraqi intimidation.  Such 
     insistence on inconsequential details will derail the Plan.  
 
Plan No. 6  The King Hussein Plan:  Kuwait to become an autonomous region in 
     an Iraqi confederation.  
 
Plan No. 7  The Shimon Peres Plan:  Trade territory for peace.  If you run 
     out of Kuwaiti territory before peace, Saudi Arabia is very large.  
 
The value of these seven proposals lies in the fact that we can assume that 
any one of them will gain Iraqi approval.  With so many viable peace 
alternatives to choose from there is no reason to enter into a war with Iraq.  
Should the Kuwaitis remain intransigent, refusing to accept a peace based on 
one of these plans, our Secretary of State should promptly hold a press 
conference and advise the Kuwaitis that the U.S.  will pick up its marbles and 
go home, pulling all American forces and military assets out of the Middle 
East.  The Secretary of State should, however, in view of our long-standing 
relationship with Kuwait, publicly offer to the Kuwaitis the White House 
telephone number, just in case they change their mind.  
 
Sincerely,
 
Meir N. Hertz
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
[And now back to more serious topics. - Mod.]
 
I have a couple of questions regarding kosher cheese:
 
1.  Does anybody know why is it that in France, kosher cheese tastes like
cheese, while in the U. S., kosher cheese tastes like plastic?
 
2.  Does anyone closer to civilization than I am know if anybody imports 
French (or Israeli, which I hear is also good) kosher cheese?
 
Thanks.
Richard Schultz - [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I would like to raise the topic of kosher cheese in general. What are
the Halachic issues regarding cheese, to what extent has political
issues entered into the Halachic domain here, and what Tshuvot exist on
the topic? I know that R. Haber, a list member, has discussed this
topic, so I look forward to a response from him, I hope.
 
There are two issues that I am aware of. The first is a basic kashrut
question. One of the ingredients in at least some cheeses is rennet,
which is an animal derivative. It is, however, a highly processed
component. Does the processing of the rennet remove it from the status
of Ochel (food)?
 
The second is (may be) that there is an Issur (prohibition) on eating
G'vinat Akum (cheese from a non-Jew). What is the nature of this Issur?
Is it a kashrut ingredient problem, similar to Chalav Akum (milk from a
non-Jew) (acc. to most, except for Lubavitch), in which case it reduces
basically to the rennet and milk ingredients. Or is it a seperate Issur,
more analogous to Bishul Akum and Pas Akum (cooking and bread of a
non-Jew).
 
I would be most interested in the existance of responsa on this issue
from before the Conservative movement ruled on acceptability of rennet
and geletan in foods, as well as more recent responsa.
 
Avi Feldblum
[email protected]    or   att!pruxk!ayf
______________________________________________________________________
 
[This is going out a little late for this chol hamoed, but Pesach is
just six month's away. Mod]
 
Is there anything about the Sheelha to work or not to work, and according to
which kind of job, according to which minhag, shitos etc.. during hol hamoed
Pessah or Sukkoth.
 
GMAR HATIMAH TOVAH to everybody!
Moshe Mamou
______________________________________________________________________
 
[Sorry, there is no-one on the mailing list in Japan. Mod.]
 
Request for any information on kosher food and minyanmim in Tokyo.
 
Elliott Hershkowitz
 
...bellcore!hera!eeh

Topic:
	Issues Concerning the Mailing List
		Moderator
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
There seems to be some confusion as to what a mailing list is, and how
this one operates. So this appears to be a good opportunity to review
mailing lists, membership in mailing lists, censorship, and the specific
issue at hand. First, from the definitive posting on mailing lists, 
 
	Publicly Accessible Mailing Lists by Gene Spafford
(posted monthly to news.lists)
 
	A mailing list is different from a newsgroup because you do not
	receive anything unless you specifically request it. To be added
	to a mailing list, please mail a note to the contact for that
	list, listed below.
 
	Please note the following caveats: publication of a list here
	does not guarantee that you will be allowed to join as a member.
	That is up to the moderator and readers, and they have the right
	to restrict access to their list as they see fit.
 
[And the description of our list in that article:]
 
Purpose: The mailing list provides a non-abusive forum for
    discussion of Jewish topics with an emphasis on Jewish law.
    Debates between Jews and non-Jews or between various factions of
    Judaism should be posted to talk.religion.misc or
    soc.culture.jewish.
 
It is clear from the above, that access to the list can be restricted by
moderator (that's me) and/or membership (that's you all). In addition, a
mailing list in general has some specific purpose and a moderator to
enforce that purpose, so it is "censored".
 
Basically, a mailing list is a group of people who have gotten together
to discuss some specific topic with some set of rules. In general, many
of the mailing lists in Gene's list have spun of from existing
newsgroups in the Usenet world. There is also a much larger set of
Bitnet/Internet discussion groups which are based on LISTSERV software.
Some of the mailing lists, as well as many of the LISTSERV groups are
simply mail forwarders, i.e. anything that is posted gets sent out to
the people on the list. Other lists are fully moderated lists. Our list
is of the fully moderated type. I will read any submission before it
gets sent out to you. If I feel it is not appropriate, I will return it
to the sender with my reasons why. If I feel it needs to be modified, I
will suggest to the sender what I think needs to be modified and why.
Items that I think are borderline, I may either discuss my problems with
the submitter, or post it with a note and see what response you all have
to it. 
 
So while I do "censor" articles, I try to do it with the agreement and
understanding of the submitter. The basic reason David Chechik organized
this mailing list was to have a place to discuss issues within a
Halachic context. This implies a certain level of editing. I'm not sure
how to distinguish editing from censorship. To me, censorship in it's
negative context here would imply either acting in an arbitrary and
capricious manner, or only accepting articles that I personally agreed with.
 I am unaware of any situation where someone on the list feels that I
have acted in an arbitrary manner. I urge anyone who has concerns with
what I do to communicate them to me.  I think, therefore, that we have
here an appropriate level of moderation to ensure there is no problem to
any of you with totally inappropriate submissions showing up in your
electronic mailbox.
 
TO REPEAT: There is NO question to the readership about missionary
messages or Christian messages appearing on the mailing list. That will
NOT HAPPEN.
 
The above deals with the content of the mailing list, what about the
readership? This question is dealt with in several of the mailing list,
e.g. mail.woman, mail.christian and many others. In general, to limit
the mailing list to only those who agree with you in everything would
make for a very limited, and some would argue -  boring, discussion. In
this I agree, and as such my policy is to let people know what the
material restrictions are and put no restrictions on the people. I think
that the few people for whom this list was unappropriate rapidly got
bored and dropped out.
 
What about the issue of teaching Torah to a non-Jew? Dave and I spoke
about this about five years ago when I was co-ordinating a weekly dvar
torah on the net. At that time, Dave was living in Lakewood, and spoke
with one of the Rabbi's there. The response (as I remember it) was that
as long as the majority of the audience is Jewish, you are not required
to worry about a non-Jew that comes to listen. Nor, at a public lecture,
are you required to prevent a non-Jew from entering. I have used that as
my guide here. I know that some of the non-Jews on the mailing list are
considering or actively involved in becoming Jews. The others I presume
have a serious interest in Halachic Judaism.
 
In general, I have no knowledge of why someone joins our mailing list,
but presume that it is because they are Jewish and either practice
Halachic Judaism or want to know more about it. My dilemma here arose
because I had some pre-knowledge of the person due to postings I had
seen on soc.culture.jewish. My concern was whether her interest was to
use information she may pick up here for missionary type activity. I had
put her in kill file, so I have not really read many of her recent
postings. From responses from members who have read her stuff, it
appears that she is not Jewish, and that she has not engaged in
missionary activity, as much as in justifying her beliefs, with a
certain amount of insensitivity for the s.c.j readership. The current
responses I have received are far from unanimous, running just about
50/50 as long as I do my job as moderator and there is no change in the
content of the mailing list. I remain committed to doing that. I will
wait until after Yom Tov before making any final decision.
 
I wish everyone a very Happy Yom Tov!
 
Avi Feldblum
mail.jewish Moderator
[email protected] or att!pruxk!ayf

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	White House Opinion Hotline
		[Moderator]
		Miriam Rabinowitz
	Kosher Cheese
		David Goldschlag
		Josh Proschan
		Ellen Prince
		Benjamin Svetitsky
	Kosher Vegetarianism
		charla
		Avi Feldblum
______________________________________________________________________
 
Just a quick update on the "Cindy" issue. I sent her a mail message
requesting a clarification for her reasons for wishing to join the list.
At this point, I have not heard back from her. Once I do hear back, I
will have to make some decision, and I will let you all know.
 
Avi Feldblum - Moderator
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
[Thanks to Miriam for sending in this information. While this is only
useful to our US readers, it is vital that we all make our feelings
known concerning the recent events in Israel. At least here, and
probably in other countries as well, politicians decide what issues are
important to those back home by the amount of mail and phone calls they
get. The White House is one very important place to call, the other is
your local representatives.
 
Note: Follow-up submissions on this topic will be carefully checked for
halachic implication submissions (which are welcome) or general
political debate submissions (which I do not think are welcome; there is
a strong feeling from many list members against political content in the
mailing list). Moderator]
 
	For those interested in voicing their opinion about President
Bush's condemnation of Israel's use of "excessive force" in Jerusalem on 
Monday, the White House Opinion Hotline is open from 9am to 5pm.  the # is 
(202) 456-7639.  
 
miriam rabinowitz - bcr!rruxc!miriam
______________________________________________________________________
 
Anecdotal evidence about kosher cheeses: My mother tells me that when
she was growing up in Chicago, no one knew of kosher cheeses, and
observant people considered all cheeses kosher.  Only when certified
cheeses became widely available were uncertified cheeses deemed not
kosher.  Interestingly, in small communities where certified cheeses
are still not plentiful, some observant families use uncertified
cheeses.
 
I wonder if the same change will begin with beer, now that Coors has a
hechsher...
 
David Goldschlag.
______________________________________________________________________
 
The problem noted with cheese tasting like plastic is not related to
kashrus.  The U.S. (Dept. of Agriculture?  FDA?) does not allow the
importation of real cheese; they require pasteurization.  This
eliminates many standard types of cheese, such as brie and camembert.
(The ones that are imported are made-for-U.S.A. and are not considered
edible in Europe :-)  The same restrictions apply to domestic cheese
producers.  There is also the matter of public taste; people in this
country expect cheese to taste like plastic, and ketchup to taste
burnt, and beer to have no taste, and . . .
 
Josh.
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
if you eat only kosher cheese, then i have a big surprise for you. in france,
ALL cheese tastes like cheese, and in the u.s., ALL cheese tastes like
plastic or sometimes soap. partly it has to do with the inane requirement that
all american cheese be made from pasteurized milk--france, which invented 
pasteurization, does not require that and hasn't had a case of cowpox in
over a century. partly it has to do with the fact that they just know what
they're doing in the culinary domain and we don't. (holland has the
same pasteurization requirement we do, but their cheese is good. they do
know, however, to avoid soft cheeses like brie, which can never ripen properly
when made from pasteurized milk.)
 
Ellen Prince <[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________
 
A rav once explained to me the following about cheese:
 
Rennet, an enzyme taken from animal stomachs, is a meat product.  However,
it may be added intentionally to milk to produce cheese, as long as
(a) it is less than 1/60 of the mixture, and (b) it doesn't add its own
flavor.  Hence the possibility of making kosher cheese.  HOWEVER, the
rennet must be kosher, that is, it must be extracted from a kosher animal
which was slaughtered in the usual manner and found to be kosher.  The
reason lies in the details of bitul be-shishim (which allows addition of
forbidden materials up to 1 part in 60).  If the issue is one of mixing
meat and milk, addition is permitted if no taste is imparted.  But if
the issue is one of adding tref ingredients (having their origin in
an improperly killed animal), then there is an additional requirement
that the material not affect the structure of the food -- e.g., solidifying
the cheese.  Thus only kosher rennet may be used.
 
The possibility that rennet may be so highly processed that its origin
may be neglected (the "chemicals" point of view) is of interest mainly
to Conservative rabbis.  It is rumored that some halakhic authorities
held this view, and acted upon it in private, but that's only gossip;
in any case, nobody published such an opinion to my knowledge.
 
Gvinat Akum is a separate halakha, parallel to Pat Akum, Bishul Akum,
Yeyn Akum, and Chalav Akum (bread, cooked food, wine, and milk prepared
by idolators -- the distinction between idolators and other non-Jews
is significant).  The applicability of all the above in our time is
a complex subject into which I am not prepared to delve.  The source
for all is the Mishna in Tractate Avoda Zara.
 
The issue of Gvinat Akum presumably affects the acceptability of the
so-called rennetless cheeses, which are made with a rennet of vegetable
origin.  Could somebody post some information on this issue?
 
Ben Svetitsky - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Can you recommend readings on "kosher vegetarianism"?
I had just naively assumed that being vegetarian would greatly simplify
the issues of kashrut but it's pretty clear, from the discussions of
cheese, for example, that it ain't easy no matter what.   
 
charla
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Charla's question is, I think mainly a practical one. Being a "kosher
vegetarian" does greatly simplify many kashrut issues, e.g. having two
sets of dishes/pots etc. However, not all foods that are "vegetarian"
are kosher without supervision. If anyone, especially the vegetarians on
the net, want to take a shot at what they need to be aware of and where
things are simplier, please do.
 
I would like, though, to address the term "kosher vegetarianism" on a
much more fundimental level. What are the halachic and philosophic
issues involved in Jewish vegetarianism. One approach is to try and
answer the following set of questions:
 
1) Are there any halachic requirements today to eat meat?
 
	The issue that comes to mind is the opinion of the Rambam that
one is required to eat meat on Yom Tov, because "Ain simcha alla
b'basar" - there is "joy" only in the eating of meat. However, that is
only the meat from the Korban that is brought when each Jew comes up to
Yerushalaim during the period when the Temple was in existance. Today,
the requirement of "joy" on Yom Tov is fulfilled by drinking wine.
 
2) Will there be any halachic requirements to eat meat when the Temple
is rebuilt?
 
	Here we have the Korban Pesach and additional requirement of the
Rambam mentioned above. Why I think this question is relevent to being a
vegetarian today lies in the last question.
 
3) Are there reasons for being a vegetarian that are philosophically
inconsistant with Halacha? Are there reasons for being a vegetarian that
are driven by Halacha?
 
	I know that Rav Kook has writings on this issue. Do we have any
followers of Rav Kook that know what he has written? I also looked
through all the pesukim I could find discussing general eating of meat
(by Noach, in Vayikrah where it seems to say that most meat could only
be eaten if brought as a korban, in Devorim where it discusses eating
meat not brought as a korban) and I think there are some messages we can
derive from the text. I need some time to think about it, so I'll wait
to see what comments and responses this generates.
 
Avi Feldblum
[email protected]

Topics:
	Kashrut Certification
		Morris Podolak
	Re: Rennet
		Morris Podolak
	Kosher Vegetarianism
		Morris Podolak
		Sara Svetitsky
	Appropriate Topics for Mail.Jewish
		Arthur I. Plutzer
______________________________________________________________________
 
There were several interesting questions raised in the last mailing.
Here are some bits of information which may be of interest:
 
With regard to the bit of oral history about the time before kosher
certification; it is clear from reading the literature of that time
that people used all sorts of lenient (but halachically acceptible)
rulings simply because there was no other choice.  The principles
involved in those rulings are, of course, valid today.  The question
is whether with the ready availability of certification for most foods
the rabbis who originally gave such rulings would give them today?
I was present when a prominent rabbi was asked why he drank Gatorade,
which doesn't have a certification.  His answer was "what's in it that
could possibly be not kosher?" Since U.S. labeling laws only require
the listing of ingredients that comprise more than 2% of the product,
there may be substances present that are not listed, but still render
the product unkosher.  My point here is, however, that according to this
rabbi, a certification is not necessary, all that's required is that the
contents are not unkosher.
 
____________________
 
With regard to the discussion of rennet by Ben Svetitsky, the use of
rennet from animals that are of a kosher species, but have not been
slaughtered in the prescibed manner (treifot unevelot) has been discussed
in the literature of the previous two generations.  In particular I have
a short article by Rav Y.E. Henkin ztz'l published in a festschrift called
Edut Leyisrael (1948) where he discusses its use.  His conclusion is that the
real problem is when it is done by a non-Jew, and he does not permit it.  An
earlier responsum by Rav Herzog ztz'l, the first chief rabbi of Eretz Israel
dated 1943, deals with Kraft cheese made with date juice instead of animal
rennet.  He forbids it because of gvinat acum.
____________________
 
Finally, with regard to Avi Feldblum's questions about vegitarianism, I
found a responsum by Rav Chaim David Halevi, the chief rabbi of Tel Aviv.
In the fifth volume of his Aseh Lecha Rav, he deals with the question of
tzimchonim (vegetarians) and tivonim (those who eat according to a special
philosophy-I don't know the english term for it, but it involves staying
away from meat among other things).  He says that the nazirite who vows
to abstain from wine for a given period must bring a sacrifice at the
end of that period because he refrained from something that was permitted
to him.  This does not apply to tzimchonim and tivonim, since they don't
want to eat the meat in the first place.  He adds that such a person is
not required to eat meat on Shabbat or Yom Tov since "it is clear that all
of this applies to those people who eat meat and don't know or don't worry
about the fact that it is unhealthy.  However for those tivonim who have
reached the conclusion that eating meat is unhealthy, it is completely
obvious (pashut beyoter) that they need not fulfil [the mitzvah] of
oneg Shabbat and Yom Tov by eating meat ..."  Rav Halevi adds that the only
mitzvah that requires the eating of meat is the Paschal Lamb (korban pesach)
and of that one only needed to eat an amount equivalent to the size of an
olive (kezayit).  This is sufficiently small so that even tivony doctors
will not object.
 
Morris Podolak
______________________________________________________________________
 
Re: Kosher Vegetarianism and Rav Kook, also advice requested
 
It is certainly true that vegetarianism simplifies kashrut, but there are
enough kashrut controversies concerning cheese, milk (the halav yisrael
question), wine, and for those of us in Israel even vegetables (shmitta,
orla, and the emergence of "kosher" and "trayfe" cauliflower and lettuce)
that vegetarians need not feel deprived of things to argue about.
 
   I have never systematically looked out vegetarianism in halacha; I know
that Lubavitch is ardently opposed to vegetarianism, but don't know the
halachic basis, if any, for that stand.  Rav Kook is of course the most famous
religious vegetarian.  Avi asked if a follower of Rav Kook could discuss that
a bit.  Well, I am not a "follower" of Rav Kook because to be honest I can't
understand most of what he says, but he has some famous statements on
vegetariansm that are comprehensible even to non-cabbalists.  First, that
for people to eat meat is a shameful weakness in our nature, as hinted by the
command of Kisui ha'dam (covering the blood of a slaughtered animal), which is
meant to cover our disgrace at having shed the blood.  In the future, people
will outgrow this low behaviour and in the Third Temple vegetable sacrifices
will be brought.  He waxes quite enthusiastic about the vegetable sacrifices.
(Pascal yams? :-) :-)). Exact references can be provided on request.
 
      There is a practical matter on which I would like to ask advice: what
is a good menu for a vegetarian for the meal before a fast, i.e. the vegetarian
equivalent of the unsalted chicken soup and plain chicken which everyone else
eats erev Yom Kippur? I have never found a satisfactory answer to this, and I
have a long list of failed attempts or things NOT to eat then.  Anyone out
there know any nutrition?
 
      Sara Svetitsky--fnbenj@weizmann
______________________________________________________________________
 
I would like to comment on the issue presented that Mail Jewish is not
an appropriate venue for political discussion relating to Israel,
or even relating to the U.S. Jewish community, its strengths,
weaknesses, and divisions.
 
What I find satisfying in Mail Jewish is the absence of those things
that I find dissatisfying in scj or mideast politics nets. Here there
is the absence of both diatribe and bitterness AND the feeling that
we are among our own. Just as we do not wish those on this net
to take something and twist it for the consumption of others, I do
not feel comfortable offering criticism of either Israel or other
Jews in a public forum. Why provide armor and arrows for our enemies?
Nonetheless there is a need for us to say things to OURSELVES, or
those who are essentially, ourselves, without fear of distortion.
 
I think this venue should be available for non-imflammatory
commentary of a non-halachic nature as well.
 
Arthur I. Plutzer - <[email protected]>

Topics:
	Kosher Vegetarianism
		Shlomo Engelson
	Vegetarian Meal before Fast
		Pat Barry
		Mike Stein
	Shehecheyanu over Leather Clothing
		Rahel Jaskow
______________________________________________________________________
 
I am a frum vegetarian (frum enough to qualify for the "right-wing
extremist" epithet from some quarters, vegetarian enough not to allow
noten-taam lekhatkhila :-).  I'd like to summarise my thoughts on the
matter, of which I have many, due to the continual necessity to
justify myself to others.  I'll restrict myself here to halachic
questions, even though I personally am motivated by other factors as
well.  There are two types of questions I'll attempt to answer, (a)
does halacha allow vegetarianism, and (b) does the Torah prefer
vegetarianism.  Naturally, I think both answers are "yes", which
conclusion I shall try to justify.  Enough preamble, on to the meat,
er, fruit of the article...
 
The first "halachic problem" people tend to have with vegetarianism is
the principle "ein simcha ela b'basar" [There is no 'happiness' except
through meat - Mod] on Yom Tov.  Indeed, when I first became a
vegatarian I ate a kezayit [amount equal to the size of an olive (what
that size is and who ever saw an olive that size would be the topic of
another discussion) - Mod] of meat on Yom Tov; this was before I had
properly researched the matter, however.  The Gemara which discusses
this, however, appears to come to the conclusion that this refers
specifically to the Qarban R'iyah [name of a sacrifice - Mod] brought by
each Jew on Yom Tov, and does not apply these days, rather "yayin
m'sameach l'vav enosh" ["wine makes happy the heart of man", a quote
from a pasuk, I'm not sure where. - Mod], and wine is the way of
attaining simchas Yom Tov today (for men; this is a complex issue in its
own right).  Some Rishonim, including the Tur, seem to hold, however,
that there is a halacha of meat-eating even today; the only explanation
I can see is a "zekher l'miqdash" [a rememberance to the time of the
Temple - Mod].  The Beit Yoseph comments on this Tur that this makes no
sense to him at all (his words), and concludes that only wine is
applicable today.  Since he doesn't discuss the issue in the Shulchan
Aruch, and the Darkei Moshe doesn't disagree, this would appear to be
psak.  It should also be noted in this regard that the halacha of `oneg
Shabbat does not, in any way, require meat; it is a subjective measure
of enjoyment, "eat what you enjoy".
 
Another question that is often asked is "Would you eat Qarbanot?"  The
answer to this must be an unequivocal "Yes!"  There appear to be opinions,
however, that in the time of Mashiach (may he come soon!) there will
be no animal qarbanot (R. Kook, and, I believe, the Ramban) [ If anyone
knows the sources in the Ramban please let me know and I'll post. Mod].
Certainly in such a case there would be even less of a problem.  But
even were animal sacrifices reinstituted, I would eat from them, as my
objection is to the *needless* killing and eating of animals; qarbanot
clearly serve an important purpose.  I do, after all, wear leather
tefillin.
 
The third main halachic objection to vegetarianism is that it is
associated with avodah zarah [idol worship - Mod.], and hence should be
avoided as a matter of mar'is `ayin ["Seeing of the Eye" This concept
was discussed in m.j#11 - Mod] .  I have even heard it suggested that
vegetarians should davka eat a piece of meat on Shabbat to avoid giving
this impression.  However, it seems to me that this position is rather
weak, especially in the US today.  Vegetarianism, though it is a part of
several Eastern Asian types of avodah zarah, as well as some forms of
neo-paganism, is certainly not a primary indicator for membership in
such a cult.  It is more associated here (although less and less as time
goes on) with the "California" "health food" fad, and has no religious
overtones at all.  Even did it have some such overtones, I would think
that extrapolating from this halachically permitted behavior (which
itself doesn't even look like a forbidden activity) to think someone an
avodah zarah-nik, could be a case of choshed b'k'sherim [Suspecting an
innocent person without due cause, a serious offense. Mod].
 
On the other hand, given that vegetarianism is a permitted life-style
(is there an alternative to this ugly word?), does the Torah perhaps
prefer omnivorism to vegetarianism or the other way around, even
though no strict halachic considerations apply?  I suggest that
vegetarianism is preferred, for several reasons.  The first is a
particular interpretation of the post-Mabul era, due, I am told, to
Rav Kook.  The reason why people were permitted meat after the Mabul
is given in the Midrash as "a change in nature" (shinui hateva`).
However, the nature of this change is not described, and various
commentators explain it in different ways, most of which seem to have
little to do with the Mabul itself.  However, a shinui hateva` that
follows directly from the event of the Mabul itself is a reduction in
the variety of plants growing in any one area of the earth.  As is
well-known, until the last few hundred years, few different kinds of
cultivated, edible vegetation existed in any one place.  Hence, a
healthy vegetarian diet would have been extremely difficult to keep.
Hence the permission to eat meat.  Today, this is not necessary, since
a great variety of vegetables are easily bought at the corner
supermarket, thus the original idea of "v'akhalta es `esev hasadeh"
[and you shall eat the grass of the earth - Mod] can be adhered to.
 
Another indication of disapproval of meat-eating is the reference to the
desire to eat meat in "ki ta'avat nafshekha l'ekhol basar" [You should
look up the Pasuk here, I'll have the reference for everyone in the next
mailing - Mod.] as "ta'avah", craving, a word that has negative
connotations, as in "qivrot hata'avah".  Further, until the
establishment of the Beis haMiqdash, meat-eating was restricted to
qarbanot (since bamot were readily available, see Shmuel I), indicating
that it is not something to be done lightly.  And when we examine the
b'rakhot made on various foods, meat is at the bottom of the totem-pole
(kiv'yakhol), with the least specific b'rakhah, hence it is one of the
least important of foods.  We see the idea of b'rakhah specificity
reflecting food importance most clearly with reference to wine and
bread, which have the most specific b'rakhot; it also applies to others,
see 6th Pereq Masekhta B'rakhot.
 
The final point, and one which I believe demands proper halachic
investigation by those qualified, is the issue of tza'ar ba`alei chayim
[Inflicting pain on living creatures - Mod].  Modern factory farming is,
on the whole, quite cruel to animals, and hence supporting such
practices may, indeed, fall under the prohibition of unnecessarily
causing pain to living creatures.  I hesitate to say anything definite
on this issue, except that it is one that I believe the Torah community
should deal with as soon as possible, as it involves the widespread
sh'gagah [non-intentional transgression - Mod] on a d'Oraisa, no small
matter.
 
I hope that this helps to clarify some of the issues a bit.  I'm sorry
I can't provide detailed references; my sfarim are mostly at home.
 
	Shlomo (ham'chuneh Sean) Engelson
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding good a good vegetarian meal before a fast:  I have been a
vegetarian for several years.  Eating beans (chick-peas, lentils,
black beans) and rice is good.  Combining beans with cheese, yoghurt,
or other dairy products is VERY bad, at least for me, since it
inevitably causes flatulence.  However, the real secret of an easy
fast for me has been giving up all caffeine.  Until I did this I would
develop a terrible headache by 3:00 in the afternoon, if not before.
Since giving up caffeine, I have no problem with headaches.
 
I would be interested in hearing more on the subject of vegetarianism.
 
Pat Barry
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
This is in response to the question about se'udat mafseket before Yom
Kippur for vegetarians -- from an anecdotal, rather than a
nutritionist's point of view.  Although we have the traditional unsalted
soup and boiled chicken, my kids have always hated it.  Coincidentally,
they also have always had a hard time fasting.  A few years ago I began
including pasta in the meal and encouraging them to drink large amounts
of liquid on the day before the fast.  The first time I did this, they
practically ignored the meat and ate only large amounts of pasta, and --
they had easy fasts.  Based on this, they now drink lots, eat lots of
pasta, and have had easy fasts ever since.  Could all be coincidence and
psychosomatic, of course.....
 
Mike Stein ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have a question regarding the Shehehheyanu blessing over new
articles of clothing.  I learned as a child that we do not say the
blessing over leather goods because it is not proper to do anything
that may resemble rejoicing over the death of a fellow creature. Yet
someone (a Lubavitch girl) told me that, in fact, Jews _do_ say
Shehheyanu over leather goods.  Can someone answer me regarding this,
please?  How about you vegetarians:  those of you who may wear
leather garments--what, if anything, do you say over a new pair of
shoes?
 
--Rahel Jaskow
 
(RJ1287@BROCK1P, or RJ1287%[email protected])

Topics:
	The need for Kashrus supervision
		Bruce Krulwich
	Clarification (?) on Pasuk regarding eating meat
		Shlomo Engelson
		Yaakov Kayman
	 Ramban and Rambam on Animal Sacrifices
		Dan Lerner
______________________________________________________________________
 
Morris Podolak raises an interesting point regarding Kashrus
supervision, in quoting "a prominent Rabbi" as answering why he drank a
particular drink by saying "What's in that could possibly not be
Kosher?"  While far be it from me to question something said by "a
prominent Rabbi," I beg to differ with the implications that Morris's
message made about the (lack of) need for supervision.
 
Strictly speaking, Morris's statement conclusion was correct:
certification is not necessary if the contents are kosher and the
production doesn't render it non-kosher.  The problem is whether we can
know this in the absence of certification.  Before starting, let me say
that there are many sources for information on modern issues in Kashrus.
The best such source (IMHO) is _Kashrus_ magazine, but there is also the
_Koshergram_ newsletter, the O-U and O-K magazines, and newsletters from
the Chof-K and other Kashrus agencies.
 
The fact of the matter is that food production has changed so much in
recent years that supervision is necessary to ascertain the Kashrus
status of almost any manufactured food.  The problem is that most of the
problems are not immediately evident upon looking at the food or its
packaging.  Research into the production is necessary.  This is the type
of information that is reported in Kashrus magazines, and is taken into
account by Kashrus supervising agencies.
 
One problem (which Morris pointed out in his message) is that according
to American law an ingredient that is less than 2% of the total product
need not be listed in the ingredients on the package.  There are also
certain classes of ingredients that need not be listed on the container,
such as oils used to grease utensils.  This can be a problem because a
common source for such oils are services that resell grease bought from
diners and resteraunts (as was discussed on 60 minutes or some other
national news program a few years ago).
 
Another problem is that there are many things added in small quantities
to food that we would never think about.  The best example of this are
"flow agents" added to spices to keep them flowing well in humid weather
(as in "when it rains, it pours").  These flow agents are usually
starch-based and are the reason that spices need to be specially
Passover-certified.  Another is gelatin and other emulsifiers added to
many products to keep them from seperating into their ingredients.  One
example of this is that many European manufactuters of dark beers and
blended wiskeys are suspected of adding gelatin to their products, and
many people avoid them for this reason.
 
Still another problem is that people often don't know what goes into the
products they buy.  The best example of this is cheese, which many
people think is just milk and flavor, but in fact contains rennits (sp?)
that initiate and control the curdling process.  As another example,
tuna fish in fact consists of seven different types of fish, only four
of which have the fins and scales needed to be Kosher.  Tuna fish
without Kashrus supervision is very likely to contain out-and-out
non-Kosher fish.
 
Lastly, and most importantly, is that people don't know anything about
the process used to prepare the food they buy.  One example of this is
that many juices and syrups have the impurities removed from them by
having a thick (sometimes foamy) substance latered on top of a vat of
the product.  As the substance falls to the bottom it removes whatever
solids are in the juice or syrup.  However, significant traces of the
substance often remain behind in the juice or syrup.  For a while a very
common substance used to do this was animal-based, which caused Kashrus
problems.
 
The drink that Morris's "prominent Rabbi" refered to, for example, might
contain grape juice as a flavor, it might be purified using animal
products, it might contain gelatin in small amounts for smoothness and
holding agents, and it may contain added vitamins of animal origin
(which is something I neglected to mention above).  I don't know about
the particular product in particular, but it's not so clear that it's
OK.  My guess is that the "prominent Rabbi" in question had some
particular information about the ingredients and the processes used in
manufacturing, and did not intend to make a general statement.
 
The bottom line is that food manufacturing and preparation has changed
alot in the past 10 years.  Technology has added alot to these
processes.  Anyone who is serious about keeping Kosher must take these
changes into account when investigating what they can and cannot eat.
There are some food products that can be trusted without supervision,
such as most (but not all) types of canned or frozen fruits and
vegetables, but in general it is the concensus of everyone who has truly
investigated food production that supervision is necessary for almost
everything nowadays.
 
 
Bruce Krulwich
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
The reference you wanted is Dvarim 12:20:
 
"Ki yarchiv HaShem Eloqecha et gvulecha ka'asher diber lach v'amarta ochla
basar ki ta'aveh naphsh'cha le'echol basar, b'chol avat naphsh'cha tochel
basar."
 
"When HaShem your G-d widens your borders, as He told you, and you say `I will
eat meat' since your soul craves to eat meat, according to your craving you
may eat meat."
 
I was slightly off in my quotation (I said ta'avat naphsh'cha), but my point
still stands.  The next verse (12:21) is also the source for only eating
sacrifices. 
 
	-Shlomo-
______________________________________________________________________
 
I would like to take exception to one remark made by Shlomo Engelson re
vegetarianism being a preferred way of eating. He implied, quoting part
of a pasuk, that the desire to eat meat is one that ought to be suppressed,
presumably likening it to the various other animal desires, and citing the
word "taavah" as his proof. The pasuk, however, continues on to say "Bekhol
*Avat* Nafshekha *Tokhal* Basar," stating quite clearly that this desire
(as it uses the very same root as before) is not at all undesireable, and
that one who wants to SHOULD eat meat.
 
Yaakov Kayman - [email protected] 
______________________________________________________________________
 
[Shlomo's reply to Yaakov]
 
Not at all.  The use of "tokhal" does not imply tzivui.  What this seems to
say is: if you have such a craving to eat meat, then you may eat meat to
satisfy this craving.  In fact, it could be taken to mean that if you don't
have this overwhelming craving then you may *not* eat meat at all; "b'khol
avat naphsh'cha", but no further.  Simply allowing it, then, doesn't mean that
it is a good thing, and as I mentioned, "ta'avah" generally has a negative 
connotation.  This interpretation is parallel to that given by many Rishonim
on the case of y'phat to'ar, that it is a case of the Torah permitting, but
putting restrictions on, a behavior that (a) is *not* desireable, but (b)
would occur in issur if completely forbidden.  As in the case of y'phat to'ar, 
restrictions are placed upon an otherwise undesireable action, in order to
control it.
 
	-Shlomo-
______________________________________________________________________
 
I think Mr. Engelson made a typo when he said that Ramban
held that there would not be animal sacrifices after the Mashiach comes.
I think he meant Rambam in Moreh N'vuchim.  However in the Mishneh Torah
Rambam says the exact opposite in hilchot m'lachim, that there will be
animal sacrifices.  Also, in "Contemporary Halachic Problems Vol. 3",
Rabbi Bleich cites many sources which maintain that there are serious
problems with vegetarianism.  Unfortunately I lent the book to a friend
so I can't look it up.
 
Thanks.
Dan Lerner ([email protected])
 
[Anyone have a copy of above volume and would like to summerize for the
group? - Mod.]

Topics:
	Re: Blessing over leather goods
		Morris Podolak
	Re: Rav Kook and vegetarianism
		Sara Svetitsky
		 mechael kanovsky
	Halachic Requirement to Live in Israel
		Steve Gross
	Parah Adumah
		Len Moskowitz
	
______________________________________________________________________
 
With regard to Rahel Jaskow's question about saying a blessing over
leather goods.  The fact that the leather comes about through the death
of a fellow creature does not change the fact that we should in
principle say the bracha of shehheyanu.  This is the opinion of nearly
all the sources I looked at.  In one source, the Sdei Chemed, he
mentions that he has seen an opinion that the bracha is not said over
leather, but he dismisses it.  There is a custom, mentioned by Rabbi
Moshe Isserles in his glosses to the Shulchan Aruch, that when someone
acquires a new article of clothing we wish him that he wear it out and
get a new one (my mother, using the Yiddish version of the saying says
"wear it in good health and tear it in good health", in modern Hebrew
people just say the last part "titchadesh"-get a new one). Rabbi
Isserles mentions this and says that the custom is not to say this for
leather goods, since it involves killing another living thing.  He adds
that the reasoning is not very good, but that is the custom.  I might
add, that the Shulchan Aruch also rules that we don't say the blessing
unless we are really happy to have acquired the article in question, so
that a rich man would not make the bracha unless the article of clothing
was special even for him.  For a poor man there is a dispute.  Rabbi
Yosef Caro rules that he makes it even for a poor article of
clothing.  Rabbi Isserles rules that he makes it only if it is special
for an ordinary person.  In any event, one should think twice before
making the bracha.
 
Morris Podolak - d77@taunos
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
In answer to popular demand, here are some references on Rav Kook (the
Rayah) and vegetarianism.  In the English volume "Abraham Isaac Kook" which
is in the Classics of Western Spiritualty series, there is a long essay
called "Fragments of Light" (p.303) which is a very complete exposition of
his beliefs on vegetarianism.   That there will be vegetable sacrifices in
the Third Temple is discussed in "Olat Rayah", vol.2 p.292.  (Disclaimer: I
don't have that book myself, but found the quote in the same English book
on p. 23).
     The Pascal Yam joke I got from David Moss.
            Sara Svetitsky
______________________________________________________________________
 
  In response to mail.jewish #148 about karbanot from animal sources
when the mashiach will come, I remember seeing in Rav Kooks' sidur "olat
ri'iyah" first part, on the pasuk " ve'arvah lahashem minchat yehuda
veyerushalayim, kiymei olam ukeshanim kadmoniyot" [rough trans: and it
will be pleasing to Hashem the mincha from Judea and Jerusalem, as in
the days of old. - Mod.] that when the beit hamikdash [Temple - Mod]
will be rebuilt the only sacrifices that will be brought will be
menachot [ grain sacrifice - Mod.] and no animal sacrifice will be
brought.
 
mechael kanovsky
______________________________________________________________________
 
        I have a question that's been on my mind for some time.  Simply
stated, is there a halachic requirement to live in Israel?  If yes, are
there any extenuating circumstances that would allow one to not fulfill
this commandment?  If no, why not?
        I say "why not" because, from my humble ignorance, it would seem
that almost everything in Jewish life points to the conclusion that one
should live there.  I cite the following items:
 
1) So many prayers speak longingly of living in Eretz Israel and especially
   Jerusalem.  Examples are too numerous to mention.
 
2) Every year on Pesach and Yom Kippur I choke on "L'shanah habah biyerush-
   alyim."  The fact of modern-day life is that all one requires is a plane
   ticket.
 
3) This excerpt from the Talmud (probably one of many):
 
Ketuboth 110b: Mishnah - A man may compel all his household to go up with him
                         to the land of Israel, but none may be compelled to
                         leave it...
 
               Gemarah - Our Rabbis taught: One should always live in the Land
                         of Israel, even in a town whose inhabitants are idol
                         worshippers, but let no one live outside the Land,
                         even in a town most of whom inhabitants are Israel-
                         ites; for whoever lives in the Land of Israel may be
                         considered to have a God, but whoever lives outside
                         the Land may be regarded as one who has no God.  For
                         it is said in Scripture, "To give you the land of
                         Canaan, to be your God." [Lev. 25:38] Has he, then,
                         who does not live in the Land, no God?  But this is
                         what the text intended to tell you, that whoever
                         lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who
                         worships idols.
 
4) Many people will explain all of the above by saying that all of the
   previously mentioned items only refer to Israel in the time of the 
   Messiah.  This gives rise to two questions: 1) Is this really the
   plain meaning (pshat) of the many texts and prayers? and 2) Even if
   this is true, it is also true that there are mitzvot that can only
   be performed in Eretz Yisrael (like tithes on fruit, for example).
   Whether or not you agree with the government of Israel, or think the
   modern state should exist at all, this still does not obviate those
   mitzvot tied to the land of Israel.
     
5) Many of our more recent ancestors did in fact make the then extremely 
   difficult journey to Israel.  A few that immediately come to mind are 
   Judah HaLevi, Ramban (Nachmanides), Rav Ovadiah from Bartinura and 
   Rabbi Kook.  Obviously, some think it of major importance to dwell in
   the land.
 
6) This is strictly anecdotal but a friend who once looked into this told
   me that there is a tshuvah (written by someone famous, I think, but I
   can't remember who) which states it is not a halakhic requirement to
   live in Israel.  However, my friend (who did make aliyah) said that he
   was quite disappointed with the tshuvah because it seemed to ignore
   many other more prominent sages in favor of an obscurer Tosafot.
 
I would appreciate any information anyone has to offer.
 
Steve Gross - att!homxc!sg
______________________________________________________________________
 
While looking through Ramban's commentary on Chumash, I came across a
footnote saying that there would be a total of ten red heifers.  Nine
have already been sacrificed and dedicated while the tenth will be
prepared by the Messiah (may he come quickly).
 
In these days of genetic engineering and advanced animal husbandry
techniques, is there any reason why one couldn't (or shouldn't) begin
the work of cultivating acceptable red heifers?
 
Len Moskowitz (Ha-Levi)

Topics:
	Conference on Jewish Medical Ethics
	The Halachic Dateline
		Laurent Cohen
	Permissible Responses During Different Prayers
		Rahel Jaskow
	Re: Kashrus Supervision
		Bruce Krulwich
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
	Conference on Jewish Medical Ethics
 
The Institute for Jewish Medical Ethics
	of the Hebrew Academy of San Francisco
		presents
 
The Second Annual International Conference on
	Jewish Medical Ethics
 
	February 15-18, 1991
	Miyako Hotel, San Francisco
 
They list lots of distinguished-sounding speakers & panel leaders.
I recognize a couple of names:  Edward Teller and Rabbi Moshe Tendler.
Picking a couple of others at random:
	Thomas Raffin (Chair, Committee on Ethics, Stanford Univ. Med. Center)
	Shimon Glick (Chair, Center for Med. Educ., Prof. of Internal Med.,
				BenGurion Univ., Be'er Sheva)
 
The program is a mix of lectures and panel discussions.  Most of the lectures
are along the lines of "Halachic Considerations concerning ...", including
	- human and animal experimentation
	- artificial insemination, surrogate motherhood, and related
	- abortion
	- allocation of health care
	- physician compensation
	- organ transplants
	- right to die
No topics are listed for the panel discussions.
 
Physicians and nurses can get 22 continuing education credits.
 
Kosher meals, Shabbat observance, and religious services will be available.
 
Fees (including kosher meals, not including hotel):
	$375 for full conference, less for partial attendance.
 
This is just a sketch of the information in the conference announcement.
For more information contact:
	Institute for Jewish Medical Ethics
	645 14th St.
	San Francisco, CA  94118
 
	Phone:	(415) 752-7333
		(415) 752-9583
 
	Fax:	(415) 752-5851
 
______________________________________________________________________
I have to go to Japan in about a month and have to stay there for a
shabbat.
 
I heard a few different opinions from different Rabbanim
about spending shabbat in Japan.
 
Some opinions date from the period when the Mir Yeshiva spent some time
in Kobe close to Osaka during the war.  The international dateline
corresponds to 180 degres from the Greenwich meridian. This means that
it passes in the middle of the pacific where there is almost no land.
At that time several Rabbanim said that Shabbat would fall on Saturday
since the halachic dateline is 180 degres from Jerusalem which is also
in the middle of the pacific and it is the same date in Japan.
 
The H'azon Ish then said that it was clear that the halachic dateline
was only 90 degres east from Jerusalem which means that it lies between
China and Japan and then comes a problem: when it is sunday in Japan, it
should be in reality shabbat according to the halachic time.  It seems
that most people from the Mir Yeshiva then followed the view of the
H'azon Ish at least for Yom Kippour they spent there.
 
From my personnal questionning to rabbanim I know, I had different 
answers which are related to the previous paragraph:
 
-You have to follow the time of the place you are in so you spend shabbat
on saturday, except if you travel across the international dateline on
sunday from Japan to California, in which case you would pass from
sunday to saturday during the flight.  In that last case there should be
some problems.
 
-There is a doubt whether shabbat falls on saturday or sunday, so you
make shabbat as usual on saturday but on sunday you go on observing the
shabbat by not transgressing any Issour DeOraita but you put on Tefilin on
sunday nevertheless.
 
-the answer depends on whether you actually pass across the dateline or
not.
 
-Since there has been a jewish community in Kobe for a long 
time you follow their tradition which is to make shabbat on saturday.
 
If anybody has heard a clear Psak or had experienced a shabbat in Japan
I would be pleased to know about it.
 
Also welcome is any information about kashrut or jewish community
in the Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto area.
 
ps: it seems to me that the question is the same in Australia where 
    a lot more jews live and travel, but I never heard about that.
 
David Cohen [email protected] 
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
SUBJECT: Question:  Permissible Responses During Different Prayers
 
I have some confusion regarding permissible responses during
different prayers.  I have seen charts dealing with this in different
siddurim and on the bulletin boards of synagogues.  Has anyone made
such a chart accessible through e-mail, and if so, may I please have
a copy?  If not, would someone please tell me where I may find one?
The Artscroll Siddur tells what one may respond at different times,
but it does so only at the relevant points.  This is valuable; still,
I would rather have an entire chart at my fingertips for quick
reference.  Thanks very much.
 
Rahel Jaskow -  RJ1287%[email protected] 
______________________________________________________________________
 
From: [email protected] (Bruce Krulwich)
 
[Avi -- I think that these points in my recent message are worth clarifying
-- Bruce]
 
I wanted to amend two comments that I made in my recent message about the
need for Kashrus supervision.
 
First, I believe that the material often added to drinks to hold together
the ingredients is glycerine, rather than gelatin.  Glycerine can be
animal-based or non-animal-based.  Many manufacturers in the US are Kosher,
but many in Europe (largely West Germany) are not.  (As an aside, the cause
of one part of the "Coke controversy" was a question about the source of
their glycerine.)  The question about European dark beers and blended
wiskeys (which is unsure -- many poskim say they're kosher) is because of
glycerine.  Gelatin may also be used, but it was glycerine that I meant to
refer to.
 
Secondly, after a discussion with one of the head poskim for the O-U who is
based here in Chicago, I want to retract my statement that "most types of
canned fruits and vegetables" are kosher without supervision.  The process
used to cook the vegetables in the cans may allow in quantities of meat from
cans (e.g. soup) being cooked at the same time.  This too is a question to
ask your Rav, but in any case the O-U is no longer saying that all canned
vegetables are kosher.  (The fact that Green Giant brand vegetables are now
under the O-U makes this easier to deal with.)
 
Of course, all of these things are questions that people should ask their
Rav.  My point is not that "all these things are asur asur asur" but rather
that it is wrong to say that questions need not be asked about "simple
products."
 
Bruce Krulwich - [email protected]

Topics:
	Re: red heifer
		Yisroel Rotman
	Re: tit'hadesh
		Bob Werman
	Status of Steinzaltz Talmud
		Ellen Krischer
	Miscegenation
		Benjamin Svetitsky
	What Tuna are Kosher?
		Sammy Katz
	When to say "Boruch Hu U'Varuch Sh'mo"
		David N. Blank
		[Mod.]
	Re: Japan
		Isaac Balbin
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Vis a vis, the genetic engineering of a red heifer for use in the
Beit Mikdash, an article in Maariv (an Israeli newspaper) a few
months ago, stated that such work was going on in Scandinavia (I
believe) and that a pure red hiefer would be developed  in the forseeable
future.
 
Yisroel Rotman, Ben-Gurion Univ.  ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
Morris Podolak - d77@taunos, writes, "in modern Hebrew
people just say the last part "titchadesh"-get a new one)."
 
Although it is only a minor part of his comprehensive letter,
I think I should point out that tit'hadesh is understood
to mean that "a new thing has come to be", not "get a new one"
[see Even-Shoshan].  Gur cites Ben Sira on Psalms 105,5:
"New in its month, the moon renews itself." and gives the
meaning "a thing that was formerly not present comes into
being".
The general idea is that one recognizes that there is some-
thing new [, enjoy it].
 
__Bob Werman - rwerman@hujivms Jerusalem
______________________________________________________________________
 
This question has been raised on the net, but I think this mailing
list is a much better forum for discussing it:
 
   What, specifically, are the problems with the Steinzaltz
   Talmud?  Are the problems associated with the English
   or Hebrew translation?  Are the problems relating to the text,
   the translation, the Nikudot (vowels and punctuation) or the
   introduction?  Who are the parties raising the concerns and in
   what context?
 
I'm interested because after having taken a look at one, I see the
potential for making the Talmud accessable to many for whom it was
previously inaccessable, and I think that could be a wonderful thing.
 
Ellen (was Bart now) Krischer
______________________________________________________________________
 
And now for something completely different ...
 
In the antebellum South, slavery was frequently given a religious basis --
Ham shall serve his brothers, etc.  But at the same time, people claimed
that interracial sexual relations, miscegenation, was prohibited by
the Bible.  One hears this even today from South African preachers.
Does anybody know where this comes from?
 
Let me emphasize, if it's necessary, that this question has nothing to
do with Halacha or with Jewish practice.  The Torah doesn't even mention
the matter of race, except perhaps to state that the issue doesn't
exist.  For instance, recall the Midrash which states that Adam was
created alone so that nobody could claim that his ancestors are superior
to anyone else's.  Also, there is the difference between God's image
and the image of an earthly king:  When a mortal king strikes a coin in
his image, all the coins are identical, whereas God's image as reflected
in the human race is endlessly varied.
 
So where do these people get their "Biblical prohibition?"
 
Benjamin Svetitsky <weizmann.bitnet!FNBENJ>
______________________________________________________________________
 
From: [email protected]
 
>  As another example,
>tuna fish in fact consists of seven different types of fish, only four
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>of which have the fins and scales needed to be Kosher.  Tuna fish
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^         
 
Do you know what the seven types of fish included in "tuna fish" are?
Which are the four that are kosher?
 
Sammy Katz - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
  Here's a question that I've been curious about:
During the course of the dovening, the leader will say "Boruch atah
<hashem>" at which point the congregation inserts "boruch hu u'varuch
sh'mo" before the rest of the blessing. This only happens *sometimes*
when "Boruch atah <hashem>" comes up.  Is there a "rule" or a pattern
for when this is done, or is this strictly a memory deal?
        Peace,
           dNb
 
[The first thing that comes to mind, is that when ever you want to be
Yotzei with the blessing you are listening to, then you should not say
"boruch hu u'varuch sh'mo". Some simple examples are when the person
blowing the Shofer on Rosh Hashana makes the blessing, you are being
Yotzei with his blessing so you do not say "boruch hu u'varuch sh'mo". 
Mod.]
______________________________________________________________________
 
  | I heard a few different opinions from different Rabbanim
  | about spending shabbat in Japan.
Did you ask for a Psak? That is what you should do, from *one*
Rov, your Rav Hamuvhak [primary teacher - Mod.].
 
  | If anybody has heard a clear Psak or had experienced a shabbat in Japan
  | I would be pleased to know about it.
 
I went to Japan for a conference a few years back. My Rav Hamuvhak,
Rabbi Boruch Abaranok Shlita, who is a Musmach of [received Ordination
from - Mod] the Chafetz Chaim, related to me that he had an offer from
the New Zealand community to spend some time there as a Melamed and
Shoichet [teacher and ritual slaughterer].  I believe that New Zealand
has the same problem as Japan.  Rav Abaranok asked Rav Elchanan
Wasserman what he should do.  He was told to keep Shabbos on Shabbos,
and that's it.  When I went to New Zealand one year (to fill in as
Chazzan on Rosh Hashono and Yom Kippur) this is the Psak I was given.
 
  | Also welcome is any information about kashrut or jewish community
  | in the Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto area.
From my knowledge you better bring Tuna, Matza and Wurst with you.
The community has intermarried a lot, and tend to be conservative.
 
  | ps: it seems to me that the question is the same in Australia where 
  |     a lot more jews live and travel, but I never heard about that.
Well it is for some of Australia. Indeed, when the Lakewood Kollel was
set up I know that they asked a sheila from Reb Moshe Z"TL (who was very
very reticent to answer). I am not going to repeat the conversation
that transpired though, until I check that I have permission.
 
Stay tuned.			[email protected]

Topics:
	Re: Halachic Requirement to Live in Israel
		Morris Podolak
	Re: Halachic Dateline
		Daniel Schindler
	Re: Shabbat in Japan
		Finley Shapiro
	Re: Baruch Hu U'Varuch Shemo
		Benjamin Svetitsky
	
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
With regard to Steve Gross's question about the mitzvah of living in
Israel: The question cannot be answered unequivocally.  The best that
can be said without fear of contradiction is that it is definitely the
proper thing to do.  Further, one who is already in Israel is forbidden
to leave except in four cases: 1. To learn Torah, 2. to find a wife, 3.
to escape from idolators (on condition that he intends to return) and 4.
For severe financial reasons (see Rambam Hilchot Melachim ch.5, halacha
9 for further details).  The question of whether one who is living
abroad has to actually get up and make the move to Israel is much more
complicated, and would require a great deal more discussion than is
convenient in such a forum.
 
Instead I would like to say a few words about the teshuva from "someone
famous" which seems to be negative with regards to aliyah.  The teshuva
is from Rabbi Moshe Feinstein ztz"l (Iggrot Moshe EH I no. 102 at the
end), and his argument seems to be as follows: You cannot claim that
there is a positive commandment to live in Israel in the same sense as
there is a positive commandment to put tzitzit on a four-cornered
garment.  The latter commandment implies that one is forbidden to wear a
four cornered garment without tzitzit.  In the same way, a commandment
to live in Israel would imply that it is forbidden to live outside
Israel, and that cannot be.  Instead the case is somewhat different.
There is no positive commandment to live in Israel, but whoever does so
is doing something halachically proper, and gets the appropriate credit.
As a result of this view, one can then ask if one should actually make
the move.  To this Rav Moshe answered that there is one authority (Rabbi
Chaim in the tosafot to Ketuboth, 110a) who holds that since it is
difficult to keep those mitzvoth which are specifically required in
Israel, one need not put himself in a position where he might be forced
to transgress those commandments.  Rav Moshe did not tell anyone not to
go, he merely pointed out that there is an authority who points out
problems with living in Israel, and one who contemplates aliyah should
be aware of those problems (Rabbi Chaim also mentioned the fact that the
travel to Israel is dangerous - a real consideration in the 13th cent.
but not much of a problem today).  It is important to point out that
according to Rabbi Yosef Trani (Maharit, 16th cent.) Rabbi Chaim never
said this.  Rabbi Trani discusses this tosafot in detail, and concludes
that it was not written by Rabbi Chaim, but by a student who erred in
reporting his teacher's views.
 
Finally, in a talk given in 1987, Rabbi Shar Yashuv Cohen, the chief
rabbi of Haifa discussed the issue of aliyah, and in dealing with Rabbi
Chaim's comment, pointed out that 1. travel to Israel is no more
dangerous than travel to any other country, 2. he has a list of 150
places in Israel that keep all the laws specific to the land of Israel
with all the strictness desired.  Those two considerations are by
themselves no longer problems.  I would like to close with a question.
Rav Soloveichik wrote a particularly moving essay on the importance of
aliyah called "Kol Dodi Dofek".  Does anyone know why he himself never
made aliyah?
 
Morris Podolak
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
     The question was brought up of when Shabbos is in Japan and
Australia.  The Chazon Ish discusses the view that the halachik dateline
is 90 degrees east of Jerusalem in his book on Orach Chaim-Moed section
64. His opinion is based on the Kuzari (2nd chapter) and a large Baal Ha
Meor at the end of the first chapter of tractate Rosh HaShanah. Rabbi
Menachem Kasher discusses in great detail the controversy over the
dateline during World War II in his book "The Jewish Date Line". He
describes meeting with the Chazon Ish shortly before he passed away (a
decade after the controversy).  At this meeting, along with Rabbi Zvi
Pesach Frank, they explained the reason Shabbos is on Saturday in Japan
and not Sunday is based on the RADBAZ ( a contemporary of the Shulchan
Aruch) which says that Shabbos does not depend on a dateline but one
counts seven days and then it is Shabbos.  This is how the tradition of
Shabbos on Saturday in Japan was arrived at and is valid. According to
Rabbi Kasher the Chazon Ish did not disagree. It must be pointed out
that the Chazon Ish's "Treatise on 18 hours" found in his book as stated
above is a rebuttal to the opinion that the dateline is 12 hours from
Jerusalem, and does not argue at all on the RADBAZ. In any case, as seen
by the survey in the previous newsletter, most rabbanim hold that
Shabbos is on the day which is traditionally Shabbos in that area and
does not depend on a dateline. In addition, according to the Chazon
Ish's opinion during the war, Saturday in Japan is erev Shabbos and one
should put on Tefillin. More dramatic is that the generally held Yom
Kippur is erev Yom Kippur and one must eat on that day, following the
Chazon Ish.
 
     With respect to Australia, even the Chazon Ish holds at the end of
section 64 that Shabbos is on Saturday since Australia starts within 90
degrees of Jerusalem and if a land mass starts within this line the
whole land mass is considered east of Jerusalem, not west and Shabbos is
on Saturday.
 
Daniel Schindler
______________________________________________________________________
 
I was in Japan in 1983.  I was in Kobe on a week day, and I only got as
far as the gate of the synagogue.  When I rang the bell a Japanese
caretaker came to the gate and told me to come back on either Friday or
Saturday, I forget which.  I got the impression that it was probably the
one word he knew in English.
 
I spent Shabbat in Tokyo.  There was (and I assume still is) a Jewish
Community Center there where they held Shabbat services on Friday nights
and Saturdays.  I believe that the rabbi at the time had been trained at
the Jewish Theological Seminary.  There were areas in the sanctuary for
both mixed and separate seating.  After Saturday morning services they
had a kiddush/lunch, after which they had the mincha service.
 
The address is:
 
The Jewish Community of Japan
8-8, Hiroo 3-chome
Shibuya-ku, Tokyo
 
Tel: (03) 400-2559
       (03) 400-6866
 
I have directions and a map, and I am willing to send copies.  All of my
information is as of 1983.
 
[ In the next mailing, we will have "excerpts from a two page fact sheet
which I (Finley Shapiro) got at the Jewish Community Center in Tokyo in
1983 " that Finley has sent in. - Mod.]
 
Finley Shapiro - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
One says "Baruch Hu u'varuch Shemo" on hearing God's name in a b'racha.
However, it constitutes an interruption ("hefsek"), and is thus ruled
out when other interruptions are ruled out.  Examples: (1) When saying
P'sukei de-Zimra in the morning, one doesn't B'H'uv'Sh' if someone
else's b'racha is overheard.  One does, however, answer Amen.  These
things have levels.  (2) After Barchu, one doesn't say B'H'uv'Sh'
either, and one doesn't even answer Amen unless one is between
paragraphs at the time. (3) After Shema and before Shemoneh Esrei, one
doesn't say anything, even Amen.  (4) One shouldn't interrupt if one is
fulfilling a mitzva by hearing the b'racha.  So if you hear somebody
making Kiddush, and you plan on making Kiddush for yourself afterwards,
you say B'H'uv'Sh'.  But if the person is making Kiddush for you as
well, don't interrupt.  The same goes for Havdala, which is perhaps a
more common occurrence.
 
                     Ben Svetitsky

Topics:
	THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF JAPAN
		Finley Shapiro
	Re: Miscegenation
		Art Kamlet
	Re: Boruch Hu U'Varuch Sh'mo
		Len Moskowitz
		Avi Feldblum
	Re: Titchadesh
		Ben Svetitsky
		Sara Svetitsky
______________________________________________________________________
 
Below are excerpts for a two page fact sheet which I got at the Jewish
Community Center in Tokyo in 1983.  I don't know what, if any, changes have
taken place since then.  Capitalization is as in the original.
 
FACTS about THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF JAPAN
 
THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER is the home of the JEWISH COMMUNITY OF JAPAN.
 
THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER was founded in 1953, by the purchase of present
property by the JEWISH COMMUNITY OF JAPAN, which was originally organized in
1948 and incorporated in 1953 as a non-profit Religious Organization.
 
THE PURPOSE OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF JAPAN and its Center is to provide a
center of Jewish Life in Japan for its Jewish residents in order, first, to
educate Jewish children living in Japan to Judaism and a strong sence of Jewish
identity; second, to provide essential Jewish Community services impossible on
a private family basis; and third, to represent the image of the Jew and 
Judaism to the Japanese government and people.  In addition, the Center strives
to provide a vigorous social life to strengthen the ties among Jewish residents
in Japan.
 
MEMBERSHIP is open to all Jewish residents in Japan, who are invited to join. 
Membership currently includes approximately 140 families, 350 people.  About
half are American citizens, one-third Israeli citizens and the rest a variety
of other nationalities, including some Japanese.  Most of the members are
businessmen in foreign trade, banking, finance, transportation and insurance,
as well as doctors, journalists, graduate students and musicians.  In general,
members and their families are semi-permanent residents in this country but
travel widely, with most visiting the U.S.A., Europe, Israel and other
countries once every two or three years or more often.
 
RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES include regular Friday night and Saturday morning
services, plus observance of all holidays.  As the Jewish Community Center
constitutes the only synagogue in Eastern Japan, it can be neither Orthodox,
Conservative nor Reform, but serves members of all shades of belief.
 
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES are perhaps the most important function.  The Sunday
school has a kindergarten and classes in Jewish History and Jewish Festivals
and Religion.
 
THE JUDAICA COLLECTION of the Jewish Community Center consists of about 1,000
volumes on all phases of Judaism in English and French including the Bible,
Talmud, and Midrash, the Jewish classics and a variety of works on history,
religion, music, philosophy, literature and art.
 
GENERAL COMMUNITY AND RELIGIOUS FACILITIES include maintenance of a Jewish
Section of the Yokohama Cemetary and a Hevrah Kadishah; a Mikvah (ritual bath)
on the premises; a Kosher meat kitchen, a Jewish-style restaurant; provision of
wine and matzoh for festivals; assistance in Brith Millahs, Bar Mitzvahs,
Weddings and other simchas; a commercial arbitration service and community
register.  THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF JAPAN assists members to import KOSHER MEAT
PRODUCTS.  The restaurants are open to the members, their guests and Jewish
visitors.
 
SOCIAL CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL SERVICES include swimming and wading pools,
lounge, circulation library, chamber music concerts, parties and dances,
movies, and lectures.
 
THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF JAPAN cooperates with the US Armed Services Jewish
Chaplains.  It also cooperates with the Japan-Israel Women's Welfare
Organization and the Japan-Israel Friendship Association in charitable works
including study scholarship for Japanese in Israel.
 
THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF JAPAN is a private religious corporation and its Center
is supported by and for the benefit of the local Jewish residents.  It is NOT
OPEN to the general public.
 
GUESTS AND JEWISH VISITORS are welcome within the practical limits imposed upon
hospitality by the necessity of discharging its first oblication to the
membership.  Jews residing in Japan for more than six months are requested to
apply for regular membership; Jews staying in Japan from 14 days to six months
are welcome to apply for guest membership; Jewish visitors staying in Japan
less than 14 days are welcome to use the facilities, other than swimming pools
or game rooms . . . .
 
JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER is privileged to have the opportunity to provide
important services both for its members as well as for the many visitors
passing through its doors.  Those wishing to join in the support of the
worthwhile institution are gratefully invited to do so at the office of the
Center.
 
 
submitted by:
Finley Shapiro - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
< In the antebellum South, slavery was frequently given a religious basis --
< Ham shall serve his brothers, etc.  But at the same time, people claimed
< that interracial sexual relations, miscegenation, was prohibited by
< the Bible.  One hears this even today from South African preachers.
 
I always learned that Moses' wife, Tzipporah, was a Kushite woman
(Ethopian) - so am puzzled that people who study the Bible would not
know that.
 
< Does anybody know where this comes from?
...
< So where do these people get their "Biblical prohibition?"
 
Why should Jews speculate about the religion of non-Jews?
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
I heard a similar explanation said in the name of one of the R.
Soloveichiks (may they continue to teach us for a long time).
Specifically it was in connection with the saying of "baruch hu u-varuch
sh'mo" during the repetition of the Amidah.  The Rav was quoted as
saying that since you want to be yotzei with the repetition you should
only answer ahmain and should not say "baruch hu u-varuch sh'mo."
 
Len Moskowitz
______________________________________________________________________
 
I can confirm that this is the opinion of R' J.B. Soloveichik. To
further understand this, you need to know his position on what the
repetition of the Amidah is. In his opinion, the repetition of the
Amidah constitutes a Tfilah by the Tzibur as a halachik entity. As such,
each person as part of the Tzibur must stand as he would for the Silent
Amidah, is forbidden to talk and must answer Amen and may not answer
baruch hu u-varuch sh'mo. This opinion is based on a Rambam, but I don't
know where, nor do I understand the details of what is to me a new
concept in Tfilat HaTzibur.
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
"Titchadesh," commonly said to one who has acquired new clothing (or
a house, car, computer, ...) appears to me to be second-person singular
future in hitpa'el.  I offer the translation, "May you be renewed," in
the spirit of "Chadesh yameinu ke-kedem," Renew our days as of old
(Lam. V).
 
One indeed doesn't say "Titchadesh" when somebody gets new shoes.  The
custom is to say "She-telech be-drachim yesharot," May you walk in
straight paths.
 
Ben Svetitsky
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Here is a footnote to the discussion on whether one says "titchadesh" to
the owner of new shoes. Friends of Yemenite extraction say "titchadesh"
over all garments except shoes, for shoes they say "lech b'drachim
y'sharot", which means "walk in straight paths" or less literally "walk
in the paths of righteousness".  This is said for all shoes, leather or
not.  I don't know if it is only Yemenites or other eastern communities
as well that do this.
 
Sara Svetitsky

Topics:
	Re: Titchadesh on Leather Garments
		Morris Podolak
		Dovid Chechik
		Ezra Tepper
	Re: Rav Steinzaltz
		Keith Bierman
	Non-traditional Families and Communal Response
		Arthur I. Plutzer
	Hechsher on Sorrel Ridge
		Yaakov BenDavid
______________________________________________________________________
Note: There was more stuff than I wanted to put into a single posting,
so I hope to get the rest out in a day or two. Have a happy Chanuka, and
keep the material coming in!
 
Avi Feldblum, your friendly moderator
______________________________________________________________________
 
One more try on the 'titchadesh' front.  I admit my translation of
'titchadesh' as "get a new one' is not grammatically correct.  On the
other hand, Rabbi Moshe Isserles in his glosses to the Shulchan Aruch
(para. 223) states that the custom is to say 'tivaleh vetitchadesh'
which he seems, on the basis of the subsequent discussion, to understand
as 'wear it out and get a new one'.  It is interesting that the word
'titchadesh ' is used only in the version of the Shulchan Aruch printed
in the Mishnah Berurah.  The large Shulchan Aruch, as well as that
printed with the comments of the Kaf Hachayim has the word 'techadesh'
with only one 'tav'.  This is also the version I have found in other
sources (e.g. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch).  Does anybody know if the version
in the Mishnah Berurah is a misprint, or is it deliberate.  Are there
any other such differences?  
 
Morris Podolak
______________________________________________________________________
 
The custom of saying tischadesh on the purchase of new garments is
documented in Shulchan Aruch, Orech Chayim 223,6 by the Rama
(Rabbi Moshe Iserlis): (Translation is my own as are bracketed
comments)
 
"The custom to greet someone who is wearing new clothes with the
expression "Tivle Vetischadesh", May you wear them out and buy new ones.
[This is a blessing for long life of the wearer, to put it differently,
"may you outlive your clothes", the rama continues]. There are those
that write not to say this on shoes or other garments made from the
skins of animals, for if so, it would be necessary to kill more animals
first to make other garments and it is written "V'rachamov al kol
maassav", his compasion is on all his creatures.  However, this
reasoning is very weak and isn't apparent.  Never-the-less, many are
careful not to say it."
 
The rama, the ashkenazi contemporary of R. Yosef Kairo, may not have
known about any Yemenite custom.  In any event, what do they say on
canvas shoes, or leather belts?
 
Dovid Chechik   uunet!motcid!milcse!chechik
______________________________________________________________________
 
Rahel Jaskow (RJ1287@BROCK1P) asks whether we recite the Shehecheyanu
blessing over new articles of clothing made of leather. This subject is
mentioned in the Shulchan Oruch, Orach Chayim, Chapt. 223. However, from
the text there it appears (and I am not a posek) that one does bless
Shehecheyanu on major articles of clothing made of leather (e.g. a
leather jacket). The Shulchan Oruch, however, excludes shoes and a shirt
from the blessing because they are not major items (and not because the
shoes are made of leather). See paragraph "vov."
 
The Rema in the same paragraph discusses a different problem, and I
quote him: "It is customary to greet someone who is wearing a new
garment with 'tevaleh v'titchadesh' (wear it out and buy a new one). One
authority (the Mahariv) wrote that one does not say this with regard to
clothes made of leather because one would have to kill an animal before
a new garment (of this type) could be bought and the Torah teaches
(Psalms 145:9) 'His mercy is on all His works.' But this reason is
extremely weak and doen't appear (to be logical). However, many people
are scrupulous not to say it (when seeing someone with a new leather
garment)."
 
Perhaps due to this Rema, many people confused the issue of greeting
people with new leather clothing with "tevaleh v'titchadesh" with the
blessing of Shehecheyonu when putting on a leather garment for the first
time. Nevertheless, it appears that the opinion of the Rema himself is
that one may even say "tevaleh v'titchadesh" when seeing someone with a
new leather garment. Note that the proper expression when one sees a
person with a new garment is "tevaleh v'titchadesh" and not the plain
"titchadesh" commonly used in modern Hebrew.
 
Ezra Tepper <RRTEPPER@WEIZMANN>
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have not yet studied the volumes out yet (but they sit on my shelf
daring me to....). 
 
Rav Steinzaltz has done a wonderful job in tying together much of the
historical discussion (I've studied a bit of his Hebrew edition), but
the student is "robbed" of the original sources, the tensions and
debates, etc. The argument can be made, that talumdic study has and
should focus on the Process not the mere outcomes of debates.
 
I think this is in a key way, a replay of the early Anti-Rambam
movement. In the long run, we need sages to tie up the work of the
previous N-generations; these are/will be followed by work(s) of later
scholars who will put the detailed debates back in. 
 
Perhaps hypertext systems will grow to the point where we can have all
of the literature online at home and schul/yeshiva/etc. so we can
delve into it all....
 
My advice to those who have never studied talmud, is to start with a
good teacher and a traditional class. If time does not permit one to
study in the traditional fashion thereafter, things like the Kahatti
Mishnah and the Steinsaltz talmud are invaluable.
 
There will be, of course, those that skip the first step .... and this
is a problem, but much less than that of total ignorance IMHO.
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I would like to raise a topic that I have not seen discussed previously.
It relates to the changing demographics in the Jewish community in the
United States with respect to family/mishpecha.
 
The traditional model of the Jewish family - indeed of the Western family
has since the Industrial Revolution been that of a working father, a
a balabuster mother, and two children.
 
The institutions of Jewish communal life are today responding to newer
forms of the Jewish family, but, in the main are doing so with the
clear belief that these new forms are an aberration for which we must,
at this temporary juncture provide services. For example, some of these
new forms include the single parent (divorced, widowed), two-wage-earning
parents, parents of children with special needs: drug, alcohol, AIDS/HIV.
And no doubt, even in modern orthodox congregations, family defined
as homosexual and lesbian couples, and intermarried couples or parents
of same. 
 
[Please note that the sentence in the above paragraph raises a question
that probably needs to be dealt with separately from the previous cases.
While single parent families, for example, may be a non-traditional
form of family, it is clearly not a halachically forbidden one. The same
cannot be said for homosexual couples and intermarried couples.
Thus, while I believe both of the above situations need to be addressed,
the response may (and I think should) be different. - Mod ]
 
What does Jewish history, beginning with Biblical history, and halacha
tell us about non-traditional forms of family, and the communal response?
I make the assumption that the institutions of the Jewish community,
whether the synagogue or the secular institutions will have to deal
with this. What should its response be? I would share with you the
demographics that to tell all our divorced or single parent women
between the age of 35-55 to remarry is unrealistic.
Also unrealistic is to continue the models that we have been using
which say that the single parent family is an aberration.
 
Kol Yisrael Areveen Zeh L'Zeh, Shalom,
 
Arthur I. Plutzer - AIPBH@CUNYVM
______________________________________________________________________
 
Does anyone know who is the Rav Hamachshir of Sorrel Ridge Wild Blueberry
Spreadable Fruit (jam)? It has a generic "K-P" on the label. Thanks,
                  Yaakov BenDavid (formerly Jeffrey Davis), Ra'anana, Israel
______________________________________________________________________

Topics:
	Re: Halachic Requirement to Live in Israel
		Ben Svetitsky
	Re: Shabbos in Japan and New Zealand
		Susan Slusky
	Re: Miscegenation
		Ben Svetitsky
	Re: Boruch Hu U'Varuch Sh'mo
		Morris Podolak
	Second International Symposium on Circumcision
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
The argument among the rishonim over the mitzva of settling Israel
revolves in part around the question, why didn't the Rambam include it
in his list, Sefer ha-Mitzvot?  Ramban, in particular, points to the
verse, "Virishtem et ha-aretz vishavtem ba," You shall inherit the land
and dwell therein (parashat Mas'ei), as a clear commandment.  The
explanations abound.  One is that the verse is declarative, not
imperative: It constitutes prophecy, not a command.  The trouble with
this is that the Rambam goes on to include many laws in the Mishneh
Torah which obviously take this mitzva for granted, such as the oft
quoted example that refusal to go on aliya constitutes grounds for
divorce.  So why isn't settling in Israel a mitzva in itself?
 
An explanation I like is that the Rambam considered settling in Israel
to be hechsher mitzva, preparation for a mitzva, much like building a
sukkah.  (The real mitzva is to dwell in a sukka, not to build one.)
Since so many mitzvot cannot be done outside of Israel, the requirement
to live there is obvious.  And hechsher mitzva falls outside the
Rambam's strict requirements for inclusion in the list of 613.
 
(This is a counterpoint to the strange argument quoted by Morris
Podolak: that since it is so difficult to fulfill the mitzvot connected
to the land, you're better off not going.)
 
Which leaves us with the verse in Mas'ei.  Is it imperative or
declarative?  R. Shlomo Avineri, in his book Tal Hermon, points out that
the two are not mutually exclusive.  Wait a minute, you say: If it's a
prophecy, it's going to happen in any case, so why bother commanding it?
Where's our motivation to come from?  He answers by pointing to the
similar case of teshuva (repentance), and its origin (parashat
Vayelech?), "Ve-shavta ad Hashem Elokecha be-chol levavcha ...", You
shall return to the Lord with all your heart.  Prophecy or command?
Both.  (Everybody agrees it's a mitzva, and it comes from this verse.)
We are commanded to repent, AND we are assured of success.  Thus with
settling the land of Israel.  We are commanded to undertake it, and we
are assured of success.
 
Ben Svetitsky  ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
Re: Shabbos in Japan and New Zealand
 
Although I had never given the matter any thought before,
now that it's been brought up, I don't see why the Jewish date line is
90 degrees east of Jerusalem. Putting it 180 degrees east (and west)
of Jerusalem seems more the obvious choice. Why is the rabbinic
response 90 degrees east?
 
Also, it would seem that those of us in the Western Jewish 
hemisphere should be observing our two-day yom-tovim
on the day before plus the Torah-specified day instead 
of the day plus the day after. That way we'd be observing
during the whole time that yom-tov is being observed in Israel.
I can see how the day after made sense when the community in question
lived in Bavel, which is in the Eastern Jewish hemisphere. But
why was the extra day not pushed back when Jews moved west?
 
Susan Slusky
att!mhuxo!segs
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
<< So where do these people get their "Biblical prohibition?"
 
<Why should Jews speculate about the religion of non-Jews?
 
1) Because we (Jews and religious Christians) frequently get tarred
by the same brush.  See for example all the ignorant twaddle that gets
written about Jewish attitudes towards abortion, as if Jimmy
Swaggart is an authority on Halacha.  Likewise homosexuality.
 
2) Because the Bible is our property, and misreadings of it should
interest us in at least a theoretical sense.
 
3) Because the Rambam states that before he started to write, he studied
every source then existing in Arabic regarding other religions, because
such knowledge is essential to the understanding of Judaism.
 
4) Because I asked the question, thank you.  You may address it or not,
as you like, but you may not circumscribe my curiosity.
 
Ben Svetitsky
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
With regard to the question that was raised about saying "baruch hu u
varuch shemo".  The source is Rabbi Yakov ben Asher in his 13th century
code, Arbah Turim, where he states that his father Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel
used to say it.  The point is that whenever G-d's name is mentioned,
it is proper to praise Him ("When I call on the name of G-d give praise
to our L-rd" - end of Dvarim).
 
Since this is not part of the prayer proper, but rather something
extraneous, it may only be said at those places where talking is
permitted. Rabbi Avraham Gombiner (16th cent) states "it is clear that
if someone is at a place where he is not permitted to interrupt by
speaking, then he is forbidden to say baruch hu u varuch shemo" (Magen
Avraham 154:9).  The Vilna Gaon pointed out that if the person repeating
the shmona esrai (amida) doesn't pause for the saying of baruch hu u
varuch shemo, then it is preferable not to say it rather than miss
hearing the whole of the repetition.
 
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has ruled that you are not permitted to interrupt
with baruch hu u varuch shemo in the following cases:
1. In pesukei de zimra
	[Portion of the morning prayer, starting with "Baruch She'Amar",
which is a starting blessing, then there are portions of the Torah,
mainly from Psalms, and ends with "Yishtabach", the ending blessing.
Thus the whole portion is considered to be similar to a single long
blessing. Mod.]
 
2. In kriath shema and its associated brachot
	[This was referred to in a previous posting as the paragraphs
around Shema, and raised some confusion. The saying of Shema in both the
morning and evening prayers have a set of two blessings before and one
or two after. The first is often called Yotzer Or, the second is Ahavat
Olam, then Shema, then Goal Yisrael, then (in evening prayer only)
Hashkevainu. In general, jusk look for "Baruch Atah" - Blessed are You
to identify the end of each blessing. The next one (or Shema, as the
case may be) starts immediately after. Mod.]
 
3. between the bracha goal Yisrael and the amida (even in
the evening)
 
4. In any bracha in which the listener is a participant
 such as
   a. kiddush
   b. havdala
   c. shofar
   d. megilla
etc.
 
baruch hu u varuch shemo may be said in the following cases:
1. between yishtabach and the first beracha before the shema (yotzer ohr)
2. during the priestly blessing (when it should be said quietly).
 (Yichave Da'at vol. 4 #9)
 
Morris Podolak
______________________________________________________________________
 
The Second International Symposium on Circumcision will be held from
April 30 to May 3, 1991, at the Miyako Hotel in San Francisco.  The
opening presentation by a noted French obststrician, Michel Odent, M.D.,
on Tuesday evening will be followed by a wine and cheese reception.
During the next three days, other internationally acclaimed authorities
will present world views on the cultural, psychological, relegious,
medical, and legal aspects of circumcision.  At the closing banquet
Friday evening, the Human Rights Award of the International Symposia on
Circumcision will be presented to Dr. Benjamin Spock for his ability to
recognize changes in medical findings, to acknowledge the need for
change in medical practice, and for his willingness to alter his
recommend- ations on infant care.
 
SOME SPECIFICS:
	Tuition (All funds are in U.S. Dollars)
		Early: (Postmarked by March 15)
			Individual  $195
			Special     $145  *
		Regular: (After March 15 or on site if space is available)
			Individual  $225
			Special     $175  *
* Special:  Full-time student, 62 or older, legally handicapped
 
Continuing education credits will be announced.
 
For more information:	International Symposia on Circumcision
			2440 Sixteenth St., Ste 250
			San Francisco, CA 94103
			1-415-488-9660

Topics:
	Halachic Reason to stop buying Japanese?
		Daniel Lerner
	Non-Jewish involvement in Chanukah celebrations
		Bruce Krulwich
	Guide Book on Aliya and Jewish Genealogy groups
		Rahel
	Re: Two days of Yom Tov
		Ben Svetitsky
	Re: Titchadesh
		Zev Sero
		Bob Werman
______________________________________________________________________
 
I read in the NY Times (Wed Dec 11) about religious practices in
high-tech companies.  Evidently, several companies in Japan have Shinto
shrines, including the plant where Mazda Miatas are manufactured.  I
remember that in Masechet Avodah Zarah, there are restrictions with
regard to doing business with AKUM (Idolaters) around their idolatrous
holidays.  The idea is if they are successful, they will go to the
shrine and pray to ba'al or whatever.  Are there any similar
restrictions in Halacha L'Maaseh (practical halacha) which would apply
to such products made in Japan?  The article had a picture of Japanese
businessmen burning old chips and transistors in a Shinto Temple and
mentioned that most new factories in Japan are dedicated by Shinto
Priests.
 
Some people will eat out at vegetarian restaurants; in many of these
restaurants, the proprietors are Budhists.  I have heard of the cooks in
these restaurants making food and drink offerings.  That would really be
Bishul AKUM!  Has anyone heard of this happening?
 
Daniel Lerner ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
In the past I've been involved in many of the Chabbad public menorah
lightings in several different cities (Pittsburgh, New Haven).  In
general I think that they're a very good form of Pirsumei HaNes
[publicization of the miricle] to non-religious Jews and serve to deter
the influences of x-mas decorations.  Even moreso, they serve a big
Kiruv and Chinuch [education] purpose for Jews who have lost their
connections with Yiddishkeit.
 
This year, however, I saw something which bothered me a bit, and I
thought that people on M.J. could give me some thoughts on it.  In one
or two cities I saw a big push to involve a non-Jewish public figure in
the Menorah lighting.  This is the first year I've seen this done.
 
Two things bother me about this.  First, it seems to be cheapening the
idea that the Menorah lighting is a Mitzvah, and making it look more and
more like a x-mas imitation public relations stunt.  Besides being a
matter of sensibilities, it would seem that there are issues of Darchei
haGoyim [going in the ways of the gentile world] in reducing menorah
lighting to a ceremony of public officials lighting lights.
 
Even more than this, however, is the fact that this is being done in a
celebration of Chanukah.  It is strange that a chag that celebrates our
victory over the forces of Hellinism would be celebrated by involving
non-Jews as a P.R. stunt.  All of the Halachic sources I've found
indicate that the Inyan [underlying idea] of Pirsumei HaNes (BiZman
HaZeh -[In our time - Mod.]) applies only to Jews, and in fact the
Halacha of lighting Menorahs outside our doors (which is still done in
Eretz Yisroel) was changed in Golus [the diaspora] because in Golus the
Inyan of Pirsumei HaNes specifically does not apply to the non-Jews
among whom we live, and rather applies to our families only (I think I
saw this in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch and the Mishna Berurah).
 
It may be that this involvement of non-Jewish town big-wigs is only
happening in particular areas, and is not the norm for the Chabbad
celebrations.  Or, maybe it's common and the cities in which I've been
involved with them previously have been exceptions to the rule.
 
I am interested in two things.  One, is this a usual thing for Chabbad
to be doing?  Maybe it's just a crazy thing that one Rav decided to do,
which is not being done by Chabbad in general.  Two, what do others
think of it?  Is there a halachic basis for doing this?  Is there a
sense in which this seems like a proper thing to do?
 
I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm ragging on Chabbad, not being one of
them myself.  I'm not.  As I said, I've been involved with their Menorah
lightings and other Kiruv activities in the past, and have seen very
good results.  That's why when I see something that so violates my sense
of propriety and Halacha, I have to wonder why it's being done.  Maybe
someone on M.J. can help me understand.
 
Bruce Krulwich - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________ 
 
Does anyone know of any books or guides about Aliyah--something on
the order of "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Moving to
Israel (But Were Afraid to Ask)"?
 
Also:  I don't know whether this is the place to ask, but I have
just found out who my great-grandparents on my father's side are.
Are there any Jewish genealogy mailgroups or newsgroups I can gain
access to, so that I can find out where to go from here (and whether
anyone shares a common ancestry with me)?
 
Thanks.
 
Rahel - RJ1287%[email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Sue Slusky wrote that perhaps the two-day observance of yom tov in galut
should be changed to include the day before the holiday, not the day
after, reasoning that this would maximize the overlap in time between
observance in Israel and observance in galut.  But the second day
observed in galut is not meant to provide overlap with the time of
observance in Israel; rather, it exists in memory of the Temple, of the
time when the day of the holiday was fixed according to actual
observation of the new moon near Jerusalem.  It sometimes took too long
for news of the new moon to reach the galut, so they instituted an extra
day -- and this custom was kept after the fixing of the modern calendar
as a memorial to the Temple and a gesture of hope for its reinstitution.
 
For a complete discussion of the halachic history of yom tov sheni,
see R. Zevin's book, HaMoadim baHalacha.
 
Ben Svetitsky    [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Nobody has mentioned the phrase used by Yiddish speakers (or at least
White Russian and/or Ukranian Yiddish speakers---my grandfather is from
Brahin and my grandmother, AH, was from Dockshitz), which is `Tzurais
gezunteheit'---tear it in health.  I had always assumed that
`Titchadesh' was a Modern Hebrew version of this, like `Shabat shalom'
for `Gut Shabess', and the Ramo is referring to the sentiment, not the
precise words.
 
				Zev Sero  -  [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
     Although the root [shoresh] b'l'h' in tivaleh does mean wear or
use, as in this sense, it has an alternate meaning, to spend time.
In modern Hebrew, t'vale [pi-ayl] implies having a good time.  Thus,
t'vale ve-tithadesh would make a great greeting, "Have a ball [great
time] and refresh yourself."
 
     As to the Mishna Brura, he does deviate now and then from the
accepted text of the Shulhan Aruch; in addition to the example you
give see his rendering of "Amen" as the appropriate response to
"Brich Hu" in the Kaddish as compared to the original text.*  I
am sure these are deliberate.
 
__Bob Werman - rwerman@hujivms - Jerusalem
 
* Sorry, I do not have the text with me.

Topics
	Announcement of HaMaayan
		Alan Broder
	The Miracle of Hanukkah (reprinted article)
		Rabbi Zvi A. Yehuda
______________________________________________________________________
 
This note is to announce the availability of the electronic version of
"HaMaayan" a weekly publication, edited by Shlomo Katz, which has been
distributed in hardcopy to shuls in the U.S., Canada, and Israel since
1987.  HaMaayan is now being posted to Usenet soc.culture.jewish several
days before the corresponding Shabbos (usually by Tuesday A.M.). 
 
If you do not have access to soc.culture.jewish, or can not catch
HaMaayan when it appears there, HaMaayan can be emailed direct to your
machine.  To get on the HaMaayan direct email mailing list, or to
request back copies of HaMaayan, send a request to me (Alan Broder) at
[email protected] (or uunet!grebyn!ajb) . 
 
The following descriptive paragraph taken from this week's HaMaayan
preface spells out HaMaayan's editorial goals:
 
  HaMaayan is published weekly for the edification and enjoyment
  of the reader who is lacking the time or ability to study the
  weekly Parasha on his own. HaMaayan's goal is to acquaint the reader 
  with the broadest spectrum of traditional Torah commentary, from 
  the "rationalism" of Rambam (Maimonedes) and Abarbanel to the 
  "mysticism" of Alshich and the Chassidic Masters.
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
It is commonly assumed that in rabbinic outlook the "miracle" (nes) of
Hanukkah is the burning power of a small amount of oil found in the
Temple at the time of its rededication.  Expected to yield light for
only one day, it "miraculously" lasted eight days.  To take this legend
literally and narrowly is to miss the point.  Properly understood, it
does not mean to replace the true historical essence of the festival,
but to embellish and augment it.  Widespread as this aggada (legend) of
the jar of oil is, undeniable as its impact on the halakha (observance)
of Hanukkah is -- it is nonetheless fully ignored in the liturgy of
Hanukkah.  The rabbis did emphasize the historical events, the heroic
wars and victories of the Hasmoneans and the deliverance of the Jewish
people, as the only authentic "miracles" (nissim) of Hanukkah,
manifesting divine providence.
 
The "Al Ha-Nissim" ("On the Miracles") prayer for Hanukkah mentions
nothing of a jar of oil miracle.  Instead it outlines the historical
situation of 168-165 BCE in the land of Israel: The anti-Jewish decrees
of the wicked Seleucid government; the struggle and dedication of the
Hasmoneans; their heroic and glorious resistance and victory and the
monumental deliverance of the Jewish people -- all attributed, in
prophetic style, to the mercy and help of God.
 
The ensuing repossession and rededication of the Temple -- celebrated
with the kindling of lights (without a hint to any oil "miracle") -- is
presented in "Al Ha-Nissim" as the glorious culmination of the Hasmonean
wars and victories.  The Hasmoneans' abiding faith, arduous struggle,
and consummate dedication -- illustrated in their wars and victories --
are projected in liturgy as the true and only "miracles" (nissim) of
Hanukkah.  Due to these "nissim" -- the heroic fighting and the
resultant liberation of the people and the land from their enemy -- the
victors could and did enter and restore the Temple, kindling there
lights and instituting Hanukkah for posterity.  This, then, is the
quintessence of Hanukkah, according to the genuine rabbinic liturgical
gem "Al Ha-Nissim."  No jar of oil there.  The same is true of "These
Lights" ("Ha-Nerot Ha-lalu") recital during the kindling rite, which
lucidly clarifies the reason and nature of the Hanukkah lights.  It
mentions the people's deliverance, not any "miracle" with a jar of oil!
 
It makes no sense in Judaism to institute a festival because of the jar
of oil episode.  A sensational episode -- even if perceived as literally
true and essentially "super-natural" -- is yet no reason for
celebration.  A redemptional event -- occurring within the domain of
human history -- is a compelling reason!  We celebrate the festival, and
express our gratitude to God in worship, not because He allegedly
intensified the burning power of some oil for His Temple, but because He
inspired the fighting power of the Jewish people, delivering them from
extinction to life.  The Hallel prayer is recited on Hanukkah in
adoration of God, not because some oil was blessed, but because Jews
were saved from persecution and servitude to foreign rule to freedom and
life (Rashi Beza 28b).  The rabbis did not conceal the battles and
victories of the Hasmoneans nor try to erase their indelible mark on
history.  Dedicated to Torah they loved peace and abhorred violence, but
cherished national freedom and independence no less.
 
To say that the rabbis construed the essence of Hanukkah -- its "nes" --
its focus of celebration, to be fully or partly the "miracle" of the jar
of oil is utterly erroneous and blasphemous, distorting the very essence
of Judaism.  Judaism does not celebrate an event just because it appears
to be a "miracle" -- a "violation" of the natural order.
 
Judaism teaches to marvel at the constancy of the natural order and see
in it the greatest wonder, testifying to God's infinite wisdom and
mastery.  The wonder of the expected (the oil burning one day
"naturally") is no less impressive than the wonder of the unexpected
(its burning eight days "miraculously").  Why celebrate the deviation
rather than the norm?
 
Moreover, in rabbinic parlance nes does not exactly mean miracle.  More
precisely, it refers to an extraordinary event of profound redemptive
outcome, causing deliverance of people from oppression and death to
freedom and life.  Taken literally, the jar of oil episode does not
qualify as nes (miracle); what was its redemptive purpose or result?
Applaudable is divine intervention when it saves human lives, but not
when it comes to provide more light in the Temple.  Consistent to the
core, Maimonides, while incorporating the oil legend in his Code, still
skillfully avoids the term "nes" in narrating it; he uses this term,
however, to describe the people's deliverance.  The jar of oil episode
does not aim to eclipse the historical essence of Hanukkah but rather to
enhance and illuminate its enduring message.  It is projected in
rabbinic sources as an aggadic key to the internal and eternal meaning
of the historical story of Hanukkah.  As its poetic climax and
allegorical corollary it vividly dramatizes the Hasmonean heroism: The
victory of quality over quantity, purity over obscenity, morality over
brutality; divine inspiration over invidious aggression.  In liturgy:
The enemy armies -- "mighty and numerous, but impure, wicked and
tyrants" -- were defeated by the Jewish fighters -- "powerless and
skimpy, but pure, righteous and devoted to Torah."
 
Faithful to God the Hasmoneans did not rely on miracles; they took the
initiative by resolute action.  They did not wait until they were
sufficiently "ready" -- fully equipped with many legions and weaponry;
nor could they afford to wait.  As mirrored in the legend, they did not
wait until they secured sufficient oil for an ongoing kindling of the
menorah.  The war was waged, and the menorah kindled, with whatever
means they had.  The amazing outcome: The warriors succeeded to defeat
the enemy, and the jar of oil lasted as long as it was needed.  The
enduring lesson: Never underestimate the potential of the means in your
possession.  Use them and you will realize that their sustaining power
supersedes your expectations.
 
The persistence of a small but pure jar of oil was seen by the
Hasmoneans as a heavenly sign of blessing and approval.  For us it
symbolizes Jewish heroic survival -- by relying on deeds not on
miracles! -- which is the true "miracle" of Hanukkah.
 
C- 1990 Zvi Yehuda reprinted with permission
Rabbi Zvi A. Yehuda -- [email protected]
 
PS. For further research on this topic you might also like to see the Sefer
_Benei Yissachar_ ( sometimes pronounced _Benei Yissaschar_) which contains
some very sharp, relevant questions and very difficult, mystical answers.

Topics:
	Re: Hechsher on Sorrel Ridge
		Lori Alperin Resnick
	Siddur/Machzor on line?
		David Sherman
	Jewish-related Re: Chicago conferences this summer
		Bruce Krulwich
	Re: Non-Jewish involvement in Chanukah celebrations
		Michael Block
		Moshe Rayman
	Re: Books on Aliya
		Jacob Richman
		Jonathan Stiebel
	In need of a Cantor
		David Yevick
______________________________________________________________________
 
A couple of years ago, I checked into Sorrel Ridge Conserves. I was told
that their year-round products were not supervised, because of the
expense, but they had a special batch that they make for Pesach, which
is supervised by Rabbi Bloxenheim (sp?).  It must have the K-P on it. (I
think some of their fruit-sweetened products might have grapes in them,
so these are not kosher, but they would not have the K-P on them.) I
called the OU to check him out, and they said that I could trust his
hashkachah. However, this information is a couple of years old, so I
would suggest that someone might check it out again. You could call
Sorrel Ridge, and find out if he still supervises it.
 
Lori Alperin Resnick - [email protected]   allegra!resnick
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
> Perhaps hypertext systems will grow to the point where we can have all
> of the literature online at home and schul/yeshiva/etc. so we can
> delve into it all....
 
Will someone invent a mechanically-driven computer that can
be used for learning on Shabbos? :-)
 
(I've always thought that the siddur/machzor sequencing for any
given day is ideal for computerization.  One could quite easily
write a set of rules to generate a customized siddur for any given
day, or, if on a screen, to let you press "next page" and get
the correct next page for the current day.  The problem would be
using it on Shabbos and YomTov, of course...)
 
David Sherman, [email protected]
Moderator, mail.yiddish
______________________________________________________________________
 
This comming summer will have three major conferences in Chicago: The
Cognitive Science Conference, the Machine Learning Workshop, and the
Conference of the Learning Sciences (formerly the Conference on AI and
Education).
 
Anyone who is interested in information about Kosher food, Shabbos
arrangements, or anything else Jewish-related is welcome to e-mail me.
 
Bruce Krulwich - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________ 
 
I think you missed the point of the politicing involved.  On the one
hand was it Chabbad that had the big push to find the non-Jewish public
figure.  This would be a good way of tuning a non-Jewish public figure
into their Jewish constituency, their religious feelings and needs.
That is to say, maybe next month they will be looking for permission to
put together an Aruv (not that Chabbad would necessarily be interested
in an Aruv) or some other project for which a friendly Big Wig would
be useful.
 
On the other hand.  Was it the non-Jewish public figure who was looking
to be part of this ``very important'' Jewish activity to show what a
good friend of the Jewish community (s)he is.  In which case it is not
something that could easily be turned down.
 
A large part of the Jewish population of this country live in with the
non-Jewish population.  A bit of shalom bayit on _our_terms_ never
hurts.  Also, think of all those very assimilated Jews out there that
would stand up and take that much more notice if a non-Jewish Big Wig
was involved.  It sort of shows that you _can_ be Jewish and still
associate with the upper echelon.
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Although many people assume there is no pirsumei nisa to non-jews,
from rashi (shabbat 21b; d"h "ragla detarmudai") it seems that there
is pirsumei nisa to goyim.  For the gemara asks "ad cama" (how long do the 
candles have to burn) the gemara reponds "until the tarmudai all go home".
and rashi explains that tarmudai is "shem umah m'laktai etzim", a nation(ality)
who gathers wood.  The simple understanding is that they are not Jewish.
 
I later heard this in the name of the Rav (Soloveitchik).
 
Moshe Rayman - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Hi. Back in August 1984 when I made Aliyah from NY I got the book
"Coming Home" published by the North American Aliyah Movement (NAAM)
compiled and edited by Sybil Ruth Zimmerman.  This is a very good book
which answers almost everything (eg. what clothes to bring, which
appliances, insurance, where to live, etc....)  It is indexed and over
700 pages. I highly recommend it.  However if you have any questions
feel free to ask me directly at my email address below.
 
Jacob - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
There is an excellent compact and affordable (free) booklet published
by the interior ministry and carried by the student authority.  It
is called "Aliyah, Pocket Guide." It details legal rights and status,
employment suggestions as well as housing.  There are also detailed
booklets on National Security Insurance, Health Care, different
professions and the military service.
 
Association of Americans and Canadians in Israel (AACI) is an excellent
group and very friendly.
 
Often it is advised to speak with others who have recently made Aliyah
and find out their experiences.  I personally recommend studying at
Yeshiva or University during the first year to be guaranteed of housing
and a home-base from which to work unless you have family here already.
 
Jonathan Stiebel - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Our schul (orthodox) in Kingston, Ontario is in great need of a cantor
at the present moment to help with the teaching in the after-school
Talmud Torah and possibly to begin work on setting up an abridged
day-school program for the 1st grade.  Other duties include laming,
Torah reading, etc.  The salary is $35,000-$40,000 CDN, on top of this
there is free medical insurance.  If anybody has some contact who would
be interested in applying or would know of someone who might consider
this position, please ask him or her to contact Rabbi Howard
Finkelstein, Beth Israel Congregation, 118 Centre Street, Kingston ON
K7L 4E6, Canada.  Our situation would really improve dramatically if we
could find someone to fill this position at the present time.
 
David

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: Two days of Yom Tov
		Mona Farkas
	Re: Jewish Family
		Mechael Kanovsky
	Siddur/davening Questions
		Steve Prensky
	Frum and Fit?
		Anonymous
	Re: Siddur/Machzor on line?
		Ben Svetitsky
		Avi Feldblum
	Re: Books on Aliya
		Ben Svetitsky
______________________________________________________________________
 
This is the last regular mailing for 1990. The 1990 Index will go out
next week, and then we will resume regular mailings in 1991. Interest
and participation has increased dramatically in the last three months, I
hope this is a sign of more good times to come. As always, send me in
your contributions and also feel free to send me in comments,
suggestions and complaints about the mailing list. When you send
submissions, a couple of requests. First, indicate that it is for the
mailing list. Include your name and email address at the end of your
contribution, if you want both listed. Anonymous contributions are
acceptable, but please indicate explicitly that you wish it to be
anonymous. Please translate all Hebrew terms that you use. One thing
that we could use is a good glossary of common Hebrew terms, so we will
not have to translate them (and maybe have a commonly accepted spelling
of the terms?) each time. Any volunteers? Hope you all had a good 1990,
be talking to you all again in 1991!
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]
your friendly moderator
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Since we've been discussing Yom Tov Sheni, I have a question that's been
bothering me for a while.  I know I'm 5 months early ,but I'll ask it
anyway.  I read somewhere (I don't remember where) that if one crosses
the international date line between Pesach and Shavuot he/she continues
counting S'firat Ha'omer according to whatever day they are up to, and
if they are still there for Shavuot they celebrate Shavuot a day earlier
(or later - depending on which direction they crossed) than the local
people.  The reason given was that the Torah does not say that Shavuot
must be celebrated on 6 Sivan.  It just says count 49 days, and
celebrate on the 50th day.
 
	The way I see it is since Shavuot does not depend on when Rosh
Chodesh Sivan is, but rather on when we start counting (when the
second day of Pesach is) we should either:
 
a.  only celebrate one day of Shavuot in Galut since it just goes by
    when we started counting, which does not depend on witnesses or
    anything like that that could be delayed. OR
 
b.  if the uncertainty revolves around when we should have begun
    counting (when Pesach really started) then we should count the
    entire S'firat Ha'omer according to this uncertainty.  (say both
    possibilities - like we do with the korbanot in Musaf on Sukkot)
 
As long as we seem pretty certain about what day we're up to and
remain consistant, why do we have the second day??  Am I missing
something really important here?
				Just Wondering...
 
Mona Farkas - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
In responce to the jewish family, one has to remember that as far back as
the talmud (R Akivas' wife) in some cases it was the wife that did the
work in order to let the husband/father study (there was a joke going
around that rav Shach wanted to revoke the cherem d'rabeinu gershom on
monogamy since the kolel students were complaining that they couldn't
get along on the salary of one wife) also further back in the time when
jews were farmers in their own land (and it is like this till this day even
the U.S.) that the mother/wife worked on the farm along side the rest of
the family. Staying home "just" to raise the kids was a luxury many couldn't
afford.
 
mechael kanovsky - (kanovsky@msrcvax)
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have several questions concerning differences in wording in the Siddur
as well as in the mechanics of davening.  Over the years I have asked
different rabbaim these questions and have received either no
explanation or unsatisfying ones.
 
A. I would appreciate any insights behind the change in language in the 
      following cases
 
   1. The Akeidah-- from yiched'cha to yichedecha
 
   2. I daven nusach Sefard, and throughout the entire year in the
      Shabbos and Yom Tov Amidah the language, in the paragraph Elokeinu
      v'Eloke Avoteinu, is v'samach nafesheinu (rather than the Askenaz
      v'samcheinu).  However, on Yom Kippur, the wording in the Amidah
      of all 5 services changes to the Askenaz form of v'samecheinu.
      Why??
 
   3. Ein Kelokeinu - during the week (nusach Sefard) "atah toshe'ainu",
      versus Shabbos which is "atah hu shehektiru".  Why not the same
      all the time ?
 
   4. In Korbanos, after "pitom hakatoret" the paragraph beginning
      "Raban Shimon...": different Siddurim have slightly different
      versions (even within nusach Sefard).  Does this result from
      differences between Talmud Bavli and Yerushalami?
 
B. Triple repetition of certain tefilot:
 
   1. Kol Nidre
   2. In the Seder Hatarat Nidarim
 
      These I understand to represent the solemnity of the legal
      formula, just as there are three judges on the bet din.  Why then
      in the following?
 
   3. Shalom Aleichem?
   4. During recitation of Korbonos with the three lines beginning Hashem 
      t'zvaot emanu, Hashem t'zvaot ashrei, Hashem hoshia?
 
   On the other hand, some tefilot that, on the surface, appear to be of
      equal importance, are recited only once, or possibly twice as in
      Hallel just before Hodu, and just after Ana.
 
C. Places in the various services where one stands.  I've never read or
      been told any explanations behind this.  I've asked many rabbaim
      and none has had any insight to this.  Some contiue standing at
      the end of the Amidah until after the Kiddusha, while others sit
      until the Kiddusha.  What's the philosophy behind the different
      minhagim??
 
D. The Halacha or an explanation (Kabbistic or otherwise) for the
      specific order and different widths of the stripes on the Tallis.
      Was this explained orally to Moshe Rabeinu, similarly to the
      halachot concerning tefillin?
 
						      Steve Prensky
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
                    "Frum and Fit?"
 
  I've noticed a growing awareness of physical fitness among Torah
Jews in my region.  I.e., few people smoke and many
are dieting and buying exercise equipment, etc.
 
  Joining fitness clubs with exercise equipment is a possibility, but
there is a problem in that some rabbis recommend against men and
women exercising in the same place, especially when the standard
attire is immodest.
 
  For women, there are some women-only fitness clubs which I guess
would be acceptable, but I'm not aware of any men-only fitness clubs,
or of clubs which set aside men-only hours.  (I suspect that the
latter two ideas might possibly attract a clientele of non-standard
affectional preferences, which itself might cause other problems.)
 
  I'd like to hear suggestions about plans which have been implemented
in Torah communities.  Has anyone successfully convinced a local club
to offer men's hours on a regular basis? (like Torah study, exercise
has to be regular to be effective)  Do the local Jewish Community
Centers play a role?
 
  Please send your suggestions to this list.
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Granted, current practice prevents us from using the computer on
Shabbat.  I once heard, however, a prominent (but idiosyncratic)
Rav opine that there will come a day when halachic authorities will
recognize that the early poskim did not really understand electricity,
so that causing electrons to move will not in itself be forbidden.
In that event, there will be nothing wrong with using electricity
to accomplish a task that would be permitted if performed manually.
This means that while electric cooking and electric lighting would
still be forbidden (bishul and hav'ara, respectively), an electric
fan and an electric elevator would be OK.  So why not, hypothetically
speaking, the computer?
 
Ben Svetitsky    [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I attended a lecture sponsored by the AOJS (Association of Orthodox
Jewish Scientists) in Baltimore about two years ago. R. Heinemann spoke
about this topic, and stated clearly that it was his opinion that
electricity per se was not forbidden, just that everything that you
would use electricity for (just about) would involve a forbidden
activity. He went on to discuss LED's and laser diodes and issues
involving sparks. There were several of us physicists in the audience
that actually worked with some of these things, and unfortunately most
of us found many of his arguments to be somewhat naive or just wrong
from a physics perspective. So I think some halachic authorities are
trying to understand the new technologies that they need to make
decisions on, but I'm afraid that a lot of decisions are still being
made based on an incorrect view of physical reality.
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
We also made use of the NAAM booklet, Coming Home, when we moved to
Israel 3 years ago.  Much of that booklet needs to be taken with a large
grain of salt, and much of it was out of date even then.  Unless it has
been revised from top to bottom, one should be extremely careful with
it.  One of its major problems was that the people writing it wanted to
show off how good they were at handling the incredibly complex problems
of aliyah; thus they made it look like aliyah required six months of
full time work by a dedicated office staff with MBA's.  Naturally,
things turned out to be much, much simpler.
 
An indispensable aid is somebody you can talk to by e-mail.  Because of
the Soviet aliyah, rules and benefits are changing quickly.  Also,
housing and job conditions are very different from what they were even
six months ago.  No book can be current enough, nor can the consular
aliyah representatives themselves.
 
Ben Svetitsky       [email protected]

Topics :
        Administrivia
                Moderator
        1990 Topics Index
                Moderator
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
1990 has been a very active year for mail.jewish. The subscriber list
has grown to about 275+ people, and the range of topics, as well as the
number of people contributing has grown significantly during the last
several months. I think 1991 will be an even better year. This mailing
contains the list of topics from the 1990 issues, starting from #126 and
going through #160. This is longer than I usually allow a regular
mailing to get. If anyone gets truncated or otherwise corrupted versions
of this mailing please let me know. I would like to know if there is a
size limit, and what it is, for mailings to get through the email system
without problems.
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #126):
	Looking for someone in Los Angeles
		Avi Feldblum
	Re: Hot water on Shabbat
		David Sherman
		Samuel Schacham
		Ben Svetitsky
	Now for something on the lighter side
		Josh Proschan
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #127):
	Halachic view of transplants wanted
		Peter Weiss
	Parsha Question
		Marty Olevitch
	Jewish Live-in to help with kids
		Hal Miller
	Re: Opening your Fridge or Front Door on Shabbat
		Hershel Belkin
		Josh Proschan
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #128):
	Answers to bar mitzvah question in #126
		Yisrael Deren
		Jonathan Horen
		Ezra L. Tepper
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #129):
	Re: opening a refrigerator door on Shabbat.
		Morris Podolak
	Idea for the your consideration
		Jan David Meisler
	Re: Transplant issue
		Susan Slusky
	A Trashy Question
		Shimon Schwartz
	Re: Parsha Question
		Lazer Danzinger
_____________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #130):
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Positions in Prayer
		Fran Storfer
	Announcement
 
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #131):
	Bar Mitzvah question
		Ezra Tepper
	Re: Positions in Prayer
		Gary Sitzman
	Tzedakah Calculation Request
		Rob Levene
	Calculation of Pi
		Josh Proschan
	Short Purim Torah
		Josh Proschan
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #132):
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: when to bow (etc.) during services
		David Sherman
	Re: Bar mitzvah questions
		Josh Proschan
	Question on killing fish
		Matthew Rosenbaum
		Avi Feldblum
______________________________________________________________________
Topic (special mail.jewish):
	kitniyot on Pesach
		Josh Proschan (and David Chechik)
		Morris Podolak
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #133):
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	May 5 Pogrom in USSR
		Joel Wein
	Role of Shaliach Tzibur
		Fran Storfer
	Info on Pittsburgh Area
		Asher Meth
	Sending wine through mail
		Finley Shapiro
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #134):
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	FTP availability of mail.jewish
		Moderator
	Transgenic mice and the weekly Torah portion Emor
		Daniel Schindler
	Re: Shipping wine
		Shimon Schwartz
	Eschatology
		Pat Barry
	Law and Punishment Cross Reference
		Ed Stuart
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #135):
	Turning off hot water on Shabbat
		Dave Sherman
	Re: Transgenic mice and the weekly Torah portion Emor
		Danny Wildman
		Frank Silbermann
	Re: Law and Punishment Cross Reference
		Shimon Schwartz
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #136):
	Re: Turning off hot water on Shabbat
		David Goldschlag
		J H Proschan
	Re: Law and Punishment Cross Reference
		Bruce Krulwich
	Re: Transgenic mice
		Larry Israel
	Different Melodies
		Fran Storfer
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #137):
	Halachic Issues between Rav Shach and the Lubavitcher Rebbe
		Isaac Balbin
	Correction: Transgenic mice
		Daniel Schindler
	Custom of Unveiling in Halacha
		Kenneth T Wolman
	IVRITEX mailing list
		J H Proschan
	Definition of Cooking
		Ellen
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #138):
	Re: Transgenic mice
		Gil Yehuda
		Rabbi Zvi A. Yehuda
	Re: Halachic Issues between Rav Shach and the Lubavitcher Rebbe
		Avrohom Alter
		Yitzchok Samet
	Re: Definition of Cooking
		Zev Sero
	Re: Turning off Hot Water Heaters on Shabbat
		Harry Saal
	Kashrut of carbon dioxide
		Harry Rubin
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #139):
	Tzar Baalei Hayyim and damaging male generative organs
		Daniel Schindler
	Re: Kashrut of carbon dioxide
		David Brusowankin
	Re: Definition of Cooking
		Ellen F. Prince
		Avi Feldblum
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #140):
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Two Prayer-Related Questions
		Fran Storfer
		Avi Feldblum
	Re: Yad Soledet Bo
		Morris Podolak
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #141):
	Re: Two yud's and G-d's Name
		Art Werschulz
		Len Moskowitz
		Avi Feldblum
	Re: Repeatition of the Amida
		Art Werschulz
		Yaacov Haber
		Len Moskowitz
	Re: Yad Soledet Bo
		Ezra Tepper
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #142):
	World Travel
		Fern Reiss
		Dan Romm
	Kohen married to widow becomming Kohen Gadol
		Art Kamlet
	Re: Two yud's
		Art Kamlet
		Avi Feldblum
	Re: Repeatition of the Amida
		Fran Storfer
		Len Moskowitz
______________________________________________________________________
Topics(mail.jewish #143):
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Middle East Peace Plans
		Meir N. Hertz
	Kosher Cheese
		Richard Schultz
		Avi Feldblum
	Working on Chol Hamoed
		Moshe Mamou
	Tokyo Information
		Elliott Hershkowitz
______________________________________________________________________
Topic (mail.jewish #144):
	Issues Concerning the Mailing List
		Moderator
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #145):
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	White House Opinion Hotline
		[Moderator]
		Miriam Rabinowitz
	Kosher Cheese
		David Goldschlag
		Josh Proschan
		Ellen Prince
		Benjamin Svetitsky
	Kosher Vegetarianism
		charla
		Avi Feldblum
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #146):
	Kashrut Certification
		Morris Podolak
	Re: Rennet
		Morris Podolak
	Kosher Vegetarianism
		Morris Podolak
		Sara Svetitsky
	Appropriate Topics for Mail.Jewish
		Arthur I. Plutzer
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #147):
	Kosher Vegetarianism
		Shlomo Engelson
	Vegetarian Meal before Fast
		Pat Barry
		Mike Stein
	Shehecheyanu over Leather Clothing
		Rahel Jaskow
______________________________________________________________________
mail.jewish #148
 
Topics:
	The need for Kashrus supervision
		Bruce Krulwich
	Clarification (?) on Pasuk regarding eating meat
		Shlomo Engelson
		Yaakov Kayman
	 Ramban and Rambam on Animal Sacrifices
		Dan Lerner
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #149):
	Re: Blessing over leather goods
		Morris Podolak
	Re: Rav Kook and vegetarianism
		Sara Svetitsky
		 mechael kanovsky
	Halachic Requirement to Live in Israel
		Steve Gross
	Parah Adumah
		Len Moskowitz
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #150):
	Conference on Jewish Medical Ethics
	The Halachic Dateline
		Laurent Cohen
	Permissible Responses During Different Prayers
		Rahel Jaskow
	Re: Kashrus Supervision
		Bruce Krulwich
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #151):
	Re: red heifer
		Yisroel Rotman
	Re: tit'hadesh
		Bob Werman
	Status of Steinzaltz Talmud
		Ellen Krischer
	Miscegenation
		Benjamin Svetitsky
	What Tuna are Kosher?
		Sammy Katz
	When to say "Boruch Hu U'Varuch Sh'mo"
		David N. Blank
		[Mod.]
	Re: Japan
		Isaac Balbin
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #152):
	Re: Halachic Requirement to Live in Israel
		Morris Podolak
	Re: Halachic Dateline
		Daniel Schindler
	Re: Shabbat in Japan
		Finley Shapiro
	Re: Baruch Hu U'Varuch Shemo
		Benjamin Svetitsky
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #153):
	THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF JAPAN
		Finley Shapiro
	Re: Miscegenation
		Art Kamlet
	Re: Boruch Hu U'Varuch Sh'mo
		Len Moskowitz
		Avi Feldblum
	Re: Titchadesh
		Ben Svetitsky
		Sara Svetitsky
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #154):
	Re: Titchadesh on Leather Garments
		Morris Podolak
		Dovid Chechik
		Ezra Tepper
	Re: Rav Steinzaltz
		Keith Bierman
	Non-traditional Families and Communal Response
		Arthur I. Plutzer
	Hechsher on Sorrel Ridge
		Yaakov BenDavid
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #155):
	Re: Halachic Requirement to Live in Israel
		Ben Svetitsky
	Re: Shabbos in Japan and New Zealand
		Susan Slusky
	Re: Miscegenation
		Ben Svetitsky
	Re: Boruch Hu U'Varuch Sh'mo
		Morris Podolak
	Second International Symposium on Circumcision
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #156):
	Halachic Reason to stop buying Japanese?
		Daniel Lerner
	Non-Jewish involvement in Chanukah celebrations
		Bruce Krulwich
	Guide Book on Aliya and Jewish Genealogy groups
		Rahel
	Re: Two days of Yom Tov
		Ben Svetitsky
	Re: Titchadesh
		Zev Sero
		Bob Werman
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #157):
	Announcement of HaMaayan
		Alan Broder
	The Miracle of Hanukkah (reprinted article)
		Rabbi Zvi A. Yehuda
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #158):
	Re: Hechsher on Sorrel Ridge
		Lori Alperin Resnick
	Siddur/Machzor on line?
		David Sherman
	Jewish-related Re: Chicago conferences this summer
		Bruce Krulwich
	Re: Non-Jewish involvement in Chanukah celebrations
		Michael Block
		Moshe Rayman
	Re: Books on Aliya
		Jacob Richman
		Jonathan Stiebel
	In need of a Cantor
		David Yevick
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #158):
        Re: Hechsher on Sorrel Ridge
                Lori Alperin Resnick
        Siddur/Machzor on line?
                David Sherman
        Jewish-related Re: Chicago conferences this summer
                Bruce Krulwich
        Re: Non-Jewish involvement in Chanukah celebrations
                Michael Block
                Moshe Rayman
        Re: Books on Aliya
                Jacob Richman
                Jonathan Stiebel
        In need of a Cantor
                David Yevick
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #159):
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: Two days of Yom Tov
		Mona Farkas
	Re: Jewish Family
		Mechael Kanovsky
	Siddur/davening Questions
		Steve Prensky
	Frum and Fit?
		Anonymous
	Re: Siddur/Machzor on line?
		Ben Svetitsky
		Avi Feldblum
	Re: Books on Aliya
		Ben Svetitsky
______________________________________________________________________
Topics (mail.jewish #160):
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	1990 Topics Index
		Moderator
______________________________________________________________________

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: Halachic Reason to stop buying Japanese? (#156)
		NEIL EDWARD PARKS
	Re: Two days of Yom Tov (#155)
		Moshe Rayman
		Elia Weixelbaum
		Susan Slusky
	Re: Siddur/davening Questions (#159)
		Moshe Rayman
		David Suna
	Electricity and Shabbat (#159)
		Moshe Rayman
______________________________________________________________________
I'm going to try and put the mailing number of the "original" article
after the topic description to help keep track of discussions. Note that
the poster may be refering to a later posting on the same subject
thread. If anyone has ideas on how they would like to see this done,
please send me email. I expect to be sending out three mailings in the
next few days to finish all the received postings from the end of 1990,
before the new 1991 stuff that I'm expecting you all to be sending me
comes out. For those who had some vacation, welcome back and a happy
1991 to all.
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]
mail.jewish moderator
______________________________________________________________________
 
>The idea is if they are successful, they will go to the
>shrine and pray to ba'al or whatever.  Are there any similar
>restrictions in Halacha L'Maaseh (practical halacha) which would apply
>to such products made in Japan?
 
By that logic, a Jew should never buy anything manufactured by a non-Jew.
After all, if we patronize a Christian merchant, he might go to church and bow
down to the cross to give thanks for good business.
 
A much better reason to boycott most Japanese products is Japan's support of
the Arab boycott of Israel.
 
NEIL EDWARD PARKS -  [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
As to why we do not count two 'sefirot' each night of the 'Omer, I am 
familiar with two responses.  R. Zerachia Halevi (Ba'al Hamaor end of
tractate Pesahim) opines that our counting of the Omer is not in fulfilment
of the biblical command, rather it is 'zecher lechurban' in memory of the
practices of the Temple times (the biblical obligation only applies when
the Omer sacrifice is actualy brought).  Since this is the case, we need not
be so exact in our count.  By starting the count on the second day of Pesach
(even though it actually may be the first day) suffices to commemorate
the practices of the Temple Times.
 
Another explanation is that although we keep two days of yom tov because
of doubt, we will not perform an action on the real day of yom tov
that implies it is chol, since that desecrates the holiness of the day.
If we would count two sefirot, that means on the first night of shavu'ot
we would count sefira ('tonight may be the 49 night').  This is a desecration
(bizayon, could you think of a better word?) of the sanctity of the holiday
by actualy proclaiming to be a weekday.  It is for this reason that a Lulav
is not taken on Sh'mini 'Atzeret (Sukka is not a problem, since one might
sit in the sukka since he enjoys the fresh air).
 
Moshe Rayman - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
In response to the question about Yom Tov Sheni for Shavuot,
the primary reason that I have heard for the second day is so
as not to belittle Shavuot over all of the other Yamim Tovim
which do have a second day of Yom Tov.  The one exception to
this of course is Yom Kippur for practical reasons (unless
you don't mind fasting 49 hours :-) ).
 
Elia Weixelbaum - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I read Ben Svetitsky's explanation of the second day of Yom Tov, and it
didn't make sense to me. I thought maybe it would if I just sat on it,
but it still doesn't. Suppose I imagine myself to be living in galut in
the time of the Temple. I know that word of the new moon often arrives
late. I hear about the new moon (through mountaintop bonfires or
somesuch) on, say, Tuesday.  So I start counting my new month then.  But
I fear that really the month started on Monday and I heard late.  Does
it make sense that I'd observe Yom Tov on the day plus the day after to
make up for this? No. I'd start observing on the day before because I
suspect that otherwise I might be late.  What am I missing?
 
Susan Slusky
______________________________________________________________________
 
>  1. The Akeidah-- from yiched'cha to yichedecha
 
This is a grammatical change.  When the possesive form of a known
is in the middle of a phrase (its ta'am or trop a mesharet) it
takes the yechid'cah form.  At the end of a phrase (etnachta, sof-pasuk,
and other sometimes other mafsikim as well) it takes the yechidecha
form.  This is a specific instance of a general occurence, that the accent
of a word at the end of a phrase is shifted back one syllable.  So the
shva under the daled is lengthend to a segol.
 
Moshe Rayman - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Subject: Re: Siddur/davening Questions
 
A very good source for this kind of information is a set of books called
Netiv Binah by Rav Yissachar Yacobson.  The beginning of the first volume
of the set had been translated into English.  It is called Meditations on
the Siddur by Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson.  It probably will not answer all of
your questions but it will get you started.
The only question I would address directly is the question about standing
during davening.  The Shulchan Aruch states that you are supposed to stand
throughout the repetition of the Amida (Chazarat HaShatz).  An older person
or someone who is sick can obviously sit down, but for most people they
should stand throughout the repetition.
My father told me that Rav Soloveitchik had an interesting explanation of 
this with some consequences about how you should stand.  He explained that 
there are two parts to Tefillah bTzibur (Communal prayer?).  There is the 
prayer together with the community (Teffilah bTzibur) and the prayer of 
the community (Teffilat HaTzibur).  The first we accomplish reciting the 
silent Amidah with a quorum of ten.  The second we accomplish through the 
repetition of the Amidah by the Chazan.  As such the repetition of the Amidah 
is actually part of your own prayer and you should stand as if you yourself 
are praying.  If you have ever seen someone standing throughout the repetition 
as if they are still saying the Amidah, it is likely that this is the reason.
 
David Suna - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
For a discussion of electricity on Shabbat, see Rav S. Z. Auerbach's
article (Printed in Minchat Shelomo chap. 9-12?).  There he cites
a long discussion between the Hazon Ish and himself relating to this topic.
There is no discussion that the flow of electrons per se is forbidden
due to fire.  The main issues are:
 
	Is turning something on tikun mane (repairing).  A similar
	discussion exists regarding winding a watch.
 
	Does the "creation" of the current violate the prohibition
	of Molid (changing form).  
 
There is a popular notion that electricity is like fire, and using it
is hav'ara (kindleing).  I do not know where this notion comes from.
 
Other issues including use of light bulbs, depend on whether we consider
the glowing filament to be like fire.
 
To say that the early poskim did not understand the nature of electricity,
although it may be true in specific cases, is not fair.  
 
A "taboo" against electricity certainly exists.  Rav Auerbach in his
discussions of the aforementioned issues  rejects both the "tikun" issue
and the "molid" issue, but cites that the general custom is to assume
that there is a "molid" problem.
 
Perhaps in the future the poskim might decide that any "minhag" to refrain
from using electricity on shabbat is a "taboo", not a bona fide minhag,
and therefore not binding.
 
As to the computer issue, there may be problems of ketiva (writing)
and mechika (erasing) with both printouts and screens.  Perhaps even
"writing" to disk is considered ketiva!  This dicussion may be (currently)
moot as far as shabbat is concerned, but what about Chol Hamo'ed?
 
Moshe Rayman - [email protected]

Topics:
	Re: Non-Jewish involvement in Chanukah celebrations (#156)
		Rabbi Lazer Danzinger
		Ezra Tepper
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Re: Bruce Krulwich's article in mail.jewish #156, entitled:
	"Non-Jewish involvement in Chanukah celebrations"
 
Bruce begins his article by conceding that the public menorah
lightings are "a very good form of Pirsumei HaNes [publicization of the 
miricle] to non-religious Jews and serve to deter the influences of 
x-mas decorations."  "Even moreso," he continues," they serve a big
Kiruv and Chinuch [education] purpose for Jews who have lost their
connections with Yiddishkeit."
 
But voicing his concern about the recent involvment of non-Jews
in the menorah lightings, Bruce writes:
 
    Two things bother me about this.  First, it seems to be cheapening the
    idea that the Menorah lighting is a Mitzvah, and making it look more and
    more like a x-mas imitation public relations stunt.  Besides being a
    matter of sensibilities, it would seem that there are issues of Darchei
    haGoyim [going in the ways of the gentile world] in reducing menorah
    lighting to a ceremony of public officials lighting lights.
 
I find it difficult to respond to the first point, as it appears to me
to be based purely on a subjective and personal perspective. How does
inviting a non-Jewish public official "cheapen" the ceremony? Certainly
Bruce must be aware of the fact that numerous religious organizations
regularly invite non-Jewish speakers to fund raising dinners, and
so on. Do these dinners become any less appetizing? Do the lights radiated
by the public Menorahs diminish in their holy splendor?  
 
This year, I understand, Agudas Yisrael presented a Menorah to President
Bush. Does this too "cheapen" the Mitzvah?  Why give a Menorah to a
non-Jew? (Though this is a first for Agudah, Lubavitch has presented
such gifts for several years now.) Does giving a gift (a Menorah no
less) to a non-Jewish public official controvene one's sensibilities --
or the associated issues of Dachei HaGoyim? With regards to the
aforementioned presentation by Agudah, I am sure that Bruce would assume
that prior Halachic consultation was sought (and approval obtained). Why
is it difficult to assume likewise with regards to the public menorah
lighting ceremonies?
 
(To my knowledge, incidentally, non-Jews are NOT involved in the
actual lighting of the Menorah -- but only in drawing a larger
_Jewish_ crowd by making a speech, etc. This only contributes to and 
enhances the Pirsumah Nisah, and does not detract in the least. See infra.)
 
Outlining his second concern, Bruce goes on to write:
 
    Even more than this, however, is the fact that this is being done in a
    celebration of Chanukah.  It is strange that a chag that celebrates our
    victory over the forces of Hellinism would be celebrated by involving
    non-Jews as a P.R. stunt.  All of the Halachic sources I've found
    indicate that the Inyan [underlying idea] of Pirsumei HaNes (BiZman
    HaZeh -[In our time - Mod.]) applies only to Jews, and in fact the
    Halacha of lighting Menorahs outside our doors (which is still done in
    Eretz Yisroel) was changed in Golus [the diaspora] because in Golus the
    Inyan of Pirsumei HaNes specifically does not apply to the non-Jews
    among whom we live, and rather applies to our families only (I think I
    saw this in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch and the Mishna Berurah).
 
Even assuming that Bruce is correct in positing that 
absolutely no aspect of Pirsumah Nisah pertains to non-Jews, Pirsumah
Nisah most assuredly does apply to our fellow Jews. Tragically, many
Jews feel so disenfranchised, alienated and embarrassed by anything
Jewish that the involvment of a prominent non-Jewish public official
is likely to rekindle their dampened interest and pride in being Jewish.
"If a public official -- a non-Jew to boot -- can unabashedly participate
in a distinctively Jewish ceremony," the assimilated Jew reasons, 
"than perhaps I as a Jew should give serious consideration to lighting 
my own Menorah for my own household." Such reasoning, I don't think is
at all far fetched.
 
Here in the Canadian province of Ontario, Premier Rae, a non-Jew,
participated in the Menorah lighting ceremony. I have no doubt
whatsoever that many more Jews attended the ceremony because of
his appearance. Though I agree with Bruce that it is lamentable
that there are Jews who are motivated by a non-Jew's participation
and tacit endorsement of the richness of the Jewish religion, the
fact remains that indeed such Jews abound and they cannot and should
not be ignored.
 
In the eyes of the discerning and objective spectator, the public 
Menorah lighting ceremony (with or without the involvment of a 
prominent non-Jewish official) is an act of Pirsumah Nisah and 
Kiddush HaShem of the highest order. (And as mentioned above, when a non-Jewish
public servant is involved, the Pirsumah Nisah is of a matter-of-fact
broadened.) In the eyes of many detractors of Lubavitch, however, 
the ceremony -- even before the occasional involvment of non-Jew -- 
continues to be perceived as one big "P.R. stunt." 
 
Unfortunately, no panacea exists to cure irrational jealously and 
unfounded antagonism.
 
Bruce concludes his timely and thought provoking article by
posing two closing questions:
 
    I am interested in two things.  One, is this a usual thing for Chabbad
    to be doing?  Maybe it's just a crazy thing that one Rav decided to do,
    which is not being done by Chabbad in general.  Two, what do others
    think of it?  Is there a halachic basis for doing this?  Is there a
    sense in which this seems like a proper thing to do?
 
While I don't know how prevalent the practice is, I will disagree
vehemently with the suggestion that to broaden the Pirshuma Nisah by
employing the services of a public official -- Jewish or otherwise --
is a "crazy thing." Asking Jews to put on Tefillen in the streets of
Manhattan was once called a "crazy thing." For that matter, any activity
of "kiruv rechokim" was once called crazy. Now, however, such activities
are common place, and many of Chabad's first critics are eagerly 
following in the path blazed by Chabad, Baruch HaShem.
 
Ending his article to mail.jewish, Bruce writes:
 
    I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm ragging on Chabbad, not being one of
    them myself.  I'm not.  As I said, I've been involved with their Menorah
    lightings and other Kiruv activities in the past, and have seen very
    good results.  That's why when I see something that so violates my sense
    of propriety and Halacha, I have to wonder why it's being done.  Maybe
    someone on M.J. can help me understand.
 
An honest and sincere question is never out of place, though I am
somewhat surprised that Bruce didn't ask any of the many Lubavitcher
"shluchim" in the Chicago area for an explanation.
 
Perhaps a moral that we can learn here is that a "sense of propriety
and Halacha" is a basis only for asking a question of a Rav, but is not
a valid foundation for formulating an opinion. 
 
Regards,
Rabbi Lazer Danzinger
______________________________________________________________________
 
Moshe Rayman <[email protected]> tries to prove that _pirsumei nisa_
applies to non-Jews from the Gemara (Shabbat 21b) that Chanukah lamps have
to burn "until the _tarmudai_ all go home." Since Rashi explains that
_tarmudai_ are a nation that gathers wood, the simple understanding is
that they are not Jewish.
 
There are a number of problems with that proof: a. The Gemara in Yebamot 16b
implies that at least some _tarmudai_ are of Jewish slave
descent. b. The Rashi in Shabbat explains that the _tarmudai_ remain late
in the market so that people needing wood can come and buy
from them. Thus as long as the _tarmudai_ are around some Jews are still
possibly buying from them. The candles might therefore be for Jews and not
for the _tarmudai_. c. Both the Alfasi and the Rosh in Shabbat explain that
_tarmudai_ derives from the type of wood sold, which is called _tarmud_,
the people selling that commodity being called _tarmudai_. They therefore
might be Jews. Thus even Rashi might mention the _tarmudai_
nation to indicate that these thin pieces of wood are so called due
to their commonly being sold in Tarmud. But the people selling them in the
market might indeed be local Jews not the merchants from Tarmud.
 
If, however, Moshe's explanation was really said by Rav Soloveichik, I
of course bow to his opinion. However, I have it on authority that if one
hears a particular explanation or halachah in the name of a _godol be-Torah_
there is no reason to accept it as being an accurate expression of that
godol's position unless one hears this from a _talmud muvhak_, particularly
if one has serious problems with it based on the sources.
 
Ezra Tepper <[email protected]>

Topics:
	"Saving" Sifrei Torah
		Danny Wildman
	Living Will
		Fran Storfer
	Re: Books on Aliya (#156)
		David Suna
		Warren Burstein
	Re: Frum and Fit (#159)
		Susan Hornstein
	Re: Siddur/davening Questions (#159)
		Warren Burstein
	Halacha and Medical Ethics
		Steve Prensky
______________________________________________________________________
 
The following questions are in part motivated by the moving song from 
the Journeys I tape, "The Torah Scroll", in which "Jews I did not
recognize" save a Torah from a European basement and display it
in America as an artifact, rather than as a guide to life, "for
they knew not what was inside my soul." 
 
A friend at work recently returned from a trip to Europe, including
Prague. Just prior to departure, someone suggested that he had
an obligation to try to unearth Sifrei Torah [Torah Scrolls] 
to potentially "rescue" and bring back to the States. Although 
the opportunity did not present itself, we are now wondering
about the obligation to save Sifrei Torah, i.e.,:
 
- Is there any obligation to seek out Sifrei Torah which are in
  antique stores, private collections of non-Jews, or any other
  environment not conducive to Kavod Hatorah [honorable treatment
  due the Torah] and to attempt to bring them into a more nurturing 
  setting (a shul in the US or Israel, a Jewish-owned collection, etc.)?
 
- Is this obligation in any way like Pikuach Nefesh [saving a life] 
  for humans?
 
- Does the kashrut [Halachic fitness] or physical condition of the
  scroll make a difference?
 
- Is the obigation mitigated by danger, inconvenience, or monetary
  loss?
 
- Is a museum case adequately proper/dignified for display of 
  a Torah scroll, perhaps one no longer kosher or correctable?
 
Any illumination of these issues will be appreciated.
 
Danny Wildman - Bellcore, Piscataway, N.J.
______________________________________________________________________
 
I am thinking of signing a Living Will or a Durable Power of Attorney
(fills a similar need, but at least in CA, stands up better in court).
I would like to know, before signing anything, the halachic
perspective on witholding care (like a respirator) and basic life
support (witholding vs. removing).  I'd also be interested in a
discussion of any other relevant issues
 
Thanks,
Fran Storfer - [email protected]	- [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Tehilah is another organization that can be very helpful when planning
Aliya.  A friend of mine, Ronnie Alswang, is the current director.  I
will ask him for a phone number and send it along later.
 
David Suna - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I wonder if there is any interest out there to set up another mailing
list to discuss the practical issues of Aliya.  Since, as was pointed
out, the books are often not up to date (and sometimes the shlichim
aren't, either!), people could also post any surprises that they
encounter (e.g. offices that close on Rosh Chodesh, a clerk who
demands 17 notarized photographs), the name of an employment agency
who knows what UNIX is, suggestions for how to spend less days waiting
on various lines, and how to get Eli Birnbaum on the phone.  A list of
Frequently Asked Questions could be sent to people as they join the
group and updated as needed.
 
Things that would not be discussed would include whether or not to
make Aliyah, whether everyone is required to do so, which minister is
responsible for the state of affairs, which side of the Green Line
to live on, or "More Olim would come if the government did X".
 
Suggestions for how to get the most out of the regulations would be
accepted (e.g. they'll let you bring an extra blender if you ...), but
outright cheating would be rejected (e.g. hide a small microwave
inside the ...)
 
I'm not in a position to moderate this myself, as my company pays the
phone bill to ship the bits from New York to Jerusalem, and the added
load of receiving all of the postings and sending out N copies of the
digest would not be welcome.  If someone could arrange a connection to
somewhere inside this country, I would take the job.
 
Warren Burstein
______________________________________________________________________
 
Until about a year ago, I lived in Providence, Rhode Island, where the
members of the frum community had discovered an interesting health club
phenomenon: The Boys & Girls Club of Pawtucket (formerly just the Boy's
Club) had separate swimming and fitness equipment hours for men and
women, and no mixed hours at all.  Why?  Because, as I mentioned, they
used to be just the Boy's Club, and the building was built with only
"boys" in mind.  When legislation forced them to accept "girls" as
members too, they didn't have the resources/inclination to build a
second locker room, and instead, they split up their schedule between
men and women.  The members of the frum community took full advantage of
this, to their delight.  The issue of male vs. female lifeguards came
up, but there are different halachic opinions of the severity of this
problem (some hold that a lifeguard is like a doctor, necessary
regardless of gender).  I now live in the Highland Park, NJ area, and I
have discovered that the YMCA of New Brunswick also has separate women's
swimming hours (I don't know about men's hours) possibly for similar
reasons.  So, my advice is, look for the oldest health-type facility you
can find, and see if the "one locker room, two client groups" problem
has come up.  You might be pleasantly surprised.
 
Susan Hornstein - bellcore!pyuxd!susanh
______________________________________________________________________
 
Another question - why does nusach Ashkenaz in Israel say Sim Shalom
in mincha on Shabbat while the rest of the week it's Shalom Rav?
 
About the stripes on a Talit, I don't know about Kabbalistic
explanations, but since there is a great deal of variation in styles,
(no stripes, blue stripes, rainbow stripes, hand-woven patterns in
whatever color you want) this is probably not a halacha l'moshe
mesinai.
 
Warren Burstein
______________________________________________________________________
 
One area that I am particularly interested in seeing in mail_jewish has
to do with halacha and current issues in medical ethics.  There are
numerous conferences and workshops in the field of bio- and medical
ethics and I would like to learn more about the Jewish perspective on
this constantly evolving area.  Every time I read in the newspaper, or
hear a story on the radio (NPR), I about some particular situation I
wonder what the Torah perspective and rulings would be.  I know that
there are prominent public spokesmen, e.g. Rabbi Moshe Tendler, and
several forums for the Jewish perspective, e.g. lecture series, meetings
of the Orthodox Jewish Scientists, etc. but I do not have access to the
proceedings from such meetings nor do I read about them in the Jewish
publications that I receive.  I notice, in particular that there will be
a 3-day course/workshop offered by the Institute of Jewish Medical
Ethics of San Francisco in February for physicians and nurses.  The
topics that they will discuss include the range of subjects which are of
immediate concern and interest in medical ethics: right to die, living
wills, allocation of healthcare resources, triage, physicians fees,
human and animal experimentation, abortion, physician compassion for
patient, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, surrogate
motherhood, and organ transplantation.
 
From my own perspective I am interested in:
 
1. Is a child (or other) halachically-bound to carry out the living will
   of a parent (or other) where it means withdrawal of life-supporting
   systems.  My sketchy understanding of one aspect is that a child is
   not obligated to carry out a parents wishes after death if they
   conflict with halacha, e.g.  cremation.
 
2. My father was in a coma and on a respirator, if he had remained in
   the coma for a prolonged period, could the respirator have been
   withdrawn??
 
3. Brain-death and vegetative-state, e.g. the Cruzan situation.  How
   does Halacha hold?
 
Steve Prensky

Topics:
	Re: Two days of Yom Tov and Shavuot (#155)
		Moderator
		Elia Weixelbaum
		Harold Wyzansky
		Art Werschulz
	Re: Halachic Reason to stop buying Japanese? (#156)
		Dan Lerner
		Ben Svetitsky
		Josh Proschan
______________________________________________________________________
This topic attracted many responses, some of which where fairly
comprehensive. I've not included some responses I received where I felt
that the information was already fully covered in another response.
Thanks to all who responded on this issue. The first two responses deal
with the general issue of having two days of Yom Tov, and the third
deals with the specific question of Shavuot.
 
Avi Feldblum - Moderator 
______________________________________________________________________
 
It's not an issue that you heard the report of the new moon a day late
and that's why your counting is off.  The issue is that you didn't hear
anything at all until after the Yom Tov would have started.  It could take
several weeks to get the report of when the new month started.
 
Every month is either 29 days or 30 days.  When that 30th day comes, you
say this could be the 1st day of the new month or the 30th day of the old.
If the Yom Tov is supposed to start on the 15th day, then you celebrate it
on the 15th day of the month where your count assumed that the previous
month had 29 days and then you celebrate again on the next day, which
corresponds to the 15th day of the month where your count assumed that the
previous month had 30 days.  Only one of those days is correct, but it's
equally likely that the first or the second day was the real first day of
Yom Tov.  If it was the first, then we would be celebrating an extra day
of Yom Tov AFTER the real one and if it was the second, then we would be
celebrating an extra day of Yom Tov BEFORE the real one.
 
Today, since the calendar is set and calculated, we merely commerorate
the doubt that existed in Chutz La'aretz and celebrate the extra day AFTER
the real one.
 
Elia Weixelbaum - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
You are missing the fact that the lunar month is approximately 29.5 
days, which means that Rosh Chodesh HAS to be on either the 30th or 31st 
day after the previous Rosh Chodesh.  The procedure in Temple times was 
that witnesses would come if they saw the new moon on the 30th day after 
the previous Rosh Chodesh.  If they came earlier, they were thrown out, 
as it is physically impossible.  If no witnesses came on the 30th day, 
then the 31st day was automatically Rosh Chodesh.
 
To show how this would apply to galut, here is an example.  Someone 
in Babylonia would find out sometime late in Elul what day Rosh Chodesh 
Elul had been.  Since it was impossible for him to know the actual day 
the witnesses showed up in Jerusalem for Tishrei until well into the 
month, he would know to celebrate Rosh Hashana on the 30th and 31st days 
after Rosh Chodesh Elul, Sukkot on the 44th and 45th days, etc.  The 
same procedure was followed for Pesach with the added complication of 
finding out if an extra Adar had been added.
 
So you see that the matter does not depend on a fear that the news may 
come late, but rather on strict rules based on knowledge of the physical 
facts about the length of the lunar month.
 
Harold Wyzansky
______________________________________________________________________
 
This is a response to a question that Ms. Farkas asked in mail.jewish # 159,
about why we should celebrate two days of Shavuot (its date being certain).
 
An answer is given in "The Festivals in Halachah" by Rabbi S. Y.
Zevin.  (I'm using ArtScroll's English translation.)
 
On pp. 237 ff. of Volume 3, Rabbi Zevin addresses this problem.
Please forgive the extensive quotation ...
 
  Another question that has arisen concerning the date of Shavuos has
  to do with the second day of Yom-Tov of the Diaspora.  With the
  other Yamim-Tovim, this second day reflects the fact that at one
  time in history the communities of the Diaspora which could not be
  reached in time by messengers from Jerusalem were in doubt as to
  which day was actually Yom-Tov.  But why should the extra day of
  Yom-Tov, resulting from sfeika deyoma, "doubt about the day," apply
  to Shavuos?  With this festival, there could never have been any
  doubt as to its date, not even in the era when Rosh Chodesh was
  determined by testimony; for once these distant communities knew
  which day Pesach had fallen on, they simply had to count the
  forty-nine days of the Omer, and the next day was undoubtedly
  Shavuos.  An allusion to this fact is found in the wording of
  Rambam:  "And in order not to create differences between the
  festivals, the Sages decreed that every place which could not be
  reached by the messengers of Tishrei [because of the great distance
  from Jerusalem] would observe two days, *even the Yom-Tov of
  Atzeres* [Shavuot]."
 
Rabbi Zevin then quotes the Chatam Sofer, who reaches the surprising
conclusion that the extra day of Yom-Tov for Shavuot is more binding
than the extra days of the other Yamim-Tovim:
 
 Since from the very beginning, the second day of Shavuos in the
 Diaspora was not instituted because of doubt, but rather by a decree
 of the Sages, it is similar to the second day of Rosh HaShanah.
 There, too, the Sages instituted a decree--namely, that whenever "the
 witnesses arrive after Minchah, that day is to be treated as holy,
 and the next day, holy."  And there, too, in the case of Rosh
 HaShanah, the second day hence has greater severity than the second
 Yom-Tov day of other festivals.
 
Rabbi Zevin mentions an actual case where this made a real difference,
namely a man who was dying and wanted to give his wife a get
[religious divorce] on the second day of Shavuot so that she would not
be bound by the laws of levirate marriage (his brother living far
away).  A scholar was consulted and stated that it would be okay to
write the document on the second day of Yom-Tov (an act that would be
normally forbidden), granting his permission on the basis of takkanat
agunah, the special leniency that the Sages instituted to prevent
women from being unable to remarry.  The eventual outcome was that the
divorce was ruled invalid by Rav Shlomo Kluger.
 
      Art Werschulz - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
Several people have misunderstood my question about doing business with
Japan.  There was an article in the NY Times, which mentioned various
religious practices such as the presence of a Shinto shrine in the Mazda
Miata plant, dedication of new factories by Shinto priests, etc.  There
are prohibitions in Masechet Avodah Zarah of deriving benefit (hanaah)
from objects used in idolatrous worship.  Could it theoretically be
forbidden to buy, for example, a Miata for this reason.  Are Shintos,
Budhists, and Hindus considered idolaters by Halakha?
 
Then there is the prohibition of doing business with idolaters within 3
days of their holidays in the first perek of Avodah Zarah.  This
restriction was later reduced to just the day of the holiday.  In
Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Avodah Zarah, Rambam says that it is forbidden to
do business with Christians on Sunday.  Most poskim do not agree with
Rambam that christians are idolaters, but anyway would it be forbidden
to do business with Japanese businessmen on a Shinto holiday?
 
Dan Lerner ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
Tosafot at the beginning of Tractate Avodah Zara states that the
various strictures regarding doing business with idol worshippers
are no longer applicable, because the idolaters don't really believe
in it any more -- they are merely following their fathers' customs.
("Gimme that old time religion?")  They were talking about 11th
century Christianity, but I believe the halacha for today is derived
from there, and is held to include ALL putative idol-worshippers.
I.e., their hearts aren't really in it.  (I'm quoting something I
heard in a shiur about a year ago; if I misheard, and the halacha
regarding Japan or India is otherwise, I would enjoy correction.)
 
Ben Svetitsky    [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding business dealings with idol worshippers:  My recollection is
that the Mishnah prohibits business dealings with them for 3 days before
and after one of their festivals, as they would offer thanks to the idol.
This only seems to be a concern close to the festival; otherwise, the
assumption seems to be that they aren't that "frum", and will attribute 
any success to their own endeavors.
 
How this translates into practical halachah these days is another question;
to start with, one must determine whether one is dealing with an idol
worshipper or not.
 
Josh Proschan - [email protected]

Topics:
	Re: Electricity and Shabbat (#159)
		Josh Proschan
		Frank Silbermann
		Bob Werman
	"Dawn/Nightfall" times
		[Moderator]
		Steve Prensky
	Re: Siddur/davening Questions (#159)
		Jonathan Berlinger
	Re: "Saving" Sifrei Torah
		Arnie Lustiger
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding light bulbs, electricity, and fire:  incandescent bulbs appear to
fall under the prohibition against cooking--which includes heating a metal
until it glows.  This would, even in the absence of any other prohibitions
or customs, prevent turning an incandescent bulb on on Shabbos.  Turning one
off would not be a problem for this reason, and Yom Tov might not be a problem.
 
Merely moving electrons, if prohibited, would prohibit one from walking across
a carpet in the wintertime, or from moving a pot on a blech (covered stove).
There is a phenomenom whose name escapes me that causes electrons to flow in
a piece of metal, such as a pot, that is differentially heated.  The effect is
not merely an unmeasurable lab curiosity--I have heard of it being used.
 
Josh Proschan - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
No matter what we yet learn from physics, those who issued the original
decision were several decades closer to the revelation at Sinai than we.
It would take a pretty bold rabbi to contradict earlier authorities.
 
If the day ever arrives when halachic authorities decide as this Rav
predicts, I predict they will find other reasons to simultaneously issue
a new edict preventing liberalization of the rules (e.g. by saying, "It
has become a universally-accepted custom, so we must continue.").  It
might be analogous to our acceptance of the opinion that fowl is parve
by Torah law, but treated as meat nonetheless as a fence against
confusion.  In other words, I'm not holding my breath for a new ruling.
 
	Frank Silbermann	[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
     I am less sanguine than than Mr. Svetitsky for several reasons.
 
1]  Some years ago, I read the kuntrus of S"Z Oyerbach on electricity.
This piece, written more than 30 years ago, is considered the last
word on the din forbidding the use of electricity on shabbat.  The
brilliant argument in that work - which established Rav Oyerbach as a
great posek - goes through all the possible avot malacha that could
be thought of as providing a basis for the prohibition .... and
establishes, one by one, that none can be seen to be in effect when
electricity is used.  The conclusion, however, is that we should not
use electricity on Shabbat - since the Hazon Ish, zl"b, so declared.
[Some modernists - including the late Chief Rabbi Hertzog, attempted
- rather unsuccessfully, I think - to point out weaknesses in
Oyerbach's argument, in order to demonstrate that one or other av
malacha was indeed in operation with the use of electricity.]
 
2]  There is widespread feeling that there is certainly no reason not
to use electricity on hag; none-the-less, no one - including those
who admit this - will use electricity.  Thus, the humrot of not using
electricity for cooking or turning on a light switch on hag have
gained the status of minhag na'e u-m'kubal.
 
3]   There is a special problem here in Israel, where electricity
involves the work of Jews on Shabbat.
 
__Bob Werman - rwerman@hujivms - Jerusalem
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
[Just to get the discussion on what I think is the right track, there
are several times that are under discussion here. Shekiat HaCHama -
sunset - it appears that the halachic definition of this term is the
same as the what is used by standard secular scientific definitions.
Tzait HaKochavim - "coming out of the stars" or nightfall, is the one
that is more difficult. There appears to be several accepted
definitions. Some are given simply as an amount of time after sunset.
The two most common that I know, are 42 minutes and the so-called
Rabbenu Tam time of 72 minutes. There is a tsuvah of R. Moshe Feinstein
(anyone have a reference?) that the 72 minute time is for a higher
latitute than New York, and that the correct Rabbenu Tam time in New
York is 50 minutes. There are other calculation that are given in
degrees below the horizen (I think). For these times, you need to know
both latitude and date of the year to calculate the time from sunset to
Tzait. A similar issue exists in the morning, but with at least three
times, I think; sunrise, dawn, time when you can distinguish colors(?).
Anyone out there really up on these topics and can give us an overview?
I know that there are various computer programs that will calculate some
of these times. Anyone either have a public domain/freeware/shareware
version or know of a commercial product?
 
Avi Feldblum - your friendly Moderator]
_________________________
 
I would like some help with minhagim regarding the times for several
mizvot. 
 
I'm aware that many customs derive from 72 minutes, or some fraction
thereof, e.g. 18 or 36 minutes. I'm not sure of the reason. 
 
I know minhagim regarding candle lighting times are 18 or 20 minutes
before sunset.  Havdalah is 42 or 60 minutes after sunset.  Again I'd
appreciate the rationale behind the differences.
 
Now what I don't know is whether the time that we wait after sunset for
havdalah, time from sunset to nightfall, is the same amount of time from
night to sunrise, before we can say brachas or, as was the case last
week, the last time for eating before accepting the fast.  I've heard of
90 minutes before sunrise.  Are there other minhagim?  Does a person
waiting 90 minutes before sunrise also wait 90 minutes after sunset?
Howabout the person who holds by 42 minutes after sunset, what's the
earliest time before sunrise that brachas can be said and the last time
for eating prior to a half-fast?
 
The specific situation for me was this: my alarm wasn't set properly and
I got up later than intended, too late. I thought, to eat as I had
intended.  I awoke 80 minutes before sunrise.  Are there some opinions
that allow for eat ing at that point?  If so, what is the logic and
consistency relative to time prior to, and following sunset for candle
lighting, kiddush, and havdalah??  What about the earliest time for
brachas??
 
Steve Prensky
______________________________________________________________________
 
Repetition in Hallel
 
Amoung all of the other questions, one of them was why some lines in
Hallel were repeated twice. From the bottom of the Artscroll siddur, I
learned that they are repeated to follow the format of the rest of the
psalm that they are contained in. That is, Psalm 118 starts with "Hodu
LaHashem Key Tov.." and continues through the rest of Hallel, not
including the final blessing. Each of the lines of the psalm are paired,
eg.
 
        Pischu Lee Shaare Tzeddek....
                (open the gates of rightiousness,...)
        Zeh hashaar laHashem, Tzaddikim....
                (This is the gate for Hashem, let the rightious ...)
 
Except for the last nine, Starting with "Odecha,.." through "Hodu Lahashem..".
 
Thus, the editor of the siddur (?) repeated each of the last nine lines.
Why he chose two, is therefore clear, I hope; why he chose to repeat
them at all is still unknown to me.
 
JONB@FAIR1 - Jonathan Berlinger
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have a follow-up to Danny Wildman's questions concerning Sifrei Torah.
What is the halacha for a Sefer Torah in the possession of Christian
Missionaries to the Jews (given that the purpose of the Sefer Torah is
to help convert Jews to Christianity i.e. become Messianic "Jews"). Is
there any inyan to attempt to steal it? Without going into detail, this
question is very "nogaya" (relevant) to a situation I personally encoun-
tered a number of years ago.
 
Arnie Lustiger

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: Non-Jewish involvement in Chanukah celebrations (#156)
		Richard Schultz
		Moshe Rayman
______________________________________________________________________
 
One topic/question that has come up in some submissions due out shortly,
and in some private email concerns the question of whether torah related
documents which are in electronic form are "shemos" i.e. do you have to
be worried about how you "dispose" of it. Will that include erasing the
screen or deleting a file? What about writing out the Name of G-d if you
have hebrew fonts on your screen? What is the status of the word "G-d"?
What type of documents do you have to worry about disposal on? 
 
All right, a bunch of questions, anyone out there want to try and handle
some of them? 
 
Avi Feldblum - Moderator - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
In mail.jewish #162, Lazer Danziger writes:
 
> In the eyes of the discerning and objective spectator, the public
> Menorah lighting ceremony (with or without the involvment of a
> prominent non-Jewish official) is an act of Pirsumah Nisah and Kiddush
> HaShem of the highest order. (And as mentioned above, when a
> non-Jewish public servant is involved, the Pirsumah Nisah is of a
> matter-of-fact broadened.) In the eyes of many detractors of
> Lubavitch, however, the ceremony -- even before the occasional
> involvment of non-Jew -- continues to be perceived as one big "P.R.
> stunt."
 
> Unfortunately, no panacea exists to cure irrational jealously and 
> unfounded antagonism.
 
 
I am willing to cut Rabbi Danziger some slack because he is a Canadian.  I
cannot let the above statement pass without comment, however, because of the
way Chabad has run these things in the United States.  I am a native of 
Pittsburgh, so I am fairly familiar with how Chabad put up the menorah on
public property.  They did it by going to court and arguing that the 
menorah is *not a religious symbol*, but rather a symbol of the secular
value of freedom.  Whether the argument is based on there not being any
inherent holiness in a hannukkiah, or was simply a little white lie to justify
a greater end, I (and a lot of people like me) have a real hard time with
this line.  I find it hard to believe that it's a Kiddush HaShem to equate
a menorah and a Christmas tree, and this is the reason that many people (not
including me, however) consider the public menorah a "P.R. stunt."
 
In addition to the above reason, I have difficulty with these public menorahs
for others that have nothing to do with "jealousy", irrational or not, or
antagonism, unfounded or not.  (Digression:  as a matter of fact, I have only
the highest regard for Chabad for many of its programs and for the way that
so many of the Chabadniks I have met live their beliefs with great integrity.
But that doesn't mean that I will sit idly by and let them do something I
consider wrong without making my opinion known.)  My objections to this whole
thing stem from the difficulty in my mind of emphasizing hannukkah to such
an extent.  Are we really doing "Pirsumah Nisah" for the "rechokim", or are
we merely equating Hannukkah and Christmas in their eyes?  I would bet that 
most of the non-Jews who take part in such ceremonies are thinking the 
latter.  In fact, most non-Jews that I meet seem to think that that's exactly
what Hannukkah is (a lot of Jews I meet seem to think that, too).  Is this
a Kiddush HaShem?  Because, let's face it, Hannukkah is not at all as 
significant a holiday as, say, Shemini Atzeret, and how many Jews are 
going to start celebrating Shemini Atzeret because the mayor helped light
a menorah?  (Actually, the mayor of Pittsburgh, Sophie Masloff, is Jewish,
and she wisely washed her hands of the whole affair after the city lost the
court case.)
 
And beyond my difficulties with the overemphasis of Hannukkah is the 
arrogance (mixed with a bizarre sort of naivete) expressed by Chabad when
anyone tries to argue with them.  It's just "jealousy" or "unfounded 
antagonism."  I've got news for you:  the antagonism is hardly unfounded.
Chabad has always refused to accept the so-called "rechokim" on any terms
but its own.  I won't argue whether that's right or wrong, but to loudly
insist that there is *only* one way and that is *my* way is not an 
attitude that makes friends -- even if it's true.  The antagonism toward
Chabad felt by far too many people can be placed as much on Chabad's 
attitude as on the others'.  And this arrogance on the part of Chabad 
spills over into other areas as well.  One reason why many Jews in this
country are so vocally opposed to Chabad's public stance is that in this
country at least, Chabad chooses to pursue its ends by allying itself with
the far right fundamentalists who, while they share some of the same short-
term goals, differ greatly on the long term goals (i.e. they want to make
the U.S. a "Christian" [sic] nation once again).
 
Or to put it another way:  if public menorah lightings are okay because
of the important mitsvah of Pirsumah Nisah, then how can we object to
public missionizing of our children, since many Christians consider it
an important duty to spread the Good News to the unsaved?
 
					Richard Schultz
______________________________________________________________________
 
In #161 Ezra Tepper writes:
 
> Moshe Rayman <[email protected]>  tries to prove that _pirsumei nisa_
> applies to non-Jews from the Gemara (Shabbat 21b) that Chanukah lamps have
> to burn "until the _tarmudai_ all go home." Since Rashi explains that
> _tarmudai_ are a nation that gathers wood, the simple understanding is
> that they are not Jewish.
 
> There are a number of problems with that proof: a. The Gemara in Yebamot 16b
> implies that at least some _tarmudai_ are of Jewish slave
> descent.
 
Interesting.
 
> b. The Rashi in Shabbat explains that the _tarmudai_ remain late
> in the market so that people needing wood can come and buy
> from them. Thus as long as the _tarmudai_ are around some Jews are still
> possibly buying from them. The candles might therefore be for Jews and not
> for the _tarmudai_.
 
This is a valid argument.  Although we must consider the fact that this
statement was made in Bavel, and even if these people were selling the 
wood it doesn't imply that those buying the wood are Jewish.  Also, if
the presence of the Tarmudai is just incidental, why were they mentioned
at all, the Gemara should have simply said "until the last people left".
Why mention who they were, if they are not our focus.  Also we must take
the entire passage of the Talmud into account.  The Talmud states "The Mitzva
of Ner Chanuka is from sunset until all pedestrians leave the market place". 
The Talmud then asks "until when", and then responds "until the tarmudai
leave".  It does seem that the Talmud wanted to know who we are refering
to.  (possibly even alluding to our question).  It then responded "even
the Tarmudai".  So the point might be that we have to wait that long
because as long as the Tarmudai are there, there are Jews there too.
But simply taken, the talmud is telling us we have to keep the candles
lit until _even_ the Tarmudai, who are not jewish, go home.
 
> c. Both the Alfasi and the Rosh in Shabbat explain that
> _tarmudai_ derives from the type of wood sold, which is called _tarmud_,
> the people selling that commodity being called _tarmudai_. They therefore
> might be Jews. Thus even Rashi might mention the _tarmudai_
> nation to indicate that these thin pieces of wood are so called due
> to their commonly being sold in Tarmud. But the people selling them in the
> market might indeed be local Jews not the merchants from Tarmud.
 
If I recall correctly, Rashi explains "Tarmudai" as a people who gather
wood, not "people who sell wood gathered in Tarmud".
 
> If, however, Moshe's explanation was really said by Rav Soloveichik, I
> of course bow to his opinion. However, I have it on authority that if one
> hears a particular explanation or halachah in the name of a _godol be-Torah_
> there is no reason to accept it as being an accurate expression of that
> godol's position unless one hears this from a _talmud muvhak_, particularly
> if one has serious problems with it based on the sources.
 
He might have only mentioned it as a possibility.  I'll try to verify it.
 
>zra Tepper <[email protected]>
 
Moshe Rayman	[email protected]

Topics
	mj.archives on Macintosh disks
		Steve Prensky
	Repetition of the Amida (#161, was Siddur/davening Questions)
		Josh Proschan
		David Sherman
		Avi Feldblum
	Re: Siddur/davening Questions (#159)
		Dan Lerner
	Jewish Science Fiction Society
		Evelyn C. Leeper
	Re: Electricity and Shabbat (#161)
		Finley Shapiro
	Dealing with Converts
		Susan Hornstein
______________________________________________________________________ 
 
I want to announce the availability of the mj.archives on Macintosh
disks.  I downloaded all the archives 1986-1990, cumulative index, and
digests #161-166, via an ethernet link, to a Macintosh.  They are
formatted as Microsoft Word v 4.0 files (7 files, a total of 400 pages),
take 1.23 Mb, and all fit on one 3.5" high-density disk.  Interested
parties can contact me regarding copies.
 
Steve Prensky - <[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________ 
> As such the repetition of the
> Amidah is actually part of your own prayer and you should stand as if
> you yourself are praying.  If you have ever seen someone standing
> throughout the repetition as if they are still saying the Amidah, it
> is likely that this is the reason.
 
It is even more likely, especially in a Yeshivish minyon, that they *are*
still saying the silent Amidah.
 
Josh Proschan - [email protected]
 
------
 
More likely they came late and are catching up :-)
 
David Sherman
------
 
In all seriousness, the above is an opinion of Rav Soloveitchik and is
based on his understanding of a Rambam. I do not not know which Rambam,
nor do I understand exactly what this concept of Teffilat HaTzibur -
Prayer of the Community - is. One other implication of this opinion is
that one does not say Baruch Hu U'Varuch Shemo after the Chazan says
Baruch Ata Hashem during the repetition of the Amidah. So if you check
carefully you can probably identify the Rav-nick's, the Yeshiva-nick's
and the late-nick's :-).
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
It might be of interest to people that there is a Jewish Science Fiction
Society (Lucy Schmeidler, Jewish Science Fiction Society, 470 West End
Avenue, New York NY 10024-4933) which has monthly meetings in New York,
a monthly newsletter, and meetings at science fiction conventions across
the country and even occasionally outside the country.
 
			Evelyn C. Leeper, 908-957-2070, mtgzy!ecl
______________________________________________________________________
 
Concerning Mr. Prensky's question about Hallel, why Hodu Lashem Ki Tov
and Ana Hashem Hoshia Na are repeated, this is how all of Hallel used to
be recited.  In the Mechilta, Masechet Shirta (about the shir shel yam -
the song by the sea), there is a 4-way argument about how the shir (song
- Mod) was recited.  Rabbi Akiba says it was recited like Hallel.  In
parallel passages in Sotah 30b and in Pesachim, this is explained
further.  That Moshe would say each verse and the Israelites would
say,"Ashira LaShem Ki Gaoh Gaah," each time, i.e. the Israelites would
only say the first part of the first verse.  Similarly each psalm in
Hallel used to be recited this way (see Rambam's discussion of Hallel in
the Mishneh Torah), with the congregation repeating the first part.  For
some reason, only Hodu and Ana Hashem are still recited this way today.
 
Dan Lerner ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
	I'd like to add to the question regarding the repetition
of verses at the end of Hallel.  In previous postings it was mentioned
(and I'm paraphrasing) that each of the last 9 verses of Psalm 118 are 
said and then immediately repeated before going on the the next verse.
This is slightly inaccurate.  While this is true of 8 of the last 9
verses, verse 25 "Annah Hashem Hoshiah Na! Annah Hashem Hatzlicha Na!"
[We beseech you, G-d, deliver us!  We beseech you, G-d, make us 
successful!"] is actually split in half.  We say the first half and 
then repeat it, and then we say the second half and repeat that.
Can anyone shed some light as to why this is done?
 
Miriam Rabinowitz - bcr!rruxc!miriam
______________________________________________________________________
 
When discussing the use of electricity on Shabbat, a topic that is not
usually considered is that all major power plants (nuclear or
otherwise), and also the electric utility grid itself, require workers
to be on duty while they are in operation.  The ability of a customer to
receive (or perhaps I should say "purchase") electric power from the
grid on Shabbat or any other time is dependent on these workers.  In
most countries this is not a problem, since such workers would certainly
qualify as "Shabbos goys," due to the necessity of keeping the heat on,
refrigerators running, etc.  Perhaps it is also relevant that the added
work due to their Jewish customers is probably nil, because almost all
of the power is going to non-Jewish customers and it is likely that the
small fraction of power going to Jewish customers does not cause them to
do anything they would not already do.  However, the situation is
different in Israel.  First, I find it hard to believe that most
positions with the responsibility of running the electric power system
are not held by Jews, including the people on duty on Shabbat.  Second,
most of their customers are Jewish, and thus much of their work is done
only because Jews are using the power.  How is this problem viewed, or
dealt with, in Israel?
 
Finley Shapiro - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have a question for the readers of m.j regarding dealing with converts
to Judaism.  Both at work and in the personal realm I have been faced with
people who consider themselves Jewish, having converted under Reform or
Conservative auspices.  My question is, what is the correct halachic procedure
for dealing with such people when topics of religion come up?
 
I know that when a person is considering converting, one is obligated 
to discourage them initially, but when their positive intentions
have been confirmed by a Rav who has "accepted them into his tutelage"
it is ok to encourage and help them.  I have also heard that if a person
is born of a Jewish father but not a Jewish mother, the beit din
(Jewish court) should approach the person to see if they might want to
convert. 
 
This leads me to the question:  If a person considers themself Jewish, but
is not halachically Jewish, should they be treated as if they were Jewish,
should they be treated as if they were non-Jewish, or perhaps, should they
be treated as if they were born of a Jewish father, i.e., should they be
encouraged to convert in a halachic manner?  If they should be treated as
if they were non-Jewish, then encouraging them to convert in a halachic
manner would be improper, because they would still be in the state of needing
to be discouraged.
 
The upshot of such questions is somewhat different in the personal and work 
realms.  At work, this question might involve inviting the person to a
Chanukah party, shiur, Jewish event, or asking them if they need Kosher food
at a luncheon, or even what kind of holiday card they should be sent.  
(Let's not get into the issue of sending non-Jewish holiday cards!)    Also, 
I would be likely to try to "m'karev" (involve Jewishly) a non-involved Jewish
co-worker, but I wouldn't know whether to do so with such a person.  In the
personal realm, it's even more complicated.  One wouldn't want to treat this
person as Jewish from the perspective of wine treatment, or marriage/children
arrangement.  However, one might applaud such a person's efforts to be involved
in a shul or to take classes or join their JCC.  Or not.  Does anyone have any
information or insights about these matters?  Thanks.
 
Susan Hornstein - bellcore!pyuxd!susanh

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: "Dawn/Nightfall" times (#165)
		Moshe Rayman
		Zev Sero		
______________________________________________________________________
Please everybody, when you submit articles, place your name at the end
of the article. Include your email address if you would like to have
people contact you directly. If you wish the article to be anonymous,
state so at the beginning of the article. Please translate any Hebrew
terms you use to English.
 
Does anyone on the list either live in Tucson, Arizona or know anything
about the Jewish community there, e.g. name of Rabbi, availability of
kosher food, etc? If yes, please contact me by email. Thanks.
 
Avi Feldblum - Moderator
______________________________________________________________________
 
In response to Avi Feldblum's assumption that halakhic sunset is the same
as the one used by secular scientists, this is not entirely accurate.
 
The period between sunset and nightfall is known as "ben hashemashot"
(lit. between the suns).  One source in the Talmud (I don't have the precise
source with me) claims that this "ben hashemashot" period last for 18
minutes. (The talmuds terminology is "the amount of time it takes to walk
a mil".  This is estimated at 18 minutes).  This is contradicted by other
Talmudic sources and reality (it is still light outside 18 minutes after
sunset, and there certainly aren't three stars out.)  The general opinion
is, that there is no set time for nightfall, it depends on the place
(latitude etc.).  In certain places it gets dark alot faster than others.
 
The Rabeinu Tam opined that the halakhic sunset occurs 54 minutes
after the sun actually dips below the horizon.  Then the period
of bein hashemashot lasts for 18 minutes, and nightfall begins.
Hence nightfall is 72 minutes after what we call sunset. 
According to R. Tam Shabbat begins 54 minutes after sunset, and ends
72 minutes after sunset.  
 
The Shulchan Aruch actually rules in favor of Rabeinu Tam! 
He allows a baby who was born on Saturday within 54 minutes 
after sunset to have his bris on the following Shabbat.  Almost all the
later authorities argued and ruled in favor of the "actual" sunset.
 
But even if we reject Rabeinu Tam's opinion, there still might be
two ways to calculate sunset.
 
When I was a student in Yeshivat Sha'alvim, there was a Rav who climbed
to the roof of the Bet Midrash every morning in order to obtain the precise
moment that sunrise could be seen from Sha'alvim.  He argued that the
sunrise listed on all the charts is the "netz astronomy" (astronomical
sunrise), and the one that should be used is the "netz hanireh", (the visible
sunrise).  Unfortunately, I never questioned him for the precise definitions
of his terms (astronomical and visible).  Perhaps the "standard sunrise"
only takes latitude and longitude into account, but ignores altitude.
Someone living on a mountaintop will see sunrise before anyone on the foot
of that mountain no matter which side the lower person is standing (I think).
 
I also recall a decision by Rav Moshe Fienstien, that a woman who forget
to perform a "hefsek Tahara" before sunset, can perform it for a few more
minutes.  I don't recall where the teshuva is, and I don't recall Rav
Fienstiens source either.  But it did have something to do with 
that there are two ways to calculate sunset. 
 
Moshe Rayman
______________________________________________________________________
 
Avi> Shekiat HaCHama - sunset - it appears that the halachic
Avi> definition of this term is the same as the what is used by
Avi> standard secular scientific definitions.
 
Not quite.  The secular definition of sunset is when the center of the
sun is exactly on the horizon, as seen by a hypothetical observer at
sea level, who `knows' exactly where the sun really is. According to
this definition, on the equinox, since the sun is directly over the
equator, the day and the night are precisely equal. 
 
The halachic sunset is a bit later than this.  In halacha, the day is
over when the sun can no longer be seen.  This involves several
adjustments.  First, since the sun has a visible disc, sunset does not
occur until the top edge of the sun sinks below the horizon, which
takes about a minute.  Second, the sun's light is refracted by the
atmosphere, so that even when the sun is `really' below the horizon,
it can still be seen for a few minutes.  Third, most observers are not
standing in the ocean with their eyes just clearing the waterline.
The halachic observer is certainly at some point above sea level, and
will therefore have a longer horizon, so the sun will set later.
 
From what I have seen, there are two opinions on where the halachic
observer is situated.  Most poskim just assume that the observer is
where he is, i.e. sunset should be calculated for every place
according to its own altitude.  This has been further qualified by at
least some poskim who place the observer at the top of the tallest
building in the town.  There was at least one posek who discussed
whether halachic times for Paris should be recalculated when the
Eiffel Tower was built (I can't remember the answer).
 
The Baal Hatanya v'Shulchan Aruch, in his Siddur, says that the
halachic observer is `on top of the high mountains of Eretz Yisrael',
and therefore sunset is later than it would appear to an observer `at
the top of the trees'.  He gives this difference `in our places during
the equal days', i.e. White Russia at the equinox, as four minutes.
From this figure, Rabbi S.D.Levin (`Kuntres NeSheK') calculated that
the `high mountains' refers to Mt.Carmel, and thereby found the
probable source for the Rav's opinion, in Brachot 2b, where the gemara
discusses the length of twilight.  The gemara says that if one `leaves
the sun at the top of Mt.Carmel, and goes down to the sea, and
immerses oneself', when one comes out of the sea it will be nightfall.
According to Rabbi Levin, the Rav takes this as an indication that the
proper place to observe sunset is at the top of Mt.Carmel, or the same
altitude anywhere.
 
Avi> Tzait HaKochavim - "coming out of the stars" or nightfall, is the
Avi> one that is more difficult. There appears to be several accepted
Avi> definitions. Some are given simply as an amount of time after
Avi> sunset.
 
The `minutes' referred to by the poskim are `standard' minutes.  What
they are talking about is minutes in Eretz Yisrael at the equinox.
The idea is: go to Eretz Yisrael on 21 March, wait for sunset, and
then wait the appropriate number of minutes.  Calculate how far the
sun is over the horizon, since this is the only reasonable measure of
darkness.  Whenever and wherever you are, when the sun is that far
over the horizon, it's night.
 
Some major opinions are: 18 `minutes', 20, 24, 72, 90.  There are
others that I can't remember.  The opinions are generally separated
into two groups: those that are ~18 minutes, and those that are ~72
minutes.  The latter group are known as `Rabbenu Tam'.  It is not
clear which of these Rabbenu Tam himself supported.  At least one
scholar (ShUT Bnai Tzion, vol 2), arrives at the amazing conclusion
that Rabbenu Tam himself did *not* believe in what became known as
`the nightfall of Rabbenu Tam'!
 
There are customary times which are in clock minutes, but these have
no actual basis in halacha.  What they usually represent is the latest
possible time for nightfall at that location.  Thus the 42 minutes for
New York.
 
Avi> The two most common that I know, are 42 minutes and the
Avi> so-called Rabbenu Tam time of 72 minutes. There is a tsuvah of R.
Avi> Moshe Feinstein (anyone have a reference?) that the 72 minute
Avi> time is for a higher latitude than New York, and that the correct
Avi> Rabbenu Tam time in New York is 50 minutes.
 
R.Moshe says that the 72 minute time is *not* Rabbenu Tam at all, but
rather the latest time that one of the ~18-`minute' opinions happened in
Northern Europe. 
 
Avi> A similar issue exists in the morning, but with at least three
Avi> times, I think; sunrise, dawn, time when you can distinguish
Avi> colors(?).
 
Sunrise would be subject to the same discussion as sunset above.
Halachic sunrise is earlier than astronomical sunrise.
 
All poskim agree that dawn is in the ~72-`minute' range.  Precisely
where is subject to the same discussion as for nightfall, but simpler
because there is no ~18-`minute' group of opinions.
 
The time when you can see, is generally described as when you can
recognize an acquaintance (not a close friend) from a distance of four
amot (let's not get into that discussion :-))  I am not aware of any
indication of precisely when that is.  It would seem that the correct
way of determining this time is to look out the window and see whether
the sky is light enough.  Charts which purport to give this time
(`earliest time for tefillin', etc.) seem to be based on the personal
estimates of the authors.  This is definitely the case for the chart
published in `Or Meir', an excellent sefer by Rabbi Meir <I've
forgotten his surname> of Gateshead.  In the first edition he omitted
this time because he could not find any source for how to calculate
it.  He then became aware that people were davening at dawn because
they assumed that that was the earliest time, so in the second edition
he decided that when the sun was about 11 degrees over the horizon it
was light enough to see, and used that as the basis of his calculation.
He is quite clear that is based on his own observation, and may have
more to do with his eyesight than with the rishonim and acharonim.
--
	                                Zev Sero  -  [email protected]

Topics:
	Computers, Writing and Shamos
		Lou Rayman
		Ben Svetitsky
		Dan Lerner
		Bruce Krulwich
	Re: Non-Jewish involvement in Chanukah celebrations (#166 orig. #156)
		Sherri Chasin Calvo
		Isaac Balbin
______________________________________________________________________
If there is a problen of ketiva (writing) with computers, would old
computers with divray torah have to be put in shamos?  Could you ever
erase a file with divray torah in it?
 
Lou Rayman - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Moshe Rayman writes that (electrical issues aside) there is a problem
with writing on a computer screen or disk because of the prohibition
of writing on Shabbat (and, for that matter, Chol haMoed [Days in the
middle of Succot and Pesach - Mod.]).  This raises
the old issue of what to do with a tape recording of, say, Torah reading,
where the reader pronounced the name of God.  I had always thought that
this is "writing" that cannot be erased, but a friend whose knowledge
I respect told me that this is incorrect -- that there is no "writing"
here at all, and that the tape may indeed be erased.  Presumably the
same applies to magnetic disk, which is therefore not "writing" either.
Question:  What about a CRT screen?  It seems absurd that one cannot
turn off his CRT if it has the name of God displayed on it!  Thus I would
argue that neither the disk nor the CRT is "writing."
 
Concerning Hol haMoed, there is certainly no problem, since the
"writing" in either case is evanescent and thus permitted.
 
I would appreciate confirmation from someone who has sources at hand.
 
Ben Svetitsky      [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Moshe Rayman suggests that writing to printouts, screens, and disks
might involve ketiva/mechika (writing/erasing).  I agree that this
problem might exist in writing to something permanent like paper.  I
don't think writing to a screen is ketiva, since the writing is very
temporary (depends on your phosphor).  I don't know if this is
relavent, but I once asked if it was permitted to erase an audio tape
which contained G-d's name, and was told that it was - perhaps
if humans cannot read it, it is not writing.
 
About his summary of Rav Auerbach's article, perhaps if a small
current was already flowing before Shabbat there would neither tikun
mane (it would be like winding a watch which is already partially
wound, I learned that this was allowed on Shabbat) nor molid.
 
Dan Lerner ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
In mail.jewish #166 Avi Feldblum raised the issue of halachic problems
with writing shemos [holy names] in electronic form.  Most religious
Jews seem to have the habit of writing "G-d" instead of writing it with
an "o," or writing "HaShem" instead.
 
While I haven't checked out the halachos to see if this is halachically
necessary in electronic form, people should consider the fact that much
of what we write electronically (Divrei Torah and Divrei Halacha in
particular) have a good chance of being printed out by people who get
them.  Thus writing anything on-line that you wouldn't want to write
casually on paper is probably a bad idea.
 
Bruce Krulwich
______________________________________________________________________
 
      I am not familiar enough with either American case law or the halacha
surrounding Pirsumah Nisah to comment on the menorah business (my personal
feeling is that among all the overdone Xmas hullabaloo, it's nice to see
an occasional reminder that the whole country isn't Xian, but I make no
claims for either the political or halachic correctness of that position.)
      However, in defense of Chabad, and in response to the posting in
which they were accused of arrogance, I would like to say that although my
observance is by no means up to Chabad standards, and my philosophical
outlook and politics both tend leftward, I attend a Chabad shul because
I was looking for a small, friendly place to learn about Judaism. And in
spite of my lack of "qualifications", I'd be hard pressed to find a warmer,
more accepting group. In many communities, Chabad is the only group keeping
the traditions alive. I think they're doing a good job. Not that I agree
with everything they do politically, but that can happen with any group I
support in general (like the ACLU or the Israeli government, for example).
I've given up expecting to agree with everything anyone does.
 
Sherri Chasin Calvo
______________________________________________________________________
 
Firstly let me say that I am disappointed that the moderator allowed
non-halachik discussion/comments to appear, as part of Richard's article.
 
[Note: This mailing list is not limited to halachik discussions.
Statements that are clearly against halacha are not accepted, as is
discussions whether following halacha is a valid way. In addition,
flaming is not allowed and submissions should concentrate on the topic
and not attack the individual (ad hominium argument or some such latin
term, someone out there will correct me and give me the correct term).
Within these constraints, I will usually bend on the side of accepting a
submisssion. I have gone back and looked at Richard's article, and I
stand by my view that it is appropriate for mail.jewish. I will also
state that I have felt a great deal of concern over some of these
postings. I do not want a "Chabad is Great"/"Chabad is Terrible" debate
on the mailing list. That is just step away from the ad hominium
arguements mentioned above. On the other hand, calm expressions from
people about what bothers them about certain Chabad activities, and
explanations of those activities from Chabad members and supporters have
the potential of easing some of the tensions, at least among members of
this list.
			Avi Feldblum - Moderator  ]
 
In my view, Richard is right and he is also wrong.
 
I am not familiar with the details of the court case so I won't comment
on that. Perhaps the moderator felt there was a halachik infringement
involved in potential misrepresentation. That is an interesting question.
 
Regarding the possible equation between the Xmas tree and a Menorah, I 
am not troubled by that on a halachik level. It is inconceivable that
Chazal would suspend Pirsum Haness (which is the essence at stake in this
discussion) because non-Jews have a party running at the same time.
In the same way, Shabbos was not suspended (or kept secret) just because
non-Jews started having something similar on Sundays and Adventists
still kept something similar on Shabbos.
 
The next thing Richard asks relates to the effectiveness of the
technique in ensnaring "rechokim". I am not sure that one could prove
such things nor am I sure that one can find a halachik objection to the
technique.  It would interest people to know that *BECAUSE* Chanukka is
such a visible thing, many people who intermarry or who are not Gerei
Tzedek [converts - Mod.] are *forced* to consider their Judaism or
potential to become Jews. It is precisely because an alternative is seen
to exist in the eyes of these people that forces them to think thrice
about Christmas. The child who sees a menorah and a christmas tree at
home (and there are a few theses that have looked at this, and the
psychology of the situation---see a back issue of the Jerusalem Report
for a source) is probably going to have to think a little more than the
one who does not have both.
  I don't wish to take sides here. Tolerance however dictates that the
Chabad viewpoint does have some logic behind it.
 
Finally, Richard writes:
  | Chabad has always refused to accept the so-called "rechokim" on any terms
  | but its own.  I won't argue whether that's right or wrong, but to loudly
  | insist that there is *only* one way and that is *my* way is not an 
  | attitude that makes friends -- even if it's true.  
Chabad is not alone on taking the view that there is only "one way" in Judaism.
Indeed, Rabbi Twersky (the psychiatrist) when asked about Chinnuch in
a school which seemed to go against the Chinnuch of the home said that the
teacher had to respect the philosophy of the home and not go against it
provided that it was a halachikally recognised Derech (way).
 
I personally do not subscribe to the view that there is only one way and
I have no trouble making my opinion known and understood by (thinking) 
Chabadniks. I have a few friends who are Chabadniks, and yes,
you get the occasional automaton, but that's life ... wherever you go.
As to them not making friends ... they would probably beg to differ.
 
Isaac Balbin

Topics:
	Mezzuzot
		Wayne Seltzer
	Re: Electricity and Shabbat (#161)
		Isaac Balbin
		Moshe Rayman
		Warren Burstein
		Michael Block
		Ezra Tepper
		Ben Svetitsky
		Keith Bierman
	Torah study by women
		David N. Blank
	VCR's and their use on Shabbos
		David N. Blank
______________________________________________________________________
 
1. Does halacha require mezzuzot on all doors, or just exterior ones?
   (The v'ahavta says "upon the doorposts of thy house."  Which ones?)
2. Other than saying the bracha and affixing the hardware, is there any
   traditional ceremony?  (Maybe some relevant Torah portion, etc, etc.?)
   Who should be present?  Family, friends?  A  silly question -  could
   one hire a  handy-person to do the work? Without any member of the
   home present?
3. I understand that there are  people  that are qualified to check
   the kashrut of a  mezzuzah (and often are also in the business of
   checking tefillin, etc.) I don't know of any such person  in the
   Colorado area.  Is it necessary to consult someone?  I'm not sure that
   I'm particularly paranoid -  just curious about tradition.  I'd guess
   that 99.9% of the mezzzuzot in the U.S. are not or have not ever been
   checked. 
 
Wayne Seltzer - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Just some points to comment on Bob Werman article [m.j #167]
 
The issue was not whether it was prohibited, but whether it was prohibited
*Min Hatorah*. The Chazon Ish held that it was Meleches Boineh (building)
and practically, unless it involves Refuah (healing) Poskim take into
account the opinion of the Chazon Ish. The point is that the use of
electricity is Assur Miderabonnon (Rabinically forbidden).
This of course leads to many leniencies when it comes to Trei D'rabbonon
(two Rabbinic prohibitions) which is permitted for many things, such
as someone who is sick (non life threatening), oineg shabbos etc.
 
Isaac Balbin
______________________________________________________________________
 
[There were several responses to Finley Shapiro's (#167) question as to
why are Israelis allowed to benefit fron electricity generated on
Shabbat by Jews. I have included two in full, followed by five responses
where material that was covered by the first two I deleted.  Anything
that I felt was different than what was already covered was kept. I hope
I do not insult anyone whose material I deleted, but did not want to
either leave out people or just repeat the same thing over. Thanks to
all who responded! - Moderator]
_______
 
In 'Shemirat Shabbat Cehilkhata', Rabbi Noyvert (the author) maintains
that one may derive benefit from electricity on Shabbat.  Maimonides
(Yad Shabbat 2) based on the Talmud rules, that if one lights a candle
on Shabbat for a sick person (who in in danger of dying), a healthy
person is allowed to benefit from this light.  Similarly, if someone
spread out a net to save a drowning person, and also caught some fish,
he has done nothing wrong.  Many authorities maintain, that as long
as no extra act was done in order to catch the fish, the fish may even be
eaten, and one may even intend to catch the fish.  This is because once
the action of spreading the net is permissible, any other intentions
that the person may have are irrelevant.
 
So, if there is a hospital, or army unit, or even any sick person in
the whole town that benefits from the power coming from that plant,
the plant may (and must) be maintained over shabbat.  Rabbi Noyvert
further argues, that even if the lights went off on Shabbat, and then they
went back on, one may derive benefit from the light, as long as the fix was
in a central location that provides power for hospitals etc.
 
However, many Jews in Israel have battery operated lights which they
use on Shabbat to avoid this problem.
 
In the 'Kol Tora' Yeshiva in Jerusalem, a generator was installed
which is run by non-jews, or even automatically to avoid this problem.
But the generator made a lot of noise and disturbed the local population
at night.  So R. S.Z. Auerbach ruled that since one may use the regular
electricity on Shabbat, the yeshiva's generator must be turned off by
10:00 at night.  When R. Auerbach was approached by students who wished
to study late friday night and didn't want to benefit from the electricity,
he told them that they had no right to disturb the local population.  The
private generator would be off by 10 pm.  And he then said to these students,
that if they don't want to benefit fron the electricity, they should go
to sleep.
 
Moshe Rayman - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
There are actually some people (but not many) here in Israel who
disconnect themselves from the power grid and use gasoline-powered
generators on Shabbat to avoid the problems mentioned by Finley
Shapiro.  There is a similar problem with water, since it's pumped by
electricity and is also maintained by Jewish workers on Shabbat -
maybe these same people fill their water tanks and shut off the
incoming supply. 
 
The accepted justification for using Israeli electricity on Shabbat is
that the grid has to go on running because of pikuach nefesh.
Although the hospitals and the military have backup generators, these
are not 100% reliable, and there are also people using various sorts
of medical machines at home who would have to be evacuated to a
hospital without electricity, again at some risk.
 
There is also a social-halachic problem.  Ok, so we've found ourselves
a heter to use the electricity, but still, some Jew has to work there,
and in spite of the pikuach nefesh argument, no authority is going to
permit someone who asks to work there.  A similar problem exists with
the police - no one would suggest that Israel do without police for
Shabbat, but someone has to do the work, and I am not aware of any
authorities who permit doing police work on Shabbat.  It seems that we
don't have a plan for how to run the country after everyone starts to
keep Shabbat, and in the meantime we're living in a society that could
not function without chillul Shabbat.
 
Although I do use the electricity and water, the social issue makes me
uncomfortable.
 
Warren Burstein
______________________________________________________________________
 
To "purchase" raises another question.  What about metered water?
 
Michael Block
______________________________________________________________________
 
But there is much unnecessary chilul Shabbos going on, including the
workers' driving to their jobs and all sorts of maintenance work that is
carried on.
 
Ezra Tepper <RRTEPPER@WEIZMANN>
______________________________________________________________________
 
There is one neighborhood I know of in B'nai Brak which uses its own
generator on Shabbat, free of human oversight.  But people leave some
lights in their houses connected to the general net, in case the
generator fails -- to avoid dangerous situations of total darkness.
 
Ben Svetitsky    [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
It is my understanding that the Rabbinate feels that keeping the power
grid up is necessary for various purposes (hospitals, army, assorted
emergency services) thus observant jews are permitted to hold
positions which require them to work on shabat.
 
Keith Bierman
 
[This is different from what Warren says. Does anyone `know' if halachic
authorities allow one to hold positions which require them to work on
shabbat in the power generation industry? - Moderator.]
______________________________________________________________________
 
  I was recently learning with friends on the topic of "Torah study by
women".  We worked with some of the more classical sources (ie. Sotah),
and would like to look at some more current material.  Can anyone
suggest anything from the 20th century poskim?  Thanks.
 
dNb
______________________________________________________________________
 
  Here's a subject that came up at our Shabbos table recently: VCR's
and their use on Shabbos. Does anyone know of any halacha which would
prohibit the pre-Shabbos-programmed taping (and subsequent,
post-Shabbos watching) of a TV show on Shabbos? Thanks.
 
dNb
______________________________________________________________________

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	The Importance of Knowing Who the Amoraim Were
		David Deitcher
	Re:  Writing shemot, etc. on computer media
		Shimon Schwartz
		Moshe Rayman
______________________________________________________________________
 
I realize that it has been more than a week since the last mail.jewish.
My apologies to those that have sent stuff in and are waiting to see it
appear. I'm at a two week course in Tuscon, Arizona so I have a bit less
easy access to the network. I also admit that 75 degree (F) weather with
bright sunny skies during Jan/Feb for a poor New Jersey boy is a bit
more of a distraction than I can ignore. So here is one mailing, and
I'll try and get another out before I return, but then expect a bunch to
catch up with what's come in. 
 
Your friendly (and currenty warm) Moderator.
______________________________________________________________________
 
In the discussion as to whether the Mitzvah of pirsumei nisa 
(publicizing the miracle) on Chanukka applies to non-Jews, the issue
of "Tarmudai" was raised. One person said that since the halacha that
referred to Tarmudai was said in Bavel, therefore we can infer that the
Tarmudai were not Jewish.
 
I do not wish to go into the details of pirsumei nisa on Chanukka, but I
would like to comment on where the halacha referring to Tarmudai was said.
The halacha of Tarmudai is brought down in the Talmud in Masechet Shabbat,
21b. It is said by Raba bar bar Chana in the name of Rav Yochanan. Rav 
Yochanan was a second-generation Amora who lived in Israel. Raba bar bar 
Chana was a third-generation Amora who lived in Bavel but studied under 
Rav Yochanan in Israel. Therefore, the halacha of Tarmudai was originally
learned in Israel and only later transferred to Bavel. This makes it
less likely that the Tarmudai were non-Jews.
 
I feel it is worthwhile to comment on this because it illustrates the
importance of knowing who the Amoraim were, and when and where they lived.
There are discussions in the Gemara between Amoraim who never saw each other
or weren't even alive at the same time. Being aware of Who's Who in the
Gemara greatly enhances one's understanding of the discussions in the Gemara.
In this case, someone was trying to learn a halacha of pirsumei nisa on
Chanukka based on a mistaken assumption of where a halacha was learned.
 
David Deitcher  [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
CRT displays are, by nature, temporary.  Information disappears
-unless- power is continuously applied.  I would thus question whether
displays (and, by the same argument, volatile [RAM] memory) constitute
writing.
 
There is another problem with using computers on Chol haMoed: ma'aseh
uman (action of a [trained] craftsman).  Using a computer was
certainly, in the past, a specialized skill, and subject to more
stringent Chol haMoed prohibitions than "ordinary" action (ma'aseh
hedyot).  One might argue that today, personal computers are
widespread, and using a CRT/keyboard constitutes ma'aseh hedyot.
 
Shimon Schwartz - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
[In the absence of a clear halachic decision, although it appears that
it is not necessary to write G-d, especially for output to screen, I
will continue to recommend that usage since there appears to be such an
opinion at least in the case of printouts. This remains open to change
if a clear halachic decision is received. Mod.]
 
In response to all the replies I personally received and those posted
to mail.jewish regarding whether printpouts, CRT's and disk (DASD for you
IBM people) is considered ketiva (writing) with respect to the prohibition
of writing on Shabbat, and the prohobition of erasing the shem Hashem
(name of G-d).
 
Printouts - Shabbat
-------------------
 
It seems clear that printouts are considered 'ketiva'.  The only issue
is that of gerama (indirect cause).  Normally, one has to actually perform
a forbidden act directly (on Shabbat) to descecrate Shabbat.  If one causes
a forbidden act to occur, he has not violated the Shabbat.  The most common
example in the Mishna in Shabbat states that one may place a vessel filled
with water near a fire in order that the fire should burn the vessel, release
the water and extinguish itself.
 
The shulchan Aruch rules that 'gerama' is permitted in all instances
on shabbat.  The Rama limits this only when a loss of money is involved.
 
If someone prints something out on a printer, he didn't actually print
it out, he mearly issued a command to the computer, and then the computer
commanded the printer to print it out.  In a large system (such as UNIX or
MVS) when a print command is issued, that which is printed is put on
a queue someplace and is printed when the computer gets around to it.
So it seems that it is mearly 'gerama'.  
 
The laws of 'gerama' are very complex and I cannot discuss them any
further.  There are many types of 'gerama' and there may be some that
are prohibited on the Shabbat.
 
 
Printouts - G-d's name
----------------------
 
Many authorities maintain that it is permissible to erase a non hebrew
name of G-d.  Only the seven names mentioned in the Talmud (see Rambam
Yesode' Hatora 2) are included in this prohibition.  The english names
are not one of the seven names.  In fact both the Shach (sorry no
source) and the Minhat Hinuch (in Devarim parashat Re'e) assume that
this is so obvious that it needs no proof.  I could not find anyone who
rules to the contrary.  (If anyone knows of such an opinion please let
me know).  So a printout of "G-d" should not be a problem. 
 
Many authorities maintain that the prohibition of erasing G-d's name
only applies to a name that was written with a 'holy' intent.  
(All names of G-d written in a Torah scroll must be written with
this intent, or else the Torah scoll is unfit for use.)  Names written
without this intent are not subject to this prohibition.  Although
some authorities disagree with this, it seems the majority do agree.
(see Yehave Da'at v. 4 page 244-246 for a tally).
 
So if one printed out a divine name in hebrew with the intent
of sanctifying it, there might be a problem. But even then, since
printing might be a gerama, the sanctity may never have actually
'entered' the printed name.  Only the person who actually writes
the name can sanctify it.
 
Who Knows! (tzarich iyun).
 
Screens
-------
 
Besides the computer/gerama issue, we must discuss the issue of
permanence (kayama).
 
In order to violate the writing prohibition it must be permanent.
This applies both to the surface (i.e. paper) and the ink.  If one writes
with real ink on a leaf of lettuce, he is exempt from punishment,
because the leaf will wither away.  Or if he writes with an ink that
Will fade on real paper, he is exempt from punishment.  However, in both 
these cases, he has violated a Rabbinic prohibition.  If one writes on
paper with ink, with the intention of erasing it afterward, this is
considered permanent, and he is liable.
 
We must now determine the status of a CRT (or VDT or screen).  If one
does not turn off the screen the writing will never go away, so perhaps
it is considered permanent.  OR perhaps, since it is constantly refreshed
it is considered non-permanent (at least in some models).
 
Even if we do consider it permanent, perhaps it is so different than
classical writing, it does not constitute writing at all.  For example
if one were to shine a light on a wall through a stencil and letters
appeare on the wall, is that writing?  My guess would be not.  But
a VDT is a little more than just electrons hitting a screen, the screen
actually reacts to the electorns, unlike the wall which mearly reflects
the light.                                
 
So, for Shabbat we have to decide whether a screen is 'ketiva' at all,
and then if we decide that it is, we must decide whether it considered
permanent.  Even if we decide it isn't permanent, it will still violate
a Rabbinic form of 'ketiva'.
 
As far as erasing the divine name goes, I'm not sure if the issue
of permanence is relevant.  Both Maimonides (Yesode' HaTorah 6) and the
Minhat Hinuch make no mention of this issue.  So the only issue may only
be whether it is considered writing at all (besides the issues mentioned
above).
 
The issue of 'ketiva' with disks will be dealt with at a later time.
 
Moshe Rayman - [email protected]
outs. This remains open to change
if a clear halachic decision is received. Mod.]
 
In res

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: "Dawn/Nightfall" times (#165)
		Jeff Linsky
	Re: Dealing with Converts (#167)
		?
	Re: Computers, Writing and Shamos
		Todd Ellner
	Halacha for Bat Kohan
		Steve Prensky
		Avi Feldblum
	Roast meat at Seder
		Steve Prensky
______________________________________________________________________
 
All right, I'm back now and will be getting all the delayed mailings out
in the next few days. It looks like there will be two or three following
this one to take up the backlog. I got a note from one person that their
last mailing got mangled. Did anyone else have problems. The last one
was a bit longer than usual, so I'll keep the next few to under 150
lines. 
 
With Pesach coming up, if anyone has related topics to discuss, now is
the time to bring them up. In past years, kitniot has been a topic of
discussion. Is it all played out, or would someone like to take the past
mailing (which I can send them) and see if they want to add to it/
modify it?
 
Avi Feldblum, your friendly moderator
______________________________________________________________________
 
[Note: This is a contribution from a non-member of the list, with a caveat
as listed below. Thanks to Jeff for his response. Mod.]
 
     You may send in the rest of my letter on sunrise/set and twilight
but please add a sentence in front that says that this is a brief
unresearched note and that I would be willing to provide a longer more
thoroughly researched description of the topic if people are interested. 
They may respond to me at [email protected] or jlinsky@jila. 
       Jeff Linsky
 
     The discussion of sunrise/set and twilight is interesting but
contains little in the way of astronomical fact.  The topic can be
understood by laymen if one recognizes the importance of the angle that
the Sun hits the horizon when setting/rising.  This angle depends only
on the latitude and day of the year.  One's height above the ground is a
very small effect.  The length of twilight depends only on this angle. 
There are three common definitions of twilight: when the center of the
Sun is less than 6 degrees below the horizon (civil twilight), 6-12
degrees below the horizon (nautical twilight), and 12-18 degrees
(astronomical twilight).  As I recall (and I could check this), at the
end of civil twilight one can still barely read a newspaper, at the end
of nautical twilight one can barely make out the outline of a ship on
the horizon, and at the end of astronomical twilight the sky is as dark
to the naked eye as it can be.  Three stars (of medium brightness)
appear sometime before the end of astronomical twilight.  My guess is
when the Sun is 12-15 degrees below the horizon. 
 
     If there is interest in a more thorough discussion of these topics
in terms that the layman can understand, I can do a little research and
send you a more detailed answer.  There are published tables of the
times for these twilights. 
 
       Jeff Linsky
______________________________________________________________________
 
[Sorry, I lost the header on this message and there was no sig line.
Mod]
 
I have just returned from AJOP (Association of Jewish Outreach Professional)
convention III. Therein, I heard the answers to all such questions such as
these from the greatest kiruv people of them all (Rav Yaakov Weinberg, Rav
Dovid Gottlieb, Rav Motti Berger, Rav Ephraim Buchwald, Rav Michel Twerski,..)
I cannot immediately reply from my terminal, because I have not got the
exact source in front of me. However, the answers to such questions can be
found by calling AJOP offices in NY or other areas, or by requesting a hookup
to AJOPNET. Unfortunately, I have not got the numbers in front of me either;
call information, or contact your local Rabbi, or other organizations. I will
return with the number as soon as I can.
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Here follows the opinion of a woefully halacha-ignorant lurker to this
mailing list:
 
In my opinion, a computer screen that contains the name of the Deity
should not be subject to the same consideration as a written document.
Neither should computer memory.  In each case, the Name becomes
unwritten as the excited state of the phosphors or the configuration of
the switching circuits returns to physical equilibrium.  It is only the
expenditure of additional work which keeps the screen glowing or the RAM
remembering, i.e. a separate writing each 1/nth of a second.
Contrariwise, a piece of printout should receive the same respect that
any piece of printed (non-handwritten) material deserves.  In fact,
almost all books printed in the industrialized world are computer
typeset rather than hand typeset.
 
I would suppose that disks and tapes with the Name on them would fall
under the same umbrella.  Except for the processes of decay to which all
material media are subject that which is written on magnetic,
magneto-optical, etc. media is permanent.  Would you erase a Torah
scroll to re-use the vellum for writing something else?  If so, re-using
a disk with the name of the Deity for some other purpose would be
alright, but I personally think that it would show a ghastly lack of
respect.
 
My own work involves strong magnetic fields.  Very strong magnetic
fields.  I have often taken a disk or my wallet into the same room as
the magnet and lost all information contained there.  I wonder whether
this would be equivalent to destroying a piece of writing?  The only
work involved is carrying, but the result is erasure.  Any opinions?
 
				Todd
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
I would like to know if any of the strictures on kohanim also apply to
women who are bat kohanim [daughters of kohanim. Mod], in particular:
marriage to divorced men; avoidance of the dead such as attending
funerals; serving on a chevra kadisha.  If not these, are there others
that I haven't mentioned?  
 
[All of the above do not apply to a bat kohan.  In the time of the
Temple and High Court there were some things that applied to a bat
Kohan, but I can't think of anything today that does. Having said that,
I feel confident that someone will come up with something that does
currently affect a bat kohan.  Avi Feldblum, Mod.]
 
Pesach question -- since the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash we can no
longer follow the halacha regarding the Pesach.  At the seder we mention
the Pesach but don't point to its substitute, similarly there are
customs not to have lamb at the seder.  There are also customs not to
have any roast meat.  Is this minhag or halacha?  If minhag how strongly
is it held?  Would this custom apply to having a whole baked turkey?
 
STEVE PRENSKY" <[email protected]>

Topics:
	Re: Torah study by women (#170)
		Isaac Balbin
		David Isaacs
	Re: Shabbat in Israel (#170)
		Ben Svetitsky
		Kanovsky
	Re: Electricity and Shabbat (#161/170)
		Ben Svetitsky
	Obscure Wedding Minhagim
		Lou Rayman
______________________________________________________________________
 
  |   I was recently learning with friends on the topic of "Torah study by
  | women".  We worked with some of the more classical sources (ie. Sotah),
  | and would like to look at some more current material.  Can anyone
  | suggest anything from the 20th century poskim?  Thanks.
 
An excellent article by Rabbi Moshe Weinberger on the topic appeared
about 1.5 years ago in the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society.
 
Isaac Balbin
______________________________________________________________________
 
In response to dNb's question about "Torah study by women", I remember
a shiur given about 10 years ago by my then Rosh Yeshiva Haim Brovender.
Since it has been 10 years, please attribute any inaccuracies to me and
not Rabbi Brovender.
 
In the Rambam's Hilchot Talmud Torah (Laws of Torah Learning), the
Rambam states that any man who teaches his daughter Torah is engaged in
Tiflus (Silliness, frivolty ?).  This passage has often been quoted as
support for the view that women have no part of the Mitzvah of Talmud
Torah.  Rabbi Brovender disagreed with this view.  In a careful
examination of that particular chapter of the Rambam, Rabbi Brovender
showed that the Rambam was discussing this teaching in the framework of
the Mitzvah of Mesorah (Passing on the Torah from one generation to
another).  In this specific aspect of Torah learning, women were
excluded.  He further hypothesized that this exclusion is due to a
woman's more intuitive nature.  Since women put more of themselves into
their intellectual endeavors, it was considered more likely that they
could change the Mesorah, as they passed it on.  The Mesorah had to be
handed down without any deviation from generation to generation.  (I
direct all feminist flames directly to Rabbi Brovender).
 
What then is a woman's place in Learning?  For that Rabbi Brovender goes
to the end of Hilchot Tshuvah.  There the Rambam states that all people
(men and women) have a obligation to strive for closeness with HaKodesh
Barchu.  He further states the best way to fulfill this obligation is
through Talmud Torah.  Through our learning we become closer to G-d.
This according to Rabbi Brovender is a woman's place in learning.  In
this light, women have the same Mitzvah of self development through
learning as men.  Incidentally, at the time Rabbi Brovender had the only
Kollelet (institution were Women are paid for learning as is done in a
Kollel).  I remember he took quite a bit of heat from the more right
wing elements in Israel for this stand.
 
David Isaacs        spuxll!dei
______________________________________________________________________
 
Warren Burstein writes, "We don't have a plan for how to run the country
after everyone starts to keep Shabbat, and in the meantime we're living
in a society that couldn't function without chillul Shabbat."  I beg to
differ.  The Army is a good example.  It functions on Shabbat on a bare-
necessity level, with a large array of piskei halacha to guide shomrei
mitzvot.  Official Army policy is that an order violating Shabbat
unnecessarily is an illegal order which, like most other illegal orders,
may be refused on the spot.  (Orders which are merely unjust or unfair
must be executed and THEN appealed.)  Fine lines separate maintenance
which must be performed on Shabbat from that which may be put off.
 
There is no reason the same apparatus cannot function for the police or
the electric company.  I know shomrei mitzvot who work for both; I
cannot imagine they refuse Shabbat shifts, any more than a soldier could
refuse Shabbat duty.  After all, the basic mission makes the work
permitted, and as always it makes no difference whether the Jew who does
the work is wearing a Kippah.
 
Someone voiced doubt whether rabbanim permit shomrei mitzvot to serve in
the electric company.  Has anyone forbidden religious Jews from Army
careers?
 
Ben Svetitsky      [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
In regard to Finly Shapiros' comments on the problem of jewish workers
running the electric power systems in Israel, the basic "heter"
(halachik permission) to do this is because the electricity is used also
by hospitals and by army bases and therefore it becomes a life
threatening (pikuach nefesh) situation and is therefore permissible on
Shabbat. the other heter is that the work in the power plants are mostly
of a trouble shooting type i.e. unless things go wrong the plants are
automatic. There are some jews who do not rely on these heterim and use
car batteries for their Shabbat electric power needs.
 
Kanovsky
______________________________________________________________________
 
Isaac Balbin writes that electricity is assur miderabbanan.  I hope
readers realize that an issur derabbanan is a prohibition dating back,
at the latest, to the closing of the Talmud.  Just because some Rav
today says it's so doesn't make it a genuine issur derabbanan.  Now
there are several categories of issurim derabbanan on Shabbat, just as
there are several categories of issurim de'oraita -- and the question
is, which of these may be deemed applicable to electricity.
 
Ben Svetitsky    [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Being recently engaged, I have started to wonder about some of the more
obscure minhagim (customs) surrounding weddings and engagement.
 
There is a minhag that the chatan (groom) and callah (bride) should not
sleep in the same house before they are married - even if here are many
other people present.  There is also a minhag that the chatan and callah
should not see each other at all the week before the wedding.
 
These both seem strange in light of the gemara in ketubot (towards the
end of the second perek if I'm not mistaken) that in some communities,
the couple were *encouraged* to spend time together right before the
wedding, in order to awaken their desires.
 
The tanoyim (lit conditions) are usually signed right before the huppah.
In most of the wordings I've seen, it basically states that the two
families have made NO agreement, i.e. the families have no claims
against each other, except the their children should be married.  What
is the origin of this contract?
 
Lou Rayman

Topics:
	Re: Halacha for Bat Kohan (#172)
		Basya Bruckstein
		Finley Shapiro
		Milt Pine
	Removing Mezzuzot Upon Leaving A Residence
		David Eckhardt
	Shabbat AM Torah Service
		Jeffrey A. Edelheit
	Re: VCR's and their use on Shabbos (#170)
		Isaac Balbin
	Re: Computers, Writing and Shamos (#169)
		Moshe Rayman
______________________________________________________________________
 
We have had some responses of cases where being a Bat Kohen does effect
the situation. The first was submitted by both Basya Bruckstein and
Finley Shapiro:
 
If the first-born of a Bas Kohen is a boy (ie. B'chor) there is no
Pidyon HaBen [redemption of the first born] needed for him as there
must be in the case of a B'chor born to a Bas Yisroel.
 
The second was submitted by Dr. Milt Pine:
 
The daughter of a kohen who is the child of a cohabitation prohibited to
a kohen is forbidden to marry a kohen. She is called a chalalah.
 
[A woman whose father is a kohen and whose mother is someone whom a kohen
is forbidden to marry is a chalalah and a kohen is forbidden to marry her.
Mod. - basically just reworded, I know a kohen is forbidden to marry a
chalalah, is there a prohibition on the chalalah as well?]
______________________________________________________________________
 
When, if ever, does one remove mezzuzot upon leaving a residence?  Is the
answer changed by knowledge about the future residents?
 
Dave
______________________________________________________________________
 
A question has arisen regarding what is the appropriate action given the
following situation:
 
A group of people form a minyan but do not have anyone who can read from
the Torah.  We come to the Torah service, what is the proper, halachic
activity?
 
The reason for this posting is that the question is not a theoretical
one, but it is a real problem for my minyan.  (e.g, we have a minyan but
no one is competent to read the Torah.)  I appreciate any help that
anyone can offer.
 
Jeff Edelheit		email:  [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Issues to be considered are (1) If you follow the P'sakim of Reb Moshe
Feinstein then you most certainly cannot use it, since Reb Moshe only
(under sufferance) permitted shabbos clocks for light. (2) One does
indirectly cause lights to go on, and (3) One may be liable for both
mechika (rubbing out) and K'siva (writing), if your Rabbi deems that
these are infringed by the mechanism of the VCR and (4) it is
questionable whether the spirit of Shabbos, which one must uphold
according to the verse in Nach, from which the Gemara concludes "that
the way you *walk* on Shabbos should not be the way you walk during the
week ..."  Discuss this with your Rabbi. Also, if you are handed a tape
which has been taped on Shabbos by a Goy [Non-Jew, Mod.], you may have
to wait for the duration of the tape after Shabbos before you use it,
and if it was taped by a Jew, you may perhaps not be allowed to ever
view it. All of these should be addressed by your Rabbi.
 
Isaac Balbin
______________________________________________________________________
 
Writing to disk on Shabbat
--------------------------
 
I have found nothing on the contemporary poskim dealing with this issue.
That is because writing to disk involves the use of electricity.  Even
if we were to conclude that it is not 'ketiva' it would be forbidden
anyway.
 
But similar issues are discussed in the poskim.  Rabbi Yitzhak Shmelkis
(late 1800's - early 1900's) in his responsa 'Beit Yitzhak' rules that
if one talks into a record recorder on Shabbat he has violated the
prohibition of writing.  He argues that even though there are no letters
one does violate a 'tolada' (sub-category) of 'ketiva' (called 'roshem'
drawing) even without letters.
 
However Rabbi Shmelkis does emphasize that even though there are no
letters there are scratches in the record, and the making of those
scratches violates the Shabbat.
 
It is unclear how Rabbi Shmelkis would rule regarding magnetic storage
media, where there isn't even a scratch on the disk.  Perhaps some
visible result is needed in order to violate the prohibition of writing.
Perhaps not.
 
The Talmud (Gittin 19) rules that if one wrote a 'get' (divorce
document) with invisible ink (that only becomes visible when heated),
and delivered it to his wife, if the writing was not visible at the time
of delivery, the divorce is invalid.  Most of the commentaries (Rashi,
Tosoafot, et al) explain that this is because invisible writing is not
writing.  Some (Ra'ah) explain that the Talmud wasn't sure whether it is
writing or not.
 
Based on this Rabbi Ovadia Yosef rules that it is permissible to erase
an audio tape with a recording of G-d's name on it since it is
invisible.
 
If so, we can conclude that writing to disk does not violate the
prohibition of writing, since it is invisible.
 
However, IMHO, we can differentiate between invisible ink and magnetic
storage media.  With invisible ink, we must actually heat the ink in
order to make it readable.  This heating actually changes the ink into a
different form.  Hence it is not considered writing because it is
incomplete.  It can be compared to writing with ink that is missing the
pigment, and then adding the pigment later.  It is not writing because
the writing is not complete, not because it is invisible.  With magnetic
storage media all the writing is complete, we just can't see it.  It is
more analogous to writing that can only be seen in ultra-violet light,
which is very different than invisible ink.
 
Even so, all I've done is to show that we can't prove anything from
invisible ink.
 
A few more questions.  If one were to write in the dark is that writing?
I'll assume yes.  If one were to write with red ink in non-read light
(so it couldn't be seen) is it writing?  If one were to write with ink
that could only be seen in ultra-violet light is that writing?  If one
were to write in such a way that it could only be "seen" by read/write
heads is it writing?  I don't know.
 
G-d's Name
----------
 
Even if we accept the previous arguments, we still have to determine
whether the bit strings encoded on the disk are "letters" or not.
 
If they aren't letters, then there is no divine name to worry about.  If
they are letters, we have to determine if a divine name written in
non-Hebrew characters is subject to the prohibition of erasing.  This is
different than a non-Hebrew name of G-d.  Even if one could erase the
word G-d (with the 'o') one might not be allowed to erase 'ad-nai' (with
an 'o').  This issue (I seem to recall) is disputed amongst the Poskim.
Anyone?
 
Since I am not a Posek, I have drawn no conclusions.
 
Moshe Rayman

Topics:
	Re: "Dawn/Nightfall" times (#165)
		Daniel Schindler
	Tarmudians
		Daniel Schindler
	Re: Computers, Writing and Shamos (#169)
		Josh Proschan
	Use of Nuclear Weapons
		Eric L. Beser
	Nature of "heter" and not relying on "heter"
		Frank Silbermann
	Tikkun Hatzot
		Rahel Jaskow
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
     It was mentioned that secular sunset is when the center of the sun is
on the horizon and not when the whole sun is below the horizon like in
halacha. This implies that the time for sunset given in almanacs and
newspapers is not appropriate for halacha. This is not true. The secular
time for sunset is when the center of the sun dips 50' (50/60 of a degree)
below the horizon. This takes into account refraction (34') and the time
necessary for the top half of the sun to go below the horizon (16'). This
50' is measured perpendicular to the horizon so that it takes different
times for the sun to cover this distance depending at what angle the sun is
going down. For example on March 21 (1989), sunrise and sunset are listed
as 6:02 AM and 6:13 PM respectively (40 degrees latitude, New York). Note
that on this day is the equinox when day equals night and the length of the
day is 12 hours and 11 minutes. This extra 11 minutes is to cover the
refraction and the time for the rest of the sun to set or rise as the case
may be. The reason that mid-day is at 12:07 and not noon is due to the
difference between apparent sundial time and mean time, known as the
equation of time. This is not to be confused with your distance from your
local "Greenwich" which is yet another correction depending on your
longitude.
     A responsa by R. Feinstein on this subject and mentioned before is
found in volume 4 of Orach Chaim, No. 62. There he says that although
people waited 72 minutes in Europe (about latitude 52) in New York which
has the same latitude as Madrid one only has to wait until 50 minutes after
sunset for the end of Shabbos. See Biur Halacha 261 where it says the time
is based on 12 hour days in Bavel. The actual equation for calculating this
would be cos (minutes in NY/4)=cos (minutes in Europe/4)*cos (latitude of
Europe/cos (latitude of NY). Exercise left to the reader. The 4 in the
denominator comes in because there are 24x60 minutes in a day but only 360
degrees. He also mentions its implications on hefsek tahara based on a
doubt on a doubt (Sfeik sfeika) as mentioned in a previous contribution. So
Rabbi Feinstein holds that Rabbenu Tam time is 50 minutes after sunset
instead of 72. There is only one problem. He says that this is the lenient
halacha and one who fears heaven should still keep 72 minutes.
 
Daniel Schindler (LIDANIEL @ WEIZMANN)
______________________________________________________________________
 
Who are the Tarmudians? There is some discussion whether the Tarmudians
mentioned in the gemara about lighting Chanukah candles are Jewish or non-
Jewish, whether they are in Israel or Bavel. I suggest they are a mixed
race who come from Syria. The discussion of whether converts can be
accepted from the Tarmudians is found in the gemara in Yevamos 16 on and in
Niddah 56b. Reasons are given in the gemara there to suspect that
Tarmudians have a percentage of people of illegitmate unions with Jewish
women (mamzers), so there is a controversy as to whether they can be
accepted as converts to Judaism. So among the non-Jewish Tarmudians are
Jewish Tarmudians whose status is unclear. Jastrow (at least) identifies
the Tarmudians with the Tadmoreans or Palmyreans who come from an oasis in
the Syrian desert. This explains what tree their name comes from (tamar or
palm tree) and why Tarmudians have weak eyes (see the story of Hillel's
tormenter, Shab. 31a). The reason is because the sand from around the oasis
blows into them. To see their key role as merchants see the Encyclopedia
Brittanica, entry Palmyra. The Encyclopedia Judaica has an entry Tadmor.
 
Daniel Schindler (LIDANIEL @ WEIZMANN)
______________________________________________________________________
 
>So if one printed out a divine name in hebrew with the intent
>of sanctifying it, there might be a problem.  . . .
 
On the other hand, there is a position that machines cannot have
intention; this comes up every year in relation to hand matzoh versus
machine matzoh.  So, even if the person at the computer's keyboard (card
reader for real old-timers) had such an intention, does it affect the
printer's actions?
 
Josh Proschan
______________________________________________________________________
 
I was listening to an Israeli defense analyst on CNN talking about the
use of nuclear weapons in response to an Iraqi gas attack. He stated
that the Chief Rabbi has prohibited its use due to halachic restrictions
on the means of warfare. Since Israeli participation would imply that
this is an obligatory war, the chief rabbi stated Torah's prohibition
against destruction of trees, plants, animals, etc. Therefore, since
nuclear weapons destroy all of the above, Torah would prohibit their
use.
 
My question is simply this. The exemption I thought against mass
destruction was void when dealing with Canaanites. In that regard,
everything had to go (complete scorched earth) not only because of
idolatry, but because of the sacrifice of children in the process. What
constitutes idolatry in the 20th century that would justify the
relaxation on the rules of an obligatory war. Could we in fact, label
the Iraqi as a Canaanite because of "idol worship" or behavior that
resembles idolitry.  Is the label of "Canaanite" only reserved for
Canaanites?
 
Eric Beser
______________________________________________________________________
 
> the basic "heter"
> (halachik permission) to do this is because ...
> ... There are some jews who do not rely on these heterim and use
> car batteries for their Shabbat electric power needs.
 
When a respected rabbinic authority gives a heter for some action, that
action becomes permitted under Torah law.  Since G-d commanded us to
observe the commandments as interpreted by our sage, than a sage's heter
may be taken as permission from G-d.
 
I understand that in matters of kindness and mercy to our neighbors we
are encouraged to go beyond our legal obligation, but what is the
motivation for going beyond our obligation when observing those of G-d's
commandments that have no known purpose?  If a heter is given for such a
commandment, what spiritual rewards or benefits are earned by choosing
not to rely on it?
 
	Frank Silbermann	[email protected]
 
[There are two points for people to respond to here, I think. First, I
believe there are some misconceptions in the first paragraph above.
Because one Rabbi presents a heter, does not mean that all his
colleagues agree. Comments on what a heter is and how it fits into the
halachic process are appropriate in response here. The second points
relates to the choice of not following a heter. Mod.]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
What are Tikkun Rahel and Tikkun Leah, and what do they have to do
with Tikkun Hatzot?  (I seem to make out that one says Tikkun Leah
depending on whether one says Tahanun during the day in question.)
And why are the two sets of prayers named after the two matriarchs?
 
Also, where is there (besides in esoteric Sephardic sources) a
mention of Bilhah and Zilpah as tzidkaniot?  Does one exist?  It's
always bothered me a bit that we say we have four matriarchs, when
strictly speaking, we have six.
 
Rahel - RJ1287%[email protected]
 
 

Topics:
	G-d's name
		Ezra Tepper
		Ellen Prince
		Moshe Rayman
		Jonathan Stiebel
	Re: Removing Mezzuzot Upon Leaving A Residence (#174)
		Jonathan B. Horen
		Josh Proschan
		Art Werschulz
		Warren Burstein
______________________________________________________________________
Moshe Rayman (#174) discusses the problem of erasing G-d's name when
written on a computer disk. Let's put this problem aside and ask about
writing G-d's four letter Hebrew name written permenently and visibly
on a page in its ASCII hexidecimal or binary representation for Hebrew.
 
Is this an acceptable written alphabet? If, for example, I decided that
22 stands for yod 32 stands for vov and 12 for hey, Would I then not be
able to erase the number 22123-12. In fact, I have heard from my rabbis
that one has no problem in erasing the name Shmuel or Yehoshua, although
they contain the name of G-d. The reason being that people read that as
the name Shmuel and do not look at the internal meaning. Perhaps one
could say the same thing of ASCII or EBDIC representations. People do not
look for meaning when they see a hexidecimal number but only its being
a hexidecimal alphanumeric series, the meaning of which is irrelevant.
 
Just throwing out an idea for net chewing.
 
Ezra Tepper <RRTEPPER@BITNET>
______________________________________________________________________
 
i'd like to ask a very naive question about god's name. all through the
recent discussions, i assumed that what was meant was the tetragrammaton,
in the hebrew alphabet of course. now i infer that the germanic word 'god',
in the latin alphabet, is construed as god's name, capitalized of course as
befits a proper name in english. is there actually some halakhic reason to
take this as the name of the divinity? i would have thought that names aren't
simply translated, especially not into a word that was used for pagan deities.
the same applies to the french word 'dieu', which i've seen rendered by
french jews as 'd-eu'. thanks.
 
Ellen Prince <[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________
I have received many responses to my previous postings about ketiva
(writting) on Shabbat.  Thank you.
 
However, I must point out that any statements I made regarding the
prohibition of erasing a Divine name, apply only to this prohibition.
They may not apply in other areas, such as treating a divine name
with disrespect.  Therefore, even if we do conclude that one may erase
a name that was written without intent to sanctify it, that doesn't 
necessarily imply that you can throw it in the garbage.
 
I am sorry if I confused anyone.  I myself confused these issues
as well.
 
Im yirtze Hashem (how's that for avoiding the issue) I will post
a clarification of this issue at a later date.  But please, someone
out there, beat me to it!!!!
 
Moshe Rayman - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
I've been reading the discussion on computer printing, storage and
display of the tetragrammaton l'shma (for academic interest).  Suddenly,
this week I was asked to translate a copy of the Michigan-Claremont
translitteration of the Bibilia Stuttengarta (sp?).  I now had copies
of Shmot.  I have translitterated copies.  (I can't read it, but
I could imagine they could.)  I have intermediate files.  I have files in
Dagesh-readable format.  I have printouts in greek.  (It would be the
parsha if I downloaded the correct font.)  I have printouts in Hebrew
with nikud.
 
What restrictions from Halacha fall on the files in computer readable
format?  Can I delete them?  (If not, why not?)  If I keep it in Times
Roman (by changing 3 bytes) does it keep the same Din?  (It is then not
human or machine understandable.)  Are translitterated copies the same
as the originals?  Are selected lines in tanach significant?  (In
translitteration? )  What about the Postscript files?
 
Are printouts the same as Siddurim?  What must be printed on them?
(e.g. In Bereshit the name of judgment appears.  Is that enough?)
What if it is printed over something else? -- So it never had an
independant legible existance?  What if a posuk is related?  If I
forgot to download the font?  (It appears as greek characters.)  If
the letters are wrong?  How wrong?  If I leave a page which is printed on
and someone throws it out-- without my wanting, am I responsible?
 
       Jonathan Stiebel - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
>When, if ever, does one remove mezzuzot upon leaving a residence?  Is the
>answer changed by knowledge about the future residents?
 
I always remove mezzuzot when I move out of an apartment; certainly if they
are were done "be-hiddur mitzvah", or if the batim were special.
 
I would think that it should not be dependent on knowledge about the future
residents, because the mitzvah is on the dayar to perform. If the mezuzot
were left by the previous tenants, then the new Jewish tenant does not have
the chance to perform the mitzvah. I would also think that this comes under
the heading of mitzvot that are "dear" to Jews, like bedikat chometz (see
Pesachim, perek 1).
 
Chag Purim sameach!
 
 | Jonathan B. Horen - horen%[email protected] 
______________________________________________________________________
 
As I recall, there is an obligation in halachah to leave the mezuzahs
for the next resident.  This applies only if the next resident is
Jewish; otherwise, or if the apartment will be left vacant, they should
be removed.  (It may also be necessary to remove them if vandalism is a
threat.)  It is a long time since I last moved, and I don't remember
whether the new tenant is obligated to pay for the mezuzahs, or has the
choice of saying "Take them, I have my own."
 
A complication arises with the sale of a house; whether, and how, they
are included in the sales contract should be referred to a Rav.  I have
heard differing rulings on this.
 
Josh Proschan - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Re removing mezuzot upon vacating a residence: If the new occupants
are Jewish, the mezuzot are to remain.  If they're not, they're not.
(Unfortunately, I can't find the source.)
 
      Art Werschulz - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I belive that one should leave the mezzuzot if the future residents
are Jews.  It is permitted to ask them to pay for them, but you have
to leave them even if they don't.  If the resident is not Jewish,
there's no need to leave them, but you are allowed to, if the non-Jew
asks you to.
 
The last time I moved, I didn't really imagine I could explain to the
non-observant future tenants why I had mezuzot (and the expensive
kind) on every last door, when I'm sure they would have been
satisified with a small one on the front door, so I didn't bother
asking.
 
Warren Burstein

Topics:
	Re: VCR on Shabbat (#170)
		Ben Svetitsky
	Re: Living Wills (#163)
		Steve Prensky
	Re: Shabbat AM Torah Service (#174)
		Benzion Dickman
		Warren Burstein
		Neil Edward Parks
	Re: Obscure Wedding Minhagim (#173)
		Benzion Dickman
		Warren Burstein
	Kashering Meat
		Jon
______________________________________________________________________
 
Isacc Balbin's posting on the use of a VCR on Shabbat was obscure in
several points.  I reply to the following:
>                       ... Also, if you are handed a tape
>which has been taped on Shabbos by a Goy [Non-Jew, Mod.], you may have
>to wait for the duration of the tape after Shabbos before you use it,
>and if it was taped by a Jew, you may perhaps not be allowed to ever
>view it....
 
Shulchan Arukh Ch. 218 Sec. 1:
"One who cooks on Shabbat [Rama adds: or who performs some other labor]
intentionally, the result is forbidden to him forever and for others it is
permitted immediately after Shabbat.  If performed in error (shogeg), it
is forbidden during the day also to others and at nightfall is permitted
even to him."  (translation mine)
 
The Gra [Vilna Gaon - Mod.] rules that this applies only to an issur
deoraita [Torah Prohibition - Mod].  For an issur derabbanan [Rabbinic
Prohibition - Mod], if done intentionally, even the one who did it may
enjoy its fruit after Shabbat.
 
The Hafetz Hayyim points out that all this is "k'nas,", a penalty,
imposed derabbanan [by the Rabbis - Mod].  Thus if there is doubt
whether something is forbidden, the fruit of the action may be enjoyed
immediately.  Doubt here means specifically a case where there is
controversy among poskim.
 
The issue of waiting after Shabbat for enough time for the labor to be
performed arises only if the labor was done by a non-Jew for the benefit of
a Jew. Again, a k'nas.
 
Now to the VCR.  Since we are talking about g'rama [indirect action -
Mod.] anyway, there is surely no issur de'oraita.  In any case you don't
have to inquire into the provenance of a videotape.
 
The question is more pointed in Israel, where all the TV broadcasting is
done by Jews in the first place.  Plainly there is an issur against taping
a movie on Friday night (when the bums show all the good movies).  But
I see no problem with seeing such a tape once it is made.
 
Ben Svetitsky    [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I saw an article in the NY Jewish Week (1/18) concerning the availability of 
Living Wills.  Agudath Israel of America (84 William St., NY NY 10038) has a
"Halachic Living Will" free for the asking.  Union of Traditional Judaism 
(Conservative) has one also (send $3 to UTJ, 261 E. Lincoln Ave., Mount Vernon,
NY 10552).
 
Steve Prensky <[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding what a minyan is to do when no one knows how to read from the
scroll:
--
 
In Amsterdam, when I visited in 1975, the Chazan would glance at an open
Chumash as an assistant pointed to the verse, and the Chazan would then
look at the verse in the scroll and READ IT WORD FOR WORD FROM THE SCROLL.
The critical point is that the reading must be actual sight of the word
in the scroll, with pronunciation while (or a split second after) viewing it.
 
In a Yemenite shul, everyone called up to read must execute the reading
himself.  Someone needing assistance is prompted, on a word by word basis,
if necessary, and then he reads the word or phrase he is working on,
again, looking at the words in the scroll to perform an actual reading.
 
Benzion Dickman
______________________________________________________________________
 
Try faking it.  Have one person who knows the notes read from a
printed text and whisper into the ear of the person who is looking at
the Torah.  It goes slowly at first, but one gets better at it with
time.  Or try working out hand signals for the notes.  I once heard
that in some Sefaradi shuls, where the person who is called to the
Torah is expected to read it himself, if the person did not prepare in
advance, hand signals are used and no one can tell the difference.
 
Warren Burstein
______________________________________________________________________
 
Not sure, but I think I have read somewhere that if there is no one at a
minyan who is able to read from the Torah scroll, then as a last resort
it may be read from the Chumash.  But I would suggest asking a Rabbi to
be sure about that.
 
NEIL EDWARD PARKS - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
When I got married, it was a major inconvenience, given the layout of
the hall we got married in and the amount of work we had to do once we
got there on the wedding day.  My Rav (an extremely competent Posek)
said that he knew of no source in Halakha for the ban, and he also
referred to the Gemaras about the practice of the tribe of Judah.  His
advice was that since the custom was so entrenched, and people get very
upset about couples who see each other during the week, that we should
avoid it just to prevent ill-feelings.  (But I assume, on my own, that
if I was sure I could get away with it without generating bad feeling,
that it would be perfectly OK.)
 
	Benzion Dickman
______________________________________________________________________
 
Friends of mine got permission from his Rabbi to see each other before
the wedding so that they could take the photographs before the
ceremony and thereby spend more time at their own reception.
 
The tanayim seems to be a remnant from the time when planning a
wedding consisted of the parents of the couple negotiating over what
support they would give their children.  Halacha sometimes recognizes the
validity of contracts which are standardly entered into, even if the
contract was not explicitly made, so the declaration that the families
have no claim against one another prevents anyone from trying to
collect on promises that were never made, but that they think should
have been.
 
[Note: In some communities, esp. Hasidic, the tanayim is still done well
before the actual wedding. The tanayim do have Halachic validity, and it
is unclear how to "break" a tanayim. I have even heard of opinions that
in order to break the tanayim, the couple need to marry and then have a
get (divorce). - Mod.]
 
There is an official explanation for why the plate is broken, but I
think it's because these negotiations used to take a long time, during
which the sides would lose their temper, and often would throw plates
at one another.  The plate smashing was instituted to place an upper
bound on the damage.  (It's almost Purim).
 
Warren Burstein
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
I am involved on a discussion on kashering meat. I was challenged on my
statements that salting and soaking get out "all" the blood. Does it? If
it doesn't, what is required by law to be removed? What is our concern about
the remaining blood?
 
-Jon-

Topics:
	Gifts and Requests for Donations
		David Chasman
	Questions re: minhagim and davening
		Steve Prensky
	Re: Tikun Chatzot, Rachel V'Leah (#175)
		Len Moskowitz
	Re: Use of Nuclear Weapons (#175)
		Warren Burstein
		Ben Svetitsky
	Re: Sunset (#165)
		Daniel Schindler
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
A number of Yeshivot send out books and other items along with a request
for a donation -- these gifts are unsolicited.  They are clearly given with
the intention of making the recipient feel indebted and thus make a 
contribution.
 
(1) Are gifts whose purpose (logical purpose - i.e. we're going to 
    determine the intention from the action rather than the "intent") is
    to bring on a larger gift in return permissible - do any laws related
    to 'reebeet' apply here ?
 
(2) If these gifts are permissible - is it proper to keep them without
    making a contribution.
 
(3) Do reminder letters that they have not yet received a contribution
    in some way constitute a forced sale ?
 
--David Chasman
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
I've got a few more questions concerning minhagim and davening.
 
I would like to hear more about the rationale behind several minhagim which
I haven't found discussed in easily accessible sources.
 
1. The wearing of black clothess.  Besides modesty, I understand that chasids
equate black with Da'as.  Any other ideas??
 
2. Covering the head with tallis versus hat during davening.  Why two head
coverings (a kippah of course)?  I'm interested in learning of variations in
practice along with accompanying rationale.
 
3. Wearing a gartel during davening.  Is it simply a matter of separating the
physical from the spiritual?  Why isn't is adopted universally?
 
Steve Prensky <[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________
 
Subject: Tikun Chatzot, Rachel V'Leah
Rahel writes:
 
 > What are Tikkun Rahel and Tikkun Leah, and what do they have to do
 > with Tikkun Hatzot?  (I seem to make out that one says Tikkun Leah
 > depending on whether one says Tahanun during the day in question.)
 > And why are the two sets of prayers named after the two matriarchs?
 
In Kabbalah, the major personalities (the Matriarchs and Patriarchs)
of this lower world are archetypes of aspects of the upper worlds.
Rachel and Leah are the "achorayim" of Yaakov, all of whom are parts
of Ze'er Anpin (also known as the Kadosh Baruch Hu).  The Rachel and
Leah referred to in the Tikunnim are not the Matriarchs but are the
aspects of the upper worlds that change state specifically at
midnight.
 
The following is from the forward to Tikun Rachel (part of Tikun
Chatzot) in Rav Shmuel Vittal's siddur Chemdat Yisrael.  All errors in
translation are my own.  My comments are in square brackets.
 
"We already explained that after midnight we do two things.  The first
is Tikun Leah and Yaakov.  The second is to cry over Rachel who
descended into B'riyah [a lower world than Atzilut] as part of the
mystery of the Shechinah in exile, who descends absolutely
["mah-mash"] at this time.  Therefore [we] must go to the door post
and sit near the opening close to the door post [mezuzah], remove a
shoe, remain [?] barefooted, wrap your head as a mourner, and cry
greatly according to your ability..."
 
If anyone is interested I can post a bit about the Kavanot of Tikun
Chatzot, again from the Chemdat Yisrael.
 
Len Moskowitz - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have not heard any Chief Rabbi's (there are two current and two
former) opinion forbidding using nuclear weapons, so I can't comment
on the reported prohibition of using nuclear weapons due to the
destruction of trees.  I do, however, want to strongly object to the
supposition that it is possible to apply the laws of warfare against
the Canaanites (or Amalek) today on the basis of "country X is doing
the same as the Canaanaites".  Please understand that identifying a
modern people as being identical with one of these nations requires
one to kill every man, woman, and child belonging to that nation
(animals, too, when speaking of Amalek).
 
Warren Burstein
______________________________________________________________________
 
Someone asked if Iraq can be likened to the Canaanites, and hence there
is a mitzva to destroy them entirely.  I quote Rambam, Laws of Kingship,
Ch. 5:  "It is a positive commandment to destroy utterly (le-hacharim)
the seven nations (i.e., the Canaanites)  ... and thus anyone who runs
across one such and does not kill him has transgressed a negative commandment
(as well) ... AND THEIR MEMORY HAS VANISHED."  (Emphasis mine -- it means
they no longer exist, and the commandments regarding them are theoretical
in our day.)  Ridbaz adds, quoting the Gemara (where?), that their
non-existence stems from the time of Sancherib King of Assyria, who
"mixed up the nations" by exiling many peoples from their homelands.
 
Presumably the same applies, in practical terms, to Amalek. But the
Rambam doesn't say so, where he states the mitzva of the destruction of
Amalek in the next sentence.  How come?
 
Here in Israel, the children are dressing up in costume.  The odds-on
favorite costume is Nachman Shai, the Army spokesman whose calm voice
has been reassuring us through nights in the sealed rooms.  He himself
said this morning he wishes all this Nachmania would end.  Hamentashen
(oznei Haman) are hard to find this year, having been magically converted
to oznei Saddam.   Amalek lives??
 
Happy Purim, all!
 
Ben Svetitsky   [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
     There is an error in the contribution on the length of day where it is
stated the angle the sun hits the horizon is of crucial importance. In
fact, it is the same all  year round. For example every day of the year the
sun sets and rises perpendicular to the horizon at the equator and here in
the Holy Land at 58 degrees. That is to say the circle that the sun follows
each day is at an angle to the horizon of 90 - latitude. What changes is
the angular distance of this circle from the pole or declination.
Correspondingly, I must point out, the pole star is 90- latitude degrees
from the zenith. The pole star is on the horizon at the equator. I also
suggest that 12-15 degrees is an overestimate of the time necessary to see
a medium star but of course this depends on the definition of a medium
star. In Rechovot 42 minutes after sunset the sun is 7 or 8 degrees after
sunset. On a good night one can see Orion's belt at 6 degrees after sunset.
 In any case at 12 degrees as you point out sunlight is reduced 100,000
fold. The street lights here give more light than that. On the other hand
you may claim that a medium star is of magnitude 3 or more and would never
be visible in Rechovot.
 
    Dan (LIDANIEL@WEIZMANN)

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	How to Read Parashat Zachor
		Marc Leve
	Who knows six? The six matriarchs
		Daniel Schindler
	Re: G-d's name (#176)
		Neil Edward Parks
	Kashering Porcelain China
		Len Moskowitz
______________________________________________________________________
 
We've received a few more answers and points/questions regarding
removing mezuzot.  Certain points are not yet fully clear. I will try
and put that together for the next mailing (tomorrow?). The following
one will have some contributions on the topic of Kashering Meat, raised
in #177.
 
One person asked about putting in the email address of people who submit
things to the mailing list. Here is my policy. If you include your email
address at the bottom of your posting, e.g. in a sig line, I assume you
want it included. I truncate sig endings to your name and a valid
Internet style address, if submitted. If you do not include your email
address in a sig format, I will not add it from the From line or my
file. If you include no name but do not ask that be anonymous, I will
(usually) add the name either from the From line or from my file. So if
you want people to be able to contact you directly, put your email
address at the end of your submission.
 
I'm still backed up at least two postings, so I will try to get a few
out this week and next.
 
Your friendly moderator - Avi Feldblum 
[email protected]  or   [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Inyana dyoma [Matter of the Day - Mod. Sorry it did not make it out in
time for the day, but maybe you will have the answer for next year.]
 
In the holy community of Halifax Nova Scotia (HaNeS){tvbba} there arose
the question of how to read parashat zachor [The special reading before
Purim describing the war with Amalek and the command to eradicate thier
memory - Mod.], i.e.  is zecher-amalek pronounced with a segol (zecher)
or a tzire (zaycher). This is solved by repeating the verse - each time
with the alternate pronounciation.
 
The Shulchan Aruch (orah hayim 685:7) says that since it is a mitzvah
m'doraita to read parashat zachor, people who live far away should make
an effort to come to a minyan to hear it; the Rema adds that if they
cannot, they should at least take care to chant it correctly; to which
the Mishna Brura adds:
 
"Know that some say that zecher-amalek should be read with a tzire and
others say it should be read with segol; and it is [therefore]
appropriate to read both."
 
He gives no source, neither for the disparity in the reading nor for the
ruling itself.
 
The expression zecher amalek actually appears twice in the Tora both
times with tzire. In Exodus 17:14 the massora note stresses that it
should appear with a tzire and not with a segol. On our verse as well it
says that the zecher should be written with a tzire.
 
     In other places in the Tanach the word also appears with tzire:
Proverbs 10:7; Psalms 110:4, 145:7; Isaiah 26:14.
 
     The question is why think that zecher be read with a segol when
although it grammatically could appear with one, it does not in fact
ever appear that way? Even the Even Shushan dictionary which indicates
that zecher can be written with a segol gives no examples of it.
 
     The Minchat Shay refers to Baba Batra 21 where the question of how
to read the word zecher is mentioned in the context of a teacher's
competence to teach children and the grounds justifying his dismissal.
The initial response toward the person misreading the word was to grab a
sword to kill him! (nowadays they have tenure).  In the discussion
reference is made to I Kings 11:16 and according to the Bach (not the
composer) the discrepancy is between "remember" (with a tzire) and
"male" (with a kametz). For some reason none of the mikraot gdolot
commentators on the Kings verse mention this at all.
 
     The maharsha here says that according to the Rashba and the Ran the
word zecher in the sugiya [this context? - Mod] should be read with a
segol.  According to this, then, it would seem that in this context the
maharsha regards reading zecher with a segol as a wrong reading, at
least according to the Rashba and the Ran (which I don't have, so I
can't check it out). If this is the case, then it would seem to
contradict what it says in the Mishna Brura.  The Minchat Shay also
refers to Rashba and Ran but does not say anything about reading zecher
with a segol, but only about avoiding a kametz. See also Megila 18,
which is important for the general rule but not our problem.
 
     I should add that the ruling about teachers is mentioned in the
Rambam in two places: Talmud Tora 2:3 and Schirut 10:7.  But in neither
place - nor in Shulchan Aruch, Y.D. 245:17 - does it address the problem
of the vowels.
             
     I can't find any support for what the Mishna Brura says.  Perhaps
he was relying on practice rather than an actual ruling.  Certainly the
Rashba and the Ran should be checked since they might be saying that the
word should not be read with a segol, which, in fact, that is exactly
what the massora says pretty unequivocally in Exodus.
 
     Of course the difference between a tzire and a segol is not very
great, but the balabateshe shayla is whether there's a good reason to
read the twice. This isn't clear from the above.
 
Any ideas?
 
Marc Leve - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Who knows six? The six matriarchs. It was asked why Bilhah and Zilpah are
not considered matriarchs. (See Talmud Berachos 18) I would head off this
question by pointing out that they are considered matriarchs. A commentary
on the verse in Bamidbar Naso 7:3 (found in the Midrash Raba on Shir
Hashirim and the Yalkut Shimoni Naso) says there are six matriarchs. The
verse says that the heads of the tribes brought their offerings on six
covered wagons. Why six wagons? To correspond to the six matriarchs. Also
the Midrash Raba at the beginning of the book of Esther describes Shlomo
HaMelech's throne which Achashverosh wanted to sit on. The midrash says it
had six steps to correspond to the six matriarchs.
 
Daniel Schindler
______________________________________________________________________
 
[One of these days we really need to find out if there is a halachic
consensus on this issue. Mod]
 
I have heard two different answers to the above question.  When I was
young, I was taught by my rabbi that the rule of not erasing the name of
Hashem applies to any name in any language.  This includes the English
words G-d, L-rd, etc., when used by a Jew to mean Hashem.  Therefore,
that is the custom that I follow.
 
On the other hand, apparently it is not the only valid custom.  The
question came up a few months back on soc.culture.jewish, and several
contributors claimed that the rule applies only to a divine name in the
Hebrew language.  They stated that any reference in English or any other
language is not actually a "name", but only an "appellation", which does
not have the same sanctity.
 
So my suggestion is:  Ask your rabbi.
 
Neil Edward Parks - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I'd heard long ago that some kinds of china, notably porcelain, might be able
to be kashered after being used for treif.  Does anyone know the details of
what qualifies?  A friend has a particularly expensive set that they would
like to keep and use now that they are starting to keep kosher.
 
Len Moskowitz - [email protected]

Topics:
	Re: mezuzot
		Susan Hornstein
		Shimon Schwartz
		Benzion Dickman
		Finley Shapiro
	7th of Adar
		Benjamin Svetitsky
	Re: Breaking T'naim
		Ellen Krischer
		Benzion Dickman
______________________________________________________________________
 
As many have noted, one is (to my understanding) obligated to leave
mezuzot up if the next tenants are Jewish.  However, I believe that this
only refers to the k'lafim (parchments); i.e., one could remove the
k'laf from a special bayit (enclosure) and replace that bayit with
plastic wrap or something. An interesting case came up when I was in
college, at Brandeis, where more than half of the students are Jewish.
Every May we had this discussion about the fact that one could assume
that the next tenant of the room would be Jewish, so that technically we
were required to leave our mezuzot on the doors.  However, it was also
true that the Buildings & Grounds folks spent the summer painting the
buildings and doing other maintenance work, and we were told that they
would be very likely to damage or at least remove the mezuzot.
Therefore, we were permitted to remove them.
 
Susan Hornstein - bellcore!pyuxd!susanh 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Warren Burstein said:
	I belive that one should leave the mezzuzot if the future residents
	are Jews.  It is permitted to ask them to pay for them, but you have
	to leave them even if they don't. 
	
I'm not certain about the last clause: if they won't pay, I need to
abandon a few hundred dollars of inscribed parchment?  I can understand
this for a house, where the cost of the parchments and cases could be
considered included in the purchase price.  An apartment seems worthy of
different treatment.  Artifacts that I mount on the walls do -not-
become part of the apartment unless regulated by law.  For example,
leases tend to say that locks installed by the tenant -must- be left in
place after the lease terminates.  On the other hand, I don't need to
leave my pictures hanging on the wall, even if nail holes or hooks
remain.
	
	If the resident is not Jewish,
	there's no need to leave them, but you are allowed to, if the non-Jew
	asks you to.
	
I would hesitate to do so.  I would assume that a Gentile would -not-
treat the parchments with the proper respect.  While one could make the
same case for nonobservant or unaware Jews, mezuza is a mitzvah for
them.  There may also be a marit ayin problem: one assumes that Jews
live in houses with mezuzot visible on the doorposts.
 
Shimon Schwartz - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
When someone leaves a dwelling and the subsequent dwellers are known to
be Jewish, one must make sure that no door is unprotected (missing a
mezuzah) overnight.  One makes arrangements for the new dwellers to post
their own mezuzot, preferably during daytime, and returning your mezuzot
to you.  Or you can sell yours to them.  If there are simply no extra
mezuzot around, and you need to put some up at your new place, you make
sure that the outside entry doors of the old and new dwellings are
protected, at least.  Next in priority are the bedroom doors of old and
new dwellings.  When the new occupants of your former dwelling get
mezuzot, they free up yours back to you, and you post them on the
remaining doors of your new dwelling.
 
If the subsequent dwellers are unknown, or the apartment is going to be
unoccupied (and the landlord is not Jewish), or you know that the new
dwellers are non-Jewish, you must remove your mezuzot.  They have
kedushah <consecrated status> and must not be abandoned.  You don't have
to be concerned about leaving the place unprotected at night, because
that is a threat only when the dwelling has a Jewish association.  That
is, the influences that we're trying to defend against are only
interested in Jewish dwellings.
 
Benzion Dickman
______________________________________________________________________
 
Should you remove mezuzot from your home when you move out if the next
residents are Jewish, but you have reason to doubt that they will treat
the mezuzot, and more importantly the parchment inside, with appropriate
respect?  Suppose you think that sooner or later they will take them
down and throw them out?  For example, suppose the next residents are an
intermarried couple that you know to be hostile to Judiasm.  (I know
many intermarried couples who are not like this.  I hope no one is
offended by the example.)
 
Finley Shapiro - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
The annual memorial service for soldiers whose burial places are unknown
was held today, at Mt. Herzl in Jerusalem. I just heard this on the
news, and it took me a minute to understand why today of all days: The
7th of Adar is of course the anniversary of the passing of Moshe Rabbenu
-- "and no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day."
 
Benjamin Svetitsky
______________________________________________________________________
 
While I, too, have heard that some feel a couple should get married and
divorced in order to break T'naim, I find it difficult to believe that
this is the majority view.  The problem of a women being a Grusha
(divorcee) and subsequent difficulties in marrying a Cohen should far
outweigh any monetary contract difficulties that arise among the
parents.  I wonder, also at the notion of allowing a couple to marry *in
order to* divorce.  What would that do to the validity of the actual
marriage ceremony?
 
Rabbi Saul Berman, in a Shavuot learning session once, gave a very sharp
criticism of the view that divorce is preferable to a break in T'naim.
It was also his view that the current Vort (like a formal engagement
party) nows serves a purpose that the T'naim did - that of "officially"
announcing the decision of the couple to marry.  This allows the T'naim
to be performed *at* the wedding, minimizing any chance of a break in
T'naim before an actual marriage.
 
In fact, there are Rabbis who prefer not to bother with T'naim at all.
Although there are several texts available, it seems it is mainly an
agreement between the parents about the particulars of when and where
the children will get married and if there are any financial
committments on either side.
 
Since today there usually aren't any financial committments spelled out,
and the children are about to be married anyway, the issue is moot.
 
While there are communities where T'naim are obviously taken with great
seriousness, in other communities couples tend to go along with it
because 1) it's traditional 2) their mothers would be disappointed if
they didn't get to break a plate 3) it adds a few of Kibudim (literally
"honors" - it allows the couple to "honor" their guests by asking them
to sign the T'naim and have someone read it aloud) 4) it's a great photo
opportunity.
 
Ellen (was Bart now) Krischer
______________________________________________________________________
 
Historically, tanoyim were the norm in Eastern Europe.  a problem arose
when curses were written in to enforce provisions of the contract.
Rabbonim then tried to intervene early enough to substitute benign
language into the contract, and to do some intelligent `preventive law',
so that misunderstandings would be minimized and the Rabbinic courts
would have an easier time of fixing up any problems.  Current `standard
tanoyim' are an effort to mollify the feelings of those who insist on
`tradition'; they are constructed to obligate no one to anything beyond
the norms of Halakha.
 
Benzion Dickman

Topics:
	Re: Kashering Meat (#177)
		Moshe Rayman
		Benzion Dickman
		Ezra Tepper
	Covering of Hair by Married Women
		Frank Silbermann
______________________________________________________________________
 
In order to understand the mechanics of kashering meat, one needs to
understand the prohibition of eating blood, and a few details surrounding
this prohibition.
 
The Torah explicitly forbids the eating of blood in a few places (sorry
I don't have sources here).  However, there are different types of blood,
each having a different severity.  The first and most severe prohibition
is the eating of 'dam hanefesh' (life blood).  This is the blood that
escapes from the animal during its slaughter.  The punishment associated
with this blood is "karet" (some form of divine death penalty; the same
punishment that one receives for eating "hametz" on Pesach).  Any blood
leaving the animal once it is dead, is called "dam hatamtzit" (extracted
blood ?).  The prohibition against eating this second type of blood has
the same severity as most other negative commandments (such as eating
non-kosher meat and wearing "sha'atnez").  The punishment is "makot"
(lashes).  Any blood which remains absorbed in the meat is permitted.
Therefore one is allowed to eat raw meat without salting it.  However,
when a piece of meat is cooked, the blood in it escapes into the pot,
and now has the status of "dam hatamtzit", so meat that was cooked
without salting has been cooked in forbiden blood and is itself forbiden.  
 
However, the Talmud declares, that blood which was cooked, is permited
from the Torah.  The reason is that the prohibtion of blood is associated
with the idea that blood was used in the Temple sacrifices.  Cooked blood
is unfit for this use, and therefore permitted.  Nontheless, the Rabbis
prohibited the consumption of cooked blood.  So much for blood.
 
In order to rid meat of any blood that will escape into the pot during
the cooking process, we salt the meat.
 
Certain authorities hold that the salting removes all the blood (Rashba).
Any red fluid that is left over after the salting is not blood, it is
"merely fluid" (tzir be'alma).  The Ra'ah holds that the salting only
removes the blood from the outside portion of the meat, the blood on
the inside, according to the Ra'ah, will congeal before it ever leaves
the meat, so it remains permitted.  Hence, according to the Rashba, one
can cut a piece of salted meat before it is cooked since there is no more
in it.  According to the Ra'ah, one cannot cut the meat, because the newly
created surface still has blood in it.
 
Maimonides goes one step further than the Ra'ah.  He holds that one
is obligated to purge the meat in boiling water after the salting, in
order to force this coagulation, while the Ra'ah holds that one can
cook it using any method. (By "purging" I mean to place the meat in
boiling water, rather than puting it in cold water and boiling it.)
 
The Ran ruled like the Rashba, but used a slightly different formulation.
Since the blood in the meat is only prohibited from the Rabbis (because it
is cooked), they obligated us to do our best.  Once the meat is salted,
even if some blood does remain, the Rabbis lifted there prohibition
against this remaining blood.  
 
There are many issues which are directly related to this topic (roasting,
three days, etc.) which I did not discuss.  Any volunteers?
 
Moshe Rayman - [email protected] - (908) 699-6533
______________________________________________________________________
 
First, one must make a clear distinction between popular definitions of
blood and Halakhic definitions of blood.  On an academic note, there are
Halakhic distinctions among circulatory blood in large vessels as
opposed to capillary blood (`blood *in* the meat tissue itself'), and
blood on the surface of the meat as opposed to interior blood.  In the
salting procedure, one soaks the meat to soften it and to remove surface
blood (rubbing it off under the soak water).  This soaking takes 30
minutes.  Then one sprinkles coarse salt generously over the surface of
the meat (and for body cavities of a chicken, say, one salts both
exterior and interior surfaces).  The salt should be coarser than flour,
but not so coarse that it would fall off the meat if the meat is
inverted.  This salted piece is placed on a utensil that permits free
drainage of the effluent blood/salt mixture (called tsir).  The meat
must not sit in even a small pool of tsir.  Similarly, meat in the
salting process must not contact meat that has no salt on it.  We don't
want the tsir from the salting piece to get onto meat that is not
effusing its blood.
 
After the effusion/draining is complete (between one and several hours
is the norm -- less than a half hour or more than 12 hours could be a
problem (consult a Rav)), the salt/blood/tsir is rinsed off thoroughly.
 
The problem is that tsir is treated as forbidden, and we want to get rid
of it, together with blood trapped in the salt.  What you now have is a
kosher piece of meat, ready to be eaten raw if one wishes.  Now, you cut
into this piece and red `juice' that looks like blood flows out.  This
stuff is Halakhically permitted.  It's called mohal, not `dahm' [blood -
Mod.], and the minhag is not to drink it.  One rinses it off before
cooking it, but one may eat the meat raw without rinsing off each bite
or pouring out the mohal in the plate as it collects.
 
	Benzion Dickman
______________________________________________________________________
 
Jon (#177) queries whether salting and soaking get out "all" the blood.
I have heard from my rabbis that _kashering_ is supposed to remove the
blood which would have been released into the liquid in which the meat
was cooked, from which it could be reabsorbed into the meat. The eating
of meat into which its own blood is reabsorbed is a Rabbinical ban; the
blood forbidden by the Torah is that which is released during the
slaughtering process (and that contained in the blood vessles), but not
capillary blood stored in muscle-tissue. It was feared that were people
to cook or eat the blood seeping from meat, the distinction between
blood seeping from meat that seeping from the _shechita_ [slaughtering -
Mod.] cut might be lost, and people might transgress the severe
prohibition of eating blood.  The Sages therefore instituted the
_kashering_ process so that people would not come to confuse the two
types of blood. The _kashering_ ostensibly removing the blood which is
forbidden by Rabbinical prohibition.  (The same idea is operative with
the institution of a Shabbos _eruv_. The Rabbis prohibited carrying in
common courts because people could confuse that Torah-permitted carrying
with Torah forbidden carrying into a public place. However, with the
institution of the _eruv_ this possible confusion is overcome. People
know they cannot carry into the common court without an _eruv_.)
 
At any rate, there does not seem to be any connection between the amount
of blood removed by _kashering_ and the permissibility of the meat. I
gather this from the fact that in the old days women used to kasher
individual pieces of meat at home. Today, kashering is done at the
butcher, where a whole quarter of the animal is kashered. Because the
salting and soaking times remain constant and the ratio of surface area
to volume is much smaller in large-scale kashering, the amount of blood
removed per volume of meat must be smaller than that achieved by home
kashering.
 
In fact, just to whet the appetite, there no need to kosher meat if one
desires to eat it raw. Not that I recommend the procedure (for health)
reasons), but there is no problem of the blood contained in meat. The
Rabbis only had problems with the blood that escaped from the meat.
 
Ezra Tepper <[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have read that Halacha obligates married women to hide their hair when
in the presence of other men.  Yet, I have known several Orthodox
rebbetzins who do not do this (except, perhaps, while davening).  What
is the Halachic basis for this controversial leniency?
 
Citations to sources are welcome.
 
[I am told that Dr. Chaim Presby, a Highland Park local (my home town)
who gives shiurim etc has an outstanding wager that there is no
"reputable" (who defines that term I do not know) posek who has allowed
that leniency. On the other hand, my father has told me that in Lita
(Lithuania) the custom of generally covering the hair was basically
unknown, even in the Yeshiva world. So any hard facts and sources would
be very interesting. Mod.]
 
	Frank Silbermann	[email protected]

Topics
	Practical Mezuzah Question
		Marc Leve
	Re: How to Read Parashat Zachor (#179)
		Moshe Rayman
		Susan Hornstein
	T'fillin on chol HaMoed
		Victor S. Miller
	Hagadah Question
		Arnold Lustiger
	Re: Questions re: minhagim and davening (#178)
		Eliyana Adler
	Re: Breaking T'naim (#180)
		David Novak
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have the following practical halachic question (which I haven't
checked yet on my own): The doorframe of my apartment is metal and set
out from wall so that a nail would penetrate but not stick. We tried
taping a mezuzah - but it was stolen - so we want to be sure that it
stays fastened tightly.  The doorframe is set in from the wall (like an
"L") so there is a piece of wall a few centimetres from the doorpost
where a mezuza could be fastened. Question: may a mezuza be fastened
there?
 
Marc Leve ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
With regard to the Mishna Berura's ruling that the final verse of
Parashat Zachor should be read twice, once with zeicher (a tzeire) and 
once with zecher; Rabbi Mordechai Breuer published a small pamphelet
titled "Kuntres Zeicher Zecher" that discusses this ruling in detail.
 
Rabbi Breuer is world renowned Bible and Masora Scholar.  He is mostly
known for his editing of the Mosad Harav Kook edition of the Tanach,
which rivals the Koren for its accuracy, and other works on the "ta'amei
hamikra" (Tora Cantellations) and the Festivals.
 
He writes that the source of this ruling is from the "Ma'ase Rav"
(a compilation of stories and customs of Rav Elija of Vilna; the Gra),
in which it is recorded that the Gra read both zeicher and zecher.
The Gra's source is from a comment of the Radak (sorry no source).  However
many of the Gra's students denied this report and say that he never
did such a thing (Their opionions are recorded in addenda to
the "Ma'ase Rav").
 
There is little (if any) masoreitc justification for the "zecher" reading.
Rabbi Breuer claims that all of the manuscripts have "zeicher".
 
What bothers me is that if we take parashat zachor so seriously and
worry about a such an inconsequetial matter (which definilty does not
invalidate the reading), how come most Tora readers don't worry about
the standard grammatical rules such as proper accentuation, distinction
between hard and soft consonants, and distinctions between pronounced
and silent "shva" (a shva is the vowel represented by two dots
one on top of the other placed under the consonant, it is sometimes 
pronounced like a short "i", and sometimes not pronounced at all)
which, if read incorrectly could possibly invalidate the reading.
 
Perhaps it's all part of the Purim spirit of fun and games.
 
Moshe Rayman - [email protected] - (908) 699-6533
______________________________________________________________________
 
In response to the question about reading Parshat Zachor:
 
The difference between the words "zecher" with the vowel segol under the
zayin, and the word "zeicher" with a tzeireh under the zayin is very
interesting.  Both come from the radical z/ch/r and both are segolates
(having stress on the first syllable and a segol under the second letter
of the radical).  "Zecher" with a segol is the same form as the word
"keter" (crown) and "zeicher" with a tzeireh is the same form as the
word "seifer" (book).
 
The word "zeicher" appears twice in the Torah with respect to Amalek,
both times with a tzeireh, and both times in phrasal form (s'michut)
"zeicher Amalek" (the memory *OF* Amalek).  Interestingly, the word
"zecher" with a segol never appears in the Torah without any prefixes or
suffixes (zichri -- my memorialization appears).
 
Sometimes, when a word with a stressed tzeireh appears in s'michut
(phrasal) form, since the tzeireh loses some of its stress by virtue of
being "attached" to the next word, the tzeireh is shortened to a segol.
The most common example of this is the word "eit" and "et" (sorry, no
translation--the definite direct object indicator?).  When this word
stands alone, it is "eit" with a tzeireh, and when it is attached
(usually by a dash) to the next word it is "et" with a segol.
 
This transformation from tzeireh to segol, however, doesn't happen with
segolate nouns; the ones with a tzeireh keep a tzeireh, even in
s'michut.
 
So, and I tremble as I write this, my only conclusion can be that the
idea of reading "zecher" with a segol in the context of "zeicher Amalek"
is based on an erroneous assumption that the tzeireh should change to a
segol in s'michut (phrasal) form.  I'm probably wrong, since Our Sages
Of Blessed Memory weren't likely to make such mistakes [but see the note
above that this custom is relatively recent and of questionable origin -
Mod].  Perhaps there was a "mesorah" (tradition) to read it "zecher"
with a segol.  Anyway, it's interesting.
 
Susan Hornstein - bellcore!pyuxd!susanh   
______________________________________________________________________
 
This Pesach I've been wondering about the use of T'fillin on chol
HaMoed.  It seems to me a little surprising that something as
fundamental as wearing T'fillin should be left to minchag.  This line of
thought got me wondering about the sources for not wearing T'filling on
Shabbat and the festivals.  Where in the Talmud is this discussed?  I
know the standard reason that T'fillin are an "Ot" (sign or adornment),
which would be redundant on Shabbat or Yom Tov.  However, this doesn't
strike me as completely persuasive.  Is there some connection with the
fact that one would need to wear T'fillin, and not carry them then.  It
might then be too difficult to keep them under proper conditions.  I
recall a passage from tractate Shabbos about what to do if one finds a
pair of T'fillin abandoned in the road (I think that one was supposed to
wear them, since one couldn't carry them).  Other than that, I'm in the
dark.
 
Victor S. Miller
______________________________________________________________________
 
A question about Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim [the telling of the story of
going out of egypt - Mod] at the seder has been on my mind recently. It
is such an obvious question that I would assume that some other reader
of mail.jewish has a ready answer. I would appreciate if this
individual(s) could post their answer.
 
The central portion of Maggid is "Arami Ovaid Ovi", a few pesukim in
Devarim which outline yetzias mitzrayim [going out of egypt - Mod], but
really is part of the parshas bikkurim [the reading done with the
bringing of the first fruit to the Temple - Mod].  Why go to Devarim,
when the actual event is told in Sh'mos? Why isn't Maggid based on
pesukim in parshas shmos, vaera and bo?
 
Arnold Lustiger
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding minhagim and davening question #3: upon asking similar questions
to people who wear gartels, I have been told that most men consider the 
waistband of their trousers or underwear enough of a separation.  The minhag
of wearing the gartel is, like other Hasidic minhagim, machmer and a visible
reminder.
 
Eliyana Adler
______________________________________________________________________
 
There has been a discussion in mail.jewish recently concerning breaking
t'naim.  One issue raised was the propriety of breaking t'naim by
marrying and then divorcing.  This is mentioned by Rambam, Mishneh
Torah, Hilchot Gerushin, 10:20.  He states that a man may not marry a
woman, intending to divorce her.  Perhaps others can supply further
references.
 
			- David Novak

Topics:
	Kashering Meat at Home
		Josh Proschan
	Re: Covering of Hair by Married Women (#181)
		Earl Smith
		Dave Novak
		Rick Turkel
		Keith H. Bierman
	Re: Mezuzot (#180)
		Sherri Chasin Calvo
	Re: Kashering of Earthenware (#182)
		Josh Proschan
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
> Today, kashering is done at the
>butcher, where a whole quarter of the animal is kashered.
 
  NO!  Many of us *still* kasher meat at home, for a variety of reasons.
  Many butcher stores sell unsalted-and-soaked meat.  If you spread the 
  myth that all meat is kashered in the butcher store, you will encourage
  people to believe it, with the result that
 
    1.  People will assume that all raw meat is kashered, and use unkashered
        meat without kashering.
 
    2.  It will eventually become necessary to forbid the sale of unkashered
        meat to avoid result 1.
 
  The loss of the ability to buy unsalted-and-soaked meat is not merely
  a matter of erosion of our freedom to do things ourselves; for people
  on restricted sodium diets, it can be the difference between being able
  to eat meat and being forced to give up all meat and poultry.
 
  This is not an academic worry.  I have already heard of cases where 
  families moved from a shtetl where everything was sold supermarket 
  style, kashered and shrink-wrapped, to a neighborhood where meat was 
  sold unkashered, and didn't find out for months.  On a related note, 
  there is pressure to discourage the inclusion of the liver with frozen
  poultry, because so many people no longer know that a chicken has to be
  cleaned before it is cooked, and roast them right out of the box--
  pin feathers, plastic-wrapped liver and giblets, and all.
 
  Finally: even those butchers who kasher whole quarters also kasher smaller
  pieces.  Hanger and strip steak (a.k.a. "tenderloin") are prime examples.
 
  Josh Proschan - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Covering the hair is derived from a sota in chumash, when it says that
as part of the ceremony when a woman is accused of unfaithfulness by her
husband, and taken to the kohen, the kohen "removes the basket from on
her hair".  I believe that is a reasonable translation fo the pasuk in
chumash.  The entire talmudic tractate of sota is derived from this one
reference.
 
As to seeing women with their hair uncovered, this can result from four
things, as I see it:
 
1.  people not interpreting this as requiring a married woman to cover her
    hair
2.  people thinking those around them do not have their hair covered, and
    that that must mean that it is okay not to cover their hair
3.  people thinking someone's hair is uncovered, when it is actually covered
    a wig for example
4.  people interpreting certain things as covering the hair, when others
    do not interpret these things as covering the hair; for example, hair
    coloring.
 
I doubt if your father's recollection of the yeshiva world in Lita is
accurate, but not having been there my self, he could well be correct.
Maybe they had a lenient psak.  They use microphones in synagogues in
South Africa and in Baltimore, because they received a psak from someone
they respected.  Elsewhere, these would be looked upon as non-religious
people if they used a microphone on Shabbos.
 
earl smith - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
	The most recent issue of the journal Judaism contained one in a
series of articles and responses on this subject.  Essentially, someone
advocating the Conservative position was taking *precisely* the view you
mentioned, that there is actually no basis whatsoever for uncovering the
hair.  He says it is done because that is how women are doing it.
Period.  The Orthodox respondent finds some (apparently obscure)
sources, and the Conservative re-response is that this proves the point:
women do not uncover their hair because of soureces noone has ever heard
of.
 
	I would not be able to read the original sources in a reasonably
finite period of time, but I could summarize the most recent articles in
Judaism if anyone finds this helpful.
 
				- Dave Novak
______________________________________________________________________
 
        I distinctly remember my late father-in-law also saying that
married women didn't cover their hair in Lithuania, even in Yeshiva
circles.  It is within living memory in America when there was something
un-tzniyus'dik about a woman wearing a sheitl, and a hat or tichl was
the norm for those women who did cover their hair.  In those days,
covering the hair meant most of it, not every last wisp.
 
                Rick Turkel      rmt51@CAS
______________________________________________________________________
 
If memory serves, this prohibition comes from a list of things which
if done allow a husband to divorce his wife (and not have to pay for
it ?).
 
The list includes all sorts of acts of immorality. 
 
As it happens, in Babylonia among the goyim the custom was for married
woman to cover their hair, and for prostitutes to go uncovered.
 
This leads to the obvious (literary) conclusion that what is being
prohibted is immorality, or the appearance thereof.
 
Keith H. Bierman    [email protected] | [email protected]
SMI 2550 Garcia 12-33			 | (415 336 2648)   
______________________________________________________________________
 
Benzion Dickman writes (about mezuzot in #180):
 
> You don't have to be concerned about leaving the place unprotected at
> night, because that is a threat only when the dwelling has a Jewish
> association.  That is, the influences that we're trying to defend
> against are only interested in Jewish dwellings.
 
This leaves me confused about the reason for mezuzot. Forgive my ignorance,
but I was under the impression that we put up mezuzot because of the 
commandment to put the commandments on the doorposts of our house and our
gates, in order to be mindful of them. But the above makes it sound like
the mezuzot are amulets which we use to ward off evil spirits. Are we supposed
to believe in evil spirits?
 
Thanks,
Sherri Chasin Calvo - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding the kashering of earthenware by re-firing it in a kiln, I have 
heard that this is a recognized, if seldom used, way to kasher earthenware
for Pesach.  It is similar to the old practice of kashering pots for Pesach
by re-tinning them, which was the only way to kasher the old-style pots.
(They were made with seams and would accumulate patches over the years, as a
metal pot was thin enough to burn easily, and too expensive to throw out when
it did.  The seams make it impossible to clean them well enough for hagolah.
Even with today's spun pots, if the pot develops a crack or pitting it cannot
be kashered with hagolah, but requires libun.  The melted tin is at a high
enough temperature to be considered libun.)  As recently as WWI, this was a 
routine practice in Eastern Europe.  If those fancy copper pots ever catch 
on for use rather than decoration, we may see this being done again.
 
Josh Proschan

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Shamos and Computers
		Joshua Proschan
	Kashering Glass
		David Kaufmann
	Rechnitzer Rejects on Kashering and Removing Blood
		David Sherman
	Re: Breaking T'naim (#180)
		Ben Norkin
	Re: Re: mezuzot (#180)
		Fran Storfer
	Lashon Harah
		Alan Gallatin
______________________________________________________________________
If anyone is still missing either #181 or #182, please let me know. If
you have access to anon ftp, the mailings are available on
arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)] in the subdirectory mj.
 
Your friendly moderator - Avi Feldblum - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
Some comments on the question of shamos and computers.
 
1.  Why is there any question of erasing a name--or anything else--on a
    computer monitor?  As far as I know, "clearing" the screen, or turning
    off the monitor, or scrolling, do not *erase* anything on monitors.
    They simply stop the electron gun from refreshing the screen's phosphors,
    and without the continual refresh the image fades away.
 
2.  For that matter, why is it considered writing at all?  The "writing"
    fades on its own, hence is not classed as writing by the Torah.  Since
    it fades in a small fraction of a second, it may not be considered 
    writing even Rabinically.
 
3.  I asked a posek [Rabbinic authority] who owns a computer and uses it
    in Hebrew whether there are any problems with shamos on computer screens
    or disks.  He said there are none.  (I didn't have time to ask about
    the status of computer printouts.)
 
Joshua Proschan - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
In the case of glasses not used with hot, there is the ruling that
they may be kashered for Pesach by soaking them in cold water for 72
hours, changing the water every 24 hours. I did not see this on the
answers, so you may want to include it next time.
 
David Kaufmann - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
On the topic of kashering and removing blood, this song from
the Rechnitzer Rejects (Volume 6) seems apropos:
 
	MOISH THE KNIFE
 
(To the tune of "Mack the Knife")
 
Oh the Shoichet / He's a sharpie / He's an expert / He's a pro /
When he slaughters / Y'know his chalef / It must always / Be on the go
 
And his chalef / It's a smoothie / Blade is perfect / Not a nick /
He's a careful / Operator / Yes, Reb Moishe / He's re-al slick
 
When a chicken / Has been shechted / Then Reb Moishe / Takes some dust /
And he covers / Dam hanefesh / Yes, Reb Moishe / You can trust
 
What he's shechted / Is examined / Was it healthy / Up till now /
Lungs get thorough / Investigation / To ensure it's / It's a kosher cow
 
Yes, they check out / Every section / To make certain / That it's safe /
If it fai-ils / The inspection / It's not kosher / No-no-no-no, it's treif
 
Then they rinse it / And they salt it / And they wash it / Wash-it in and out /
Scarlet billows / They're removing / So there's never / Never-never any doubt
 
So when you see that / Special plom-ber / It's real kosher / 
You can bet your life / And it all starts / With our hero / 
He's the shoichet / Reb Moish the Knife!
 
 
-- David Sherman, [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
My name is Shalom Norkin 
 
In regards to Tanaaim, I had them - contrary to the standard - 6 months
before we got married. This was at the behest of my father-in-law. I
beleive the reasoning is based on "the weasel and the well" - in that
Tanaaim were a result of the case in which a person had agreed to marry
a woman and used as 'witnesses' the weasel and well which were nearby
(there being no others nearby to qualify). The man went his way and
forgot about the woman and his agreement. He married another woman.
However, his first son from that lady was killed by a weasel and the
next died by falling into a well. Upon subsequent investigation, the
promise of this person was uncovered. He than divorced his current wife
and married the women he made the original agreement to - who had not
married since they had last met (which was a substatnial amount of
time).
 
As far as I know, Tanaaim were to basically 'affirm' that the couple
wished to get married without having an 'escape hatch'. This meant that
if they were not sure of getting married, this could either be a force
to convince them to get married or a deterrent for those who were not
serious. The custom of having Tanaaim on the day of the marriage can then
be seen; its a lot easier to accept it then rather than earlier.
However, if both sides are serious, than Taanaim can be done much
earlier - as was ours.
 
Ben Norkin - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I was interested in Benzion Dickman's posting on mezuzot.  I hadn't
known that the order of the doors inside the home are prioritized
regarding which ones get mezuzot first.  Why are the bedrooms given
the highest priority after the outside doors?  If there is a room in
the home where one habitually studies Torah, should that room receive
a mezuzah before the bedrooms?
 
Also, Benzion says: 
>You don't have to be concerned about leaving the place unprotected at
>night, because that is a threat only when the dwelling has a Jewish
>association.  That is, the influences that we're trying to defend
>against are only interested in Jewish dwellings.
 
I had thought that we put up mezuzot because of the mitzvah
(commandment) in the Sh'ma, and that the concept of 'protection' was
primarily superstitious.  Is this incorrect?  Can anyone expand on
this idea of 'protection'?  What are the influences, and why are they
only a threat to Jewish dwellings?
 
Fran Storfer
______________________________________________________________________
 
I was talking with a friend several nights ago and somehow we got on
the topic of Lashon Harah.  One thing led to another and we stumbled
upon the following question:
 
If one talks negatively about a class of people by way of generalization
(e.g. New Yorkers are ______, people from Poland are ______, black
people are _______, etc.) what law tells us that such statements are
wrong?  Do we look to Lashon Harah or is there something else?
 
Also, using the examples given above, I tried to pick three somewhat
different cases: current residence, ethnic origin and race.  Are
statements about one of these categories more or less wrong than
others?
 
(Of course, when I say 'wrong' I mean it in the Hallachic sense.)
 
Thanks!
 
Alan Gallatin

Topics:
	Concerning the kashering of vessels for Pessah
		David Cohen
	Re: Kashering Porcelain China (#179)
		Mike Stein
		Frank Silbermann
		Avi Feldblum
	Re: Gifts and Requests for Donations (#178)
		NEIL EDWARD PARKS
		Elliott Hershkowitz
		Jonathan B. Horen
______________________________________________________________________
 
Note: I made an error yesterday, which is why you all got a blank
version of 182. Here is the real thing. Mod.
______________________________________________________________________
 
Concerning the kashering of vessels for Pessah, I understood from Rav
Ovadia Yossef's Hazon Ovadia that there are 3 opinions about glass
 
1. Glass does not absorb anything and thus needs no kashering after
   cleaning and rinsing whether it is used cold or hot.  (this is the
   opinion of most sefardim)
 
Most ashkenazim are of the two following opinions:
 
2. Glass absorbs and is in the same category as metals. So when used
   hot, it would need kashering by hagalah but since regular glass could
   not bear hagalah [Placing in boiling water. Mod.], it has to be put
   aside during Pessah. 
 
3. Glass absorbs and is in the same category as earthenware and it cannot be
   koshered for Pessah.
 
So for special glasses like Pyrex which can withstand high temperatures
the opinions are the same except for #2 where hagalah is then
possible.
 
I have the following questions:
 
a. Why in some cases triple hagalah is recommended?
 
 
b. In which category is the Arcopal/Arcoroc and the like according to
 Rav Ovadia Yossef and others opinions.  (the question arises also for
 tvilat kelim)
 
c. This is a different domain: for a self cleaning oven where there is a
 special program in which a very high temperature is reached which burns
 everything, most poskim agree that h'amets is also consumed and Liboun
 [reaching red hot? Mod.]  is achieved this way for the oven.  Is it
 also a way to make Liboun for vessels which are put in the oven during
 the self cleaning cycle?
 
Pessah Kasher veSameah
 
David Cohen - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
The answer to this question is tied directly to the first question in
this mailing that David Cohen raised. In general, there are three types
of materials that Halacha knows about. There are materials like metal
that absorb and can then desorb completely under conditions similar to
which the absorption occured. There are materials like glass that do not
absorb, so there is no need to worry about desorption. Finally there are
materials like earthenware and wood that absorb "strongly" so that the
desorption is never complete. 
 
Now if a vessel is made out of metal, and is used for cooking dairy, we
say that some of the dairy taste is absorped into the pot, so that if
you were to use it for cooking meat, it would desorp the dairy taste
into the meat, and the result would be forbidden. Therefore, you cannot
directly use the vessel for meat. If, however, you put this "dairy"
vessel in a large pot of boiling water, then the taste will go into the
water completely. Because there is so much water compared to what is
desorped, we do not consider this water to be "dairy" and are not
worried about re-absorption. This is referred to as "hagala" - dipping
into boiling water.
 
If the vessel is made out of glass, then once you clean the surface
completely, it can be used interchangeably between dairy and meat,
according to the basic halacha. In practice, this is generally not done.
 
If the vessel is made out of wood, you need to scrape away the wood that
has absorped the taste, which is rarely done. For earthenware, it seems
that there is no solution (although see comment from Mike Stein below. I
am unaware of this halacha.).
 
What is the status of plastic, china, pyrex, corning, correlle(sp?) etc.
This is unclear and there have been various opinions. For this reason
there are many who prefer not to Kasher any of the above materials.
There are others who disagree. In the particular case of fine china,
there is an opinion of the Noda B'Yehuda (that's the name of the book of
Responsa he wrote, I don't remember his name) that glazed china is in
the same halachic catagory as glass. In addition there is a concept of a
spoiled taste (Noten Tam Lifgam) and a case of major loss (Hefsed
Merubah). Combining these different concepts, many poskim hold that if
you have expensive (which is defined by the individual effected, not
some arbitrary price) china you can "kasher" it by not using it for one
year. Due to the nature of this ruling, requiring a decision that it is
Hefsad Merubah, it is highly advisable that a competent rabbi be
contacted before using this ruling.
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
On kashering porcelain: I don't know about fine china, but I do have
almost first-hand experience with pottery (Arabia, to those into these
things).  Some friends of mine made their house kosher under the
auspices of Habad about 12 years ago; the Rabbi who came to the house
and did the kashering took all their Arabia dishes to a kiln in
Chicago where they were kashered by subjecting them to its very high
heat.  This is the only time I've ever heard of kashering pottery.
(By the way, only 1 dish broke).
 
Mike Stein - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
The first Orthodox rabbi I studied under told me that earthenware
generally cannot be kashered, and other books also said as much.
 
Then I read (I think in the Donin book, _To Be a Jew_) that
to avoid great financial loss, fine china may be kashered by:
1) cleaning it, and 2) setting it aside for a year.
I showed the book to my rabbi, and he told me that this is correct,
but that most rabbis do not publicize this Halacha for fear of its abuse.
 
	Frank Silbermann	[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I can't answer on the basis of halacha, but the principle of the
Unsolicited Free Gift is well established in American law.
 
I occasionally get address labels from various organizations, and I must
admit that I do often use the labels without making a contribution.  So
I hope that that is not frowned upon by Jewish law.
 
On the other hand, the Hebrew Academy here in Cleveland sends out
packages of very lovely greeting cards for various occasions--birthday,
get well, holidays, etc.--and there is fine print on the back of each
one that says that the card represents a donation to the Academy.  So
they've got me.  If I didn't make a donation, I would certainly feel
wrong about signing a card that said I did.
 
NEIL EDWARD PARKS - [email protected] -
(Fidonet) 157/511 (Appleholics) - (GT) 22/9 (Akademia)
______________________________________________________________________
 
The problem of gifts gets worse each year.  Our policy is to give a
donation and if it does not cover the "suggested amount" we send the gift
back.
 
Elliott Hershkowitz
______________________________________________________________________
 
My first job in Israel, after leaving Yeshiva and getting married, was as
the general secretary for the Kamenitzer Institutions in Mea Shearim,
Jerusalem. I *vividly* recall how I typed some 4,000 stick-on labels for
envelopes containing little packets of charoset, which were then sent to
present/potential donors a month or so before Pesach, as an inducement to 
donate again/for the first time. We also did this prior to Rosh HaShana,
sending small tubes of honey.
 
We were "kesef katan" ["small change" -Mod] -- the Telzer Yeshiva bought
mailing lists in America, and would send out over 20,000 "gifts" at a
shot!
 
As we near Pesach, I would like to wish everyone a Chag Kasher v'Sameach,
and hope that all clal Yisroel, dati and chiloni alike, will truly see
geula this year, free from the tyranny of despots and dictators, wherever
they may be.
 
Jonathan B. Horen - horen%[email protected]

Topics:
	Re: Practical Mezuzah Question (#183)
		David S. Green
		Josh Proschan
		Robert A. Levene
	Re: Mezuzot (#180)
		Benzion Dickman
______________________________________________________________________
 
This answer is from a hardware, not a halachic view.  A few weeks ago, I
fastened the mezuzahs to my new house via nails in the following way:
First, I drilled holes slightly smaller than the nails into the metal of
the doorpost using a fairly small bit and an electric drill.  It went
through the metal fairly quickly.  Then, I got those kind of nails that
are used to nail a piece of metal strip to carpet at the doorframe.  I
forget exactly what they call those nails, but they look like regular
nails except that they have a 'spiral' going down the length.  They are
*not* screws and do have a large head.  Then, I nailed the mezuzah using
those nails and a large hammer.  It took some effort, but the nails went
into the hole, and form a fairly strong bond with the doorpost.  It is
easy enough to take off for checking 2X per every seven years.  They
could be stolen if someone really wants to, but I don't think that they
will fall off.
 
David S. Green att!hlwpi!dsg
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding Marc Leve's question on attaching mezuzos to metal door
frames; what most of us do here is use metal cases (which are fairly
weather-proof) with a double-sided, foam core adhesive strip that the
sofer [scribe, that writes the mezuzot - Mod.] supplies.  I have had
them on my screen doors for about 7 years, and they do not budge.  I
will try to find out what kind of tape this is; I suspect it is a
standard item in the hardware stores.  However, this will not deter a
thief.  Neither will nails.  The advice I received when the outside
mezuzah on my apartment was vandalized was to attach it just inside the
door.  Consult a Rav to determine whether this is preferable.
 
Josh Proschan, [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Here are some techniques that I used.
 
A.  The Management lets you drill holes:
 
    1.  Get a box of cheap convenience-store nails.  Then get a drill bit
        slightly smaller in diameter.  I found the cheap plastic Radio
        Shack hand drill and bits work fine for drilling holes in metal,
        believe it or not.  Then you can actually nail in the mezuza case.
 
    2.  Suppose you can only drill part way, or make a small impression.
        Then use Scotch "mounting squares" which you should trim to match
        the back of the case.  Then stick on the mezuza, and cut your
        nails to a few millimeters, so that they don't really penetrate,
        but they *look* like they're holding it on.
 
 (SAFETY NOTE: Make sure there are no electrical wires inside the doorpost.)
 
B.  The Management forbids drilling holes in metal:
 
    1.  Use the same trick as A-2, but cut your nails shorter so they don't
        penetrate.  You may need to put rubber cement in the hole in the
        mezuza case to keep them attached.
 
    2.  (I got this suggestion from a Chabad rabbi when I was in college.)
        Make an extension to your doorpost by attaching a small piece of
        wood, about 1cm thick, to your doorpost where the mezuza case will
        go.  Then trim your nails, but actually nail the mezuza to the
        doorpost (where you put the wood, of course)
 
The Mounting Squares can be removed, and it will take some effort, but
they will prevent casual swiping as can happen with taped mezuza cases.
 
Then again, there's the Jewish Urban Legend where a 1970's Jewish college
kid with a "test-tube" mezuza case is asked why he keeps a marijuana joint
on his doorpost. (:-)}
 
Rob
______________________________________________________________________
 
Sherri Chasin Calvo wrote in #184:
 
>This leaves me confused about the reason for mezuzot. Forgive my
>ignorance, but I was under the impression that we put up mezuzot
>because of the commandment to put the commandments on the doorposts of
>our house and our gates, in order to be mindful of them. But the above
>makes it sound like the mezuzot are amulets which we use to ward off
>evil spirits. Are we supposed to believe in evil spirits?
 
The context of the original dealt with a situation where the former
Jewish tenant has left, and the new one has not yet arrived.  The new
one might not even be paying rent yet, and the landlord (a goy) is
technically and civil-legally the sole party involved.  But as long as
the new tenant intends to move in soon, and has made a promise to do so,
he/she has a Halakhic connection to the place sufficient to place
responsibility on the first tenant.  Now the obligation from the Torah
falls on someone who owns or lives in the place.  A home owner must put
up mezuzot immediately upon taking ownership.  A renter outside of
Israel must do so within 30 days.  But our special case of tenant
switching would not normally, just looking at the written Torah, require
a mezuzah to be left up.  That's where the matter of protection against
spirits comes in, and it is widely in practical use in these rental
switch cases.
 
As to whether we're supposed to believe in evil spirits, I'll briefly
mention the controversy between the Rambam and practically everyone
else.  There are many Gemorrahs and Midrashim dealing with evil spirits
(see Gemorrah Pesachim 113, for instance).  Most Rishonim (early
commentators from 11th to 15th centuries) say that that was the reality
then.  Some later and modern commentaries say that it no longer applies
today -- that `nature' has changed; some say it's still around.  The
Rambam interprets those Gemorras differently, and says that they don't
speak about physical reality as we perceive it.
 
What's interesting today is that many people are told to check their
mezuzot when misfortune occurs to them.  Some uncanny but true stories
are told about how the particular words that were deficient directly
relate to the misfortune.  Like the case of children being very sick and
the mezuzah having broken letters in the word "l'vonekho" (to your
children).
 
Again, you are absolutely correct to say that we do the mitzvot because
we are commanded to do so, not because of their beneficial physical
effects.  This was a classical fight once trichinosis was identified to
be the vector in pork-borne illness.  A more interesting modern finding
is that women who follow the Niddah laws have a cervical cancer
incidence some 50 times less that women who don't.  The study I saw
reported that Jewish women who followed the laws have the same rate as
abstinent women -- nuns in that study.
 
As to Fran Storfer's question in #185 about priority of putting mezuzot
on specific doors: the outside doors can be considered to "include" the
inner doors in some sense.  The bedroom doors get next priority because
we are most vulnerable to evil spirits when we sleep.
 
As to why these forces only threaten Jews: `Zeh le'umat zeh boro elokim'
(Proverbs/Mishle) meaning that G_d created the world with opposing
forces and tendencies.  We people of the Torah are especially confronted
with tests, trials and difficulties that Divine Providence has arranged
in order for us to `earn' our wages for enjoyment in the Next World.
These spirits are just part of the package.  Note well: Judaism, in its
references to the `Sitra Achra' (Other Side, or Opposing Forces) ARE NOT
AN INDEPENDENT SET OF POWERS as goyish religions think.  That would be
Avodah Zara (forbidden worship or regard).  They are just testing
agents, as it were, and they ARE allowed to try to entrap us (in
contrast to U.S. law).
 
Ben Dickman

Topics:
	Re: How to Read Parashat Zachor (#179)
		Zev Sero
		Josh Proschan
	Re: Questions re: minhagim and davening (#178)
		Josh Proschan
	Re: Breaking T'naim (#180)
		Josh Proschan
	Re: Covering of Hair by Married Women (#181)
		David Sher
	Re: Lashon Harah (#185)
		Stephen Phillips
	Readers Digest in the bathroom?
		Chaim Schild
	Re: Mezuzot and Evil Spirits
		Len Moskowitz
		David Kaufmann
______________________________________________________________________
 
Sefer Haminhagim Chabad says that in Beshalach, Zecher is read before
Zeicher, while in Ki Teitzei, Zeicher is read first.
 
I have also seen variations on whether just the word `Zeicher' is
repeated, or the hyphenated words `et-zeicher', or the words joined by
the tune `et-zeicher amalek', or the whole phrase `timche et-zeicher
amalek'.  My own practise is to repeat `et-zeicher amalek'.
 
Regarding the assertion that zecher (with a segol) never appears in
Tenach, there is some dispute over Tehillim 146:7 (Ashrei).  Most
Tenachs I have seen say zeicher, but the Chabad siddur says zecher,
and this is confirmed in Hayom Yom (i.e. it's not a misprint, it's
meant to be that way).
 
				Zev Sero  -  [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
There is a similar incident involving Joab.  He was criticized by King
David for killing only the males of Edom during a campaign.  He replied
by quoting the possuk about erasing "zeicher" Amalek, but pronounced it
"zochor" [male].  David disagreed; Joab replied that his teacher taught
it that way.  Apparently confusion and disagreements over pronunciation 
go way back.  
 
The source for this is the Talmud, Bava Basra, at the bottom of page
chof aleph [21 - Mod].  It is part of an interesting discussion of
maximum class size, use of paraprofessionals, how to select teachers,
etc.  The point under discussion is whether it is preferable for a
teacher to cover ground at the expense of understanding, or to ensure
understanding at the expense of covering ground.  One side argues that
the student's misunderstandings will vanish with time.  The other uses
the incident with Joab to prove that they don't.  There is a further
disagreement, whether or not Joab's teacher was executed for his
laxness.)
 
Josh Proschan - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
Regarding minhagim and davening question about wearing gartels:
 
My acquaintances who wear them say that it is to fulfill the requirement
of wearing an extra garment while praying.  Since in the Hassidic parts
of Europe boys do not start wearing a tallis when they are bar mitzvah,
but only after marriage, the gartel serves this purpose.  The reason for
choosing a gartel rather than something else would be one of the reasons
given.
 
Josh Proschan - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Finally, on the point raised by David Novak:
 
>         One issue raised was the propriety of breaking t'naim by
>marrying and then divorcing.  This is mentioned by Rambam, Mishneh
>Torah, Hilchot Gerushin, 10:20.  He states that a man may not marry a
>woman, intending to divorce her.  
 
These are not contradictory.  The Rambam uses "marry" for kiddushin.
The G"RA was concerned, so I understand, that the t'naim as they had
developed in his time were too close to kiddushin, and formed a valid
contract.  Also, the reasons for breaking t'naim were usually disputes
over the monetary settlements called for in the t'naim.  Perhaps the
G"RA held, as some more recent G'dolim have, that this should not be
allowed to disrupt the marriage, and that a man who might break an
engagement in the heat of an argument between the families would not
divorce his wife over such a dispute.  Whatever the reason, it was
strong enough that t'naim are now usually written and signed at the
wedding.
 
Josh Proschan   [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I was recently at the Immigration museum at Ellis Island.  I noted there
a picture of a Litvak rabbi and family.  Apparently his wife's hair was
uncovered as were all the women.  
 
-David Sher
ARPA: [email protected]	BITNET: sher%[email protected]	UUCP:
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have studied the Sefer Chafetz Chaim (THE work on Loshon Horoh [LH])
and it is certainly forbidden to speak LH about a group of people (eg. a
whole community) and the Averah [Sin - Mod.] is obviously magnified by
virtue of the fact that LH is being spoken about several people rather
than an individual. On the other hand, LH is only forbidden when it
relates to Jewish people, although there may be other reasons (eg. our
safety) for not speaking it about non Jews and which might well apply to
the second and third examples given by Alan (as a Londoner, I don't feel
qualified to comment on the first!).
 
Stephen Phillips.
______________________________________________________________________
 
Is it forbidden to bring a siddur, chumash, sefer, etc. into the bathroom
not only because it is forbidden to think of Torah there but also because
of the innate holiness of the books (they have Hashem's name in them).
If the latter is true, what about secular books (the Readers Digest) in
the bathroom with the name "G-d" in them ?
 
Chaim Schild
______________________________________________________________________
 
Sherri Chasin Calvo wrote in #184:
 
>This leaves me confused about the reason for mezuzot. Forgive my
>ignorance, but I was under the impression that we put up mezuzot
>because of the commandment to put the commandments on the doorposts of
>our house and our gates, in order to be mindful of them. But the above
>makes it sound like the mezuzot are amulets which we use to ward off
>evil spirits. Are we supposed to believe in evil spirits?
 
Gershon Winkler addresses this sticky matter in his very entertaining
and accurate little book "The Soul of the Matter" available for very
little money (under $5.00) from The Judaica Press, (Brooklyn NY).  He
provides good quality source annotations that by themselves are well
worth the price of the book.  Highly recommended.
 
Len Moskowitz - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
A couple of addendum that might be of interest: Gershon Winkler in THE
SOUL OF THE MATTER writes: "Nevertheless, Maimonides was probably a
kabbalist himself, and never objected to the proper use of that
knowledge as many scholars have assumed. Many sources indicate that he
was not a strict rationalist as his seemingly anti-occult stand might
indicate" (74). For more on Maimonides and mysticism, see the Winter
1991 issue of WELLSPRINGS, available from LYO, 770 Eastern PKWY,
Brooklyn, NY 11213. Winkler also discusses the subject at some length.
 
On angels and mezuzzot and protection, Winkler writes: "The Talmud
explains that whenever a person performs a deed in fulfillment of G-d's
will, he creates positive energies manifested in angelic beings which
remain with him throughout his life and accompnay him to the spiritual
world after death. Just as an angel is a manifestation of the Divine
Will so are angels created by the human will, since the human bieng is
created in "the image of G-d." A practical, physical result of a
spiritual act is a tenet of Judaism, but can easily be distorted into
superstition (which posits a simple one-to-one correspondence). Since
the protection is a result of a manifestation of will, I'd suspect that
the perception of that protection correlates to the content of the will.
 
<<I'll try to find some more sources.>>
 
David Kaufmann - [email protected]

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Mezzuzah Question
		Ari Trachtenberg
	Any info on "Jerusalem Center"?
		Dan Yurman
	Tfila on Yom Haatzmaut
		Jerry B. Altzman
	Niddah and Cervical Cancer (#186)
		Ezra L. Tepper
	Re: Mezuzot (#180)
		Sara Svetitsky
	Shvuot - Why Two Days
		Melekh Viswanath
	Agunah
		Eliyana Adler
______________________________________________________________________	
Just a quick reminder to people posting. If possible, please translate
any Hebrew words that you use. If you do not, I will usually supply the
translation, but then you depend on my understanding of what you are
saying. 
 
As far as signatures go, I will reduce multi-line signatures to a single
line. If there is no signature supplied, I will put just your name in.
If you want an anonymous posting (which is permitted), you must request
that explicitly.
 
With spring/summer coming up, if people are interested in having a
mail.jewish picnic/barbecue in the New Jersey/New York area, please send
me e-mail and lets see if we can set anything up.
 
Avi Feldblum - Your Friendly Moderator - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I am a college student living in a dormitory.  I had put up one mezzuzah
originally, but it was stolen.  I did not want to put up another
mezzuzah for fear that it might be stolen; I was told by someone else
here that since I can be moved out of my room at any time, I am not
required to have a mezzuzah.  The official quote, takien from the Basic
Regulations of Institue houses is:
 
	"The ODSA (the Office for the Dean of Student Affairs) reserves
the right to move students within the House at its discretion..."
 
What is the basis for being to leave off a mezzuzah from my door, and am
I warranted in such an action?
 
Ari Trachtenberg
______________________________________________________________________
 
The Jewish community of Idaho Falls, Idaho, is receiveing mail from an
organization based in San Diego, CA, called the "Jerusalem Center."  It
is asking us to participate in a dialog on Christian Jewish relations.
We do not know anything about this group or its principals. It appears
to be associated with evangelical churches.
 
While we are always willing to engage in dialog, we are also cautious.
At the same time we do not want to offend anyone.
 
If there is any information about this group or its activities, I would
appreciate a post by return email.
 
Dan Yurman - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
What are the dinim (laws) for tfila (prayers) on Yom Haatzmaut? Why do
some say Hallel with a bracha (blessing) and some without, and some not
say it at all?
 
Thanks!
 
jerry b. altzman - [email protected] - +1 212 650 5046
______________________________________________________________________
 
Ben Dickman (#186) wrote:
>                                       A more interesting modern finding
>is that women who follow the Niddah laws have a cervical cancer
>incidence some 50 times less than women who don't. The study I saw
>reported that Jewish women who followed the laws have the same rate as
>abstinent women -- nuns in that study.
 
Ben's conclusion -- implying some connection between observing the laws
of Niddah and low incidence of carcinoma of the cervix in Orthodox Jewish
women -- is a classic case of a "fallacy of relevance," there is no
necessary connection between observing the Niddah laws and the non-
susceptibility to cervical cancer.
 
In fact, we know today that the vast majority of cervical cancers are
caused by a sexually transmitted virus, a variety of papilloma papovavirus,
which is also responsible for condyloma acuminata -- benign genital warts
transmitted via sexual contact. The cancer-producing virus, contracted by
males during sexual contact with an infected partner, infects them
with no obvious clinical symptoms and can be transmitted by them to other
women, exposing them to the possibility of developing cervical cancer.
 
It appears, for this reason, that sexual abstinence during the Niddah
period has no relationship to the disease. The generally less promiscuous
behavior of Orthodox males and females would provide the answer and
similarly explain the lower incidence of syphilis, gonorrhea, genital
herpes, and genital warts in married Orthodox women.
 
Ezra L. Tepper <[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________
 
The belief that the mezuzah is a practical protection against bad things
--an amulet, to be frank--has a surprising hold on even the thoroughly
non-observant elements of the Israeli population.  When the Iraqi
missile attacks started in January sofrim were suddenly flooded with
emergency orders, and in our apartment building where we are the only
religious family the other tenants asked us to get them mezuzahs
(couldn't walk into the s'forim store themselves, I suppose).  And these
are people who don't go to schul for Kol Nidre.  Go figure.
 
    Sara Svetitsky
______________________________________________________________________
 
While learning over peysakh (Passover), my khevrusa (colleague)
presented me with the following problem: In the days of the temple when
the beys din was still mekadesh the new moon al pi reiyah (i.e. declared
the beginning of the new month on the testimony of two eligible
witnesses), places that were distant from Yerushalayim observed the
second day of yontif (festival) because it took more than two weeks to
reach those places.  Today we still keep two days of yontif because of
minhag avoseynu, i.e. because our forefathers kept two days.  But why do
we keep two days of shvues (the festival of weeks, celebrating the
giving of the Torah)?  Since the day for shvues is determined by the day
that peysakh falls on, there should be more than enough time to know
what the right day is.  Any leads appreciated.
 
Melekh ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
I am writing a paper for my Classical Judaism class on the problem of the
agunah (anchored wife or grass widow).  I am using the obvious sources
(Biale, Greenburg, Meiselman) for background but I would be interested
in knowing if anyone has read any current stuff about possible solutions.
>From my research so far it appears that there is room for change but
because of the huge problems of adultery and mamzerim, no big name Rabbis
have been willing to support the solutions offered.  Admittedly, some of
these solutions are weak but I think there must be people learned enough
to effect the needed takanah or whatever it takes.
 
Eliyana Adler

Topics:
	Re: Covering of Hair by Married Women (#181)
		Frank Silbermann
		Andy Jacobs
		David Kaufmann
	Re: Readers digest in the bathroom (#188)
		Dov Krulwich
		Neil Edward Parks
	Re: T'fillin on chol HaMoed (#183)
		Len Moskowitz
		Michael E. Allen
______________________________________________________________________
 
Having reviewed all the responses about the custom of married women
_not_ generally covering their hair, I have come to the following
_guess_ as to what is most likely its Halachic basis.
 
1) From earliest times, some communities interpreted the Talmud as
   requiring married women to cover their hair _only_ when hearing
   certain prayers.
 
2) In writing the Shulchan Aruch, Rv. Caro described the law as
   requiring married women to cover their hair whenever men other than
   her husband were around, because of the communities he surveyed, a
   majority kept this custom.
 
3) Though the Jewish world as a whole accepted the Shulchan Aruch
   as a major breakthrough in Torah education, its views were not canonized.
   (For instance, Rv. Isserles added footnotes reflecting dissenting
    views of his Askenazi community.  Still, even among Askenazi
    communities there was no complete uniformity, and not every
    dissenting community chose to publish a code of its own.)
 
Permission for a married woman to go out "in ihr eigenes Haar" [in her
own hair ? Mod] is therefore not a matter of whether or not she
considers herself to be "modern Orthodox", but probably would depend on
her family's tradition, her husband's tradition, or perhaps simply the
interpretation of her rabbi.  (Assuming my theory is correct, I wonder
which of these would be the key consideration?)
 
Frank Silbermann - [email protected] - Tulane University,New Orleans, Louisiana
______________________________________________________________________
 
> I was recently at the Immigration museum at Ellis Island.  I noted there
> a picture of a Litvak rabbi and family.  Apparently his wife's hair was
> uncovered as were all the women.  
 
  As women are allowed to "cover their heads" with wigs, I would suggest
that perhaps the women in the picture were wearing them.  I would also
make this recommendation to all others with similar stories of being
able to see a woman's hair.
 
Andy Jacobs ([email protected])
 
[I agree it is true that you cannot necessarily determine whether a
woman is covering her hair from a photo, due to her possibly wearing a
wig. However I think that to suggest that all stories of places where it
was not the custom to always cover the hair is due to wearing wigs is to
try and rewrite history to conform to what you think is should be,
rather than try and understand what really was. Mod]
______________________________________________________________________
 
From the Psak Din of the Tzemach Tzedek [One of the previous Lubavitcher
Rebbis, I'm not sure which. Mod.] concerning the exposure of women's
hair: "Privately in the presence of her husband, a woman is permitted to
expose 'side-hairs' which extend beyond her tichel [kerchief - Mod.]
(i.e.  'peyos'- the hair growing in front of the upper-ear). While other
men are present, however, there is no heter [permission - Mod] at all to
do so...
 
"For hair protruding beyond the tichel is halachically identical with
erva - nakedness, just as (or even more severe than) the exposure of
the leg ...
 
 [ there's a gemorra in Brochos that says this; see below]
 
"Exposure of hair outside the tichel is Pritzus - licentiousness ...
Regarding the 'custom' to do so, it is written Minhag is
alphabetically equivalent with Gehinnom...
 
"To expose the least bit of hair is absolutely prohibited... anyone
who thinks that this is permitted has obviously forgotten a Gemora
that even schoolboys know...
 
May this practice be eradicated forever"
 
Quoted from Tzemach Tzedek, Rsponsa, Even Hoezer 139; Y.D. 93:10 Shaar
Hamiluim, vol 1, 45; Chiddushim al haShas to Berachos ch. 3
 
See also Sefer Kvuda Bas Melech by Rabbi Moshe Wiener (in Heb & Eng)
 
(This is reprinted in the back of the Crown Heights directory)
 
David Kaufmann - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
As I understand it, the innate holiness in seforim comes not from the printed
words but also from the kavana [intention] in writing them.  The most extreme
example of this is that a Sefer Torah [Torah scroll] that was written by an
apikoris [intentional knowledgable sinner] should be burned, and this (it
seems) is not considered to have the holiness regardless of perfectly written
names of HaShem.
 
Dov (aka Bruce) Krulwich
______________________________________________________________________
 
There would be no such prohibition on secular books, because the name in
there is not considered to be the divine name of Ha-Shem.  The name is
sacred only when written by a Jew who believes in G-d as we do.
 
For the same reason, a Gideon bible (e.g.) does not have any sanctity.
It is assumed that the name in such a book is not our G-d, but a false
"god" worshipped by the non-Jewish publisher.
 
Neil Edward Parks - [email protected] - (Fidonet) 157/511
______________________________________________________________________
Morris Podolak - D77@TAUNOS writes:
 
 > A similar case exists with regard to the tefillin of RASHI and
 > Rabbenu Tam.  Why didn't they just open up an old pair of tefillin
 > and see how they were arranged.  I suspect the reason is that the
 > dispute is very much older than RASHI and Rabbenu Tam
 
Despite common misconceptions, it is not a dispute and the differences
did not arise because of doubt.  There are actually three different
forms of tefillin (Rashi, Rabbenu Tam, and "Shmusha Rabbah" -- from
Rav Shalom Gaon), each with a different significance.  The Ariza"l
used to don two sets (Rashi and Rabbenu Tam) for Shacharit and then
don the third for Mincha.
 
You can find the significance of the three types of tefillin in the
Likutei Sha"s L'Ha-Ariza"l and in the Pri Etz Chayyim.
 
A related story: Once, an old Sephardi visited our bait k'nesset.  We
were amazed to see him don two sets of t'fillin at the same time for
Shacharit.  Sure enough, when I searched the Mishnah B'rurah, there
was the reference to wearing both sets simultaneously.
 
Len Moskowitz
______________________________________________________________________
 
I know this is a week late, but...
 
We just had a discussion about this during chol ha'moed pesach
(surprisingly enough).  My Rabbi told us to put on our tefillin
without a bracha but to have in mind that if there is a mitzvah to
wear tefillin during chol ha'moed our intention was to fulfill that
mitzvah.  If, on the other hand, there is no mitzvah to wear it, then
we were putting on the tefillin as jewelry.
 
Michael E. Allen - (214)708-3031

Topics:
	Re: Shovuos - Why 2 days (#189)
		Sheri Barker
		Jonathan Chody
		Stephen Phillips
		Elia Weixelbaum
	Re: Agunah (#189)
		Aryeh Frimer
		Arthur I. Plutzer
	Re: Tfila on Yom Haatzmaut (#189)
		Aryeh Frimer
______________________________________________________________________
 
The basic position is that, with the exception of Rosh Hashanah and Yom
Kippur, residents of Israel observe only one day of Yom Tov while people
living outside of Israel observe 2 days, based on "minhag avoteinu" (the
custom of our fathers).
 
A few questions come to mind:
 
1) The basis for the 2 day minhag (custom) was that when the Bet Din
(rabbinicl court) would still declare Rosh Chodesh (the new month) based
upon the sighting of the new moon, they would send out messengers to
notify the people.  These messengers could not reach the distant
communities before the Yom Tovim so the communities observed 2 days
because of a sofek (doubt) as to which day was really Yom Tov.  But do
we rely on where the messengers actually went to determine whether one
is to observe 1 or 2 days, or is it merely based upon where they could
have reached???  I ask this because there are places in Israel now that
were not necessarily populated by Jews then so that no messengers would
have gone there, yet as far as I know, all of Israel observes only 1
day.  Also, what of places that may fall outside of the current
geographical boundaries of Israel that would have been reached by the
messengers - what would someone there do???
 
2) Once again, back to the days when the Beit Din determined Rosh
Chodesh - What did people who traveled to Israel for the Chagim
(holidays) do???  If they were in Israel for the Chag then they would
know which day it was and as far as I know, they only observed the 1 day
of Yom Tov, i.e. their observance depended on the place where they were.
    But what of today, when people travel to Israel for the holidays???
There are various p'sack halacha (rabbinical rulings) about this
situation: I have heard of people who were told to keep 1, 1.5 or 2
days.  The reasons depending on many circumstances such as length of
stay, the intention of staying vs leaving, whether they keep a permanent
residence in Israel as well as outside, etc.  But if, in the time when
the Beit Din determined Rosh Chodesh, a visitor would only hold 1 day,
why is it different now????
 
3)  Does anyone have a good explanation for the p'sack of 1.5 days, i.e. that
one would not do melacha (work) as though it was Yom Tov, but one would daven
(pray) and act otherwise as if it were Chol (a normal weekday)????  As far
as I understand, it seems that minhag avoteinu about 2 days is powerful enough
to want to avoid doing melacha, but the issue of makom (place), i.e. that
in Israel Yom Tov is only 1 day, is also a factor.
 
Shabbat Shalom,
sheri
______________________________________________________________________
 
The Gemoroh in Rosh Hashono (6:b) says explicitly that during the period
when Rosh Chodesh (1st day of new month) was determined by the sight of
the new moon, the DATE of Shovuos was variable. Shovuos was always
celebrated on the 50th day of the Omer irrespective ot its date. It
could be either the 5th / 6th / 7th of Sivan depending on whether Nissan
and Iyar had 29 or 30 days. (Moleh/Chosser). If both were 29 days - the
7th, one 30 and the other 29 - the 6th, and both 30 days - the 5th.
 
Based on this gemoroh, tosfos in Rosh Hashono (18a) says that since
Shovuos was always the 50th day of the Omer it was unnecessary to send
out messengers for the month of Sivan.
 
To then answer the question why we keep two days Shovuos I quote (my own
words) the Rambam in Hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh Perek 3 Halochos 11-13.
 
  The messengers had two days in which to travel in Tishri less than
  they had in Nissan. They couldn't travel on the 1st day (Rosh Hashnoh)
  or on the 10th day (Yom Kippur). It would thus transpire that there
  would be some places where the messengers would arrive in time for
  them to know the date of Pessach but would not arrive in time for them
  to know the date of Succos. They would then keep 2 days for Succos but
  only 1 day Pessach. These people are liable to confuse Succos with
  Pessach and keep only 1 day Succos. They could be m'challel yomtov, &
  not shake lulov or sit in the Succho on the correct day. In order to
  prevent this mistake the Chachomim instituted that all places that
  were too far for the messengers to arrive in time for Succos should
  ALWAYS keep 2 days yomtov even on Pessach and even on Shovuos.
 
Johnny Chody ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
This is an interesting question that is dealt with by Harav Zevin
z'tzl in his Mo'adim Be'Halochoh (The Festivals in Halachah). He
brings an opinion (I cannot recall whose it was) that the keeping of
the second day of Shovuos is more strict than those of Pesach, Succos
and Shemini Atzeres.
 
The reason that we are obliged to keep the second day of Shovuos is
because of a Takonoh (decree) of the Rabbis who made it so that "Lo
Pelug", ie. there should be no difference in observance between all
the Festivals.
 
Since, therefore, the other Festivals have a second day because of
"Minhag Avoseinu" and Shavuos because of a Takonoh, that of Shavuos
is more strict and binding.
 
Stephen Phillips.
______________________________________________________________________
 
The predominant reason that I have heard as to why Sh'vuot (festival
of weeks, celebrating the giving of the Torah) is observed two days in
Chutz La'aretz (outside of Israel) is so as not to belittle the importance
of Sh'vuot over all of the other Yommim Tovim (festivals) which are all
observed for two days in Chutz La'aretz (with the except of Yom Kippur).
 
Elia Weixelbaum - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Rabbi Shlomo Riskin has recently published a book on the subject
(unfortunately, the title escapes me) [It may be: Women and Divorce in
Jewish Law, based on a note from another submission. - Mod.] in English.
A classic text on the subject of possible "conditional marriages" was
written many years ago by Rabbi Prof.  Eliezer Berkowitz in Hebrew and
published by Mossad Harav Kook. I believe it's called "Tnai
Be-Kiddushin".
 
Aryeh Frimer - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding the problem of the Agunah, there is an organization
based in New York City called G.E.T. that has been working within
the Orthodox Jewish community to foster an understanding of the
problems. My guess is that they would have various rabbinic
sources that could be helpful. If you have trouble locating the
organization, let me know and I will try to locate their telephone
number.
 
Arthur I. Plutzer - AIPBH@CUNYVM - City University of New York
______________________________________________________________________
 
About a decade ago Prof. Rakover edited a volume on the various responsa
dealing with the Laws of Yom Ha'atzmaut: Hallel, Shaving, music,
She'hechiyanu, etc. It has recently been republished with additions.
The Rinat Yisrael Siddur has the Text of the Tefillot to be said and
I've also seen a siddur for Yom Ha'atzmaut with intoduction, halachot
and readings published in hebrew and english by the Sochnut.
	I would just like to point out that EVERY Chief Rabbi with the
exception of Rav Goren Shlita has Paskened to say Hallel WITHOUT a
bracha.  This view is based on the Meiri who rules that when a miracle
happens to Klal Yisrael Hallel should be said without a Bracha as well
as the general rule of Safek Brachot Lehakel (when in doubt regarding a
b'racha, take the lenient position and refrain from reciting the
Benediction.) The issue is complicated and Prof. Rakover does a
masterful job of summarizing the references. But it has little to do
with ones zionism, as some would like to claim.
 
Aryeh Frimer - [email protected]

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	On wearing a gartel
		David Kaufmann
	A Yom Haatzmaut question
		Arnie Lustiger
	Re: Mezuzot and Evil Spirits (#188)
		Warren Burstein
	Re: Custom not to Send Flowers to a Funeral (#187)
		Zev Sero
	Re: Covering of Hair by Married Women (#181)
		Dovid Chechik
		Ezra L. Tepper
	Re: Niddah and Cervical Cancer (#189)
		Mechael Kanovsky
______________________________________________________________________
First, a quick note that those interested in the ongoing topic of 2 days
of Yom Tov may want to look at some prevoius postings on the subject.
They are in #'s:156, 159, 161 and 164. There will be a further posting
on this topic based on submissions I have already received. 
 
In previous years, I have sent around at the end of the year a
sort of table of contents of the years postings. That file is already
larger than most previous years, so I will probably send it around soon,
breaking this year into two or three portions. One thing that would be
really useful would be an Index format (for all years) rather than Table
of Contents format. Any volunteers?
 
There has been a reasonable response to a mail.jewish bbq/picnic for the
NY/NJ(/PA/CO) area, so I think we will have one. If you are interested
please send me mail. I will be sending mail out early next week to those
who have responded.
 
Avi Feldblum - Moderator - [email protected] - (609)-639-2474
______________________________________________________________________
 
Among Lubavitch, at least, I believe the custom is to start wearing a
gartel only after marriage, which follows the Tur Shulchan Aruch 91.
 
David Kaufmann - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
This year Yom Haatzmaut was a "nidcheh" (i.e.was not on the proper hebrew
date of heh Iyar) because the real date fell on Friday, and was instead
celebrated on Thursday. The question is: How does the Rabbanut Harashit
(chief rabbinate) have authority to change the date of observance?
 
The major concern is with parties which typically take place on Yom
Haatzmaut. If the chag is on heh Iyar, then doesn't one violate the
prohibition of having parties during sefirah if it is being celebrated
on daled Iyar? If the concern is violation of Shabbat (i.e. parties may
continue through Friday evening),why isn't Tu Bishvat for example, a
nidcheh, when it falls on Shabbat (people may plant trees). Are these
parties a "seudat mitzvah" as on Purim? Does one have to wash and eat
bread, for example? Does this seuda take place the previous evening, or
the following evening, as on Purim? If it takes place the previous
evening (as suggested in the Rinat Yisrael siddur) what observance of
Yom Haatzmaut gives it a nidcheh status?
 
Arnie Lustiger
______________________________________________________________________
 
Could someone who has the Gershon Winkler book post a list of
references to works of the Rambam to support the assertion that
> "Nevertheless, Maimonides was probably a kabbalist himself, and never
> objected to the proper use of that knowledge as many scholars have
> assumed. Many sources indicate that he was not a strict rationalist as
> his seemingly anti-occult stand might indicate"
 
Warren Burstein
______________________________________________________________________
 
Note that in talmudic days myrtles were used at funerals.  See, e.g.,
Beitza 6a (I think).  Nowadays, the custom of flowers at a funeral
probably falls under `chukot hagoy'; it is not merely non-jewish but
positively unjewish.
 
Zev Sero  -  [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Unfortunately, I missed m.j #181 and do not have the original article on
hair covering.  However, I was surprised at the opinions that claimed hair
covering to be custom.
 
A look at the sources will clearly show that a married woman going
with hair uncovered is forbidden by Mosaic law.
 
The most direct proof of this is from Talmud Bavli Tractate Kesubos,
page 83a Allow me to paraphrase, translations are my own.
 
The Mishna states: These women can be divorced and not receive [the
money promised them in their] Kesuba. [They are] "Ha'overes al dos
moshe veyehudis".  Dus Moshe (Mosaic Law)  is [for example] if she
feeds her husband food which has not been tithed or she does not follow
the laws of nida, etc.  Dus Yehudis (Judaic law) is [for example]
"Yotzeit verosha parua" going out with hair uncovered, etc.
 
The talmud on the same page asks a question on the mishna. "Rosha Parua
Deoraysa?!"  How can the mishna say that going out which hair uncovered
is only rabbinic law, is it not Mosaic law and hence covered in Dos Moshe?
After several questions and answers the talmud says that:
 
1. Having hair completely uncovered is forbidden by Mosaic law.
2. Having hair partially uncovered in a very public place is equally forbidden.
3. The case of the mishna is having the hair mostly covered but not completely
   going between two couryards via a semi-privat alleyway (m'chatzer l'chatzer
   derech mavui"
 
The theme forbidding uncovered hair is repeated elsewhere in talmud.
E.g., Sayar Beisha Erva (Berachos 23),  the talmud elsewhere in kesubos
says that a woman appearing at her marriage ceremony with hair uncovered
can be used as proof that she was never previously married.
 
All the halachic sources known to me rule according to these talmudic
references.  Let me just paraphrase the Rambam, Hilchos Ishus Chapter 24.
 
11. And these are the things that if she transgresses them, she has violated
Dus Moshe (Mosaic Law):  If she goes out with her head uncovered... etc
 
12. And what is Dus Yehudis (Judaic Law)? It is the custom of modesty among
jewish women.  And these are the things that if she transgresses them, she
has violated Judaic Law.  If she goes out to the street or to an alley and
here hair is unbound and she does not wear a hat like all women, even though
here hair is covered with a cloth......
 
NOTE:  Modern halachic sources rule that since Jewesses have become very
lax about hair covering, one can no longer divorce his wife without paying
her kesuva because of non hair covering.
 
Dovid Chechik - Motorola Israel Ltd.  Resumes Welcome - uunet!motcid!chechik
______________________________________________________________________
 
David Kaufmann (#190) brings several quotations from the Tzemach
Tzedek (the 3rd rebbi of Lubavitch) exhorting against women showing
even a single strand of hair. The Tzemach Tzedek is clearly understandable
as this chumrah [stringent behavior that goes above and beyond the
literal requirements of the law] is recorded in the Zohar, a kabbalistic
commentary on the Five Books of Moses and one of the basic pillars of
Chabad theology.
 
This practice, however, has not been accepted by Jewry at large much like
many other Zohar-based chumros, including the prohibitions against
trimming or shortening ones beard or allowing the payos [sidelocks] to
extend beneath the jawline (a psak that is violated by several Hassidic
groups).
 
Ezra L. Tepper <[email protected]>

From:	PWATCH::DECWRL::"[email protected]" "Avi Feldblum  16-Apr-1991 1047"   16-APR-1991 10:50:57.64
To:	pwatch::rayman 
CC:	
Subj:	mail.jewish #187 


Topics:
	Re: Hagadah Question (#183)
		Mindy Schimmel
		Josh Proschan
	Re: T'fillin on chol HaMoed (#183)
		Morris Podolak
	Re: Kashering Meat at Home (#184)
		Neil Edward Parks
		Melissa Solomon
	Number of Psukim in Tzav
		Sid Gordon
	Custom not to Send Flowers to a Funeral
		Dan Berleant
______________________________________________________________________
 
Comment on question of why we read the story of the Exodus from the Book
of Deuteronomy, where it is quoted as background to bringing of the
first fruits, rather than from the book of Exodus: The standard answer
is that reading the whole story from Exodus would take hours, and one
couldn't possibly get to the Afikoman by midnight.  This very short
version provides a compromise, and if you want, you can always read read
from Exodus as well.
 
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Concerning Arnold Lustiger's question (why the central part of the
Haggadah is Parshas Bikurim (the declaration made by a person who brings
the first fruit offering to the Temple, which begins "Arami Ovaid Ovi"):
I asked a number of people, and got 2 1/2 answers; the last of which is
satisfying.  The half answer is that there is a connection between the
descriptions of Maggid and Bikurim: the Haggadah is called "haggadah",
and the declaration of Bikurim begins "higadd'ti"; also, the commandment
of Bikurim uses the word "oneesoh" (you shall recite), and matzoh is
(according to one popular explanation) called "lechem oni" because many
things are recited over it.  Interesting, but not satisfying.  The
second explanation I heard was that the Haggadah must consist of praise
for Hashem, and Parshas Bikurim is in the right form.
 
The best explanation was that we went into exile in Egypt as a result of
Avrohom's question at the Bris Bain Habesorim (treaty between the parts)
when he asked how he would know that Hashem's pledges would come true.
He was told that he could know because we would be exiled to Egypt,
enslaved there, redeemed, and brought to Eretz Yisroel to inherit it.
This does not, at first sight, seem to be an answer; however, after
experiencing the exile, deliverance, and entering Eretz Yisroel we know
from experience that Hashem's promises come true, no matter how
impossible they seem.  This is the point of the Bikurim declaration; and
this makes it the essential part of the Haggadah, since it deals with
the purpose of the exile.  Hence the tradition of elaborating on Parshas
Bikurim during the Seder; in fact, the Rambam attaches the mitzvah of
elaborating on recounting the story of the exodus to this specific part
of the Haggadah.
 
Josh Proschan, [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
With regard to question of wearing tefillin on Chol Hamoed.  The issue
is not discussed directly in the gemara, rather, it appears as an issue
at the time of the rishonim.  The ROSH (Rabbeinu Asher ben Yechiel -
13th century) says you should put on tefillin on Chol Hamoed, and that
the reason for not putting on tefillin on Shabbat and Yom Tov is that on
those days the prohibition of work is a sufficient sign.  Since some
forms of work are permitted on Chol Hamoed, this sign is not present and
tefillin are necessary.  Other rishonim (the Sefer Hachinnuch, I think,
is one, but there are others as well) hold that the matzah we eat on
Pesach and the sukkah we sit in on Sukkoth are a sufficient sign, and
tefillin are not needed.  The interesting thing is that the Zohar sees
the putting on of tefillin on Chol Hamoed as something that upsets the
heavenly order of things, and so is very much against it.  The TAZ (16th
cent. commentary on the Shulchan Aruch) says that if the ROSH would have
seen the Zohar, he too would have forbidden it.  That is why hasidim and
sefardim, whose practices are strongly influenced by the Zohar don't put
on tefillin at this time.  This is also the standard practice it Eretz
Yisrael.
 
The real question is how did it ever occur that two different practices
developed in such a fundamental mitzvah as tefillin.  A similar case
exists with regard to the tefillin of RASHI and Rabbenu Tam.  Why didn't
they just open up an old pair of tefillin and see how they were
arranged.  I suspect the reason is that the dispute is very much older
than RASHI and Rabbenu Tam.  Quite possibly both are correct in some
fundamental respect, but we have to follow the halacha (the "accepted
practice").  The Aruch Hashulchan has an interesting discussion on this
point.
 
Morris Podolak - D77@TAUNOS
______________________________________________________________________
 
> It will eventually become necessary to forbid the sale of unkashered
> meat to avoid [People assuming that all raw meat is kashered].
 
This has already happened here in Cleveland.  The local rabbis have
withdrawn their approval of Irving's Kosher Meats because they feel that
homemakers no longer know how to kasher meat at home, and Irving's did
not want to stop selling both kashered and non-kashered.  All the other
kosher butchers in town sell only fully kashered meat.
 
>  poultry, because so many people no longer know that a chicken has to be
>  cleaned before it is cooked, and roast them right out of the box--
>  pin feathers, plastic-wrapped liver and giblets, and all.
 
Empire clearly states in its packaging that the liver must be broiled.
 
Neil Edward Parks - [email protected] [(Fidonet) 157/511]
______________________________________________________________________
 
If one buys raw meat at a kosher butcher, does the butcher usually 
indicate whether or not the meat has been salted or does one have to
specifically ask?
 
Melissa Solomon
______________________________________________________________________
 
In many chumashim, at the end of each weekly parsha is an indication
of how many verses are in that parsha, along with a mnemonic -- a word
or name whose gematriya equals that number.  For example, at the end
of "Shmini" we see 91 (tzadee-aleph), with a mnemonic of "Ovadia" whose
gematria is 91.
 
Now here's my problem: At the end of parashat "tzav" we find "96 -
tzav".  In other words, the number of verses is 96, and the mnemonic is
itself the name of the parasha.  Nice, huh?  Except for one problem:
Tzav has 95 verses, not 96.  In other words, whoever counted the words
and made up these mnemonics (anyone know who this is?), "fudged" the
data to make it come out nice.  How did he think he could get away with
it?  For me, it makes me suspicious of all these nice counts and
gematriot.  In parashat shmini, for example, we see a notation of the
"halfway point" of the Torah in words, between the words "darosh" and
"darash", that is "you shall interpret".  This has always struck me as a
nice touch.  But has anyone ever really counted the words to make sure
it's for real?  Who can you trust,anyway?
 
Sid Gordon
______________________________________________________________________
 
I'd like to ask 2 questions, which may be related.
1) It is (at least) the custom not to bring or send flowers to a funeral.
   Is this in fact just a custom? Or is it actual halachah?
 
2) More generally, what is the force of custom? I gather it means God won't
be upset if you break the rule, but you still shouldn't. But this seems
a rather informal characterization.
 
	[This is not a one line answer, that's for sure. Mod]
 
Thanks, - Dan Berleant
 
 
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AE00539; Tue, 16 Apr 91 07:12:20 -0700
Received: by uucp-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA03806; Tue, 16 Apr 91 07:01:14 -0700
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected] (Avi Feldblum)
Date:       Tue Apr 16 08:00:44 EDT 1991
Subject:    mail.jewish #187
Apparently-To: pwatch::rayman

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: Shovuos - Why 2 days (#189)
		Frank Silbermann
		Moshe Rayman
		Mechael Kanovsky
	Re: Number of Psukim in Tzav (#187)
		Zev Sero
		Ben Svetitsky
	Re: Niddah and Cervical Cancer (#189)
		Mechael Kanovsky
______________________________________________________________________
Mea culpa, first Mechael Kanovsky's submission listed in the end of #192
was moved to 193 with Mecheal's Shovuos posting, and I missed that. So
it is in this one (I just rechecked). I agree that Colorado is a bit far
to come in from just for a picnic, I meant to say CT.
 
The Kisue Rosh (Covering of the hair) topic finally took off, and we'll
have at least two upcoming postings on that topic. We've got some good
source references there, so that looks very interesting.
 
The topic of two days of Yom Tov in current times was discussed by Rabbi
Kanarfogel (from Teaneck) over the last Yom Tov. He had some interesting
sources discussing the issues. I know we have some people on the list
there, anyone want to try and get the sources he used and post it? (Next
thing you know, we'll be posting Ma'are Mekomot [list of sources] to
study before reading the mailings :-). )
______________________________________________________________________
 
> The other Festivals have a second day only due to `Minhag Avoseinu'.
> However, it is a `Takonoh (decree) of the Rabbis' which obligates us
> to keep the second day of Shovuos (so that there should be no
> difference in observance between all the Festivals).
 
If the Takonoh commands us to keep Shavuos like the other Yom Tovim
(merely implying that Disapora Jews must keep it two days), wouldn't the
view that Shavuos is stricter _violate_ the Taconoh (by making a
distinction)?
 
If the Takonah explicitly commanded two days for Shavuos, then wouldn't
the view of Shavuos as stricter violate at least the _spirit_ of the
Takonoh, whose motivation was to make observance the same?  Or does he
then solve this problem by claiming that therefore _all four_ second
days have the force of a Taconoh?
 
Frank Silbermann - [email protected]
Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana  USA
______________________________________________________________________
 
Sheri asked:
 
> do we rely on where the messengers actually went to determine whether
> one is to observe 1 or 2 days, or is it merely based upon where they
> could have reached?
 
It is reported that R.  Yitzchak Ze'ev Soloveitchik, (the "Brisker Rav")
observed two days of Yom Tov even after he moved to Jerusalem.  He
resided in the Geula section (right next store to the Edison Theater on
Machei Yisrael street), which he felt was not populated at the time of
the Sanhedrin.  He therefore observed two days, feeling that perhaps the
only places one day is observed, are the places where the messengers
actually arrived on time.
 
>2) Once again, back to the days when the Beit Din determined Rosh
>Chodesh - What did people who traveled to Israel for the Chagim
>(holidays) do???  If they were in Israel for the Chag then they would
>know which day it was and as far as I know, they only observed the 1 day
>of Yom Tov, i.e. their observance depended on the place where they were.
>    But what of today, when people travel to Israel for the holidays???
>There are various p'sack halacha (rabbinical rulings) about this
>situation: I have heard of people who were told to keep 1, 1.5 or 2
>days.  The reasons depending on many circumstances such as length of
>stay, the intention of staying vs leaving, whether they keep a permanent
>residence in Israel as well as outside, etc.  But if, in the time when
>the Beit Din determined Rosh Chodesh, a visitor would only hold 1 day,
>why is it different now????
 
When a practice is regularly done to avoid a doubtful situatuion (misafek),
it does not become a bona fide "minhag" (custom) which would remain even
after the doubt is clarified.  For instance, suppose a community refrained
from eating a certain bird because it didn't know whether it was kosher.
This could have gone on for hundreds of years.  Then suppose someone from
a different community came, and he had a valid tradition that this bird
was kosher.  Then this bird would be considered kosher, and there would
be no issue of "minhag" to deal with, because it was only done from doubt,
The same thing here.  When two days were observed because of doubt, it
was not considered a "custom", which would accompany all it's followers
to the land of Israel.  Only after the Rabbis declared "Observe the custom
of your ancestors", even when there was no doubt, did it become a bona fide
custom (or even Rabbinic Law) with all of the strings attached.  A bona fide
custom is binding on the whole community that accepted this custom, even if
they visit another place where this custom is not followed.
 
However, there is one opinion, that of the "Chacham Tzvi", that holds
that all visitors to Israel only have to hold one day.
 
His ruling may have been based on Sheri's logic, or he may have felt that
the observance of a second day of Yom Tov in Israel constitutes a violation
of "Lo titgodedu" (that there shouldn't be to divergant customs observed
in the same town).  If anyone recalls his precise reasoning, please post it.
 
Suprisingly enough, Rabbi Shmuel Salant (who was chief Rabbi of
Jerusalem at the turn of the century), ruled like the Chacham Tzvi.
 
>3)  Does anyone have a good explanation for the p'sack of 1.5 days, i.e. that
>one would not do melacha (work) as though it was Yom Tov, but one would daven
>(pray) and act otherwise as if it were Chol (a normal weekday)????  As far
>as I understand, it seems that minhag avoteinu about 2 days is powerful enough
>to want to avoid doing melacha, but the issue of makom (place), i.e. that
>in Israel Yom Tov is only 1 day, is also a factor.
 
People who observe a "day and a 1/2", realy hold like the Chacham Tzvi.
So they do without the special prayers etc.  But, out of deference to
the majority of authorities who rule against the Chacham Tzvi, they refrain
from doing melacha on the second day.  I guess melacha is more stringent
than the prayers, therefore it gets "special" attention.
 
This practice started in Jerusalem, because the Chacham Tzvi's ruling
was accepted by R. Salant.  Most of the Poskim in Jerusalem today, are
students (or students of students) of R. Salant or his school of thought.
This is also why many Authorities in Jerusalem are much more lenient in
this matter than Poskim in America.  They have the tradition of the Chacham
Tzvi and R. Salant in the background of every ruling they give on this issue.
 
Moshe Rayman - [email protected] - (908) 699-6533
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding why there is a second day of shavuot it is not at all a simple
matter since there is a dispute when the first day of shavuot should be
celebrated . This stems from shavuot being the 50th day of the omer and
also acording to chazal was the day that the torah was given. On the second
reason there is a three way machloket (argument) in the talmud and if
we go like the one who says it was given on the sixth day of sivan those two
dates don't coincide especially when the new moon was decreed by beit-din .
    Aside from that the reason that we celebrate two days outside of Israel
is not because the witnesses couldn't make it (the only time there was
trouble with that was on rosh hashanah and because of that also in Israel
it is two days) but it is a general g'zeirat chazal given in the begining
of tractate beitzah and they made no exceptions to that rule (lo ploog)
 
mechael kanovsky
______________________________________________________________________
 
The summaries printed in some chumashim at the end of each parasha,
offering counts of psukim, words, letters, etc., are part of the mesora --
oral tradition about the text.  As such, each statement goes with a
particular tradition regarding the text which was received.  While the
letter-by-letter text of the Torah is fairly unique in our time, the
division into verses and even into words was more fluid than you'd think,
more recently than you'd think.  Sometimes there is a verse which can
be divided; sometimes there are words which can be run together.
So the count given in the chumash can easily be uncorrelated with the
accompanying text.
 
Ben Svetitsky  [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Actually, there are 97.  It is part of the rules of gematriaot that
you can add or subtract (whichever gets the result you want) the
number of words and/or the number of letters.  This is known as the
`kollel'. Of course gematriaot that don't rely on this trick...ahem
technique are much `neater'.  They will be quoted more often and with
more relish, and therefore are more likely to perpetuate themselves in
competition with other memes.
 
Zev Sero  -  [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
there are diseases that are more prevalent by women who do not keep the
laws of nidah like endometrioses (sp?) but one could look at that as a
fringe benefit and not the reason that these laws were given.
 
mechael kanovsky
______________________________________________________________________

Topics:
	Re: Covering of Hair by Married Women (#181)
		Susan Hornstein
		Morris Podolak
		Aryeh Frimer
______________________________________________________________________
 
	I'd like to offer some clarification about the hair-covering
issue.  I have learned that there are two phrases referred to in the
Gemara with respect to women's hair, and that the different halachic
(legal) positions that people hold can be traced back to these two
different phrases.  I have learned this from Rabbi Brovender, and
several local rabbis.
 
	Both of these phrases have been recently quoted in this
electronic discussion.  The first source refers to a woman going OUT
with her hair uncovered (parua, I'll accept the translation of parua as
uncovered) and the second refers to a woman's hair being considered
"erva", which I will translate as "a part of the body that is usually
covered."  Those who hold that a woman's hair must be covered at all
times (some even hold that it must be covered in front of her husband,
or at least in front of her husband during the times when contact
between them is forbidden) do so on the basis of the reference to
"erva."  This position also leads to the discussions on whether one may
say a blessing or various prayers in the presence of a woman's uncovered
hair (herself, or others).  By holding this position, one need not
account for the halachic implications of the other reference--if you
always cover your hair, then it will always be covered when you go out.
 
	Then there's the other position, that a woman must cover her
hair (all or some) when she goes out, but not at home, based on the
reference to a woman going out with her hair uncovered.  This position
holds that hair covering is for the purpose of "heker," a visible sign
that this is a married Jewish woman.  The reason that such a sign is not
necessary at home is that her home itself is recognition of her status.
The question then is, what do people who hold this way do with the
reference to a woman's hair being "erva," or usually covered?  My
understanding is that this same language is used with respect to other
parts of a woman's body, in the context of "histaklut," a man gazing at
a woman.  In this case, a man is enjoined from gazing at any part of a
woman, including her little finger.  It's clear (I think) that we have
never held that a woman must cover her little finger, but rather, the
obligation is on the man not to stare at it.  In this position, hair
falls into this same category, something at which it is improper for a
man to stare, but that the man has a responsibility for, not the woman.
>From this position come the various shitot (ways of observing) about
whether a hat is enough, or whether all the hair must be covered, since
the covering is a sign and not a covering of "erva."
 
	This doesn't do much to clear up the reasons that so many
otherwise observant woman do not follow either of these positions.  It
is possible, though, that some observant women hold that in a case when
a hat or other covering would not serve as a meaningful sign (such as in
a community in which no one is aware of halacha) such covering would be
meaningless.  I myself have found that covering my hair in such a
situation DOES serve as a sign, since both non-observant Jews and
non-Jews tend to ask me questions, and consequently learn more about
Jewish observance.  (Ask me someday about the day I went to get my New
Jersey driver's license and had to present a "Rabbi's note" to be
photographed with my hair covered!)  Anyway, I hope this helps.  See you
all at the picnic!
 
Susan Hornstein bellcore!pyuxd!susanh
______________________________________________________________________
 
     There has been a great deal of discussion about the issue of
married women covering their hair.  What surprises me is that although
this discussion has included both reports of conversations and much
speculation, almost no one has bothered to go back to the primary
sources for this ruling.  This is especially surprising since the
primary sources are not hard to find.
 
     The Mishnah in Ketuboth (72a) lists one of the conditions under
which a woman can be divorced.  One set of conditions involves
transgressing "Dat Yehudit", which I would translate as "Jewish Custom".
Among the examples given of such a transgression is "going out with her
hair loose" (i.e. not completely covered).  The gemara immediately
objects that covering the hair is not merely Jewish custom, but is a
biblical requirement (this is based on the "sotah" ritual - see Bamidbar
ch. 5 - where the woman's hair was loosened.  From this it is deduced
that at all other times it had to be covered).  The gemara concludes
that the biblical requirement can be met with a partial covering, while
Jewish custom requires a more complete covering (the discussion in the
gemara doesn't say it in so many words, but that is the gist of it).
The Jerusalem Talmud gives a similar, though more abbreviated
discussion.  This ruling of the gemara has been codified into normative
Jewish practice by the RAMBAM (hilchot ishut ch.24, halacha 12), and by
the Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 115:4).  Thus, as far as the halacha is
concerned, there is no room for allowing a totally uncovered head,
although there might be some freedom in deciding just how complete the
hair covering must be, and which places are sufficiently private so that
the type of covering is less of an issue (see Sdei Chemed vol.6, p.359ff
for details).
 
     All this not withstanding, many women did not completely cover
their hair.  This has consequences for another halacha.  The gemara
considers hair of a woman, which should be covered but is not, as
licentious.  For this reason one is not allowed to say the Shema in
front of a married woman whose hair is uncovered (Berachot, 24a;
Shulchan Aruch 75:2).  On this point the Aruch Hashulchan (75:7) writes:
     "And now we come to cry out against the licentiousness of our
     generation (that has come about) through our many sins.  These
     many years the daughters of Israel have been unchaste through
     this sin, and walk about with uncovered heads.  All the outcry
     against this has been in vain and without benefit.  Now that
     this scab has spread so that married women wear their hair like
     maidens, woe unto us that this has happened in our time."
 
In view of the reality, however, the Aruch Hashulchan permits saying the Shema
in front of a married woman whose hair is uncovered.  There are three points
to be made here:
     1. The ruling of the Aruch Hashulchan is hotly disputed by the Mishnah
        Brura (75:10).
     2. The ruling applies only to the reciting of the shema.  There is no
        permission given for married women to uncover their heads.  Quite
        the opposite, he cries out against it.
     3. There is no denying that many European women at that time (end of 19th
        early 20th cent.) didn't cover their hair (see also Ben Ish Chai, Bo:
        12; Kaf HaChayyim, 75:17).
 
     To summarize: Although there were many places in Europe at the turn
of the century where married women did not cover their hair, this cannot
be regarded as a valid custom.  There is absolutely no halachic basis for
a married woman to appear in public without some sort of hair covering.
It is interesting that in Israel, even among the more "modern" orthodox,
young married women are covering their hair to a far greater extent than
in the past.
 
     For a possible reason why the rabbinic outcry was not stronger see
the tosafot at the bottom of Shabbat 64b.
 
Morris Podolak - D77@TAUNOS
______________________________________________________________________
 
	As in most things in Halacha, this is a complicated issue. An
excellent discussion is found in the Ph.D. thesis of Prof. Dov I. Frimer
at Hebrew University. There is also a volume of Otzar Haposkim which
discusses many of the relevant poskim (with the Machmirim [stringent
opinions - Mod.] in the text and the Mekilim [lenient opinion - Mod] in
the footnotes!).
 
	The fact that the Gemara calls it De'Oraita doesn't necessarily
mean it is biblical. For example it says in the Ketuba "DECHAZI LICHI
MIDEORAYTA" [That is owed to you biblically - Mod], despite the fact
that we hold "KETUBA MIDERABANAN" [Ketuba is rabbinic - Mod.]. All it
means is that it has a source or hint in the Torah. The Meiri
specifically states that Dat Moshe includes those things stated or
hinted to in the Torah. The Responsa Trumot Hadeshen specifically says
that Kisui Sear [Covering of the hair - Mod.] is Derabbanan.
 
	Rashi ad loc in ketubot clearly suggest that Kisui sear is a
Minhag from the Torah. He says something similar in his commentary to
chumosh namely, that it is the custom of the daughters of Israel to
cover their hair.  Rav Moshe Feinstein in the Igrot does not take Rashi
literally, but the tradition in the Solovetchik family is that Rashi is
indicating that Kisui sear is a custom and as such is not immutable.
 
	The issue is very complicated primarily because there are two
issues: U'para Rosh Haisha [And he shall uncover the head of the woman -
Mod.] (Dat Moshe VeYehudit in Ketubot) and Sear BeIsha Ervah [A womans
hair is "erva" - Mod.](in Berachot). The two are not the same! The
former may have nothing to do with Tzni'ut and most poskim hold it is
biblical (at least minimal covering), while the latter has to do with
sexual distraction, is a tzniut concept, and is rabbinic.
 
	Regarding covering every hair, Rav Moshe Feinstein disagrees
with the Chatam Sofer and says that lechatchila a square tefach can be
exposed (i.e., two fingers depth across the face with two tefachim +
sideburns and hair coming out the back of the neck (Chutz letzimtan)).
The subject is very complicated, with many opinions and is not suitable
for a format as this.
 
	My comments were not made to pasken but merely to show the
complexity of the subject.
 
Aryeh Frimer  [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________

Topics:
	Re: T'fillin (#190)
		Bob Werman
		Morris Podolak
		Ben Svetitsky
	Re: Custom not to Send Flowers to a Funeral (#187)
		Isaac Balbin
	Maimonides and Kabbalah (#192)
		David Kaufmann
	Re: Hagadah Question (#183)
		Johnny Chody
	Re: Shovuos - Why 2 days (#189)
		Zev Sero
	Re: Niddah and Cervical Cancer (#189)
		Pat Barry
______________________________________________________________________
 
Just a note on t'fillin; the t'fillin of Rabbenu Tam were the
ones found in the excavations at the Dead Sea, in use 1920
years ago.
 
Of course they could have been one of three kinds used simultaneously.
 
Bob Werman - rwerman@hujivms - Jerusalem
______________________________________________________________________
 
With regard to my note about tefillin on chol hamoed, Leon Moskowitz
writes that there are really three types of tefillin.  In fact, in
addition to RASHI and Rabbenu TA[Dam and the Shimusha Rabbah, there is
also the version of the RAVAD.  The story is told that when te[Dhe Vilna
GAon was asked why he didn't put on Rabbenu Tam's tefillin, he answered
that if one wanted to cover all the possibilities discussed in the
literature one would have to put on 64 different pairs of tefillin (the
story is in Ta'amei Haminhagin and in Ovadia Yosef's Yabia Omer).
 
As to the question of whether there is a dispute or whether both are
correct, the Vilna Gaon obviously held that it was a halachic dispute,
and that the halacha is like RASHI.  The kabbalists that follow the ARI
z"l consider that both versions are correct and have particular
relations to this world and the world to come.  This is discussed by the
Aruch Hashulchan that I referred to in my earlier note.
 
Morris Podolak - D77@TAUNOS
______________________________________________________________________
 
Concerning t'fillin, Len Moskowitz wrote:
>Despite common misconceptions, it is not a dispute and the differences
>did not arise because of doubt.  There are actually three different
>forms of tefillin ... , each with a different significance.
 
What are you saying, Len, that the Torah tells us to put on three sets
of t'fillin?  The different types of t'fillin certainly DO arise because
of early differences of opinion.  To be sure, each opinion has its own
philosophy behind it; Rav Soloveitchik once gave a yahrzeit lecture in
New York on the deep significance of the order of par'shiyot in Rabbeinu
Tam t'fillin.  (The point was that Rabbeinu Tam separates the verses
taken from Exodus from those taken from Deuteronomy, showing a duality
between mitzvot imposed on a personal level (Deuteronomy) and those
imposed on a national level (Exodus).  But that's for another posting.)
The mitzvah consists of one set, and that would be all, if no
controversy had arisen.
 
Concerning chol ha-mo'ed.  The Mishnah Berura suggests putting on t'fillin
conditionally--"If it's not a mitzva, I'm doing it just for fun."
That way you don't run afoul of Rabbi Akiva's dictum (concerning "signs")
in case it's applicable to chol ha-mo'ed, nor of the Zohar.
He also writes that whatever one's personal custom is, one should by
all means follow the custom of the minyan in which he happens to be.
A clear case, he writes of "lo titgodedu": Thou shalt not form parties.
Certainly the same applies to (1) saying Hallel on Yom Ha'atzmaut, with
or without a b'racha, and (2) reciting public prayers -- e.g., kaddish
and kedusha -- according to nusach Ashkenaz or Sepharad, whichever fits
the locale.  Why do people insist on emphasizing differences?
 
Ben Svetitsky   [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
  | Note that in talmudic days myrtles were used at funerals.  See, e.g.,
  | Beitza 6a (I think).  Nowadays, the custom of flowers at a funeral
  | probably falls under `chukot hagoy'; it is not merely non-jewish but
  | positively unjewish.
 
This is a simplification. For a thorough discussion of this issue see
(from memory, but I am 95% confident) Sheilos Utshuvos Yabiah Omer
from Rav Ovadia Yosef.
 
Isaac Balbin
______________________________________________________________________
 
Maimonides and Kabbalah: See the Winter 1991 issue of Wellsprings
(available from 770 Eastern Pkwy, Brooklyn, NY 11213 for about $2),
which has an article devoted to the subject. Winkler references the
beginning of Hilchos Deot and several places in Hilchos Avodas
Kochavim and Hilchos Mezuzzah. His discussion of Rambam's word choice
and analysis goes on for several pages (Winkler's book is about $5
from Judaica Press). However, he does quote a letter of Rambam's to a
disciple: "After I arrived in the Land of the Deer (Israel), I found
an elderly sage who enlightened my eyes to the ways of the kabbalah,
and if I would have known before what I have learned now, i would have
written much which I would ordinarily not have written" (Shalsheles
HaKabbalah, 44a). A contemporary wrote [again I'm quoting Winkler]: I
have witnessed firsthand how he [Rambam] had engaged in the study of
the kabbalah toward the end of his days" (Migdal Oz on Yad, Hilchos
Yesodei HaTorah, end of chap. 1). 
 
(If I get a chance to get the Wellsprings article handy, I'll quote
parts and give references.)
 
David Kaufmann - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
One of the purposes of the Seder as the setting in which to fulfill the
Mitzvos of the night is to provide the environment and mood that will
arouse within our conciousness an awareness of the greatness of the
Almighty & our dependence on His kindness and to generate a feeling of
gratitude - all with the intention to boost our comittment to His
service in preparation for Kabollas Hatorah on Shovuos, as was the case
when we left Egypt.
 
The Parsha in the Torah where this idea is expressed most clearly is in
the 'Mikro Bikurim'. Before the land owner is entitled to enjoy the
fruits of his labour he is required to demonstrate that although he has
put in so much of his effort/time etc to cultivating these first fruits,
he nevertheless realises that without the help of Hashem he has nothing.
 
It is in this Parsha that we see that a complete recognition of ones
dependence on help from Hashem requires the farmer to look back at
history to consider his past and only therby to be able to acknowledge
the debdt owed to Hashem.
 
It is with this thought in mind that the Ba'al Hagoddoh included the
portion relevant to Yetzias Mitzraim from the parsha of Mikroh Bikurim
to be the central point around which the rest of Maggid is based.
 
Johnny Chody ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
> However, there is one opinion, that of the "Chacham Tzvi", that
> holds that all visitors to Israel only have to hold one day.
 
This is also the decision of the Shulchan Aruch Harav (second edition,
chapter 1).  The holiness of yomtov depends on the place; in some
places (where the law of celebrating yomtov for days was established)
it is yomtov, and in other places (where the law was not established)
it is not. Similarly, on Friday at 1900 GMT, it is shabbat in some
places (east of the day/night terminator), and not in others (west of
the terminator). 
 
Zev Sero  -  [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding that cryptic comment from Mechael Kanovsky that "There are
diseases that are more prevalent by women who do not keep the laws of
nidah like endometriosis..."  Where does this statement come from?  As
an epidemiologist, I would be very interested in any scientific citations
on this topic.
 
Pat Barry    [email protected]

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: Tfila on Yom Haatzmaut (#189)
		Morris Podolak
	Re: A Yom Haatzmaut question (#192)
		Aryeh Frimer
		Mindy Schimmel
	Re: Two days yomtov - Tshuvas Chacham Tzvi (#193)
		Johnny Chody
	Re extra days of Chagim in diaspora
		[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
    Just a few quick notes: First, the Bitnet (LISTSERV) JUDAICA list (was
the Jewish Studies Newsletter) is now an open unmoderated list. For more
information, please contact Tzvee Zahavy at [email protected]. To
join, send a message stating subscribe judaica to [email protected]
(I hope I have my listserv jargon correct). I have announced the
existence of this forum on JUDAICA, and we have a fair number of new
members here from that list. Welcome to mail.jewish and I hope you find
this list enjoyable and useful!
    The plans for the second mail.jewish picnic in the NJ/NY area are
moving along. The most likely date at this time appears to be June 16.
If you are interested in more information, and have not previously let
me know, please drop me a note. I will inform the list when the
date/time etc is final. And now back to our scheduled programming.
 
Avi Feldblum - Moderator - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Aryeh Frimer says "EVERY Chief Rabbi with the exception of Rav Goren
Shlita has Paskened to say Hallel WITHOUT a Bracha ..."  I have not seen
the published psakim of every Chief Rabbi, but I have seen a responsum
of Rav Herzog z''l which has recently appeared.  There he discusses the
issue of hallel on Yom Ha'atzmaut, and although he doesn't give a
"bottom line" decision, he certainly seemed in favor of saying hallel
with a bracha, and argued strongly for that position.
 
In addition, I remember reading an article in Shana be Shana about two
years ago (this is the yearly calendar published by the chief rabbinate)
where someone reported being at a minyan with Rav Unterman (also a
former Chief Rabbi).  A discussion started over whether to say hallel
with or with- out a bracha.  When no immediate decision was in sight the
hazzan solved the problem by starting with a bracha.  Rav Unterman
seemed pleased.  When asked about it later, he said that he had always
had his doubts, but now that the old city of Jerusalem was again in
Jewish hands, he had no doubts that hallel should be said with a bracha.
 
I guess what I am saying is that those who do say hallel with a bracha
are not in such bad company.
 
Morris Podolak D77@TAUNOS
______________________________________________________________________
 
	Regarding "Yom Ha'Atzmaut Nidcheh": In Jewish Tradition there is
a concept of Community or Family Purims which celebrate days of
salvation from plagues, pogroms, pillage, evil decrees etc. For
references see The Encyclopedia Judaica and the Artscroll Book on Purim.
Such Purims were celebrated by noted Jewish Scholars including the
Rambam, Tiferet Yisrael, Chayei Adam and Ya'avetz. These are Yemei
Shevach Ve'Hodaya and are considered a Yom Tov for the community or
family that observes that day. Yom Ha'atzmaut is in this tradition,
though on a somewhat grander scale since it affected all of Klal
Yisrael. The day chosen for such a Purim depends on the Kabalat Neder
[Acceptance of Obligation - Mod.] of
the Family or community. Regarding Yom Ha"atzmaut Nidche, most poskim
maintain that already by the first Yom Ha'atzmaut the problem of Friday
was discussed but tabled for a later date; in subsequent years it was
agreed to make it earlier, i.e., on Thursday. [The proper term is not
Nidcheh - which means later - but Yom Ha'Atzmaut Mukdam]. Hence, the
original Kabalat neder was the 5th of Iyar on normal years, and the 4th
when the fifth falls on Friday. I suggest that anyone interested in the
Halachot of Yom Ha'atzmaut get his hands on a copy of Prof. Rakover's
book on the subject. It's MUST reading (in Hebrew)!
	According to these Poskim, the 4th is the actual day of Yom
Ha'atzmaut and sets aside the laws of aveilut [mourning - Mod.] just as
the 5th would in a normal year.  There is a minority opinion who holds
that the Halachic model for YH Mukdam should be Purim Meshulash (the
complicated laws of Purim for Jerusalem when the 15th falls on Shabbat).
Others make a distinction between Israel and the Diaspora, with the
former celebrating on the 4th and the latter on the fifth.
	The consensus is that we all follow Israel and celebrate YH
Mukdam on the 4th - Berov Am Hadrat Melech [In the multitude of people
there is glory to the King - Mod].
 
Aryeh Frimer  [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
  I point out a technical comment, that "Nidheh" (lit: pushed off)
refers to commemoration that are delayed, not to those that are moved
forward.  For instance, when Purim falls on Sunday, and Ta`anit Esther
(the fast on the day preceding Purim) would fall on Shabbat, we don't
want to fast on Shabbat.  Yom Kippur is the only fast day which is
"celebrated" on Shabbat But we also can't push if off till Sunday, as
that would be Purim.  Thus, it is pushed forward, in this case to
Thursday, as only fasts that actually fall out on Sunday (10 Tevet is
the only one) are "celebrated" on Friday.  Unfortunately, I cannot think
of any good adjective for the pushed forward fast.  The verb that comes
to mind is "Maqdimim" (we/they do it early, as in Zrizim Maqdimim,
zealous people do [their mitzvot] early, that is, as early as possible).
  Since I believe it was the Rabbanut who instituted Yom
Ha-`Atzma'ut, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to change the
date when they see such a change to be necessary.
 
Mindy Schimmel ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
The tshuvo of the Chacham Tzvi is in Tshuvos No 167 (Page 152 in my
edition).  His reasoning for a ben chutz lo'oretz [person from outside
Israel - Mod.] keeping only one day in Eretz Yisroel is as follows.
 
The din [law - Mod.] that a ben eretz yisroel [person from Israel -
Mod.] is not allowed to do any (creative activity) melocho in chutz
lo'oretz on 2nd day yomtov is because he assumes the chumro of mokom
sh'holach l'shom (the stringencies of the place where he went). The same
logic ought to apply for a ben chutz lo'retz in Eretz Yisroel that he
maintains the chumroh of mokom sh'yotzoh mishom (the stringencies of the
place he left) on his 2nd day yomtov.
 
Except, that the Chacham Tzvi is mechadesh that the din of chumroh of
mokom sh'yotzoh mishom only applies in circumstances where even if for
example everybody from that place came to the new place they would still
be able and would keep their old custom. However, in this case, there
would be an Issur D'oraysoh of Baal Tosif [torah-level prohibition
against adding to a mitzvah - Mod.] if people from Chutz Lo'oretz
who came to Eretz Yisroel permanently would continue to keep their 2nd
day.
 
In such circumstances the individual, even if he is only there
temporarily, does not maintain the chumroh of mokom sh'yotzoh mishom.
 
However, the Mishnah Brura, paskens against the Chachm Tzvi based on the
view of the majority of Achronim.
 
Johnny Chody ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
I've long had a theory about the extra day of the chag in the diaspora.
The arguments are mostly from silence and I haven't had the time to
research it.  The theory is as follows: Most of the early academies were
in Babylon (Sura and Pumpedita) which were to the east of Jerusalem.
 
Astronomers were aware that the sun set later in Jerusalem than in
Babylon.  The scholars were in a quandary when to start the chag.  By
adding a full day they made sure that the 25 hours in Jerusalem were
celebrated as chag by beginning before the holiday began in Jerusalem
and ending it after it finished in Jerusalem.
 
Unfortunately, when Judaism moved westward, the custom of the extra day
was well established.  In fact I argue, that those living west of
Jerusalem up to the international dateline should begin the chag a day
earlier to assure overlap with the chag in Jerusalem.  This was of
course never considered because it screws up the very reasoning behind
'lo adu rosh' [Rosh Hashanna never begins on Sunday, Wednesday or
Friday].

Topics:
	Re: Covering of Hair by Married Women (#181)
		Aryeh Frimer
		Warren Burstein
	Women and Halacha Reference
		Mindy Schimmel
	Seminar Announcement
		Joshua Proschan
______________________________________________________________________
 
	As in most things in Halacha, this is a complicated issue. An
excellent discussion is found in the Ph.D. thesis of Prof. Dov I. Frimer
at Hebrew University. There is also a volume of Otzar Haposkim which
discusses many of the relevant poskim (with the Machmirim in the text
and the Mekilim in the footnotes!).
	The fact that the Gemara calls it De'Oraita doesn't necessarily
mean it is biblical. For example say in the Ketuba "DECHAZI LICHI
MIDEORAYTA", despite the fact that we hold "KETUBA MIDERABANAN". All it
means is that it has a source or hint in the Torah. The Meiri
specifically states that Dat Moshe includes those things stated or hinted
to in the Torah. The Responsa trumot Hadeshen specifically says that
Kisui Sear is Derabbanan.
	Rashi ad Loc in ketubot clearly suggest that Kisui sear is a
Minhag from the Torah. He says something similar in his commentary to
chumosh namely, that it is the custom of the daughters of Israel to
cover their hair.  Rav Moshe Feinstein in the Igrot does not take Rashi
literally, but the Tradition in the Solovetchik Family is that Rashi is
indicating that Kisui sear is a custom and as such is not immutable.
	The issue is very complicated primarily because there are two
issues: U'para Rosh Haisha (Dat Moshe VeYehudit in Ketubot) and Sear
BeIsha Ervah (in Berachot). The two are not the same! The former may
have nothing to do with Tzni'ut and most poskim hold it is biblical (at
least minimal covering), while the latter has to do with sexual
distraction, is a tzniut concept, and is rabbinic.
 
	Regarding covering every hair, Rav Moshe Feinstein disagrees
with the Chatam Sofer and says that lechatchila a square tefach can be
exposed (i.e., two fingers depth across the Face which two tefachim +
sideburns and hair coming out the back of the neck (Chutz letzimtan).
The subject is very complicated, with many opinions and is not suitable
for a format as this.
	My comments were not made to pasken but merely to show the
complexity of the subject.
 
Aryeh Frimer  [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Morris Podolak refers us to Tosafot on Shabbat 64b for a possible
reason why the rabbinic outcry was not stronger (against women not
covering their hair at the turn of the century).
 
In the Tosafot, this discussion is of the laws in the 6th chapter of
Shabbat which basically prohibit a woman from wearing jewelry on
Shabbat in a reshut harabim (a place in which one is prohibited from
carrying on Shabbat) because they might take off a piece of jewelry to
show a friend and accidentally carry it.  Tosafot, after mentioning a
variety of reasons to be lenient, including the lack of a real reshut
harabim, the Rabbinic nature of the prohibition, and the observation
that women in their time did not take off their jewelry in the street,
come to the conclusion that it is permitted to wear jewelry, since it
is better that they violate the law unknowingly than that they violate
it knowingly.
 
The final principle is also applied to other situations, even to
d'orayta (laws from the Torah, as opposed to Rabinnical), such as eating
on Erev Yom Kippur up to the last minute.  The limit of this principle,
I seem to recall, is a subject of debate, and is either laws which while
derived from the Torah are not clearly spelled out there, or which are
not subject to the severe penalty of karet [lit. to be cut off, this
penalty is not in the hands of the human court, and details are subject
to disagreement among the commentators. Mod.]  In any case, while a
woman covering her hair may be d'orayta, it certainly is not subject to
karet.
 
Orach Chayyim 303:18 mentions the opinions in a different order,
saying about women of his time who do wear jewelry, that there are
those who say that it is forbidden, but we let it be, and there are
others who say that it is permitted, the RAMA adding an addition
reason to permit it.
 
This is a very interesting subject, at least to me, since it seems to
be concerned with the way halacha changes (I'm not talking about
people who simply decide to ignore a particular halacha).
 
I'd also like some clarification on Aryeh Frimer's statement:
 
> the tradition in the Solovetchik family is that Rashi is indicating
> that Kisui sear is a custom and as such is not immutable. 
 
Is this a reference to a ruling which the family observed, or perhaps
to an oral tradition that such is the case?  There is a principle in
the Talmud along the lines of, one can argue with logic, but not with
an orally transmitted tradition.  I have never heard of this principle
applying to post-talmudic authorities however, but if it does then
perhaps one ought not to criticise the view.  On the other hand, even
if covering the hair is a minhag, how is it possible to act against a
minhag?  Is not minhag as immutable as halacha?
 
By the way, here are two whimsical ideas for what the halacha might
be in a generation or two (based on the assumption that covering the
hair is not d'orayta but is based on the need to indicate that the
women is married)
 
a) Women stop knitting kippot for men, who go back to wearing cloth.
Married women knit kippot (maybe somewhat larger, or maybe the size
doesn't matter since it's just there to indicate that they're married,
perhaps the designs change, too) for themselves.
 
b) Married women wear berets pinned to their shoulders (like Israeli
soldiers do today).
 
Warren Burstein
______________________________________________________________________
 
There is a 3 volume work which contains a lot of source material on many
questions relating to women and Mitvot.  It is called "Ha-Isha Ve-Hamitzvot"
[Woman and Commandments] and is edited by Elyakim G. Ellinson.  As the title
suggests, it is in Hebrew so is inaccessible to some.  However, it is nicely
laid out, with comments, footnotes, introductory material, etc.  The second
volume, "Hatze`a Lekhet" [Walking Modestly, a phrase borrowed from Micha, I
think] contains a chapter on Hair covering by women.
 
Mindy Schimmel ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
                           SEMINAR ANNOUNCEMENT
 
Morasha, a New Jersey-based Kiruv organization, announces two seminars:
 
DISCOVERY SEMINAR:  Berkeley-Carteret Hotel, Asbury Park, NJ
 
>From Friday afternoon, June 21st, through Sunday, June 23d, Aish HaTorah
will present a Discovery Seminar.  These seminars are "devoted to 
conveying the basis for belief in Judaism and its values . . . that 
[Judaism] is a compatible and relevant program for life in the '90s.
 
                   $150/person--double occupancy
                    225/person--single occupance
                     95/third person in room
                     65/child under 12 in room with parents
 
ARACHIM:  Lakewood, NJ
 
Over Shabbos Parshas Nasso (Memorial Day Weekend), Arachim will conduct a 
conference in Lakewood entitled 
 
                   KIRUV:  CLOSE-UP
                   An  Inside  Look
 
This seminar is for Kiruv activists and people who want to understand how to 
use the Arachim approach.  The sessions will be led by the founders and 
leaders of Arachim, Rav Tzvi Inbal, Dr. Shalom Srebrenick, and R. Yossi 
Wallace; and Rav Yehuda Silver of the British SEED program.  Participants 
will stay in the Lakewood community.
 
    Arachim:  $50/adult, $25/child under 12, for all meals.
              Accommodations arranged within the Yeshiva community;
              some vacant apartments or hotel rooms may be available.
 
 
For more information on these seminars, arrangements, and fees call Eli
Shulman at 908-905-6770.  Information on the Discovery Seminar is also
available from Aish HaTorah Discovery at 718-377-8819.
 
Joshua Proschan, [email protected]

Topics:
	FTP Archive Update
		Moderator and Marty Olevitch
	Re: Maimonides and Kabbalah (#192)
		Len Moskowitz
		Moshe Rayman
	Rashi's anscestry
		Jon
	What kids hear in Yeshiva Ketana
		Benzion Dickman
	Aliyot for Cohane, Levi
		Henry Schaffer
______________________________________________________________________
The mail.jewish archives are available on arthur.wustl.edu [host id
(128.252.125.83)] in the subdirectory mj. The archives used to be in
Unix compressed (*.Z) format. Due to requests from people on non-Unix
machines, the archives are no longer stored in compressed form. The are
now just normal text files.
        Marty
______________________________________________________________________
 
[This comes off of soc.culture.jewish, but I think is in reply to
Warren's question in #192. Mod.]
 
Someone (sorry, the specific post has scrolled off my system) asked
for the citation that Gershon Winkler used in his assertion that the
RaMBa"M accepted Kabbalah.
 
Winkler asserts that the RaMBa"M didn't object to the proper study of
Kabbalah by those who were properly prepared for it and were within
the framework of Torah.  He asserts that what the RaMBa"M objected to
was the application of Kaballah in the context of the superstitious.
He cites the Yad (Mishneh Torah) Hilchos Deos, 2:12, 4:11, 4:13, and
in Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 11:4 and 11:11 in pages 73 through 81 of
"The Soul of the Matter" (The Judaica Press, 1981).
 
More convincing perhaps is the citation Winkler brings from a letter
the RaMBa"M wrote to his disciples found in Shalsheles HaKabbalah 44a
in which he describes how he was enlightened to Kabbalah late in life,
and from the eyewitness account of a contemporary (Migdal Oz on the
Yad, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, end of chapter 1).
 
Another possible source is cited by Rav Chaim Volozhin (ztz"l) in
Nefesh HaChaim (Sha'ar Bet, Perek Heh): the RaMBa"M's "Moreh," Perek
Ayin Bet, Chelek Aleph, where he speaks of the entire world in the
terms of "Shiur Komah."  "Shiur Komah" is a core concept of Kabbalah
and the RaMBa"M describes it in much the same terms as the Zohar.
 
Personally, I've often come across passages in the Mishneh Torah that
made me wonder how anyone could possibly question that the RaMBa"M was
not familiar with Kabbalah.
 
Len Moskowitz
______________________________________________________________________
 
With regard to whether the Rambam studied (what we call) "Kabala",
there is an interesting gloss of R. Eliyahu from Vilna (the Gra) on
Shulchan Aruch.
 
It is the chapter in Yore Deah discussing me'onein umechashef
(the prohibitions against practicing magic and whitchcraft),
there is alot of discussion about using amulets and reciting
various verses to cure or heal sick and wounded people.  The Shulchan
Aruch, quoting the Rambam, throws in a line saying "Even though none
of this stuff realy works anyway".
 
The Gra in his glosses to that section reacted very strongly
to this statement.  He accuses the Rambam of being drawn astray by
the evil philosophy, and asserts that that neither the Rambam nor the
the Rama (R. Moshe Iserles) have "seen (or understood) pardes".  Pardes
is a word used to describe the secret mysteries of the Tora.
 
Both the Rambam and the Rama define Pardes as having to do with science
and astronomy (The Rambam is in Yesodei Hatora, and the Rama is in
Shulcan Aruch hilchot Talmud Tora).
 
(If anyone wants precise sources for this, E-mail me.  If there are
enough requests, I'll post them.)
 
I think this is clear the the Gra held that the Rambam didn't ever
study Kabala (at least in the years that he wrote the Mishne Tora).
 
The Gra, who was an expert in all fields (including "Kabala") was
very qualified to assert this.  But yet, it didn't stop him from studying
(and ruling like) the Rambam, because we all know that the main source
of Halakha is Shas and poskim, not Kabala.  In fact the only Kabalistic
halakhot that are binding are the ones that Jews over the centuries have
accepted upon themselves as Minhag (custom), such as the way we wash
our hands in the morning, and very few others.
 
Yes, I'm trying to start a new thread.  I suspect that those who
are asserting that the Rambam approved of Kabala, are not interested
in Jewish history.  They are trying to justify the emphasis certain
groups place on Kabala (even when it clearly goes against Halakha).
 
Moshe Rayman - [email protected] - (908) 699-6533
______________________________________________________________________
 
I am looking for Rashi's anscestry to Melech David. Rashi himself says
that he traced it through Rav Yachanan Hasandler. Any pieces of this
anscestry would also be appreciated, as well as sources. I coldn't find
anything in Sefer Hadorot- perhaps I overlooked something?
 
-Jon-
______________________________________________________________________
 
We have a boy, Yosef, just turned six years old, in a Monsey yeshiva
pre-1A.  This is our first experience with yeshiva education, and we've
noticed some eyebrow-raising material coming through.  Most of the
errors are due to the child's misperceptions of language or concepts;
some are teacher errors, apparently.
 
This first report was his own transformation.  The class was learning
about things Kohanim (when officiating in the Bais HaMikdash <Temple on
the holy site in Jerusalem>) were not allowed to touch or buildings they
were not allowed to enter lest they become "tameh" (ritually
disqualified) for a temporary period.  But for a "Mes Mitzvah" (a dead
person who has no one to bury him), if no one else is around, even the
Kohen HaGadol (the High Priest) is required to make himself tameh in
order to perform the burial.  Yosef reported that "Even the Kohen
HaGadol is allowed to be tameh for a Bas Mitzvah".  Anyone who has seen
some of the upscale Bas Mitzvahs in the Bergen/Rockland communities will
sympathize.
 
On another occasion we noticed (while attending an in-class birthday
party) that the review sheets for the weekly Torah portion of
Acharei-Moth/Kedoshim showed clear indications that at least one Monsey
yeshiva had upgraded the Yom Kippur sin-offerings (to G_d and for
Azazel) from measley goats (se`ir) to hefty bullocks (shor).  I thought
it was a typo, but in checking over Yosef's learning, he assured me that
a matched set of "oxes" were drawn over to see which one went over the
cliff to Azazel ("and it got smashed to little pieces!", he reported
with wide-eyed excitement.)  Well, the Bas Mitzvah must have gone to the
Kohen's head.
 
	Benzion Dickman
______________________________________________________________________
 
  The aliyot for the Shabbat Torah reading are 1) Cohane, 2)Levi
3-7)Israelites, and Maftir.  It is my understanding that it is 
traditional and permissable that a) There may be additional 
aliyot beyond these seven before Maftir (based on subdividing 
the portions, or on partial repetition) and, b) The last aliyah 
of these (regardless of whether or not there are extras) can be 
a Cohane or a Levi.
 
  This understanding may be Askenazic in derivation.
 
  Any disagreements so far?  However, I have recently heard that
it is allowable to have additional Cohane and Levi aliyot, beyond
those I mentioned.  These may be either any or all of the ones
after #6, or may be interleaved during the #3-7 (this latter may
be Sephardic in origin, as I have heard that the Sephardic tradition
is much less firm in this matter.)
 
  I would be interested in hearing about the practices of different
congregations, and other information.
 
--henry schaffer

The Rambam (Moses Maimonides) lived at about the same time that the Kabbala
was developed. Maimonides main work was to resolve any conflict between
philosophy (if he lived today we might say "science") and Judaism. If there
is any criticism of his work it is that he was TOO logical.
After his death a great conflict arose between his followers and the mystical
Kabbalists. In fact, the Kabbalists tried to excommunicate him post-mortem.
The references in the previous few notes to the Rambam taking up Kabbala are
most likely apocryphal.

Dave

Topics:
	Re: Covering of Hair by Married Women (#181)
		Lori
		Aryeh Frimer
		Louis Steinberg
	Custom of Place vs. Custom of Family
		Frank Silbermann
	Re: Custom not to Send Flowers to a Funeral (#187)
		Aryeh Frimer
	Re: Tfila on Yom Haatzmaut (#189)
		Aryeh Frimer
	A note on Hebrew (#195)
		Bob Werman
______________________________________________________________________
 
In mj #194, Aryeh Frimer says that "...an excellent discussion is found
in the Ph.D. thesis of Prof. Dov I. Frimer at Hebrew University." I have
also seen a reference to this work in an article in JUDAISM, Winter
1991, on hair covering, where Michael J. Broyde says that "this work [by
Frimer] is the best starting point for any research into the scope of
the prohibition for married women uncovering their hair. It addresses
numerous details of the prohibition, including how much hair needs to be
covered and whether any covering is needed within one's own house or in
the house of another...."
 
I currently want to study this topic, to decide about covering my own
hair. Does anyone know how I can get a copy of this Ph.D. thesis?  Also,
the article says it is in Hebrew with an English synopsis. Is there an
English translation? If not, I think there are people I could get help
from.
 
Thanks,
-Lori-
______________________________________________________________________
 
Warren Burstein requested clarification of my statement that "the
tradition in the Soloveitcik family is that Rashi is indicating that
Kisui Sear [hair covering - Mod.] is a custom and as such is not
immutable".
	This tradition was indeed observed, Halacha Le"maaseh [in
practice - Mod.]. Rav J.B.  Soloveitchik's wife, Rabbanit Tanya
Soloveitchik Aleha Hashalom - a Talmudic Scholar in her own right - did
not cover her hair at all.
	My brother Dov interviewed the "Rov", his brother Rav Aharon
Soloveitchik and The Rov's son-in-law Rav Aharon Lichtenstein for their
analysis of the Sugya in Ketubot and the related discussion in Berachot
regarding Tzniut [modesty - Mod.]. Briefly, the family tradition is that
the Rashi in Ketubot indicates that Kisui Sear is a custom recorded in
the Torah-but not required by the Torah.
	While we are required to keep minhagim this is only as long as
people continue to perform them. There are all sorts of minhagim quoted
in the Talmud (particularly regarding the Laws of Mourning and Torah
Reading) which we no longer observe. They are then no longer binding. In
the case of Kisui Sear, clearly the first generation of women who
stopped covering their hair did so improperly. But once the vast
majority of women did, the minhag is no longer binding. Clearly, by the
end of the 19th century the vast majority of Jewish women stopped
covering their hair (See for example, the Aruch Hashulchan in Siman 74)
and this was certainly true of the vast majority of Religious women in
the 20th century.
	VERY BRIEFLY, there is another lenient view that maintains that
while Dat Moshe is biblical, it requires only minimal covering, while
Dat Yehudit and Se'ar Be"isha Erva are both relative concepts. Hence,
nowadays when most Jewish women no longer cover their hair, these
concepts are no longer in force. This view permits a tichal or hat with
a lot of hair showing. Those in the New York area interested in more
details can contact Rabbi Saul Berman.
 
	Chag Sameach to all. Please note that I am on Sabbatical and
hence do not have access to my written notes and Seforim which are in
Israel.
 
Aryeh Frimer - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
A question on the reasons given for married women covering their hair:
 
For those people who hold that this has something to do with "ervah"
("nakedness"), how can there be a distinction between married and
unmarried women?  I've never heard of any distinction in, say, skirt
lengths based on marital status.  There must be something going on
here that I'm missing - otherwise I would have expected this point to
have ruled out the ervah explanation centuries ago.
 
 Louis Steinberg
______________________________________________________________________
 
> Ben Svetitsky   [email protected]
> The Mishnah Berura writes that whatever one's personal custom is,
> one should by all means follow the custom of the minyan
> in which he happens to be.  A clear case, he writes of "lo titgodedu":
> Thou shalt not form parties. ... Why do people insist on emphasizing
> differences?
 
From my readings in Jewish history, my _guess_ is that
 
A) At one time, one followed the Halacha of the community (even with
   regards to things like Pesach Kashrut).
 
B) At some time (perhaps the early part of this millenium), there
   ocurred many simultaneous large expulsions.  Jews from many lands
   reassembled in new places of refuge.  Unable agree on whose Minhag to
   adopt, we had to rule to observe the Minhag of one's father for the
   sake of Shalom HaBayit (peace in the community).
 
Frank Silbermann	[email protected]
Tulane University	New Orleans, Louisiana  USA
______________________________________________________________________
 
The custom of bringing flowers to a funeral is very common in Israel,
primarily among the sfaradim. The Teshuva of Rav Ovadya Yosef cited by
Isaac Balbin makes it clear that not everything the Goyim do is
forbidden unto us, especially if we did it first! Hence, he and others
maintain that since the Talmud already mentions the custom of placing
flowers on a the "mita" (presumably as a mild deoderant) - it is
permissible to bring flowers nowadays as well.
 
Aryeh Frimer - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
The tefillot to be said are found in in the Rinat Yisrael Siddur. In
contradistinction to Yom Ha'Atzmaut, where every chief Rabbi with the
exception of Rav Goren has ruled to say Hallel without a Bracha, the
official ruling by Yom Yerushalayim is to say Hallel Shalem WITH a
Bracha. It's a shame that it is not taken more seriously and is
essentially ignored in the Galut.
 
Aryeh Frimer - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
A note on Hebrew: In mail.jewish #195, David Kaufmann writes:
 
>                                            a letter of Rambam's to a
>disciple: "After I arrived in the Land of the Deer (Israel), I found
 
    A common mistake.  There are two different words, tzadi-bet-yod,
or tzvi.
 
1] The better know word means deer or gazelle as Mr. Kaufmann understood
it.  Included in this category is the expression, "hini'yah m'otav al
keren ha-tzvi," which is literally to place his money on the stag's
antlers but means made a doubtful investment.
 
2] A different word, meaning glory, beauty or splendor, found particularly
in classic [ga'onoic] poetry and thereafter.  eretz ha-tsvi, as used by
Rambam, means the lovely land and specifically, as Mr. Kaufmann notes, Israel
[No, dear, not "deer"] and tzvi tiferet is a crown of glory or can be used
to indicate great splendor.
 
__Bob Werman - rwerman@hujims - Jerusalem
______________________________________________________________________

Topics:
        Applications of Chulin 70a
                Joel Goldberg
	Re: T'fillin (#190)
		Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund
		Aryeh Frimer
		Len Moskowitz
	Depth versus Breadth
		Len Moskowitz
	What Does NOT need a Hechsher?
		Fran Storfer
	Haggadot
		Will Shulman
______________________________________________________________________
In the last posting, I left off Lori's signature. Here is the info:
 
Lori Alperin Resnick - [email protected]   allegra!resnick
 
Avi F. - Moderator
______________________________________________________________________
 
There are a number of discussions in the Talmud that could be considered
solely academic. (Steinsaltz, in one of his guides, talks about
discussions solely for the purpose of discovering the truth per
Halacha.) Nevertheless, some of these discussions can have relevance to
actual problems; e.g. the Talmud (no reference, sorry) in the context of
allowed wives for cohenim (priests) asks whether a woman who is pregnant
but has not engaged in intercourse is a virgin. This would be relevant
to discussion of lineage and artifical insemination. I believe a rough
consensus on this has been established. What interests me are some of
the things discussed on Chulin ayin(a)[70a]. There, they inquire as to
the maternity of an animal, who upon exiting from one womb enters
directly into the womb of another that has been placed hard (tzamud)
against it. The result is undecided (teko.)  This point would have
relevance to lineage in cases of surrogate motherhood. I would like to
know if there are any other applications or proto-applications of some
of the other things mentioned on the same page. These are such things as
the birth wrapped in a tallit, or the rat (chulda) that enters the womb.
 
Joel Goldberg
______________________________________________________________________
 
In Morris Podolak article on tefillin he writes:
 
The Vilna Gaon on was asked why he didn't put on Rabbenu Tam's
tefillin, he answered that if one wanted to cover all the possibilities
discussed in the literature one would have to put on 64 different pairs
of tefillin (the story is in Ta'amei Haminhagin and in Ovadia Yosef's
Yabia Omer).
 
However my calculations say that four factorial 4! = 24. Is there
something I could be leaving out?
 
Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund		 		  [email protected]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA			    harvard!bunny!sgutfreund
______________________________________________________________________
 
When the Tefillin of Rabbenu Tam were found in the excavations at the
Dead Sea, there were many who noted that they may have been placed in
"Sheimot" [burial site for holy religious items] as P'sulot [invalid or
improperly written].
 
Aryeh Frimer [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Morris Podolak writes:
 
 > As to the question of whether there is a dispute or whether both
 > are correct, the Vilna Gaon obviously held that it was a halachic
 > dispute, and that the halacha is like RASHI.
 
And Ben Svetitsky writes:
 
 > What are you saying, Len, that the Torah tells us to put on three
 > sets of t'fillin?  The different types of t'fillin certainly DO
 > arise because of early differences of opinion.
 
The original posting seemed to say that we have different types of
t'fillin because of a dispute over how to make them.  I responded
saying that there is no dispute that I knew of over their form; there
are in fact many correct forms of t'fillin.  I said nothing about the
question of how many and of which form should be donned to fulfill the
mitzvah.  There is indeed a difference of opinion on this point.
 
I hadn't known about the Ravad t'fillin nor the possibility of 60 (!)
others.  Thanks.
 
 
Ben also writes:
 
 > The mitzvah consists of one set, and that would be all, if no
 > controversy had arisen.
 
From what I can tell from his writings (and I am hardly an expert),
the Ariza"l donned his three sets not out of doubt or controversy, but
because each set had a particular significance at a specific time.
His practice says nothing about the minimum requirements for
fulfilling the mitzvah.  The Gr"a and the Mishnah B'rurah (among many)
address this practical issue.
 
The Gr"a says one set of Rashi is sufficient.  The Sefardim require
two: Rashi and Rabbenu Tam (now is this due to doubt or due to their
different significances?).  The Ariza"l donned three (two at Shacharit
and one at Mincha) but this is not a requirement.
 
Len Moskowitz - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
There are numerous approaches to Torah study.  One approach is to
cover as much as one can, understanding whatever one can in that pass
through the material.  Subsequent passes can draw on the broad
knowledge and go deeper.  In this way, one can cover large amounts of
material and gain a great breadth of knowledge and familiarity with a
large range of topics.  The daf yomi (one page a day of Talmud) is a
good example of this way of learning.  The Rav who taught me Etz
Chayyim also followed this approach.
 
Another approach is to study in depth.  One doesn't cover much
material, but all sources and viewpoints germaine to a particular
topic are exhausted before continuing on.  My rebbeyim in yeshiva
followed this approach in our Gemara shiyur.
 
I'd enjoy hearing views about when each approach is appropriate.
 
Len Moskowitz
______________________________________________________________________
 
I am in the process of kashering my home.  Does anyone know of a
reasonably comprehensive list of foods that can be purchased without
certification?  I can then assume that everything  not on
the list requires a hashgachah (certification of kashruth).
Some items that come to mind (I don't know about all of these, just
wonder, which is why I'd like to find such a list) include produce,
rice and other whole grains, legumes, coffee beans.
 
thanks for the help,
 
fran storfer - [email protected] - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
     A question was raised why we use the format of the declaration made
when one brings Bikkurim. (#183) The answer proposed was that it shows
our complete dependence on Hashem yisborach Shemo.  I have a collection
of Haggados (about 80) spanning from the 15th century to present. I find
an uncanny resemblence among them. They include Ashkenazi, Sefardi,
North African, Italian, Eastern Europe, German, etc.  I want to point
out that the Hagada unlike our siddur is so similar among the various
local variations (nuschaos). This fact has for many years amazed me.
 
Will Shulman

Topics:
	Re: Maimonides and Kabbalah (#192)
		Moshe Rayman
		Warren Burstein
		David Novak
	Re: Covering of Hair by Married Women (#181)
		Susannah Danishefsky
		Yitzchok Samet
______________________________________________________________________
In my zeal, I made a few slight errors in my last post regarding the
GRA's (R.  Elija from Vilna) opinion of the Rambams knowledge of Kabala.
 
I implied that all the Gra's comments were to be found in one place, in
the chapter about me'onein umechashef (witchcraft).  Actually I combined
two glosses, the first being in the chapter concerning witchcraft, and
the second in the laws of Talmud Tora (study of Tora).  In the first
gloss, he accuses the Rambam as being led astray by the "evil
philosophy", as mentioned in my previous posting.  This comment was a
reaction to the Rambams opinion that amulets and the like don't work.
This may or may not be relevant to our discussion.  The second gloss
refers to a comment made by the Rama (R. Moshe Iserles) concerning the
study of "other (non tora) subjects".  He refers to such study as "Tiyul
baPardes" (walking in Pardes).  The Gra comments that "neither he (R.
Iserles) nor Rambam actually saw Pardes".
 
The point of my last posting remains.  The Gra held that the Rambam
never saw Pardes.  And "Pardes", (according to the Gra), refers to the
hidden wisdom of the Tora; the Kabala.
 
A question: The letter from the Rambam quoted in Shalsheles Hakabala
implies that the Rambam did not know Kabala when he composed the Mishne
Tora.  But there were other statements made in this forum that claim
that there is Kabala in the Mishne Tora itself.  Can someone clarify
this for me?  I did check some of the sources mentioned in a previous
posting.  I did not see any Kabala in those sources.
 
Also who is Winkler?  What are his credentials?  Is he the author of the
Golem book?
 
Please don't get me wrong.  I am not against the study of Kabala in any way.
 
I am concerned with certain trends in Judaism that popularize kabala,
and try to incorporate it into their everyday practice of Judaism.
By definition, Kabala is "Chochmat Hanistar" (the hidden wisdom), and
should only be addressed by people who are on a high spiritual level.
Those who attempt to use it who are not on the level, will not benefit
from it in the intended way.  From the time that the Zohar was conceived
by Rashbi until it was popularized in Medieval Spain, it was only known
by a select few people.  But Yiddishkeit on the whole did fine.  Even if
the Rambam did embrace Kabala toward the end of his life, like the
Ramban did, they were still very holy people before this embrace.
 
Moshe Rayman - [email protected] - (908) 699-6533
______________________________________________________________________
 
Len Moskowitz (yes it was in reply to my question) cites a list of
references to Mishneh Torah which forbid superstitions practices
(at least that's what I found in Avodat Kochavim, Deot 2 only goes up
to 7 and Deot 4:11 and 4:13 contain medical advice).  This does not
lead me to the conclusion that the Rambam was in favor of other uses
of Kabbalah, or even that he was aware of it.
 
Can someone explain what the book Shalshelet HaKabbalah is, and when
it was written?  The letter referred to is not found in "Igrot
HaRambam".  I read the Migdal Oz, and it seems that he did not find
any references to Kabbalah in the Rambam's published works.
 
Does anyone know a Rambam scholar who could comment on this question?
 
Len ends with,
 
> Personally, I've often come across passages in the Mishneh Torah that
> made me wonder how anyone could possibly question that the RaMBa"M was
> not familiar with Kabbalah.
 
Without calling this statement into question, I would like to see it
expanded upon, including references to the Mishneh Torah.
 
As to Moshe Rayman's article, if the author of the Shulchan Aruch (Rav
Yosef Karo, himself a Kabbalist) thought that amulets were useless,
one might conclude that, rather than denying the usefulness of amulets
is anti-Kabbalah, that amulets are not part of the real Kabbalah.  Or
is the the Rama who objected to amulets, which the mechaber supported?
(I don't have a Yore Deah handy to check)
 
Warren Burstein
______________________________________________________________________
In mail.jewish #198, Moshe Rayman states:
 
>Both the Rambam and the Rama define Pardes as having to do with science
>and astronomy (The Rambam is in Yesodei Hatora, and the Rama is in
>Shulcan Aruch hilchot Talmud Tora).
 
In fact, in Hilchot Yesodei Hatora 4:13, the Rambam states that: "The
subject of these 4 chapters, including these 5 mitzvot, is what the
chachamim rishonim (early Sages) called Pardes."  The 5 mitzvot of
the first 4 chapters of Hilchot Yesodei Hatora are: to know that Hashem
exists; that He is the One and Only; to unify him; to love him; to
fear/be in awe of him.  In these chapters the Rambam discusses the
nature of Hashem, angels, and human beings, as well as the rest of
creation.  While the subject of these 4 chapters includes science and
astronomy as then understood, certainly the Rambam does not limit Pardes
to science and astronomy.  Speculations and investigations into the
nature of Hashem, for instance, would be included in the subject of
these 4 chapters.  Also, in the rest of halacha 4:13 Rambam goes on to
state the importance of learning halacha first, before entering Pardes
(just as we provide ourselves with food and drink before taking a walk
in the garden!).  He further points out that halacha is for everyone,
while Pardes is for a select few, and can be dangerous.  Thus, while he
discourages the study of Pardes it would appear that the Rambam
considered it a perfectly valid subject, and not one limited to science
and astronomy.  I speculate from this passage and others nearby, that
the Rambam himself was quite familiar with Pardes.
 
David Novak - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
	I am bothered about this conclusion of the Soloveitchik family
custom.  This implies that going back to the Beis Halevi - the family
has held that women do not have to cover their hair - when it is not the
minhag.  There are two possibilities as to what is meant by family
custom and it seems that the two things are being mixed together here.
One is a family mesorah on how to learn the Gemara.  A second is what do
people do in practice.  Regarding the first, since I have not done any
interviewing I can accept what has been said.  However, to say that the
family's Le'Maaseh custom is not to cover their hair seems to be
thoroughly inaccurate.  As far as I know most if not all of the female
members of the family (the side descending from Rav Moshe Soloveitchik
as well as the side descending from the Brisker Rav etc.)  do cover
their hair today.  Rabbanit Tanya Soloveitchik is perhaps an exception
rather than the rule.
 
	Susannah Danishefsky 		[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Much of the hair covering discussion has focused on meta-responsa
literature and other secondary sources (rumor, reliable rumor, observed
practice, etc). This is very educational, and serves as a basis for
posing an informed shayla (request for halachic ruling) to a competent
halachic authority, one which raises all relevant nuances and
circumstances.
 
Still, one piece of information is conspicuously absent - that
traditionally, lay people and scholars, after doing their homework as
above, ultimately needed Rabbonim for the final halachic decision. In
fact, most halachic and responsa literature deals with shaylas raised by
scholars.  Ironically, many possessing less scholarship, would not see a
need to ask those shaylas, and would be insulted by the suggestion that
they do so.
 
Statements by contributors that they intend to pasken shaylas for
themselves after reading this news group, and reviewing other
meta-responsa sources, and without consulting competent halachists,
clash thoroughly with the intent and tone of responsa literature and
with the practice of Torah scholars throughout history.
 
Those who read the haskamas (letters of approval by acknowledged
authorities) which traditionally preface halachic works, know that such
haskamas often caution competent scholars not to rely on on a psak in
the sefer, without thoroughly checking the talmudic and responsa
sources. See for instance the haskamas to "Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchosa",
perhaps the most widely accepted handbook for the laws of shabbos.
 
Such caution is the norm among Torah scholars, and (perhaps because of
the yoke it implies) an anathema to many others.  Because of the latter
group, Rav Moshe Feinstein indicated in one teshuva (responsum) that his
halachic writings should not be translated.
 
Nowadays, we feel that intelligence and a good general education equip
us, like the media, to judge all people and issues after a bit of in
depth reading. We know there are exceptions, like brain surgery, but we
don't automatically appreciate that halacha is also an exception.
Hopefully, knowing that there has been a traditional consensus favoring
"humility vis a vis halacha" will make such humility more palatable to
the non-authorities.
 
Yitzchok Samet

Topics:
	Re: A note on Hebrew (#195)
		Yaacov Haber
	Re: Number of Psukim in Tzav (#187)
		Shlomo Pick
	Judaica Image Libraries?
		Jacob Richman
	Re: Aliyot for Cohane, Levi (#198)
		Keith Bierman
	Proper way to bow?
		Len Moskowitz
	Status of "Messianic Jew"
		Alex Herrera
		Avi Feldblum
______________________________________________________________________
 
Hold on here! First of all Israel as Tzvi appears in Jeremiah 11, not
only in Gaonic Poetry. Secondly all though one interpetation of the
posuk is splendor the Gemara in Ksuvos 112 clearly takes it to mean a
DEER. Also the medrash asks how when Moshiach comes will all Jews fit
into Israel, and aswers that Israel is called TZVI - it will spread out
like a deer runs.  The question which needs to be asked is if Deer and
Splendor have some connection
 
Yaacov Haber <[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________
 
Concerning the number of verses in tzav, I have my own theory that
the letters used were "tzadi", "aleph" and "vav" which is pronounced
"tzav" as the aleph indicates the letter before is vocalized with a
patach as is seen from any aramaic (or even yiddish) text.  Over the
generations due the pronouncement and the actual name of the parsha, the
"aleph" dropped out.
 
Shlomo Pick
______________________________________________________________________
 
   I was wondering if anyone out there knows of any Gif or Tiff or DVI
or Targa image libraries that contain pictures of Jewish holiday scenes
or anything related to Judaica. 
Also if anyone in the group has a Compuserve account (I do not) I would
like to know if Compuserve's large Gif libraries have any Judaica images.
If you have any information that could help please respond directly to
my email address below.
 
Thanks in advance,
 
Jacob Richman     * [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
In masechet [Tractate - Mod.] Megilah, we find a description of the
technique employed in the days of the Tanyim. Working from memory
 
	"...When seven are called, additional people can be called..."
	"...one always reads at least 3 verses..."
	"...the first blesses, and the last blesses..."
	"...the reader recites one verse, and waits for the
	    translator to finish, and then recites the next verse..."
 
sorry I can't remember the precise order. It is a small masechet, so
the passages should be quite easy to find (either in the hebrew, or in a
translation (either neusner or danby).
 
If memory serves, in the gemora, we find that it was typically the
custom to call people up based on their level of learning, not on
their tribal affliliation. 
 
Clearly the customs have changed greatly. We now bless for each
person, and the persons seldom read (and I recall an argument that
since they often can't "nowadays" none should to avoid embarassing
those who can't). To avoid having disputes about who could be called,
we adopted the notion of tribal castes.
 
I have dovened in a wide variety of Sephardi and Askenazi shuls and
have seen relatively little variation today.
 
	If the gabbi knows there is a cohen he is called.
	
	If there are more than one, some congregations call all the
kohanim (that will be called) before the levim, others make sure that number 2 is a levi.
 
	If there are more than one levi, some schuls exhaust their
supply before calling a Israli, others ensure number 3 is. 
 
	I have seen no schul that requires that 4-7+additional are of
one tribe or another. Many do impose order rules on brothers, parents, etc.
 
	I have seen no shul do the line by line translation common in
the days of our Sages. 
 
	I have not seen any shul which prohibits those being called from
actually reading if they are able. to the contrary, this seems to be
encouraged. 
 
	Minors _are_ allowed, and are often called up in Sephardi shuls,
typically near the end but not for maftir. That they save. 
 
As best I can tell, the real halachic issues are:
 
	1) read every week
	2) have 10 for the service
	3) have at least 7 called up on shabat
	4) everyone called up must do at least 3 verses
 
Exactly how much is read per week has changed over time (1 year vs.
multiyear cycles), exactly who is called, and exactly what they do is
subject to custom .... and there seems to be little halachic issue
involved.
 
No doubt others, wiser and more learned in the law, will have
references to the Schulchan Aruch, the Tur, the Misheneh Torah which
will shed more light/totally demolish my claims. I merely offer
original source text, and modern sociological observation.
 
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
There are four bows in the Amidah (Shmoneh Esrai).  From what I
understand one is supposed to bow quickly with the back straight to a
point not below the waist (below that is considered a potential
"yuharah"), and then straighten up slowly in the manner of a snake,
one vertebrate at a time.  One who does not do it properly reportedly
risks having his "spine turn into a snake."
 
My question is about the method of rising.  Does one first straighten
out the lower vertebras and then succeeding upper ones, or does one
straighten the upper ones first and then succeeding lower ones?
 
Len Moskowitz - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I am curious to know if someone who labels themselves as a "Messianic 
Jew" is actually a Jew, and if he once was a Jew, does he still remain 
a Jew once he joins such a movement?
 
I am currently having a (sometimes heated :-) ) discussion with a 
"Messianic Jew" about if she is still a Jew. I know that Reform Judaism 
considers her an apostate, and no longer a Jew (taken from American 
Reform Responsa). Considering the amount of pummeling the Reform movement
receives for their liberal views, it occured to me that if the Reform 
Jews don't think "Messianic Jews" are Jews, then everyone else must 
*really* shun them.
 
According to her, Orthodox Jews consider her a Jew, but a "sinful" Jew. 
She plans on making Aliah, and she tells me that she is accepted as a 
Jew. What are your thoughts?
 
Alex Herrera
______________________________________________________________________
 
Basically she is correct. According to halacha (based apparently on a
Responsa of Rashi) you cannot convert out of Judaism. So if her mother
was Jewish, then she is Jewish. However, what she is practicing is not
judaism, and therefor she is considered to be a Yisrael Chota - sinful
Jew is as good a translation as I can come up with.
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]   or  [email protected]

Topics:
	Re: Covering of Hair by Married Women (#181)
            [Question from Lori and response of Aryeh Frimer]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I'd like to contribute a different view to this discussion if I may.  I
am not a Talmudic scholar by any stretch of the imagination, although I
did attend many lectures by Rabbi Soloveitchik in my high school
years....
 
Recognizing the supreme importance of clarity and understanding in
Halacha I'd like to point out that the discussion seems to be focusing
on why it may not be necessary to (partially or totally) cover one's
hair. However, I think that is not the issue.  One needs to take a
"Hashkafa" oriented view as well (literally, hashkafa means viewpoint,
but it is used to refer to the philosophical concepts in Judaism).
 
Well, then, what is the correct approach to Mitzvot?  What, in fact, are
we all here on earth for?  I hope our readers agree (since Halacha is a
basic assumption) that humans are on earth to do the Rotzon HaShem - the
Will of G-d.
 
Does that mean we are to look for the most lenient, convenient view of a
question in Halacha?  Sometimes, perhaps.  A lenient view is very
helpful if one wants to work on tolerance for those not observant,
Ahavat Yisrael (Love of Fellow Jew), being Dan LeKaf Zechut (judging
others favorably),
 
However, for oneself, while it may not always be appropriate to look for
the greatest Chumra (stringency) - one is supposed to consider sincerely
- "What does Hashem want - expect - of me? What am I capable of
                                                   ^ 
 
doing for Torah, the Jewish people, and my own spiritual growth at this
point in my life?"
 
In Yiddishkeit, we need to Shtieg - grow.  You can't stand in one place
- if you don't reach up, you tend to fall down.  So, yes, sometimes you
want to look for a Chumrah - for a more stringent thing to do, to grow
closer to Hashem.
 
I think that's what motivates Lori's question, so does it make sense to
tell her "Don't worry, there's plenty of Heterim" ?  What, exactly, does
that accomplish?
 
To continue in this vein, I'd like to refer to the (well-known?) story
of Kimchit, a woman who had several sons, each a Cohen Gadol.  When
asked in what merit, she replied that the beams of her house never saw
the plaits of her hair.
 
My husband (who is, by the way, an accomplished Talmudic scholar, if I
say so myself), says that people get this story wrong.  The point here
is not the supreme importance of covering hair, as most people try to
           ^^^^^^^
prove.  No sirree.  The point is that if this woman was so careful in
covering her hair, which is, according to halacha, the LEAST SERIOUS
ERVAH - then, imagine how careful she was about other aspects of Tzniut
[modesty - Mod.].
 
The point that we should be learning is that a woman, by care in Tzniut,
can merit children who are great in Torah etc. Another example is the
mother of the Chazon Ish, who had nine children, all of great learning
and piety, and was known to take extreme measures in Tzniut.
 
BTW, practically speaking, Lori, I would suggest thinking carefully
about this decision -maybe it will take until the weather gets cooler.
The summer is a great tool of the Yetzer Harah, and a terrible test of
Tzniut - not an easy time to undertake more of this nature, although,
'lefum tzaarah agrah'- translated on one of my kids records as 'the
harder the job is to do, the more reward Hashem gives to you'.
 
Now, turning to the previous article, I have a few questions:
 
>	This tradition was indeed observed, Halacha Le"maaseh [in
> practice - Mod.]. Rav J.B.  Soloveitchik's wife, Rabbanit Tanya
> Soloveitchik Aleha Hashalom - a Talmudic Scholar in her own right - did
> not cover her hair at all.
 
I heard from a reliable source that Rabbi Soloveitchik was once asked by
a student how he felt about his wife's not covering her hair.  The reply
quoted was along the lines that it's not grounds for divorce.  This
seems to me to indicate that Rabbi Soloveitchik did not necessarily
agree with his wife's 'psak halacha'.
 
> 	While we are required to keep minhagim this is only as long as
> people continue to perform them. There are all sorts of minhagim quoted
> in the Talmud (particularly regarding the Laws of Mourning and Torah
> Reading) which we no longer observe. They are then no longer binding. In
> the case of Kisui Sear, clearly the first generation of women who
> stopped covering their hair did so improperly. 
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
We are told that there are two types of judgement.  One after 120 years
and one at Techiat HaMetim.  Why?  At the second judgement, all the
mitzvot indirectly caused, during all subsequent generations, by this
person's actions are added to his/her merits.  And conversely.  So, by
perpetuating the mistake of these women, don't you think one does them
some disservice?
 
> But once the vast majority of women did, the minhag is no longer
> binding. Clearly, by the end of the 19th century the vast majority of
> Jewish women stopped covering their hair (See for example, the Aruch
> Hashulchan in Siman 74) and this was certainly true of the vast majority
> of Religious women in the 20th century.
 
There are a lot of unfortunate things that are/aren't done these days.
There are also a lot of people who are going back to the minhagim and
practices of their grandparents.  There is still a very large number of
Jews in the world among whom covering hair is still done very carefully,
and I believe the number is growing.
 
If in certain generations a Nisayon (test) proved too difficult, does
that mean that subsequent generations shouldn't try to do better?
 
As I said, I'm no scholar, but I don't follow the logic of this
argument.  With such an attitude, the Bayit Sheni would not have been
built, nor would Yeshivos have been built in America, because learning
had become lax, the decline would just have continued... leading
ultimately to a Dor Shekulo Chayav (One of the ways Mashiach could come
- a totally righteous generation OR, in this case, a totally guilty one,
an approach used by Shabbetei Tzvi I think, to encourage sins).
 
> VERY BRIEFLY, there is another lenient view that maintains that
> while Dat Moshe is biblical, it requires only minimal covering, while
> Dat Yehudit and Se'ar Be"isha Erva are both relative concepts. Hence,
> nowadays when most Jewish women no longer cover their hair, these
              ^^^^
So , who are we talking about here? Most women who keep mitzvovs, or are 
we including those who also don't keep Shabbos, Taharat Mishpacha? And by
whose count?  And what if the statistics are changing?  Do you know that 
shlichim (emissaries) going into Russia to teach in the underground 
movement smuggle in sefarim, tefillin and >>>Sheitlach<<<!
 
> concepts are no longer in force. This view permits a tichal or hat with
                                           ^^^^^^^
> a lot of hair showing. 
 
There's a story that's appropo here, unfortunately I forget all the names, 
I'll improvise. (anyone who recognizes the story please enlighten me)>
 
It seems that a businessman well-versed in Halacha came to a certain Godol
to get his approval for a certain business deal that could best be described
as shady... fishy....
 
The businessman
brought several proofs to support his contention that what he wanted to do
was permitted by Halacha.  
e.g. "The Shach (commentary) says this... and the Smah (another commentary)
says that....
 
After listening carefully to the fellow's arguments, the Godol replied,
"Nu, und vos zogt G-tt?"  [-and what does G-d say?] 

Topics:
	Re: Maimonides and Kabbalah (#192)
		Len Moskowitz
		Moshe Rayman
______________________________________________________________________
Moshe Rayman writes:
 
 > By definition, Kabala is "Chochmat Hanistar" (the hidden wisdom),
 > and should only be addressed by people who are on a high spiritual
 > level.  Those who attempt to use it who are not on the level, will
 > not benefit from it in the intended way.  From the time that the
 > Zohar was conceived by Rashbi until it was popularized in Medieval
 > Spain, it was only known by a select few people.  
 
Regarding the study of Kabbalah, it's important to distinguish between
what is in Nistar [hidden - Mod.] and what is in Nigleh [revealed -
Mod.].  There are large portions of Kabbalah that are part of Nigleh.
For example, a student of the Chafetz Chayyim (ztz"l) said in his name
that there is no limitation of the study of Zohar because it is mostly
midrash.  He encouraged everyone, including the young unmarried men, to
study the weekly portion of Zohar.  Many Sephardim often do just this
though Ashkenazim are still seemingly fighting the Shabbtai Zvi
reticence.
 
The Kabbalah that is classed as Nistar is truly hidden.  It is not in
public hands.  If you looked for it, you simply wouldn't find it.
Interestingly, some of what was considered previously as Nistar (Rav
Chayyim Vittal's ztz"l Shaarey Kedushah, Sha'ar Revi'i for example)
has recently made its way into the Nigleh via unimpeachable routes
(certain yeshivot that specialize in the study Kabbalah).
 
As Bruce Krulwich discovered, even the Bais Yosef says that the normal
course of Torah study should include a bare minimum of Kabbalah
(perhaps a line or two) each day.  It may not be neglected.
 
One is required to study it if one is able, but then again, one may
not study it without adequate grounding in halacha and Talmud.
 
To highlight its importance, note that the Vilna Gaon said "v'ikar
hageulah talia b'limud hakabala" ("the crux of the Redemption is
dependent on the study of Kabbalah" -- Evven Shlomo, perek yud aleh,
s'if gimel).  The Shnai Luchot HaBrit hakadosh wrote "ubizchut
ha-oskim baZohar hakadosh yavo mashiach" (by the merit of those who
study Zohar will the Messiah come").
 
Regarding "use" of Kabbalah, in general the practice of Kabbalah Maasit
[practical kabbalah - Mod.]is proscribed based on the absence of parah
adumah (the red heifer purification process).  One who does so despite
this puts himself at serious risk ("mitchayev b'nafsho").
 
 > But Yiddishkeit on the whole did fine.  Even if the Rambam did
 > embrace Kabala toward the end of his life, like the Ramban did,
 > they were still very holy people before this embrace.
 
Knowledge of Kabbalah is not l'ukvah.  Rav Chayyim Volozhin, in Nefesh
HaChayyim, says that the crux of mitzvah observance is in the doing,
but that it is valuable to understand the foundations of the mitzvah,
its effects, and to maintain the appropriate kavanah.  So while one
does not need to study Kabbalah to perform the mitzvot, one benefits
from doing so.
 
 > But there were other statements made in this forum that claim that
 > there is Kabala in the Mishne Tora itself.  Can someone clarify
 > this for me?  I did check some of the sources mentioned in a
 > previous posting.  I did not see any Kabala in those sources.
 
Here are some few notes I took in a quick hour of skimming through the
MT.  It's hardly exhaustive but you might find it interesting anyway.
 
[Note, there is some untranslated Hebrew here, but if you are going to
look up the sources, you'll probably need to read Hebrew, and I think
you can follow the trend of the reply even without getting every word
here. Mod.]
 
In Sefer Madah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, perek daled (yud through the
end of the perek) Rambam not surprisingly shows that he's aware of the
existence of the two core concepts of Kabbalah: Maaseh Beraishit and
Maaseh Merkavah.  He asserts that only one who has filled his belly with
"bread" and "meat" (the laws of what is permitted and what is not --
essentially Halacha) is worthy of studying these matters.  It's likely
that the author of the Mishneh Torah qualifies in this regard.
 
Must one learn Kabbalah if one is qualified?  Rav Chayyim m'Volozhin
cites Sukkah 28a in his Nefesh HaChayyim (Shaar Daled, perek bet,
towards the end) about how Rav Yochanan Ben Zakkai was never certain
that he had satisfied the requirements of Talmud Torah Lishmah and
sought always to increase the breadth of his knowledge.  He then cites
Mishlei Rabtah perek yud to the effect that on Yom HaDin (the Day of
Judgement) one who had learned Talmud will be asked "Did you delve
into the Merkavah?  The Keesay HaKavod, describe it.  Chashmal,
describe it and how many aspects does it exhibit?"  and will be taken
to task if these topics were ignored.  Rav Chayyim uses this to
illustrate that one must continuously seek to deepen and broaden one's
knowledge of Torah (even into Kabbalah if one is qualified) and we are
not allowed to be satisfied with our current level of understanding.
It's likely that the Rambam understood this.
 
I consider it very likely that if the Rambam deemed himself qualifed
to learn Kabbalah and understood his obligation to do so, then he
would have sought to learn it.
 
The Migdal Oz, found as a commentary in many editions of the MT (mine
has it), says at the end of Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, perek aleph that
he doesn't agree with the Raavad's view on the subject of the Rambam
knowing Kabbalah.  He asserts that the Rambam became familiar with
Kabbalah later in life, and that he personally saw an old parchment
manuscript from the Rambam that confirmed this.  He also saw others of
Rambam's responses that indicated mastery of this knowledge.
 
In Sefer Madah, Hilchot Yesodei Torah, perek zayin:vav on the topic of
neviyut (prophecy) Rambam writes that Hod never departed from Moshe
Rabbenu.  In general, the Rambam picks his words very carefully.
Students of Kabbalah will recognize that the s'firah of Hod is the
source of prophecy.
 
In Sefer Nashim, Hilchot Yibum Vechalitzah, perek aleph:tet zayin,
Rambam cites that a child who is nine years and one day old qualifies
for a certain halachic status.  He writes: "Vedavar zeh halachah mipi
hakabala.[And this item is a halacha from the `kabalah' - Mod.]"  (I'm
not certain that this language is a raayah.  He may mean the
transmission chain of halacha.) [The term "halachah mipi hakabala" is a
technical term Rambam uses and has nothing to do with Kabalah, as you
mention in your last comment. Mod.]
 
In Sefer Kedushah, Hilchot I"B, perek daled:yud aleph, Rambam cites
the practice of driving one's toenails into the ground.  It's unlikely
he would have cited this unless he understood it.  To my knowledge the
basis for this practice is found only in Kabbalah. [If the source of the
practice is in the Gemara, then I do not see any indication here. -
Mod.]
 
In Sefer Kedushah, Hilchot I"B, perek chof bet:bet he writes the laws
of yichud arayot is from "kabbalah."  (Again, the meaning of the term
may be disputable.) [No, I do not think it is disputable, and has
nothing to do with "Kabalah". See Rambam on Intro to the Mishne,
Brachot. Mod.]
 
That's all for now.  As I see other interesting cases I'll try to
collect them.
 
Len Moskowitz
______________________________________________________________________
 
In mail.jewish #201, David Novak states:
 
>In fact, in Hilchot Yesodei Hatora 4:13, the Rambam states that: "The
>subject of these 4 chapters, including these 5 mitzvot, is what the
>chachamim rishonim (early Sages) called Pardes."
 
You are correct, "Pardes", according to the Rambam, includes more than just
science and astronomy, it is the understanding of God, his ways, and
his universe.  The means which the Rambam used to attain this understanding
was philosophy.  Through logic alone, without ant mysticism, the Rambam
attempted to discover the hidden secrets of the Tora.  So the Rambam
was very familiar with Pardes; his own Pardes.  What the Gra meant was
that he never saw the true Pardes, the secrets of the Tora that the Kabalists
have through tradition.
 
There is a sefer (book) written by a 17th century Italian Kabalist
(I forgot his name, it is something like Irgas), called "Shomer Emunim"
which contains debates between a traditional Kabalist and a skeptic about
the validity of Kabala, sources etc.  In these debates, our very issue,
Rambam and Kabala, is discussed in great detail.  The skeptic challenged
the Kabalist, saying that perhaps the Rambams Pardes, one derived through
logic and philosophy, is the real "Kabala", and all of the traditional
kabala is all wrong.  The Kabalist responded, that if the Rambam had
his Pardes from a tradition from his teachers, than the skeptic would
have been correct.  However, the Rambam himself writes (in the introduction
to the Guide of the Perplexed), that the secrets of the Tora have been
forgotten from his generation, and the Guide is an attempt to rediscover
these secrets through philosophy.  Therefore, argues the Kabalist, we who
have the uninterupted tradition of Kabala, need not accept the Rambam's
philosophical approach.
 
The skeptic then asked why didn't the Rambam know kabala.  The Kabalist
replied that the Rambam had no one to teach it to him.  The Zohar wasn't
publicized until 1280(?), (even the Ramban, who was definitely a
Kabalist, never saw the Zohar, I think).  And the other works, such as
the sefer Hayetzira (book of creation or formation), which were known in
the Geonic period, were either not known to him, or were rejected by the
Rambam with good reason.  One cannot learn kabala from a book, said the
Kabalist, one has to learn it from a teacher.  One who learns it on his
own is liable to misinterpret many of its concepts.  Some of the
concepts may even sound heretical!
 
The Kabalist then quotes a tradition that the Abravanel (aka Abarbanel)
had that the Rambam was taught Kabala towrds the end of his life.  The
Kabalist himself claimed he had a hand written document from the Rambam,
that proves he learned Kabala later in life.  Who knows.
 
I suggest this book to all.
 
However, when the Rambam wrote the Yad and the Moreh, he was not a Kabalist
in any way.  
 
To quote a few Rambams and claim that the only source for them is the Zohar
is circumstantial evidence at best.  If one reads the Moreh (and the 
introduction to the Moreh) one will see that this is clearly not the case.
 
Moshe Rayman - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Sea-Grass Mats for Schach?
		Rabbi Yaacov Haber
	Re: Haggadot (#200)
		Lou Raymon
		Warren Burstein
	Re: Custom not to Send Flowers to a Funeral (#187)
		Mechael Kanovsky
	Re: T'fillin (#190)
		Mechael Kanovsky
		David Sherman
		Morris Podolak
______________________________________________________________________
First, there is some confusion as to who is the author of mail.jewish
#204. It is not Aryeh, and sorry if the comment under the topic listing
incorrectly lead some people to that conclusion. As to who it is, I
don't know either. However, names are not required for people on the
mailing list, so if someone prefers to post without their name, that is
their prerogative.
To people submitting items, please translate all hebrew terms that you
use. Also, if you place whatever you want to appear, as far as your
name, email, phone, etc. on the bottom of your article, that makes life
easier for me.
Please try and minimize the amount of included text in your replies. I
work on the assumption that people are keeping the mailings at least
until a thread is completed, so they can look back if they want to. I
try to keep the total size of a single mailing between 150-200 lines.
It looks like the mail.jewish picnic will be this Sunday (June 16)
between 12:00 and 4:00 in Highland Park, N.J. If you plan on coming,
and/or want more info, please let me know. (You can also leave me a
phone message at (w)(609)-639-2474 or (h)(908)-247-7525.)
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]   or   att!pruxk!ayf
______________________________________________________________________
Question: The Rambam in the first chapter of Keilim sets down a rule
that in order for a vessel or garment to be mekabel Tumah it has to grow
byabasha, on dry land. Does this mean that for instance sea-grass mats
(a popular item in Australia) is Kosher for Schach even if it was woven.
The possibilities for schach just became much greater.
 
Rabbi Yaacov Haber, Dean, Australia Institute for Torah, Victoria Australia
Internet: [email protected] - Uucp: acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!ajop!haber
______________________________________________________________________
 
Will Shulman points out the "uncanny resemblance" of the haggadot from
far-flung Jewish communities, as opposed to the many differences in the
siddurim of those communities.
 
A simple explanation for this might lie in the fact that the text of the
haggadah was codified during the time of the Mishna - in the 1st or 2nd
centuries CE.
 
The Talmud (Gemara Megilla) gives the basic outline of the Amidah
(Silent Prayer a.k.a. Shemonah Esray), and some suggestions as to the
proper introduction to the Amidah, such as the custom of the "Chasidim
Harishonim" - Early Saints (as opposed to our latter-day chasidim) to
prepare themselves for prayer, which has evolved into our "Psukai
D'Zimra" - Verses of Praise or Song).  However, there was much left to
the imagination.  Different communities developed different ways to
"fill in the blanks" - so to speak.  Thus many different siddurim
"evolved" over the years.
 
As to why the Ta'naim (Rabbis of the Mishna) chose to fix a text for the
haggadah, as opposed to the siddur: (if I may be permitted to speculate)
the mitzva of Sippur Yetziat Mitzraim (Telling the Story of the Exodus
from Egypt) is a mitzva from the Torah.  In order in insure that
everyone fulfill this mitzva correctly, the Rabbis detailed, in a
straightforward manner, the minimum requirements.  (They are only the
minimum - as the text of the Haggadah points out, expanding on the
telling of the story is praiseworthy).
 
Daily fixed prayer as we know it today is a reletivly new development -
established after the destuction of the Bait Hamikdash.  It is of
rabbinic origin.  (The CONCEPT of prayer is from the Torah.  Praying
certain prayers at certain times of the day is not.)  Also, prayer
should come from the heart.  It should not be a rote recital from a
book.  For these reasons (and others I'm sure), the Rabbis, while
providing the basic outline of prayer, chose not to publish a fixed
text.
 
Louis Rayman - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
For a discussion of several variants of the Haggada which have been
used, see "Hagada Shelema" by Rav Menachem Kasher (I'm not sure how to
pronounce his name), published by "Torah Shelema", Jerusalem, 5727.  It
contains everything you might want to know about differences in
Haggadot.  The standard Haggada is printed, comparing many manuscripts.
Several varient texts (including the Haggadot of Rav Sa'adya Gaon and
the Rambam) are printed in their entirety where they are significantly
different from the text in use today.
 
There is also a sidcussion of various versions of the order of things
(the "kiddush urchatz..." which appears at the start of the Hagada and
which some people sing before starting the Seder), most of which are
longer, and varients of "shfoch chamatcha" and the songs at the end of
the seder.
 
The introduction, which is many times larger than the Hagada discusses
many issues involved in the composition of the Hagada.  Highly
recommended, although I have yet to finish the book between Purim and
Pesach...
 
About Haggadot in general, there are three types of Haggadot, those you
learn from, those that sit on the coffee table (or in the cabinet with
the silver), and those which you spill wine over.
 
Warren Burstein
______________________________________________________________________
 
   Regarding what Aryeh Frimer wrote on the problem of chukot hagoyim
and putting flowers on a grave (mail jewish 199) he stated that it is OK
especialy if we the jews started this minhag. If I remember correctly
the prohibition of building matzevot (alters made up of one stone) is
because the idol worshippers started using them even though the avot
used them before it became common use by the idol worshipers.
 
mechael kanovsky - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
   Regarding the question of the tefilin of Rabeinu Tam and Rashi,
this is one of the arguments that historicly puzzles me since this is a
mitzva that was done daily by jews from kabalat torah and onward where
was there a gap in time that would have made people forget the order of
parshiyot. This is similar to the problem by rosh hashana what is a
truah . I did see an answer to this that said that by rosh hashana from
the time of moshe rabeinu they did all three types of truah i.e. shvarim
or truah and shvarim_truah but like many other answers the question is
better than the answer.
 
mechael kanovsky - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
[Re 64 different possible pairs of tefillin - Mod.]
 
I don't know anything about the source, but the number 64 is 2^6.
Since for any given difference, one would either do A or B, this
suggests there are 6 places where one can follow one form or the
other.  (This presumes that none of the differences involve a choice
among three possible options.)
 
Thinking in binary, where for each of the 6 differences one chooses
between 0 and 1, the choices range from 000000 to 111111 -- 64 in all.
 
David Sherman	[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
There appears to have been a misunderstanding about my story of the 64
pairs of tefillin.  I didn't mean that there were 64 ways of arranging
the parshiyot.  There are, as far as I know, only 4 different ways.
There are, however, other points of dispute, such as how to arrange the
words on the line (which parshiyot are "setumot" and which are
"petuchot").  This is a dispute between the RAMBAM and the ROSH among
others.  There are other disputes as well in the writing of tefillin,
and although I don't know the details of the GRA's argument, I imagine
he felt that if one included all the significant disputes, one
could form 64 different sets of tefillin
 
Morris Podolak - D77@TAUNOS
______________________________________________________________________

Topics:
	Re: Covering of Hair by Married Women (#181)
		Bob Werman
		Steve Ehrlich
		Jeremy Nussbaum
                Joel Wein
                Frank Silbermann
______________________________________________________________________
 
Re: Yitzchok Samet comments in m.j#201
 
While I am in sympathy with the motives of Mr. Samet's restrained
comments and do not support the uninformed p'sika l'etzmo [determining
Halacha by one self - Mod.] that he decries, I think that the matter is
not at all that simple.
 
While there is little doubt that the concept of g'dolei ha-dor [leading
Torah authorities of the generation - Mod.]] is an accepted concept and
that Rav M. Feinstein, z"al, was indeed one of these, there is another
tradition in Judaism which insists that it is actually the duty of the
[informed] Jew to study until he understands.  If he feels he does not
understand he asks a shayla [question - Mod.].  The shayla of an
ignorant man and that of a scholar are different.  The crux, I imagine,
is "What - as differentiated from who - is an informed Jew?"
 
P'sika itself is done in different ways.  Rav Feinstein himself who did
not attend a kolel [taught by his father] was famous for his s'varot
[logically argued "impressions"] and gained his name as a 20 year old on
the basis of a logical argument [on the issue of wax in the ear
constituting a m'hitza in t'vila [a separation for immersion in a mikveh
- Mod.] ], steeped in tradition and learning, but not based on previous
p'sikot.  [Sometimes called the Lithuanian method.]  On the other hand,
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef uses the encyclopediac knowledge he possesses to list
the previous responses on a matter, so many for, so many against and and
decides al pi ha-rov [majority], also a famous policy in p'sika -
although it might appear strange to some to conduct a vote among
non-contemporaries [see the B"ach].
 
While studying the contents of our newsletter is informative, it cannot
- as Mr. Samet points out - substitute for a thorough knowledge of the
sources.
 
__Bob Werman - rwerman@hujivms - Jerusalem
______________________________________________________________________
 
As a new Chatan, I asked Rav Ahron Soloveitchik a question concerning
wheter my wife had to cover her hair in the presence of children in our
building who sometimes came to play in our apartment. Rabbi Soloveitchik
told me that in fact, the only chiuv (obligation) is for a women to
cover her hair in "an open, public place". Thus, according to this view,
my wife need not cover her hair in front of even a few male *adult*
guests in her own house, since the house is not "open and public".
However, if one were to have a public party (e.g. a Shalom Zachar), then
she would have to. HOWEVER, he did stress that this is what the *chiuv*
is, but it is certainly "the proper thing" to cover ones hair whenever
men are around.
 
Hope this clarifies at least one Soloveitchik opinion.
 
Steve Ehrlich - att!ihlpt!stevee
______________________________________________________________________
 
> To continue in this vein, I'd like to refer to the (well-known?) story
> of Kimchit, a woman who had several sons, each a Cohen Gadol.  When
> asked in what merit, she replied that the beams of her house never saw
> the plaits of her hair.
 
It is important to note the two versions of this story.  In one, the
one that appears in the Talmud, kimchit is  praised for this.  In the
other, which appears in the Midrash Rabbah, kimchit's reason is
disputed.  Not that it's a bad, or even appropriate  thing to do, but
that "many people have done so," without achieving the results that
kimchit did.
 
I think the version of the midrash rabah is telling us that raising
children and setting a good example for them is a very complicated
matter, that cannot be boiled down to doing one or two things "correctly."
 
Jeremy Nussbaum ([email protected]) (508)620-2800 x3516
Prime Computer  MS 10-15/Framingham, Ma 01701
______________________________________________________________________
 
An interesting point in mail.jewish #203.
 
>  In Yiddishkeit, we need to Shtieg - grow.  You can't stand in one place
>  - if you don't reach up, you tend to fall down.  So, yes, sometimes you
>  want to look for a Chumrah - for a more stringent thing to do, to grow
>  closer to Hashem.
 
I have to agree 100% with the notion that the goal of an observant Jew
is to grow in G-d's work as opposed to staying in the same place.  What
I find interesting is the equation of a chumrah with something that
brings you closer to Hashem, and I'm curious what other people think
about it.
 
Let me present two scenarios in relation to this question.  The first is
a situation where almost all halachic authorities/responsa forbid X, but
one or several solitary sources can be stretched to allow X, and
(perhaps) common sense dictates that X is not the right thing to do.  I
would interpret the following story from (#203) posting in that light:
 
> It seems that a businessman well-versed in Halacha came to a certain Godol
> to get his approval for a certain business deal that could best be
> described as shady... fishy.... [to end of story]
 
I think that it is clear that someone in such a situation would find it
difficult to do X with a good conscience unless there was some extreme
need to do so.
 
Another situation, howver, is where X is clearly permitted by halacha,
but nonetheless a person chooses not to do X.  It seems to me the
following story from m.j#203 posting falls into this category, since I
know of no source that a woman must cover her hair in her private,
closed to the outside world, bedroom.
 
       To continue in this vein, I'd like to refer to the (well-known?) story
       of Kimchit, a woman who had several sons, each a Cohen Gadol.  When
       asked in what merit, she replied that the beams of her house never saw
       the plaits of her hair.
 
I personally see two ways to relate to such behavior. On the one hand
it strikes me as quite negative, for two basic reasons:
 
 a) It seems to violate in spirit the idea of not adding to or
    subtracting from the Torah.  If halacha allows something then there
    is no reason it should be avoided. (Note that I exclude here
    activity that would be classified as "naval brshut hatorah"; I am
    also not claiming that taking on new issurim in this way actually
    constitues a violation of the mentioned issur d'oraisa of not
    adding.)
   
 b) The effect on future generations can be substantial.  A prohibition
    that one person accepts privately now can grow into a family custom
    and in time affect many many people.  In time the issue may even
    become divisive as people lose track of how it all began and relate
    to it as concrete halacha.  As time goes on we grow into a religion
    that forbids more and more activity, placing perhaps an undue burden
    on future generations.
 
On the other hand, the story seems to commend such behavior, and indeed
it is hard to imagine that any sincere action of a Jew to get close to
G-d within the realm of halacha is not looked upon favorably by Hashem.
However, is there actual merit in such an act, or is it just noteworthy
beacuse of what it says about that person's elevated character?
 
A long posting (sorry) but hopefully people will have
some interesting feedback.
 
Joel Wein
______________________________________________________________________
 
A lenient view is also very helpful when it comes to not
unnecessarily burdening the community, e.g. considering:
 
> The summer is a ... a terrible test of Tzniut
> - not an easy time to undertake more of this nature
 
Especially those of us who live New Orleans, where it is summer
all year long -- high heat combined with _brutal_ humidity.
 
> ...  In Yiddishkeit, we need to Shtieg - grow.
> ...   So, yes, sometimes you want to look for a Chumrah
> - for a more stringent thing to do, to grow closer to Hashem.
 
Granted.  But what kinds of Chumrot should we take up?  The answer is
suggested by the morning study portion, Mishna Peah 1:1: Talmud Shabbos
127a: "These are the precepts for which no fixed measure is
prescribed..."  followed by "These are precepts, the fruits of which man
enjoys in this world, while the priniciple reward is preserved for him
in the World-to-Come."  This learning suggests that, if one wants to go
beyond the minimum required by Halacha, one would do well to emphasize
Tzedaka, Chesed, Ahavat Shalom and (always) Torah study.
 
As for Hukim, which we do _only_ because G-d commanded, I do not yet
fully understand the purpose of going beyond one's obligation (which may
well vary depending on one's family custom and the views of one's
personal rabbi).
 
	Frank Silbermann	[email protected]
	Tulane University	New Orleans, Louisiana  USA
______________________________________________________________________

Topics:
	Re: Aliyot for Cohane, Levi (#198)
                Ben Svetitsky
		Neil Edward Parks
		James Mejicovs
	Re: A note on Hebrew (#195)
		James Mejicovs
                Ben Svetitsky
	Re: Status of "Messianic Jew" (#202)
		Ben Svetitsky
		Alex Herrera
		Steve Ehrlich
______________________________________________________________________
 
I was puzzled by some of Keith Bierman's statements regarding Torah
reading.  There is a great mass of halacha and custom regarding who gets
called up to the Torah, much of which is in the Shulchan Aruch, O.C. 135
ff.  According to the author of the S.A., whose ruling presumably binds
Sepharadim:
 
1) A Cohen is called up first.  This is universal, in order to prevent
   competition and jealousy.  Then a Levi.
2) If there is no Levi, the Cohen recites the bracha a second time, but
   not another Cohen because it will harm the latter's reputation (as a
   Cohen).  Likewise, two Leviim may not be called up in succession.
3) Other Cohanim may be called up later, as long as there are no two in
   succession; likewise Leviim.
 
All this according to the "Mechaber." The Rama adds that some
authorities rule that we call up additional Cohanim or Leviim only after
the first seven aliyot, and this is the prevailing custom.  This
presumably binds Ashkenazim.  Many other interesting details may be
found in this part of the S.A., and in the Mishna Berura ad loc.
 
Incidentally, the Aramaic translation of Onkelos is indeed read with the
Torah, verse for verse, in Yemenite synagogues.  They also insist that the
person who is called up do the actual reading (though the gabbai will prompt
as necessary).
 
Ben Svetitsky   [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
It is my understanding that the third through seventh aliyahs must go to
Yisroel (not Cohain or Levi).  If there are enough verses, additional
aliyahs can be inserted, and these also go to Yisroel.  However, an
extra aliyah called Acharon (the last) can be added after the 7th, and
this can go to a Cohain or Levi.
 
NEIL EDWARD PARKS - [email protected] 
(Fidonet) 157/511 (Appleholics) - (GT) 22/9 (Akademia)
______________________________________________________________________
 
> If there are more than one, some congregations call all the kohanim 
>  (that will be called) before the levim, others make sure that number 
>  2 is a levi.
 
  And in my `shul' we take the view that hasheni *must* be a levi.
 
This week the gabbai had someone call himself as he was the only levi
  in the synagogue...
 
James           [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________________
 
  As far as the discussion about Zvi goes - does anyone know the source
for l'ateret zvi in shir hakvod during Musaf of Shabbat?
 
Rabbi Artscroll tranlates it as pride (not splendor)...
 
James		[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
The Land of Israel is indeed called Eretz Tzvi, with variations, in
several places in the Bible.  Tzvi always means beauty, splendor, glory,
an object of desire.  I refer you to Ezekiel 20:6, Jeremiah 3:19, and
the famous elegy of David, II Samuel 1:19 (just tzvi, not eretz tzvi).
In all these places, see Radak, Metzudat Zion, and the Targum for
literal explanation.  Yaacov Haber pointed out that the Gemara, in
Ketubot 112a, actually expands on the comparison of Israel to a deer,
based on the verse in Jeremiah listed above.  True, but that is a
homiletic rendering by Rav Hisda, with the usual license (see the
Maharsha ad loc.)
 
Ben Svetitsky   [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Obviously it is impossible, according to halacha and tradition, to
"convert out" of Judaism.  Once a Jew, always a Jew, even if the Jew
believes Bozo the Clown is his savior and sacrifices black cats at his
altar.  But there is the issue of "mumar," roughly speaking, one who has
intentionally turned against the mitzvot on principle.  There is a mumar
vis a vis one mitzvah, there is a mumar vis a vis idolatry, there is a
mumar vis a vis all the mitzvot.  The various categories have different
rules.  While these mumarim are undoubtedly Jewish, some have status
below that of non-Jews, insofar as one might be obligated to shove a
mumar down a pit if the opportunity presents itself.
 
This issue is very topical in Israel today, as it pertains to the Feres
Mora, Ethiopian Jews who may or may not have been converted to
Christianity.  The Rabbinate has ruled unanimously that they are Jews,
but has yet to rule on a case-by-case basis whether the individuals are
mumarim on the one hand, forcible converts on the other, or just plain
Jews who took liberties for the sake of convenience.  Presumably a true
mumar would have little claim to rescue by Israel.  The issue is
complicated by the anti-religious bias of the Jewish Agency, which would
like to apply the blatantly anti- religious "Brother Daniel" ruling of
the Supreme Court of Justice.  In that case, some years ago, a Catholic
monk named Daniel, born Jewish, insisted on immigrating to Israel under
the Law of Return while retaining his cross and habit. The court,
explicitly repudiating several thousand years of precedent and practice,
ruled that a person who has so thoroughly distanced himself from the
shared fate of the Jewish people (whatever that is) is no longer a Jew
and thus not entitled to claim rights under the Law of Return.
 
If anyone can improve on my treatment of these matters through greater
familiarity with the facts, I would welcome it.
 
Ben Svetitsky   [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Please forgive my fumbling around. I am still a baby at this sort of
thing. I am told Rashi's commentary to Kid. 68b and Lev. 24:10
regarding the status of returning apostates shows that he felt that
returning apostates needed to undergo a conversion process (or
something close to it) to return to Judaism. These returning apostates
were only *potential* Jews. This view point was later rejected by
Nahmanides in his commentary to Lev. 24:10 and other citations. That is
my best shot at a response. I stand in admiration of the quality of
responses I read on this mail list.
 
The citation Cindy ("Messianic Jew") uses is San. 44a. I have no easy
way to look this up, so I don't know what it says there. My question is:
do the more lenient judgements reflect the special conditions of the
Marranos who were *forced* to convert, and does this apply to a person
who knowingly and willingly becomes a Christian? If it does apply, then
what is a Jew? Is there anything that a Jew can do that will exclude him
from the group? I am not interested in excluding "Messianic Jews" from
Judaism. I am just surprised that such an obvious departure is not
regarded as a serious breach. Another question that comes to mind is: is
a convert to Judasim still considered a Jew if he becomes a Christian
later? Are they a special case?
 
Alex Herrera    uunet!mdcsc!ah
______________________________________________________________________
 
Concerning whether the "Messianic Jew" who makes Aliyah would
"be accepted as a Jew": I took that to refer to political nationality
has "Jew" on her identity card, with all the rights of an Oleh.
 
I believe, but am not positive, that the Israeli Law here follows
the "Brother Daniel" ruling of the High Court in the 50s. The court
ruled that a Jew who practices Christainity may be Halachicly a Jew,
but the state need not give such a person rights under the Law
of Return. The feeling of the court was that such a person had
in fact `opted out` of affiliation with the Jewish people.
 
Steve

Topics:
	Re: Maimonides and Kabbalah (#192)
		David S. Ariel
		Ronald Greenberg
		Dave Novak
		Moshe Raymon
		Len Moskowitz
______________________________________________________________________
 
While I recognize that the traditional view and the modern academic
research views are at odds, it is worth mentioning that the general
consensus among academic scholars is that Kabbalah is a movement which
began at the turn of the thirteenth century in Provence and Spain. 
While there were earlier esoteric traditions (Sefer Yesirah and Shiur
Qomah) and merkavah traditions (Yerushalmi Hagigah and the hymn Kel
Adon), Kabbalah is not ancient. 
 
The definitive article on Maimonides and his relation to Kabbalah is
the English version (from the German original) of Alexander Altmann's
"Moses Maimonides and His Relation to Jewish Mysticism" in Studies in
Jewish Thought: A Selection from the German, edited by Alfred Jospe
(Detroit: 1981). It shows that Maimonides had no relation to Kabbalah
which, moreover, did not appear until shortly after Maimonides' death. 
For another treatment of Maimonides and Kabbalah, see my doctoral
dissertation on Maimonides and Kabbalah, Shem Tob ibn Shem Tob's
Kabbalistic Critique of Jewish Philosophy (Brandeis University: 1981); 
and Gershom Scholem, The Origins of Kabbalah. For an introduction to
Kabbalah, see my book, The Mystic Quest: An Introduction to Jewish
Mysticism (Aronson: 1988).
 
David S. Ariel
______________________________________________________________________
 
I am certainly not an expert on this topic, but since I am attending a
class about Rambam, I passed copies of the Maimonides and Kabbalah
discussion to the teacher.  He is a Ph.D. in Jewish Studies from
Brandeis and specializes in medieval Jewish philosophy; his thesis is
on the philosophical views of Ralbag (Gersonides, not the guy with the
triangle-K).  He has no doubt that the notion of Maimonides having any
connection with kabbalah is a fabrication.  He lent me a book with an
article that clearly holds this way and attempts to refine the
historical understanding of the development of the legend of
Maimonides "converting" to kabbalah.
 
The article is:
   On Maimonides' "Conversion" to Kabbalah
   by Michael A. Shmidman
   in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, Volume II
   edited by Isadore Twersky
   Harvard University Press, 1984
 
Shmidman points to a work by G. Scholem ("Mi-Hoker li-Mekubbal,"
Tarbiz 6 (1935), 90-98) as an "authoritative study of the legend".  He
agrees with Scholem in deeming as forgeries the letter or letters
indicating Maimonides learned about kabbalah late in life and would
have repented of many of the things he wrote.  Shmidman's new
contribution is apparently to argue that the forgery began to show up
earlier than Scholem concluded and to give some new notions of the
mechanisms for the early spread of the legend.
 
Ronald I. Greenberg	(Ron)		[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
In mail.jewish #204, Moshe Rayman responds to a previous item written by me,
and writes:
 
>You are correct, "Pardes", according to the Rambam, includes more than just
>science and astronomy, it is the understanding of God, his ways, and
>his universe.  The means which the Rambam used to attain this understanding
>was philosophy.  Through logic alone, without any mysticism, the Rambam
>attempted to discover the hidden secrets of the Torah.  
 
I find it incredible, in the literal sense of not believable, that the
Rambam's remarks in the first chapters of Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah (The
Laws of the Foundation of the Torah) are the result of "logic alone,
without any mysticism".  I would suggest that anyone who reads about the
different kinds of angels, their names, and their roles, for example,
will see immediately that this is not the result of "logic alone,
without any mysticism".  I will venture to suppose that Rambam's
approach was objected to because it include a great deal of "logic
alone", as well as Aristotelian science, not because it was without any
mysticism.
 
In the whole discussion about kabalah and Rambam, it seems that there
are some underlying currents that have not reached the surface.  Some
people seem to find it very important to know whether this one
(extraordinary) man did or did not learn kabalah in his old age, for
example.  I suspect that there are some philosophical (or even
political) arguments about the role of kabala which I do not fully
understand that are motivating the discussion.  Perhaps someone can
enlighten me.
 
Finally, concerning the hidden and revealed status of the Zohar: could
someone supply not just the asserted facts of the origin and revealing
of the Zohar, but also whatever evidence is available that this book
itself was known to some people in the centuries between its asserted
date of authorship and the date that it was revealed?  Thanks in
advance.
 
David Novak - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Len Moskowitz writes:
 
>In Sefer Madah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, perek daled (yud through the
>end of the perek) Rambam not surprisingly shows that he's aware of the
>existence of the two core concepts of Kabbalah: Maaseh Beraishit and
>Maaseh Merkavah.  He asserts that only one who has filled his belly with
>"bread" and "meat" (the laws of what is permitted and what is not --
>essentially Halacha) is worthy of studying these matters.  It's likely
>that the author of the Mishneh Torah qualifies in this regard.
 
I already addressed this issue in #204.  Of course the Rambam knows of
Ma'seh b'reishit and Merkava.  The Talmud (Hagiga, chap.2) discusses
them (and chashmal), and in what context they may be learned.
The point is, that to the Rambam, Merkava and Ma'aseh breishit, are deep
philosophical concepts (which he discusses in the Guide), not what the
mekubalim say they are.  The Rambam attempted to understand the nature
of God, (merkava) and the nature of the universe (b'reishit) through
philosophical inquiry (chakira), because he did not (at that point, if
not ever) receive the tradition of Kabbalah.
 
>I consider it very likely that if the Rambam deemed himself qualified
>to learn Kabbalah and understood his obligation to do so, then he
>would have sought to learn it.
 
He did, but his understanding of it, not the main-stream understanding
of it.
 
>The Migdal Oz, found as a commentary in many editions of the MT (mine
>has it), says at the end of Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, perek aleph that
>he doesn't agree with the Raavad's view on the subject of the Rambam
>knowing Kabbalah.  He asserts that the Rambam became familiar with
>Kabbalah later in life, and that he personally saw an old parchment
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>manuscript from the Rambam that confirmed this.  He also saw others of
>Rambam's responses that indicated mastery of this knowledge.
 
This is not relevant to our discussion.  We are looking for Kabbalah in
the Yad (MT).  I agree that there is a tradition that the Rambam received
Kabbalah later in life (see #204).  But this Migdal Oz proves my point.  It's
not in the Mishneh Torah (as you try to demonstrate here).
 
>In Sefer Madah, Hilchot Yesodei Torah, perek zayin:vav on the topic of
>neviyut (prophecy) Rambam writes that Hod never departed from Moshe
>Rabbenu.  In general, the Rambam picks his words very carefully.
>Students of Kabbalah will recognize that the s'firah of Hod is the
>source of prophecy.
 
The Rambams usage of the word "Hod" (splendor) refers to the fact that
God's splendor never left him, evidence of which is that "the skin of
his (Moshe) face shined".  Perhaps he used the word "hod" because the Torah 
itself (at the appointment of Joshua) tells Moshe "And you shall give
from your splendor (hod) upon him" (Venatata mehod'kha alav).
 
To be honest, there is a letter from R. Meir Shapira of Lublin (early 20th
century) in his responsa "Or Hameir", which list five Rambams whose source
could only be from Kabbalah. I do not have access to this book currently.
Perhaps someone could look it up and we could settle this issue.
 
Moshe Rayman  ---  [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
In #204 Moshe Rayman writes:
 
 > However, the Rambam himself writes (in the introduction to the
 > Guide of the Perplexed), that the secrets of the Torah have been
 > forgotten from his generation, and the Guide is an attempt to
 > rediscover these secrets through philosophy. 
 
After reviewing the Moreh Nevuchim (which was written after the
Mishneh Torah and his commentary on the Mishnah), I must agree with
Moshe that the Rambam did not study Kabbalah as we know it today.  In
the introduction to the third part of the Moreh, he clearly states
that he believed the knowledge of Maaseh Beraishit and Maaseh Merkavah
had been lost.
 
But the Rambam was quite a unique man.  He goes on to say how he was
independently able to derive certain limited principles and
understandings regarding these subjects which he then sets forth.
 
So, we might be able to say that even though the Rambam, in the years
he wrote the MT and the MN was outside the chain of transmission for
Kabbalah, even so he was able to derive a certain degree of
understanding on his own and might be considered somewhat of a
"mekubal" (Kabbalist) after a fashion, through the fruit of his own
efforts.
 
Len Moskowitz - [email protected]

Topics:
	Chumrot:
		Moderator Note
		Rabbi Yaacov Haber
		Moshe Raymon
		Morris Podolak
______________________________________________________________________
 
Note: Some issues about Chumrot were discussed in mail.jewish #'s: 63,
65 and 67. These issues are from 1987. They are available from the
mail.jewish anonymous ftp archives  on arthur.wustl.edu [host id
(128.252.125.83)] in the subdirectory mj [if you do not have access to
ftp, then you may request a copy from me by email].
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]  or  att!pruxk!ayf
Moderator
______________________________________________________________________
 
I see a Chumra in the following manner. When one exercises a Kula
(leniency) there is always the possibility that one is not acting out of
intellectual honesty but rather out of comfort. A form of cognitive
dissonance. In this vein the Mesilas Yesharim teaches "Kol Kula Tzarich
Bedika" that if your decision is to go the easier way you should check
to make sure your decision was based on sound intellectual argument and
that you were not swayed by desires. This is possible with a Chumra too
but not as probable. As far as Koach Dheteira Adif, the merit in
deciding and leaning towards Heter, this is clearly when paskining for
someone else where there is objectivity. In this way a Chumra is a way
of getting close to Hashem.
 
Rabbi Yaacov Haber, Dean - Australia Institute for Torah
Internet:[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
In #203, it was argued, that although there may be a valid Halachic
arguments concerning the obligation of women to cover their hair, we
must approach this issue from a "hashkafic" (philosophical) viewpoint.
 
To make a long story short, the outlook that this poster has is that
lenient views may be good for the sake of tolerance, or for the sake of
giving others the benefit of the doubt, but for us, we should adopt the
more stringent view, and this will bring us closer to God.
 
This notion, that "chumrot" (strigencies), bring one closer to God
is, IMHO, erroneous.
 
We must remember that in a Halachic dispute, both viewpoints are
considered legitimate.  The "posek" (halachic decisor) who formulated
the lenient viewpoint believes that his opinion is correct.  For him
there is no reason to observe the more stringent ruling, because he
feels it is wrong.  The same goes for the posek who formulated the
stricter ruling.  He cannot rely on the lenient view (this is only where
no formal process of deciding the Halacha exists).
 
The issue of chumrot arises for people who aren't in the position
to decide the issue.  What should they do?  The answer is they should
find a Posek who is qualified to decide these things, and ask him.
 
Then what usually happens is that the Posek cannot find fault with
either opinion.  So then the question arises, what should he tell
this person. 
 
If the dispute revolves around a serious issue, such as a possible
Biblical prohibition (as opposed to Rabbinic), there is a tendency
to adopt the stricter opinion, out of fear that one may be violating
a severe prohibition.  Where the issue isn't as serious, the lenient
opinion is followed usually without much hesitation.  But these are
only tendencies.  Since both opinions are valid, either one may be
followed, regardless of the seriousness issue.  Other considerations,
such as the expertise of the Poskim, or the majority opinion, also
help decide matters.
 
However, one must always take many things into consideration when
adopting either view.  Is my decision going to involve someone else?
You may have the right to decide for yourself, but not for others.
So, someone who is a mashgiach (kosher supervisor), should keep in
mind who else will be eating this food, before relying on a kula.
The same goes with chumrot, you can be machmir, but don't make your
mother or wife crazy with your chumrot.
 
There are other factors that must be considered.  Will a chumra here
lead to a kula in another area of the law?
 
There is no notion of "what does God want us to do". God gave us the
Torah.  He gave us provisions for deciding arguments.  To reject these
provisions and decide "God wants me to be machmir" is showing gross
disregard of the Halachic process.
 
In order for one to "shteig" (grow), one must keep the Torah to its
fullest.  That doesn't mean one should adopt every chumra.  As long as
one follows the rules, and his motivations are "lishem shamayim" (for
the sake of heaven) he will grow regardless of whether he brushes his
teeth on shabbos or not.
 
I agree that tzniut is a serious issue, and a tendency to be machmir
is justified.  But there are many other factors involved.  The bottom
line is, no matter which valid opinion is followed, as long as the
reasons you are following that opinion are l'shem shamayim,  you will
grow (shteig).
 
Moshe Rayman - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
This bulletin recently posted some discussion of when it is appropriate
to be machmir (strict) in a particular observance.  This has always been
a pet peeve of mine.  Living in Israel, I get to see forms of orthodox
practice.  I am often astounded at the forms they take, and I am not the
only one.  I remember talking to a Yemenite rabbi who was asked to
supervise the kashrut of pickles for Pesach.  He passed them, but
someone objected that the pickles contained garlic, and garlic is
chametz.  We all know that garlic is definitely NOT chametz, but when he
looked into it he learned that in some parts of Europe (notably Hungary)
people used to dry garlic next to flour, and hence refrained from eating
it on Pesach.  Now for those people it is a valid custom, based on a
valid reason.  They should not eat garlic on Pesach.  It is a chumra,
but a legitimate one.  The chumra becomes an illegitimate one when
someone who eats garlic on Pesach is criticised, or embarrassed in public
for doing so.  In this case the critic is violating a far more serious
law, that of not embarrassing someone in public.  This is an example of a
chumra shemevi leyiday kula (strict action that leads to a lenient one).
 
The point is that it is very important not to confuse a chumra, which
one is free to practice if one wants to, with a requirement of Jewish
law.  The Chofetz Chaim in the introduction to the Mishna Brura says
that one can always choose the strict way, but that sometimes being
strict in one thing leads to being lenient somewhere else.  One must be
careful to know the correct halacha.  That is one of the reasons he
wrote the Mishna Brura.  I know many people who take upon themselves to
be strict in certain matters because of an opinion which, while a
minority view, still seemed correct to them.  I don't mean to belittle
this practice.  I am stricter than the pure halacha requires in certain
things too.  I do, however, feel that people who are concerned about
Torah should make an effort to learn not just the law itself, but the
source and evolution of that law.  Then they can decide just how strict
they want to be, and understand others who choose to stick to
the simple requirements of halacha.
 
Morris Podolak D77@TAUNOS
______________________________________________________________________

Topics:
	Re: Sea-Grass Mats for Schach? (#205)
		Warren Burstein
		Shlomo Pick
	Re: Haggadot (#200)
		Warren Burstein
	Re: No. of verses in Parshat Tzav (#187)
		Rick Turkel
	Re: hair covering (#181)
		Lori Alperin Resnick
		Moshe Rayman
	Mumar and Meshumad
		Shlomo Pick
		Benjamin Svetitsky
______________________________________________________________________
 
Another idea is that if we could find (or perhaps genetically
engineer) an aquatic plant which can be used like wood which could be
used to make dishes that will not accept Tumah which will make life
much easier when these laws again become relevant.
 
Warren Burstein
______________________________________________________________________
 
See shulchen aruch 629:1 where before mentioning the matter of tumah
the mechaber first says that it must grow on the land (tzomeach min
ha-aretz) and i would think that that would rule out sea-grass mats
and this type of grass does not grow on the land.
 
shlomo h. pick f12013@barilan
______________________________________________________________________
 
Actually the text of the Haggada was not standardized at the time of
the Mishna, just the overall structure and guidlines like that "we
begin with disgrace and end with honor", during the first generation
of the Gemara there is a disagreement as to what text satisfies this,
and somewhat later a decision to say both suggested texts.  The
manuscripts in "Hagada Shelema" are significantly later than the
Gemara and have noticable differences.
 
Warren Burstein
______________________________________________________________________
 
In response to Shlomo Pick's theory about the name of Parshat Tzav:
there was never an aleph in the name of the parsha.  The names of the
parshiot come from the first significant word in the text; the root in
this case is tzadi-vav-he, the same as that of the word mitzvah.  To my
knowledge there are no related words containing an aleph between the
tzadi and the vav.  The use of the "emot hakriya" (aleph, vav, he, and
yod) to indicate vocalization is historically a much later development
than the Torah.  His comments on Aramaic and Yiddish are irrelevant;
both languages evolved later than Hebrew.
 
        Rick Turkel     ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
In mj#201, Yitzchok Samet warns against people that would "...pasken
shaylas for themselves after reading this news group and other
meta-responsa sources, and without consulting competent
halachists...."
I agree that it is important to consult your Rav, and not to pasken
shaylas for yourself. However, there are a number of other issues that
come into play when it comes to the question of a woman covering her
hair. 
 
Covering the hair is a very public mitzvah. If I have a question on
kashrut, heating food on Shabbat, etc., then it is a private issue. I
can ask my Rav what the halachically correct thing to do is, and then
I can follow it. No one else has to be aware of it. However, if I come
into work one day with my hair covered, I am sure I will get all sorts of
questions, comments, teasing, etc. Thus, in order to feel comfortable
performing this mitzvah, I want to fully understand why I am doing it.
I want to first study the sources, so I can feel comfortable in 
the knowledge that I am doing the right thing. Sure, I can just ask my
Rav, and he will tell me that I should cover my hair. However, if
a non-religious Jew or a non-Jew at work asks me why I am doing it, I
cannot use that as an answer. If I don't understand why I am doing it,
I could feel defensive and unsure of myself, even if someone is just
expressing curiosity, and even more so if someone is cynical or
negative about it, which I am sure a few of the people at work will
be. Some people at work probably see me as representative of religious
Jews, since there are no other orthodox Jews in my department. Thus,
they will respect me more, and they will have a higher opinion and a
more positive view of religious Jews in general, if I respond to people
in a positive and educated way, rather than presenting them with
uncertain, uncomfortable feelings. 
 
Another issue is the issue of growth. Hopefully, we are all constantly
growing in our Judaism and our observance, and we will not be at the
same place in 10 years that we are in now. Growing can be a slow
process, but it is fine as long as we are moving in a positive
direction. For some people, if they take on too much at once, they
might not be able to handle it all, and they might backslide. 
In order to handle this mitzvah of covering my hair, I want to first
study the sources behind it. I discussed this with my Rav, and he
thought that was a good idea. I feel that is what I need to do in
order to take this next step.
 
Thus, I repeat my request for information on how to get a copy of the
relevant parts of Prof. Dov Frimer's Ph.D. thesis, or any other works
which discuss and give pointers to the halachic sources on hair covering.
 
Lori Alperin Resnick  [email protected]   allegra!resnick
______________________________________________________________________
 
Rav Aharon Lichtenstien was asked whether Dat Yehudit still applied
when society at large didn't follow it.  The specific question was
about whether women have to cover their hair nowadays.
 
He avoided answering the question directly and said that even if certain
laws of Tzniut are subjective, it doesn't mean we should sit waiting for
society to shed another article of clothing, and throw off ours too.  We
have a tradition of modesty from our ancestors and Chazal.  And we
should try to keep these standards alive and at a high level.  Our
atitude should not be "society decides what is and what is not modest
and we follow them".  We should strive to create a standard of tzniut
that we are proud of, and follow it.
 
Moshe Rayman - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
This is just a technical note on the word "mumar".  This term is
the product of censorship during the late medieval period.  The
proper term is "meshumad" and is found in all non-censored printings
and manuscripts.  One may just note the recent publication of the
Hilchot Teshuva by Rabbi Dr. Nachum Rabinovitch (Yad Peshuta) where
in the third chapter the term meshumad is used.  In a recent article
in Tzefunot, Rabbi David Tzvi Hilman demonstrated that the blessing in
the Shemona Esreh "Ve-la-malshinim..." is the product of censorship and
the term employed in non-censored sources is "Ve-la-meshumadim..."  The
implications are quite clear - whether dealing with one mitzva or all
the mitzvot the term meshumad is used - the exact same term employed for
one who "converts" to another religion.
 
SHLOMO H. PICK  F12013@BARILAN
______________________________________________________________________
 
Shlomo Pick's contribution about "meshumad" vs. "mumar" settles a question
that's been bothering me (well, a little, anyway) for some time.  The
word "mumar" is connected to the verb hemir, which means to exchange,
in Biblical as well as modern Hebrew; viz., "lo yemirenu," one should not
exchange animals if one has been set aside for a sacrifice.  In modern
Hebrew, hemir dato means one who has exchanged his faith for another.
But a mumar, traditionally, is one who abandons mitzvot, not necessarily
in order to adopt another religion -- one who becomes an atheist is also
a mumar.  So it makes sense that the original word for this context was
meshumad -- literally, one who is destroyed, presumably in a spiritual sense.
The verb for abandoning Judaism:  lehishtamed, to destroy oneself.
 
"Meshumad" is connected with sh'mad, a decree forbidding Jews from
practicing their religion.  The first usage of sh'mad, according to what
Rav Low (Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv) said on the radio this morning, was
in connection with the persecutions of Antiochus in the 2nd century BCE.
The most recent usage was by Rav Peretz, Minister of Absorption, who
accused the kibbutzim (and indeed the whole secular establishment) of
carrying out a campaign of sh'mad against observant immigrants.
"Sh'mad," again, means destroying one's religious faith and practice,
not necessarily in order to supplant it with another.
 
Benjamin Svetitsky

Topics:
	Re: Status of "Messianic Jew" (#202)
		Dov Samet
	Re: Aliyot for Cohane, Levi (#198)
		Najman Kahana
	An interesting quote from Shimon Kwestel
		Rivka
	Custom/Halacha related bracha of Go'el Yisro'el
		Bob Werman
	Re: Chumra (#210)
		Shlomo Pick
		Ellen Krischer
	Forming a kli (vessel) on Shabbat
		Rick Turkel
______________________________________________________________________
 
The word "yisro'al" in the morning bracha go'el yisro'el.
 
I was brought up to pronounce the word yisro'el aloud; but
I was to learn that this is a minority custom.  I thought
that not pronouncing it is a hazzanut shtick, to make the
hazon look good but serious people tell me that it is based
on bringing g`eula [redemption, and the name of the final bracha before
the Shmone Esre. Mod.] close to t`filla [shmone esre], a positive
mitzva.
 
I have tried to substantiate this and have not found anything to
illuminate my confusion.  The discussions I have found speak of
pronouncing the amen [sphardim don`t and ashkanazim (BUT NEVER DO)] or
whether the shatz [Hazzan or Cantor. Mod.] says the May My Prayer Be
Accepible aloud or not.
 
In the evening prayer their is no problem because of the
kaddish.
 
Can anyone help me on this matter? Thanks.
 
__Bob Werman - rwerman@hujivms - Jerusalem
______________________________________________________________________
 
1) The Supreme Court did not rule that 'Brother Daniel' is "...no longer
a Jew and  t h u s  not entitled to to claim right under the  Law of Return."
The court ruled that the sense of 'Jew' in the Law of Return does not include
Christians. In this law the meaning of 'Jew' is the one that makes  'Christian
Jew' an oxymoron.
2) The question was not that of immigration (he was already in Israel) but of
the title of nationality in his ID card.
3) If I am not wrong no religious authority or organization claimed
that he should be registered as a Jew. This  certainly  indicates that
the ruling was not "blatantly anti-religious".
4) Sharing "the fate of the Jewish people" was not an issue in the ruling. In
fact Brother Daniel shared this fate as a Jew during the Holocaust
and saved many jews among them, I think,  students of Yeshivat Mir.
 
Dov.
______________________________________________________________________
The Cohen, Levy, Israel order is mandated by the Mishna, which includes the
   reason for it.
   "In order to prevent competition and jealousy".
The Rambam tried to change this and give the first call to an "important"
   person. When he saw the results, in his comunity, he reinstated the view of
   the Mishna.
 
Najman Kahana
______________________________________________________________________
An interesting quote I thought I'd share with you all, love to hear your
comments.
 
"Contrary to rumors - and unfortunately that is what much of our community
reads and hears - the Orthodox Union has not been subject to pressure from
the 'right'.  Indeed, I am at a loss to know how to identify the 'right' 
that some people are referring to.  Our community today is a Torah educated
generation which does more things correctly than the community did forty
or fifty years ago, thanks to the Torah education we received and which
we are giving our children.  If doing the right thing means we have moved
to the right - and, again, I eschew meaningless labels - then so be it.  
Let us recognize and be proud of our success - not complain about it.
 
--from President's Message, Shimon Kwestel, outgoing President,
Union of Orthodox Congregations of America
Jewish Action Magazine, Hannukah 5751 (Winter 1990-91)
Vol 561, NO 1, page 7
 
-- Rivka 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Just a thought, according to Rambam's approach to olam haba [the World
to come. Mod] and
resurrection, that is that resurrection is not of the body (before
he "recanted" in the Mamar Techiyat Hametim but according to Hilchot
Teshuva and the way Rama understood it) then the concept of being
closer to God as in Olam Haba, is without bodily functions - in a way
like Moses on Mt. Sinai (as Rabad points out).  Hence one purpose of
chumra is to release oneself of bodily needs and attempt to achieve
total spirituality in this world, sort of Olam Haba in Olam Haze.  If
this is one's strictly personal approach, it should be o.k.
 
Shlomo Pick
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
Rabbi Yaacov Haber writes (in mail.jewish 209):
 
> I see a Chumra in the following manner. When one exercises a Kula
> (leniency) there is always the possibility that one is not acting out of
> intellectual honesty but rather out of comfort....
> This is possible with a Chumra too but not as probable.
 
While I agree that it is less probable to do a Chumra (stingency) out
of comfort, it seems to me that Chumras are *sometimes* performed for
motives that have little to do with getting close to G-d - being
holier-than-thou, showing off, putting down your neighbor, and pride.
 
People who are truely using Chumra to get close to G-d don't need
to put down other people, publically embarass them or belittle valid
(Though lenient) Halachik opinions.  Yet all of these things happen.
 
One recent example that got a lot of press in the New York Times is
the ban on mixed dancing on the Glatt Yacht.  (For non-New Yorkers
this is a boat ride around Manhattan that once a week becomes kosher.
It has become quite popular as a fancy, expensive Shidduch date.)
 
The Rabbi that supervises the kashrut has become, in part, a "policeman"
to make sure couples don't dance.  This is accomplished by asking the
dancing couple to sit down, and if they don't, asking the band to stop
playing until the couple feels foolish enough to sit down.
 
The kashrut organizations claim that they have to do this or they
will lose the support/business of the right-wing community.  Now,
regardless of whether mixed dancing is right or wrong, it certainly
is NOT a kashrut issue.  Meat and milk is.  Properly supervised cooking
is.  Dancing isn't.
 
So.  Here's a chumra.  Is it making the right-wing diners closer to
G-d or is it trying to impose their views on others who don't share them?
 
Ellen (was Bart now) Krischer
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
Can anyone give me a clear explanation of the following practice of
Lubavitchers (and others).  A plastic bag is closed (but obviously not
sealed) with a twist tie.  On Shabbat, the contents of the bag are
removed by TEARING the bag rather than opening the twist tie.  The
explanation I was given involved making a kli (vessel), which is
forbidden on Shabbat.  However, the plastic bag was (to my mind) no less
of a kli before being opened than after the twist tie was removed.
Therefore, it would seem that they are violating bal tashchit (the
prohibition against needless waste).
 
A similar situation obtains in the case of soda cans, which are to be
emptied on Shabbat immediately upon opening for the same reason.  Here,
however, I see potential differences from the plastic-bag situation,
owing to the fact that (1) the can is sealed initially, and (2) it
cannot readily be reclosed, so it is not likely to be reused.  Even so,
a sealed can also seems like a kli to me.
 
Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
 
                Rick Turkel             [email protected]

Topics:
	Re: Custom not to Send Flowers to a Funeral (#187)
		Rivka
	Re: Covering of Hair by Married Women (#181)
		Aryeh Frimer
		Isaac Balbin
	Re: Mumar and Meshumad (#210)
		Daniel Frank
	Re: Number of Psukim in Tzav (#187)
		Shlomo Pick
	Re: Sea-Grass Mats for Schach? (#205)
		Isaac Balbin
	Re: A note on Hebrew (#195)
		Johnny Chody
______________________________________________________________________
 
Regarding chukat hagoyim (avoiding practices done by non-Jews) another
example is holding weddings in shuls.  This was originally a Jewish
practice, but it was adopted by Christians (in churches, of course).
 
The Chatam Sofer prohibited holding weddings in shuls because of this,
and many follow his ruling to this day (they may rent a shul but hold
the Chupah out-of-doors, even in freezing weather, and when there IS a
skylight in the actual shul, because of this).
 
-- Rivka
______________________________________________________________________
 
	There are several fundamental flaws in my opinion with the
comments in mail.jewish #203.  Firstly, I find it totally improper to
treat halakhic subjects using Aggadic or Mussar Arguments.  Halakha
determines what our Jewish weltanschaung should be - not vice versa!
This is indeed the or at least one of the most basic differences between
us and Christianity.
 
	Secondly, the assumption that frumkeit (religiosity) and
stringencies are equivalent - that the more you are machmir (stringent),
the better is mistaken. This "black is beautiful" philosophy is
halakhically false!  On the contrary, all the great poskim were famous
for their Kulot (Leniencies); Koach de'heteira Adif (The power to be
lenient is preferred) says the Talmud. The Maharshal in Chulin (I
apologise for not knowing the exact citation, but I'm on sabbatical)
says that anyone who is machmir even though the halakha is meikel
(lenient), will get a share to the world to come.  But, continues the
Maharshal, if one is meikel where the Halakha is Meikel not only gets a
share in the world to come - but enjoys this world as well! I will stop
here, though there is much that can be written on this subject. I would
simply refer all those with a facility with responsa material to read
Rav Kooks original Heter of Shemen Kitniyot (Lenient responsa regarding
the oil of lentils for use on Pesach) where he attacks the Eida Charedis
the old Jerusalem Yishuv for just such an attitude.
	As to the reference to Kimchit, as Rav Moshe Feinstein notes in
one of his Responsa on Kisui Se'ar (See above apology), Kimchit was cited
as the clear and rare exception. The average woman was never expected or
even encouraged to follow her lead! In fact, although the Noted Chatam
Sofer paskens like the Zohar that all women need follow Kimchit's lead,
Rav Moshe sets the Chatam Sofer aside, permitting a woman to show a
Tefach (area of a square fist; i.e., two fingers deep across the face)
LECHATCHILLA (as normative practice)!!!
	A minhag which klal yisrael has ceased to observe, for whatever
the reason, is no longer binding on the community. With the respect to
Kisui Se'ar I am convinced that the majority of women considered
religious around the world still do not cover their hair. I will refrain
from commenting on the irrelevant aggadic and mussar comments made and
simply note that minhagim are not divine and should not be treated as
such. R. Ovadya Yosef was asked why he searched for a kulah regarding
the observance of Shmitta in the Modern State of Israel, after all
Hashem promised a bountiful crop were Jews to keep Shemitta. R. Yosef
responded: The vast majority of Poskim (codifiers) maintain that
shemitta in the modern period is Rabbinic. When G-d creates the problem,
he promises to solve it! when the Rabbis create the problem - They
should solve it.
	Minhagim are important but not divine or immutable. To say
otherwise is Halakhically false.
	I would be happy to discuss this and related issues with anyone
interested. My phone numbers are: Home (216) 932-4313
				  Work (216) 433-3219
 
[email protected]          Aryeh Frimer
______________________________________________________________________
 
There was some discussion regarding the apparent practice of Litvishe
women to leave their hair uncovered in recent time.  This became
apparent from looking at photographs in a museum as well.  I asked a
Rabbi about this, and he responded that, indeed, many did _not_ wear
head coverings and there was no escaping this fact.  He related that
Rebbetzin Schwab (if I am not mistaken) once asked Rebbetzin Ruderman
this question. Rebbetzin Ruderman replied, and why is it that German
Jewish women seem to ignore the Issur of Loshon Horah.  The point she
was making was that whilst it was definitely wrong for women to appear
without a head covering in a public place, society seems to have latched
on to _one_ of the more difficult Mitzvos to keep. Apparently, as frum
as they were, Litvishe women even then found this a difficult thing to
keep.  The retort was to highlight that Loshon Hora is probably more
difficult, but that Litvishe women seemed to excel in avoiding it and
yet there was no credit for this. The focus was always on the more
visible.  May we all have the strength to keep _all_ difficult Halachos,
and may we all be sensible enough not to use one or two issues as the
yardstick of judging a person.
 
Isaac Balbin
______________________________________________________________________
 
Just a note on the etymology of the word "meshumad."  Historically
speaking, it has, of course, nothing whatsoever to do with the root
sh.m.d.  Rather it is connected with the Hebrew root ayin/mem/dalet and
signifies -- in Christian Aramaic -- Baptism.  Some medieval Jews --
those with a good knowledge of comparative Semitics -- recognized this
and indeed we find the correct etymology of the word as I have given it
in Rabbi Moses Ibn Ezra's treatise on Biblical Prosody, Kitab
al-Muhadara wa'l-Mudhakara, ed. and trans. by A. S. Halkin, as Sefer
ha-Iyyunim ve-ha- Diyyunim and trans. previously by B. Z. Halper as
Shirat Yisrael.  Having said this, I would classify the etymologies of
the word which connect it with the root shin/mem/dalet as "creative."
This is an established and acceptable midrashic method; in the present
instance, the homiletic possibilities with which the root sh.m.d. are
associated are both numerous and powerful.
 
Daniel Frank
______________________________________________________________________
 
The question being discussed is the summarry of the amount of verses in
the parsha as found at the end of the parsha.  I never discussed the
proper spelling of the first word, but the source of 96 as the summary
and not 97.  We are not dealing with the name of the parsha but the
"siman" that summarizes the amount of verses which is a relative late
developement, about the same time that "aleph" is used to indicate the
pronounciation of the letter before with a "patach", as in Aramaic or
the still later Yiddish.  My theory just stated that the "siman" for the
amount of verses was a play on the name of the parsha, and with the
"aleph" the pronouncia- tion and the "siman" were one and the same.  I
hope that this time there is no mistake in what I meant. [Rick Turkel
responded that he now understands what Shlomo is saying and withdraws
his criticism. Mod.] Thank you.
 
SHLOMO H. PICK  F12013@BARILAN
______________________________________________________________________
 
Rabbi Haber's question interests me as well. I wonder if there
is anyone in Israel who lives close by, or has the means and would
be willing to ask one of the Gedolei HaPoskim,
Rav Auerbach, Rav Waldenberg or Rav Elyashiv this question.
 
Isaac Balbin
______________________________________________________________________
 
>  As far as the discussion about Zvi goes - does anyone know the source
>  for l'ateret zvi in shir hakvod during Musaf of Shabbat?
 
It comes from Isiah Ch 28 V 5 and it comes in the Haftorah of Parshas Shmos.
 
Johnny Chody  ([email protected])

Topics:
	Scope and purpose of mail.jewish
		Moderator - Avi Feldblum
		Lazer Danzinger
		Avi Feldblum
______________________________________________________________________
 
The context of the following article from Lazer Danzinger is the recent
discussions concerning the Rambam and Kaballah. While there are points
in his submission that relate directly to that topic, it seems (and I
have discussed this with Lazer in an email exchange) that the underlying
topic is the one I have listed above. What is the purpose of this
mailing list, by what rules does it operate and what is the scope of
allowed articles. I present first Lazer's article and I will give my
comments mainly afterward. Two points I would like to make in advance.
The first is that in the final analysis, a mailing list is a group of
people who wish to discuss some agreed upon set of topics with some
agreed upon set of rules. Both the topics and rules can be well defined
or fuzzy, as long as people agree to them. So what you all think and
feel is important in this issue.
 
The second point relates to style rather than content. Maybe due to the
dominence of my Litvish background over my Chasidish background, I have
attemped to maintain a very topic and issue orientation on the postings
here. I feel uncomfortable with the style of Lazer's article, and in
such cases (which there have been others) I let the author know and
possibly suggest changes. If the author wishes his/her submission to go
in without changes in the language, as long as it is not a flame or
personal attack, I will put it in. In this case, Lazer asked the article
go in as submitted.
 
Avi Feldblum as Moderator
______________________________________________________________________
 
I must express my utter shock at the inclusion of David Ariel's
submission into mail.jewish #208.
 
His article, as he himself is honest enough to concede at the very
outset, is very much "at odds" -- to say the least -- with the
traditional view of the Divine origin of Kabbalah. I had understood that
mail.jewish was a vehicle for the disemination of discussion, discourse,
and information within an _Orthodox_ framework.
 
Clearly, the opinions and conclusions of self-professed non-believers,
such as Gershom Scholem, which David Ariel makes abundant reference to,
is outside the scope of this mail group.
 
Similarly, Ronald Greenberg, in his submission, refers to Professor
Shmidman's appraisal of a monograph by G. Scholem as "authoritative
study of the legend" regarding the Rambam's connection (or lack of) with
Kabbalah.
 
As far as Scholem is concerned, the bulk of today's Kabbalah was heavily
influenced by mystical doctrines originating in the Far East!
 
It should be patently obvious that Scholem, for the observant Jew, is
hardly to be considered a reliable authority on this, or related topics.
(Many of Scholem's theories have been adequately refuted by traditional
rabbinical scholars in a variety of periodicals, etc.)
 
As such, those submissions to mail.jewish that are based on, or promote
heretical viewpoints ought to not be propogated by mail.jewish.
 
Rabbi Lazer Danzinger
______________________________________________________________________
 
Lazer and I clearly have different ideas on what this mailing list is
and what is or is not appropriate for the mailing list. While I am the
moderator, I do not view myself as the arbitor of all decisions relative
to the mailing list. Let me start with what I have in writing about the
mailing list and it's origin. First, here is the description of the
mailing list from the new member mailing:
 
   mail.jewish was founded about 5 years ago to provide a forum to
   discuss halacha and general jewish topics within a framework where
   the validity of halacha is accepted. The mailing list is open to
   everybody, but topics such as the validity of Torah, halacha etc are
   not accepted.
 
Here is the first part of the original announcement Dave Chechik sent
out in Feb 1986:
 
   There was a discussion a while back about splitting
   net.religion.jewish up into various and sundry newsgroups.  Most of
   the proponents argued that the newsgroup has become mostly a
   battleground between various factions of Judaism.  The idea of
   splitting the newsgroup was yelled down and has not been heard from
   since.
    
   Some of the people i've spoken to about the newsgroup have told me
   that they will not post articles to n.r.j for fear of being ridiculed
   etc.  And since not everyone has the temperment or the desire to
   fight the world, one can't blame them.
    
   One idea that has been suggested is to start a moderated mailing list
   dealing with issues of jewish law and culture.  The subject matter of
   the mailing list will be halachic issues, NOT the validity of
   halacha.
 
The history of mail.jewish is that it is not an "Orthodox" mailing list.
It is one directed at discussing halachic and jewish issues within the
context of the halachic system and not getting into the sort of
meta-issues of whether one should follow halacha at all. Along those
lines, submissions that advocate the "clear violation of halacha" will
generally not be accepted. What is a "clear violation of halacha" is a
point that can be debated, and basically depends on the moderator's
view. If I feel unsure about something posted, I will generally send it
back to the submitter explain my reasons, and see if s/he wants to
change it.
 
It is my viewpoint that both traditional and academic viewpoints on
issues dealing with Judaism and halacha are valid topics for this
mailing list, as long as the academic viewpoint is not that halacha is
irrelevent and should not be followed. Then it violates the basic rule
of the mailing list. In the issue that sparked this discussion, neither
the question of whether the Rambam knew "Kabbalah" [in the sense that we
are using the word today, not in the sense that I at least think he uses
the word in his writings] nor even the question of whether the Zohar [
and therefor Zohar-based kabbalah] predates or postdates the Rambam, is
a meta-issue around the validity of the halachic system. As such, I see
these topics and the recent submissions as valid submissions to the
mailing list.
 
It is my feeling that the academic tradition and investigations have a
lot to teach us. I am fully aware that there are many who disagree. It
is true that many of these individuals deny the Divine nature of Torah,
while at the same time there are many who are fully Shomer Torah
U'Mitzvot. My judging on a submission will depend mainly on the content
of the actual submission. I will admit that I am very uncomfortable with
topics related to higher criticism (textual development and history) of
the Chumash and also Nach. As we get to Mishneh, Talmud, etc. I have no
problems there.
 
[This is from the end of a email exchange with Lazer and I hope that he
does not object to my including it here.]
 
> Perhaps my submission, as is, will serve also as a spring-board
> for, in my opinion, an over-due re-appraisal of what the charter
> and scope of mail.jewish should be.
 
I am open to that. I think that I have made my feelings known in the
above submission, and I think Lazer's opinion is clear from his article.
Where do we go from here? At this point, I need to know what you as the
membership of mail.jewish want. Do we want to have a more clearly
defined set of rules and then what should they be? If a majority of the
mailing list indicates a clear preference, I agree the mailing list
should operate that way. If we get no clear majority, while I do not
like the idea, since I find strength in the diversity of opinions and
backgrounds on the list, I do open up to you that another mailing list
could be started with a different scope and rules. But at this point, it
is from all of you that I need to hear what you think. Then we can see
how to go on from here.
 
Avi Feldblum  -  [email protected]   or  [email protected]

Topics:
	Re: Scope and purpose of mail.jewish (#213)
		Moderator
	Re: Custom/Halacha related bracha of Ga'al Yisrael (#211)
		Shlomo Pick
		Aryeh Frimer
		Michael E. Allen, Jeremy Nussbaum, Neil Parks, and
			Warren Burstein 
	Re: Soda Cans On Shabbat (#211)
		Shlomo Pick
	Re: Sea-Grass Mats for Schach? (#205)
		Rabbi Yaacov Haber
	Re: Mumar and Meshumad (#210)
		Melekh Viswanath
	Re: Chumrot (#209)
		Sara Svetitsky
______________________________________________________________________
I would like to thank all those who have responded to the scope issue
raised in #213. So far there has been about 40 responses. I do not plan
to post them all to the mailing list, what I am more likely to do is
have one mailing with some excerpts from the various responses, and put
the full text (with names removed ?) from the various responses on the
archive server for those with ftp access to get, if they so desire. This
is in line with the practice of Listserv-type mailing lists where large
articles are placed where they can be accessed and just the information
is sent to the full mailing list.
 
I have read over the responses carefully. My tally is as follows:
 
32 - Keep the scope as I described it in #213
 
2 - Modify the scope as suggested/requested by Lazer Danziger
 
5 - Hard to classify, several along the lines of somehow flag items that
are not in agreement with <something>.
 
Several responses also dealt with the more specific question of whether
any discussion/opinion about Kaballah could be viewed as
heretical/opposed to halacha etc.
 
My reading of the response of the mailing list at this time is that
there will be no change in the scope of the mailing list at this time. 
 
Avi Feldblum - mail.jewish moderator
______________________________________________________________________
 
The Mishne Brura based upon the Magen Avraham gives three courses of
action:
 
1. to start the 18 brachot before the chazan say ga'al yisrael
2. to say along with the chazan
or
3. to hold back before "shira hadasha" and to answer amen.
 
There is no source in "official" halacha for the chazan to silently end
the bracha.  R. Epstein in his book on siddur "Baruch She-Amar" takes
those chazzanim who do not say the bracha out loud to task and in effect
censures them.  Here in Bnei Brak, many who are scrupulous in mitzvot
say the bracha aloud, including the renowned Rabbi Sraya Devlitzky and
his minyan of vatikin [those who daven so that they begin the Shmoneh
Esrei at sunrise - Mod.].  The sources are Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim,
66, Magen Avraham 11 and the Levushei Serad on the comment of the Magen
Avraham.  I did see an article in an edition of "Pardess" ed. by R.
Elberg from more than ten years ago in which the custom was defended,
and I'll try to locate it, but the article was weak and the weight of
halacha seems against it.  Wishing for geula, 
 
Shlomo Pick
 
p.s. if someone else can locate the pardess edition it will save me time
______________________________________________________________________
 
	I'd like to relate to Bob Werman's Dilemma regarding "Ga'al
Yisrael" in Shacharit. The world renowned Posek of the previous
generation, revered and respected as "A Rabbis Rabbi" even by Rav Moshe
Feinstein - Harav Eliyahu Henkin, discusses this problem in his volume
of halachic insights entitled "Eidot Leyisrael".
	He notes that one of the primary functions of the Hazzan
(Precentor) is to aid the unknowledgeable (Eino Baki) to fulfill their
prayer obligations by reciting the Shmoneh Esrei and the gist of the
Birkot Kriat Shma (the benedictions before and after the Shma). To do
the latter requires the Hazzan to say The opening and closing of each
Beracha that opens and closes with Baruch ata Hashem and the closing of
those that only close. Hence Ga'al Yisrael must be said out loud.
	There is a machloket (dispute) as to whether Amen should be
answered after Ga'al Yisrael with the Rama saying it should. The problem
begins because the Zohar sides with Rav Yosef Karo. To avoid the dispute
the custom spread to say Ga'al Yisrael quietly, but as Rav Henkin notes
this violates the institution of Chazal regarding the Shaliach Tzibbur
[Hazzan].  The Mishna Berura says that to avoid the dispute you should
say the Beracha word for word with the Hazzan.
 
Aryeh Frimer - 	[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
The problem is that there should be no interruption between the end of
the bracha and the beginning of the T'filah [Shmone Esrei]. So that no
one would answer "Amen" and interrrupt the connection between the bracha
and the beginning of the amida the ba'al t'filla (in many congregations)
does not say the word "Yisroel" or trails off to silence after "Baruch
atah ..."
 
[Similar responses combined into the above from: Michael E. Allen, 
Jeremy Nussbaum, Neil Parks, and Warren Burstein, Mod.]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Just a note on flip top cans, to open on them on shabbat apparently
would violate a biblical melacha of mechataich, one of the 39 mentioned
in the Mishna Shabbat 73a as one is cutting the metal to a specific
size as outlined in the can.  The same should go for those soda bottles
with screw-on caps - opening them on shabbat violates the melacha of
mechateich and destroying the can or cap will not help in this situation.
It is the same problem as with perforated tissue - cutting to a specific
size. and although there are  posekim who are lenient in opening the
screw-on caps, there arguments seem very weak in light of the source
material on mechateich. respectfully yours,
 
shlomo (f12013@barilan)
______________________________________________________________________
 
I'm sorry I was obviously unclear in my question. Let me try again. I'm
aware that the Mechaber requires schach to be Giduley Aretz, however,
the RAMBAM Keylim 1;11+3, implies that within the category of GIDULEY
KARKA there are two subsets, those that grow on DRY land and those that
grow on WET land. Having grown from the land it is Kosher for Schach.
Having grown from WET land it can not be mekabel Tumah.
 
Rabbi Yaacov Haber, Dean - Australia Institute for Torah
Internet:[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
This is in reference to Shlomo Pick's statements in #210 regarding the
term 'mumar'.  I am surprised.  I seem to recollect that the term 'mumar' 
is used in the rambam's writings also.  Did the same kind of censorship
occur in Egypt and was the same substitution used there too?
 
melekh. ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
Any mention of chumrot reminds me of the wonderful thing that happened
to me in Boston.  I wanted to make a kidush for the congregation of the
Talner shul and enquired as to what foodstuffs would be acceptable. The
response was that I should cook whatever I wanted to in my own house and
bring it to the shul.  I was stunned; people were going to eat someone
else's cooking? In public?  Is this a kula I see before me?  It was
explained to me that it was a point of principle with this congregation
to eat without question what other religious Jews gave them; it was
summed up as "let's be makil on food and machmir on Sinat Chinam".  Wow.
 
I am also reminded of the story told of Rav Aryeh Levin z"tl. He was in
the hospital and his daughter was bringing him food everyday, and as
soon as she left he would pass the food out to everyone in the ward.
The fellow patients were embarassed by this; "Rabbi, your daughter
brought the food for you, not for us...". Reb Levin explained that if he
was seen NOT to eat the hospital food other patients would assume that
there was some doubt as to the kashrut and much trouble would result, so
he of all people HAD to eat the hospital food.
 
           Sara Svetitsky

Topics:
	Kosher Eating in a Kosher Enviroment
		Shlomo Pick
	Rambam and Zohar
		Yaacov Haber
		Smadar Kedar
	Covering one's hair in a Professional Environment
		Elana Goltsman
	Re: Chumra
		Ezra Tepper
		Warren Burstein
	Interesting Gematria for "Zvi" in "Ateret Zvi"
		Len Moskowitz
______________________________________________________________________
 
Apparently the chief rabbinate of Israel agrees with the supervising
rabbi of glatt yacht. Not only will they remove their certicficate from
hotels that are not shomer shabbat (which is also a kashrut issue based
upon a responsum from the Rashba quoted in Mishna Brura #318) but also
from those hotels that hold new years eve parties on the 1st of Jan.
Apparently, kosher eating must be in a kosher enviroment.  In this case
we may take a cue for the Breuer community - not only glatt kosher but
also glatt yosher [from the word for "straight", meaning doing
everything in the proper way. - Mod.]! i do not think that it is a
question of chumra but rather sensitivity to the entirety of Judaism,
not just kashrut but shabbat, arayot and avodat zara (the last two refer
to mixed dancing and new years eve respectively) where even "avizreihu"
[ Anyone for a good translation of this? Sort of refers to something
which is only tangentially part of idolatry or arayot. Mod.] require a
tendency to be stringent.
 
Shlomo Pick - f12013@barilan
______________________________________________________________________
 
An interesting discussion of whether the RMBM had the Zohar takes place
in Vayoel Moshe of the Satmar Rebbe page 249. Also in the introduction
to the Shomer Emunim HaKadmon there is significant discussion on this
topic.
 
Rabbi Yaacov Haber, Dean - Australia Institute for Torah
Internet: [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I, too am wondering what are the *feelings* underlying this heated
technical discussion [whether or not the rambam was familiar with
Kaballah - Mod.].  What is the feeling these days in the American
orthodox community (or your personal feeling) about studying the
mystical tradition?  Does it seem that learning more traditional works
do not always answer some of the personal, nagging, questions about
HaShem?  Is there a desire a more spiritual life (a life in which one
can relate to HaShem through experience, not just through the
intellect), and is there a belief that the mystical tradition can
provide that?
 
I will now say something outrageous, so take it with a grain of 
salt: Maybe we are reaching a new era, where we are starting to
recognize the limits of pure reason (both in our tradition and in the
broader society).  We see that western thought, though rational, has
led us to an amoral and dangerous place to live.  Maybe learning an
intricate sugia does not get at the intense spirituality many may be
longing for (say to doven with intensity, or to feel that HaShem is
guiding you and communicating with you in your life).
 
Smadar ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
I am not sure if the following question is appropriate for the
newsgroup, but here it goes.  I am getting married in a few months and
will keep my short hair covered with a beret or a hat.  I am also a
medical student and will soon have to apply for residency and go to
interviews, etc.  Is a sheitel the only solution to keeping one's hair
covered when wearing business attire?  I don't want to look ridiculous
or be prejudiced against.  I know what my rov's response will be, I am
just curious to find out what other Orthodox women do in similar
situations.  Thank you.
 
elana ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have read with great interest your postings regarding chumrot
(observances that are not strictly required by the halachah, but which
derive from an attempt to do something in a more perfect manner, often
to take into consideration minority opinions in halachah or to remove
possible doubts as to the correct handling of items requiring special
preparation, i.e. food, tefilin, matzos, etc.)
 
It seems to me that in many cases, observing a chumrah is likely to
lead to a kulah (a less-than-perfect, lenient observance) of another
mitzvah.
 
Let me give just a few examples.
 
a. One of the most significant chumros (and one observed daily by only
a tiny fraction of Jewry) is tefilah kevatikin (praying the shacharis
Amidah at the exact moment of sunrise). There are opinions that this
is the only proper way of praying shacharis. Prayers said after
sunrise are, however, after-the-fact (b'dieved) acceptable. There were
attempts in some yeshivas to inaugurate this practice. However, when
the Roshei Yeshivos began seeing their students (particularly in
the summer months) falling asleep over their Gemoras and during class,
this chumrah was dropped.
 
b. Or take the chumrah of buying a "perfect" esrog for Sukkos in order
to adorn the mitzvah (hidur mitzvah). According to the halachah the
additional cost of hidur mitzvah is (if I am not mistaken) a sixth.
However, individuals who are punctilious will often spend three to
four times the price of an average esrog -- if not more. Were that
expense strains one's budget, there would be a temptation to cut costs
on yet another Sukkos mitzvah, the custom of buying one's wife and
children special things for the holiday. The extra money for the esrog
could have gone to provide a better dress for one's wife, increasing
her holiday joy. The more perfect observance of one mitzvah leading to
a less perfect observance of another mitzvah.
 
c. There is a well known chumrah of the Brisk yeshiva tradition in
Eretz Yisro'el. They are punctilious in the observance of separating
termuos and ma'aseros (tithes) from agricultural produce. They accept
no kashrus supervision in this matter (even the most acceptable and
strictest varieties). Even after tithes have been separated, they
again remove the tithes themselves from each individual fruit or
vegetable, rather than the standard practice of removing the required
percentages from the entire wholesale batch. These tithes are allowed
to rot. Now there is a Torah prohibition of bal tashchis (not to
destroy food or other useful products). Thus their chmurah of tithing
(a rabbinical requirement, according to most) leads to the lenient
observance of bal tashchis.
 
d. Woman who wear uncovered sheitles (wigs) do so to make sure that
every wisp of hair is covered (which, as has been discussed in so many
contributions to m.j is only a chmurah). However, this leads to a
kulah in the general "modesty" of appearance of the woman, who is
likely to attract more attention to herself than were she to wear a
plain kerchief or simple hat with a bit of hair showing out here and
there.
 
In other words: There is no free lunch.
 
Ezra Tepper <[email protected]>
______________________________________________________________________
 
Re: Chumra
 
I totally agree with Shlomo Pick that it is fine for one to take a
personal approach to halacha which involves negation of his or her
body.  I would like to add my opinion that someone who takes this view
of life should not say, about a particular halacha where there are views
both l'kulah and l'chumra, "this is the halacha", but "this chumra will
help you achieve a certain spiritual state."
[Warren]
______________________________________________________________________
 
The term "Zvi" in "Ateret Zvi" has an interesting gematria that relates
the phrase to the more common "Ateret Baalah."  If anyone wants the
details, drop me a line.
 
Len Moskowitz

Topics:
	Zionism and Food
		Marc
	Re: Soda Cans On Shabbat (#211)
		Zev Kesselman
		Najman Kahana
		Rick Turkel
		Isaac Balbin
______________________________________________________________________
No this is not about kreplach and melawach, but about grace after meals.
The only blessing for which it is customary for the person making the
blessing to say "amen" is in Birchat hamazon and says:
 
"bonne b'rachamav yerushalayim amen". [Who will in his mercy rebuild
Jerusalem, Amen. - Mod.]
 
While being indoctrinated as a zionist I was always taught that the
reason for this is the centrality of a return to Jerusalem in Jewish
thought. While such centrality is undeniable (about a third of the
"shmona-esreh" directly or indirectly expresses that idea), I wonder how
this is learned in the specific context.
 
The discussion of amen and the above bracha (blessing) appears in
Brachot 45b, the Rambam (hilchot brachot 1:16) and in Tor-shulchan aruch
188 (birchat hamazon) and 216 (amen). There are interesting discussions
on the subject in the Rif (especially Rabbenu Yona), Mordechai and the
Rosh.
 
Here the Zionists seem to lose: the discussions centre around which part
of Birchat hamazon is "m'doraita" (from the Tora), whether the Jerusalem
blessing "completes" it or not; and the question of the workers who have
to get up from the table and go back to work. But not a word about
centrality of the belief in rebuilding Jerusalem.
 
I found very meagre support in the Tosaphot (brought also in the
Mordechai) who say that although other blessings might be concluded with
"amen", only "Jerusalem" is actually practiced ("fook chazi d'var
ama..."). But this form of reasoning looks like the joke about "lech
l'cha" being the basis for wearing a hat (since Abraham wouldn't have
gone on a journey with his head uncovered like a gentile (-:).
 
The Rashba seems to have written on the subject, but in Halifax, Nova
Scotia, he's not on the top 10 reading list (as a matter of fact, I'll
give you a loonie [canadian coin] for every Haligonian that can spell
Rashba) I also don't have a Palestinian Talmud (though the library has
several copies of the Palestinian Charter).
 
So, dear readers, has anyone come across a zionist interpretation of
"bone brachamav yerushalayim etc."?  I will only accept commentators who
pre-date Kalischer.
 
I greatly appreciate it.
 
marc - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
	I think the response to Rick Turkel's question in #211 regarding
"making" a kli on Shabbat, is along the following lines:
 
	There is a mishneh in Tractate Shabbat (Folio 146) that starts
with "One may break open the cask and eat the dried fruit [inside]...".
The ensuing Gemara discussion raises limitations to this.  He isn't
allowed to carve out a new pouring hole in a completely sealed cask, he
can open a loosely sealed top bung, but not a more permanently sealed
bottom bung, etc.  Presumably, these actions contribute to making the
already existing container into a more useful "kli".  Later analyses try
to classify the offending action into "boneh", "soter", "makeh
b'patish", etc, but the general idea goes back to how closely our
vessels fit the description in the mishneh, and whether or not the kli
will be reused once opened.  Opinions permissive and strict can be found
all over the landscape.
 
	I would like to ask a question along a similar vein.  Like most
of my religious friends, I do open cans & bottles; but I've always
wondered about the practice of preparing Watermelon Boats on Shabbat, in
preparation for a Kiddush or Shalosh Seudos.  Here, you really are
making a whole kli out of a watermelon rind; and then using it to put
back the original contents and tastefully serve them.  Yet the practice
is common.  Has anyone seen any discussion on this practice?
 
Zev Kesselman
______________________________________________________________________
 
From "Igrot Moshe" (Rav M. Feinstein", Orech Chaim, Siman Kuf-Caf-Beit:
(translated from Hebrew)
On the subject of tearing a stitched bag and paper bag containing sugar and
similar items and opening cans of Sprats and other types of cans.
 
On the subject whether we should allow tearing or cutting a stitched bag
containing sugar which is needed for Shabbat. Also when the paper bag
has a seal whether you are allowed to tear it to take the sugar. Also,
whether you are allowed to open a metallic, sealed can in which you have
small fish called sprats and to open all kinds of cans of food and drink
when you need them for Shabbat ......  .....
 
	Anaf (Branch) Yud: 
We find l'dina, that these cans and sprats containers, as well as sugar
and similar foods which are sold in paper bags and which it is accepted
that once the food has been removed from them are discarded; should be
allowed, by all, to break them and tear them. ..........
 
To break cans which are metal and which are sometimes reused ......
should be allowed in cans that for sure he is not worried about
preserving them, such as small cans which can't be cut.
......  
And all the above is mi'dina, but l'maase we should not permit it
because there are only a small number of Bnei Tora , Beavonotainu
Ha-Rabim.  And in a place where there aren't scholars, you should not
matir so that others should not take kulot.
 
End of quote.
 
Ha Mevin, Yavin!
 
Najman kahana - Israel
______________________________________________________________________
 
        I was always under the impression that the melacha of mechateich
did not refer to opening food containers on Shabbat.  Most of the people
I know do so without any question, and many whom I consider much more
frum than I also open soda cans on Shabbat.  Last time I was in Israel
the soda cans were still of the type where the tab is completely
separated from the can when it is opened; here in the US a different
type has been mandated for a number of years, where the tab remains
attached to the can.  Perhaps this affects the psak halacha in some way.
 
        My understanding of the main problem with toilet tissue on
Shabbat was that the tearing involved in its use was not for the
necessity of food, not the fact that it was perforated to a particular
size.  If the latter were the only problem, then random tearing of paper
would be permissible on Shabbat, and to my knowledge it is not.
 
Rick Turkel     ([email protected])
______________________________________________________________________
 
I am aware of an entire Kuntres (booklet) on the topic of screw tops
that are connected with a ring (metal or plastic) to the bottle.  I
would not, however, discount the opinion of (for example) Rav Waldenberg
as very weak, unless you were to convince us of this. From memory, Rav
Waldenberg considers the problem of screw tops and concludes that it is
permitted. I think the Shmiras Shabbos forbids it, and in the name of
Rav Shlomo Zalman says to pierce the cap. The problem they seem to be
worried about (again, this is a few years since I looked at it) is
Metaken Kli (in this case making a vessel out of the _cap_).  Actually,
I may have mixed the two opinions around, but the point is that there
are some ``heavyweights'' with contrary opinions, and therefore saying
arguments seem very weak, is perhaps glib without supporting evidence.
 
Isaac Balbin
______________________________________________________________________

Topics:
	Prelude to Mashiach
		Yisroel Rotman
		Avi Feldblum
	Shabbat Pen
		Neil Parks
	Modim and Modim DeRabannan
		Eliezer Segal
	Cheese
		Dan Lerner
		[Avi Feldblum]
	Use of Water Filter on Shabbat
		Immanuel Burton
______________________________________________________________________
 
I'd like to open a discussion if possible on "the times we live
in".
 
Last weeks Jerusalem Post had an advertiment from a notable Jewish
group
 
	"The Time for Your Redemption has Arrived"
 
In the middle of the article it adds:
 
	"Why is Now an Era of Miracles?
	We are living them now.  Consider......"
 
Normally, this wouldn't have bothered me; in fact, living in Israel,
one gets the feeling that these are unusual times.  However, IS IT
GOOD TO PROCLAIM IT?   I have two questions:
 
1.  Objectively, have there not been other times which could have
been called "The prelude to the Mashiach" before in Jewish history?
 
2.  Historically, hasn't the failure of the Mashiach to come when
expected and proclaimed caused disasterous disheartening for the
Jewish people?
 
I would prefer to ignore the particular Jewish group who published
the advertisement - the questions above can be addressed without
introducing personalities.  And, in fact, the question can be
broadened to include a second issue.  In the prayer for the
state of Israel we state that Israel is "Rayshit Tzmichat Gioolataynu" -
the beginning of our redemption.  Doesn't that have the same problem
as the above advertisement?  How do we know that it is?  What if it
isn't?
 
Dr. Yisroel Rotman - Ben-Gurion University - SROTMAN@BGUEE
______________________________________________________________________
The second point raised is indeed an interesting halachic question. As
you point out, the usage of the phrase in the prayer for the state of
Israel is that of a modifier on "the state of Israel", and as such
implies that we know this to be true. In the absence of a prophet or the
use of hindsight, how can we make such a statement?
 
A friend of mine, Rabbi Gold, is (sort of) the Rabbi of a shul in
Philadelphia, and is close with one of Rav Moshe's (zt'l) sons. He asked
R. Moshe what was the halacha concerning saying the T'fila for the state
of Israel as part of the Shabbat T'fila (as is done in many places). R'
Moshe answered that there was no problem, as long as they made one
change in the text; add the word "sheyehah - that it should be" before
rayshit tzmichat gioolataynu. That turns the phrase from a statement of
fact to one of request to Hashem, i.e. may this period turn out to have
been the beginning of our redemption.
 
Unfortunately, this Tshuva of R' Moshe's was never written down, as far
as I know, and is not included in any of the volumes of the Igrot Moshe
(if I am incorrect, I would be happy to be corrected).
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
The following appeared in the June 1991 issue of "Dateline World Jewry",
the newsletter of the World Jewish Congress.
 
  SABBATH PEN
 
  Israeli scientists have developed a pen that can be used by Orthodox 
  Jews on the Sabbath.
 
  Based on the principle of invisible ink, the text vanishes after a
  number of days, by which time it can be photocopied.  Use of the pen,
  which is intended primarily for doctors and soldiers on emergency duty,
  has been sanctioned by Sephardic Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliahu.
 
Personally, I'm not sure this is such a good idea.  For those engaged in
"pikuach nefesh" (life-saving activity, which takes precedence over
Shabbos observance), it might make them feel a little better about
having to write on Shabbos.
 
But if other people start using it, then I think we run the risk that
future generations will come to regard all writing on Shabbos as
permissible.  For the sake of "building a fence around the Torah", we
have to be very careful about this.
 
Neil Edward Parks - [email protected] - 
(Fidonet) 157/511 (Appleholics) - (GT) 22/9 (Akademia)
______________________________________________________________________
 
The discussion about ga'al yisra'el raises a similar question regarding
the modim/modim derabbanan [the 18th blessing of the Shemona Esreh,
Mod.].  Most congregations that I know of have the sheliah tzibbur
[Hazzan, Mod.] read modim by himself quietly while they (supposedly)
read the modim derabbanan.  I have always been led to understand that
the function of the sheliah tzibbur as one who is there to represent
those who are not expert in the liturgy would logically require his
reciting this portion of the service aloud as well, and this is what I
normally do in my own synagogue, a practice which seems to have been
adopted by the other ba'alei tefillah here.  I nonetheless recognize
that there might be some justification for the alternative custom; e.g.,
it can confuse people to have the sha"tz [sheliah tzibbur, Mod.] reading
something different; and perhaps the traditional functions of the sha"tz
are to be modified now that we have written prayerbooks.  Any thoughts
or (better) sources on the topic?
 
Eliezer Segal
______________________________________________________________________
 
It says in the Shulchan Aruch that you have to wait six hours after
eating hard cheese before eating meat.  Hard cheese is defined as cheese
aged more than 6 months [Actually, I think the definition is a
disagreement between the Shach and Taz, Mod.].  Are there any kosher
cheeses today which would be considered hard cheese?
 
Also, I've heard various stories about Rabbi Soloveitchik having
had a lenient personal custom with regard to cheese, that
he didn't require supervision on some cheeses because most
cheese in America is made from vegetable-derived enzymes.
Can anyone confirm or refute this story which keeps on appearing?
 
Dan Lerner
 
[I'm pretty sure the question is not that the cheese is made from
vegetable derived enzymes, but that the Rov was of the opinion that the
rennet used in cheese-making was removed from the class of foods, and
was to be considered a chemical and therefore not involved in the
kashrut of the cheese. He also was of the opinion that the issur of
"g'vinat akum - the cheese of a non-jew" was a purely kashrut question
(similar to chalav akum - milk of a non-jew), relating to the source of
the milk and rennet. Since the Rov held that all domestic cheeses were
made with cow's milk and processed rennet, there was not kashrut issue,
and therefor permitted. There are those who disagree on the rennet
question, and also those who disagree on the nature of chalav akum (I
know R. Yaacov Haber, a member of our mailing list, has written on this
topic).
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have a problem which has been bothering me for some time and for which
I have not yet found an answer, yet which could possibly be discusses on
mail.jewish as it relates to everyday life, more or less: Is one allowed
to use a water filter, i.e. a filter designed to remove chemicals rather
than "visible" objects from the water, on Shabbat?  I know one may not
use a filter or sieve on Shabbat, but in the case of a water filter no
tangible residue is left behind.  Does this make a difference?
 
Immanuel Burton - London.  (Internet:  [email protected])

Topics:
	Earings for Men?
		Dan Lerner	
	Chumra and more
		Shlomo Pick
	Fungi and Synthetics
		Tod Ellner
	Glatt Yacht
		Justin Hornstein
		Susen Hornstein
	Re: Status of "Messianic Jew" (#202)
		Mindy Schimmel
______________________________________________________________________
 
Are Men forbidden to wear one earing because of the prohibition of
wearing a women's garment?  I've seen much discussion of women wearing
pants, but nothing about this, and yet you occasionally see people
wearing one earing in shul, and if you're in Berkeley, they might even
get an aliyah.  It seems to me that this would be beged ishah, and hence
not permitted.  Other people argued that since many men now wear one
earing, it is no longer exclusively beged ishah.  However these people
who wear it are mostly not in the halachic community.
 
Dan Lerner
______________________________________________________________________
 
1: Most posekim differ from their public stance as opposed to a private
one. For the public they will be lenient - in private they themselves
are machmir (unless they feel that the public will be influenced by
their private stand).
2. Many times the posek will publicly acknowledge
the chumrua and say that he who is stringent will be blessed (hamachmir
tavoh alav bracha) and R. Ovadya Yosef is one who uses this formula very
often! 
3. I do not where Aryeh gets his statistics of women covering the
hair - but I would admit that in shul although there is a mechitza and
the women usually are not seen during the reading of shma, yet all the
married women cover their hair one way or another - why?  I propose that
it is a residue of the actual halacha that women should cover their hair
and at least in a shul they fulfill the law.
4. The power of custom
should not be underestimated especially in ashkenaz - see articles of
Soloveichik (Haym) on the role of custom - that it is a source of
revelation of the oral law.
5. The use of agadda and mussar is legitimate in a halachik discussion
and posekim do derive halacha from agadda.  When it comes to 
questions of martyrdom - the rishonim of ashkenaz derived halacha from
aggadata! I believe the issue is discussed also in encyclopaedia tal-
mudit.  Halachic arguments may be augmented by aggada.  In fact I have
heard a shiur concerning a surrogate mother where some of the issues have been
decided by aggada!  
6. To label statements as "halachikly false"
is a bit extreme - as mentioned earlier, some societies (ashkenaz in the
middle ages as one) would view minhag as on par with divine revelation -
anyone who is familiar with the articles of ta-shma, soloveitchik and j.
katz would be familiar with this. 
 
Shlomo Pick
______________________________________________________________________
 
I am beginning to gain an understanding of the issues of Kashrut, and
for the most part they seem clear for day-to-day things.  My problem is
with those foods which are neither plant, animal, nor milk: fungi and
synthetics.  They don't come under the category of animal products, but
at the same time they are not "Every green thing[herb?]".  What
regulations surround their use?  Are they pareve?  Are they even kosher?
 
This question is not merely academic. My wife and I are starting to grow
mushrooms and other edible fungi and would like to know what category
these things fall under. The synthetic foods are derived from vegetable
or chemical sources (non-dairy and non-meat).  In addition, we fertilize
with manure, some of it from unkosher animals.  Is this a problem?
 
Any help would be much appreciated.
			Todd
 
[I think that mushrooms and other edible fungi are considered plants, from a
halachic perspective. They would all be pareve. The same thing is true
of the synthetic foods (that they are pareve). Synthetic food from
animal sources is a much more difficult issue. Avi Feldblum]
______________________________________________________________________
Re: Kasher and Yasher while Yachting
 
I can understand the bases of incorporating a full Jewish environment
into the Kashrut status of an establishment, as S. Pick describes.
My wonderment concerning the glatt yacht, and other facilities
where a behavior like mixed dancing is, well, overboard, is that
other public non-halachic practices among individuals is not
regarded.
 
I mention items like patrolling for lashon hara [evil speach - Mod.], kippot
for men, (head covering for married women??), washing, birkat hamazon
[Grace after Meals - Mod.],
and any other item that one might see others omit. If you say that
dancing and the secular new year are akin to arayot and avodah zarah,
I can only say that they seem more removed when observing the total
damage wrought by lashon hara (I can't remember the source; I think
in Baba Batra l"h is said to be the most destructive influence
in the world). I add that birkat hamazon is our only dioraita [Torah
required - Mod.] prayer;
it seems that if mixed dancing is to be proscribed, then certainly
birkat hamazon is prescribed.
 
I realize there are thresholds here, but where they are established
seems very ill-defined.
 
					Justin Hornstein
______________________________________________________________________
 
There are more issues to consider with respect to Kashrut supervision (of
course!).  I am all for the idea of "kasher v'yashar," being upright in food
consumption and other behavior as well.   However, I believe that an important
consideration is "kiruv," or, more specifically, making Kosher food available
to Jews who would otherwise be consuming non-Kosher food.  Glatt Yacht, for
example, serves the important function of providing a dinner cruise with Kosher
food for: 
a. Kosher-eating folks like us
b. People who would eat Kosher food if it were readily available but would also
eat non-Kosher food if Kosher wasn't there
c. Parents & relatives of Kosher-eating folks like us, who believe that we are
completely off the deep end and have no redeeming social experiences
d. People who believe that Kosher food consists of greasy pastrami, period.
 
   There are many more categories of people who benefit from the widespread
availability of Kosher food; I'm sure you can all think of examples.
   My one remaining question is this:  Do these Kashrut organizations refuse to
supervise Bar/Bat Mitzvahs and other affairs where religious standards may not
be up to their own?  Do they refuse to enter non-Orthodox synagogues to
supervise events?  Do they turn down Orthodox weddings with mixed dancing?  And
again, if so, are they not preventing all the Jewish attendees of such affairs
from observing the very important mitzvah of eating Kosher food?
 
In hopes that we are all being as careful about what comes out of our mouths as
we are about what goes in...
 
Susan Hornstein - bellcore!pyuxd!susanh
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
In Mail.Jewish #207, Ben Svetitsky and Steve Ehrlich both bring up the
case of Brother Daniel.  This case and several others are discussed in
some detail in Akivah Orr's book, "The unJewish State: The Politics of
Jewish Identity in Israel" (London: Ithaca Press, 1983).  Orr brings
down many of the arguments in each of the cases, as well as comments by
other political and religious figures.  Many more cases are discussed,
in less detail, in Oscar Kraines's book, "The Impossible Dilemma: Who Is
a Jew in the State of Israel?" (New York: Bloch Publishing, 1976).
Finally, Baruch Litvin's book, "Jewish Identity: Modern Responsa and
Opinions on the Registration of Children of Mixed Marriages"
(Jerusalem-New York: Feldheim, 1970) brings down answers by 43 leading
Jewish scholars (both religious and otherwise) throughout the world to
the question posed by David Ben- Gurion: Who is a Jew?  If anyone is
interested in more information on this subject, they can write to me
directly.
 
Mindy Schimmel ([email protected]  OR  [email protected])

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Some Thoughts on Yiftach
		Marc
	Re: Mumar - Maimonides (#210)
		Shlomo Pick
	Marriage Ceremony question
		Avi Bloch
	Re: Use of Water Filter on Shabbat (#217)
		Eli Turkel
		Louis Steinberg
		Susan Hornstein
	Challah from pasta dough
		Fran Storfer
	Halacha concerning ingesting your own blood
		Fran Storfer
	Re: Mushrooms (#218)
		Stephen Phillips
	Re: Modim (#217)
		Aryeh Frimer
______________________________________________________________________
 
The Glatt Yacht and Shabbat light pen attracted quite a bit of
responses. The next two issues will probably be single topic issues on
those two topics.
 
Several people have mentioned that they would like to be able to respond
directly to the author of a posting, and also that they find it hard in
long postings to keep track of the next subject, when the Topics screen
has already scrolled off the screen. Looking at some other mailing
lists, each posting there contains a From: line with the real name and
email address, a Subject: line with the subject, possibly a Date: line
saying when it was sent in, and possibly an Index: line giving a unique
number for each submission (e.g. this would be 219/1, issue #219, item
1).
 
This looks like a reasonable thing to do. If anyone does not like this,
please let me know. If we go to this method, and you do not want your
name and/or email address included in your posting, you will have to
request that in the beginning of your submission. As always, anonymous
postings are acceptable, you just have to make it clear how anonymous
you want it to be.
 
Avi Feldblum  - [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
The story of Yiftach, which has inspired oratorios and operas raises the
interesting question of human sacrifices and child abuse.
 
The bottom line, according to Chazal, is that the real problem here is
one of making rash vows and the "ga'ava" or blind pride that prevented
Yiftah and Pinchas from cancelling the vow (perhaps Yiftah's ignorance
too).
 
I'd like to raise a different question:
 
While the Midrash and Rashi seem to accept that Yiftah did, in fact,
kill his daughter (this, BTW appears to be the Xian view as well), the
Radak (Kimchi) and the Ralbag, claim that the daughter was never
sacrificed (nor meant to be) but was "put into a pumpkin shell, and
there was kept very well" (not exactly: but she was cloistered away from
the people).
 
{for those who can't read Radak and Ralbag, I think Hertz quotes them in
his commentary}
 
Now here's the rub: maybe we should put this difference of opinion into
the problem of martyrdom and whether self-sacrifice (or child-sacrifice)
in the name of God is permisible or desirable; or whether all measures
be taken to ensure life over all.
 
We read about Jews who went up to the "moked [TR]" with their children,
dancing and praying, and making the blessing "asher kid'shanu
b'mitzvotav v'tzivanu 'al kiddush shem shamayim [Who has made us holy with his
Mitzvot and has commanded us to sanctify His Name. Mod.] ".
 
The Spanish tradition did not seem to think highly of this notion.
 
Perhaps the difference in the interpretations of the Yiftach story lies
in the different approaches to martyrdom?
 
Any ideas? 
 
marc - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
In response to Melekh's question - mumar in Rambam's writings is a
european phenomenum after censorship - in manuscripts  or early
printings the term is "meshumad" see R. Prof. N. Rabinovith'S Yad
Peshuta edition of the Rambam, especially chapter iii of Hilchot
Teshuva. Thank you and Shabbat Shalom.
 
Shlomo Pick
______________________________________________________________________
 
In  about a month my cousin is getting married here in Israel and I have a
problem that I thought other members of the mailing list might like to 
comment on.
 
The couple would like my uncle (the bride's father) to be mesader kiddushin
(the officiating rabbi). However he is a conservative rabbi so the Israeli
rabbinate won't let him do it. So what they're doing is they're going to
Egypt to have a civil marriage and then they're coming back married as far
as the Israeli government is concerned. So now they can do whatever they want
concerning the ceremony here in Israel.
 
The question I have is should I go to the wedding at all, just the reception
afterwards, or what. I am not looking only for a "dry" psak (halachic 
decision) but also what people feel about the issue.
 
Avi Bloch [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Shmirat Shabbat allows the use of a water filter that does not visibily
change the water on condition that one does not insist on always using
the filter but would be willing to drink the water if it is not filtered.
 
Eli Turkel - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
Immanuel Burton asks if a chemical-removing water filter is a problem
on Shabbos.  There may be a worse problem: at least in standard US
plumbing, every faucet has a small wire screen as part of the "aerator"
assembly at the very end where the water comes out.  I'm not sure whether
the purpose of this screen is as a final way to catch particles or as
a part of the aerator.  Why is this not a problem?  (The aerator mixes
air into the water stream so it doesn't splash so much, I think.)
 
Louis Steinberg
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have been told that it is permissible to use a water filter on Yom Tov
(during which the prohibition of "borer" [separating] is more lenient
with respect to food than on Shabbat), but not on Shabbat.  I think that
your line of reasoning (that only chemicals are being separated out and
not tangible residue) is the problem -- it's just not true!  Have you
ever looked at your filter after it's been used for a
while?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
 
Susan Hornstein
______________________________________________________________________
 
Is one required to take challah from pasta dough?  It seems to me that
the dough satisfies the requirements:  it is made of wheat and water,
let's assume for the sake of discussion that enough quantity is made,
and it is of a kneadable consistency.
 
Fran Storfer  --  [email protected]  --  [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
If one gets a papercut, or cuts one's finger so that it bleeds, and
puts the finger in one's mouth with the intention of stopping the
bleeding, is it a violation of "eber min hachai" (eating blood from a
live animal)? 
 
Fran Storfer  --  [email protected]  --  [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I believe that the B'rocho for mushrooms is Shehakol as they are not
considered to be "Gidulei Karka" [Growing from the ground].
 
Stephen Phillips
______________________________________________________________________
 
	I have cited the opinion of Rav Henkin Zatsal in Eidut Le'Yisrael
that the Chazan has to say Ga'al Yisrael out loud in order to help the
"Eino Baki" (those who don't know how to daven for themselves). He explicitly
states that the Chazan need also say the Modim out loud in its entirety for
the same reason.
			Aryeh Frimer
			[email protected]

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Glatt Yacht
		Warren Burstein
		Susannah Danishefsky
		Ellen Krischer
		Eli Turkel
		Robert Klein
		Warren Burstein
______________________________________________________________________
I plan to migrate to format where the From: and Subject: (and maybe
Date:) lines will be at the beginning of each article. This means that
if you do not want your full name or email address included with your
article, please state so explicitly. This will begin with mail.jewish
#224, i.e. with all new submissions received. I will try and get 221-223
out today and Tuesday. There will be a short hiatus of mail.jewish from
July 19 through July 29 while I am at a conference.
 
Avi Feldblum  - Moderator  -  [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
I was at a discussion of the issue of Kashrut supervision of food as
opposed to supervision of the complete environment.  It was held at the
Israel Center in Jerusalem, sometime last fall or winter.  While many of
the participants viewed with favor the refusal of the Israeli Rabbinate
to grant supervision to wedding halls which did not ban forms of
immodest entertainment, the moderator, (I think he is a Rabbi) Phil
Chernovsky offered the following arguments against supervision of things
other than food.
 
- If an establishment loses its supervision, it may continue to operate,
and will then serve food which is not kosher, which will be eaten by
people who would otherwise have eaten kosher food.
 
- If there exists a demand for a "premium" supervision, which also
certifies that the entertainment will be halachically permitted, that
would be fine.  The standard Rabbinate supervision should be limited to
the food.
 
- If the Rabbinate is concerned with issues other than the kashrut of
the food, it ought to also be concerned with the observance of the
establishment of mitzvot concerning proper business practices.  It might
be proper to remove the supervision from a place that doesn't pay its
employees on time, cheats on its taxes, and so on.
 
Note: the Israel Center is part of the Orthodox Union which is in the
Kashrut business abroad, although not, as far as I know, in Israel.
 
I would add - the reason that I need to see a kashrut certificate before
I eat is that I can't go into the kitchen and watch them (or know what
was done in the kitchen before I arrived).  On the other hand, I can see
quite plainly what is going on in front of my own eyes, and if it does
not meet my standards of acceptable behavior, I can decide what to do
about it.
 
Also, where is the limit to supervision?  Are women with uncovered hair
to be asked to prove they are unmarried?  Are unmarried couples to be
asked to bring a letter from the matchmaker?  Will diners at dairy meals
have to prove that they have not eaten meat in the last six hours (or
that their minhag is otherwise?)  Hidden cameras over the sink for
washing the hands?  Counting the forks after the fish to make sure none
were left on the table?
 
Warren Burstein
_________________________________________________________________________
 
	I would like to make several points about the Glatt Yacht
discussion.  The first is that we seem to have confused the role of
Kashrut Supervision.  The goal is not to make as many establishments
kosher as possible. The Kashrut Organizations should not have to look to
places to try to get them to be kosher. Baruch Hashem, no one is hungry
and there is plenty of kosher food in New York from establishments who
themselves believe in kosher food. They don't owe it to the community to
try to keep this place under supervision.  Chas V'shalom. The eating
establishment should know that there are certain standards to which they
must adhere. We don't want our kashrus organizations to make
compromises.
	Secondly, kashrut organizations have tremendous responsibility.
Let us assume that they follow Rav Moshe Feinstein's Psak in Igros Moshe
(I can find the exact source for those who are interested) that mixed
dancing is Assur. They do not want to be M'sayaya y'dei o'vrei a'veira
(helping people sin) and worse M'achtei es Horabim (causing the masses
to sin). People are extremely careful about these things. The Rambam,
for instance says in Hilchos Teshuva that it is difficult to do teshuva
at all for them.  Furthermore, there is a BIBLICAL OBLIGATION of
Tochacha (telling someone when they are doing something wrong) if it may
help them stop. Especially with something like dancing, I could imagine
a person who doesn't know better walking in and seeing a Mashgiach with
a long beard. They could EASILY infer that it's okay since the Rabbi is
there. To illustrate this, let me relate a true story that I heard from
Rav Aharon David Dunner. A certain Rov in Rechavya was asked why he is
so close with X when X shaves with a razor. The Rov replied that he
can't believe that X does this. They went and asked X and he admitted to
shaving with a razor. The Rov asked - don't you know that this is wrong.
He replied - I know that there is a sign in Shul that says not to shave
with a razor - but there is also a sign not to talk during davening. I
see people talking during davening so I assume that it's also ok to
shave with a razor.
	I agree that other halachos have yet to be kept in restaurants
like birkat hamazon etc. However, those are not nearly as public and
obvious as mixed dancing and would be pretty difficult to enforce
especially since it is not required that someone be Jewish to eat in a
Kosher place. The Rabbi can't force everyone to Bentch. Also, people who
don't know better will probably not notice if the person at the next
table doesn't bentch and if they do - they won't assume that the
Mashgiach thinks that its okay since the Mashgiach doesn't listen in to
what goes on at every table.
	Finally, in the spirit of the halachos of lashon hora - should
the mailing list speak negatively about a kashrus organization? No names
were mentioned but many people know who was involved since it was in the
New York Times. 
 
[Sorry, but I do not view this discussion as Lashon Hara. The topic
being discussed is the validity and correctness of the policy of Kashrut
supervision organizations in mandating behaviour unrelated to the food
preparation question which they are being paid to supervise. Mod.]
 
Susannah Danishefsky  email [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
In discussing mixed dancing on the Glatt Yacht, Shlomo Pick made a
rather strong statement about eating kosher food in an atmosphere free
from, among other things, Arayot (Anyone got a good working definition?
Improper relationships?)
 
I am curious as to the source of the notion that mixed dancing between a
married couple when the women is not a Niddah (during and post menstrual
before she has ritually dipped in a Mikveh), is Arayot?  As far as I
understand it, the only relevant question would be Tzniut (modesty) not
Aryot.
 
Now I understand the logistical problems that would ensue if the
Supervising Rabbi attempted to allow dancing for "permissible" couples
and prohibit it for "improper" couples.  But that just furthers my
arguement that the dancing should be allowed on the basis of "Dan L'chaf
Zechut" (Judge people for merit - i.e.  assume, if at all possible, that
a person is doing the right thing.)
 
Ellen Krischer
______________________________________________________________________
 
    With regard to the mixed dancing on Glatt Yacht the issue is more
complicated than Ellen Krischer states. For example, at least in Israel,
many rabbis will not give a hechsher to a hotel that does not keep
shabbat even though it does not affect the kashrut of the food (we are
talking about checking in etc. not shabbat in the kitchen). In Jerusalem
there have been attempts to remove the hechsher if mixed swimming was
allowed, etc.
 
Eli Turkel     [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I wish to second the views of the Hornstein's (#218) regarding the Glatt
Yacht.  The question boils down whether it is better to provide an
opportunity for that segment of the Jewish community seeking a "tref"
atmosphere to, nonetheless, eat kosher, or whether it is perferable to
server kosher food only in a "kosher" atmosphere.  Since from a Torah
point of view a cruise on the Glatt Yacht is probably bitul zman (waste
of time) and so those seeking a strictly "kosher" atmosphere shouldn't
be on it anyway, I vote for the former.
 
Robert Klein [email protected] (Internet) KL2@NIHCU (BITNET)
______________________________________________________________________
 
Susen Hornstein asks if Kashrut organizations refuse to enter
non-Orthodox synagogues.  Some time ago in Jerusalem, a youth hostel
which was afilliated with the Conservative Movement had its kashrut
supervision removed.  The Kashrut Law in Israel states that the
Rabbinate will consider only the kashrut of the food served, and the
supervision was eventually restored.  There is also a youth hostel at
Hebrew Union college, which has a supervision certificate signed by the
Rabbi of the Youth Hostel Associations, not the local Jerusalem
Rabbinate.
 
As part of the controversy as to whether Ethiopian Jews should be housed
in Absorption Centers on secular Kibbutzim, it was pointed out that the
Absorption Centers are under kashrut supervision.  Likewise, some
Kibbutzim which do not observe kashrut in their own dining halls operate
kosher guest houses.
 
Another side of this is that all weddings of people who are registered
as Jews are performed by Rabbis who are authorized by the Rabbinate.  I
do not believe that they will perform a ceremony in a non-kosher hall.
 
Warren Burstein

Topics:
	Shabbat Pen
		Warren Burstein
		Sheldon Meth
		Sigrid Peterson
		Susan Hornstein
		Andy Jacobs
	Comments on Recent Ultimate Issues Campaign
		David Sherman
	Re: Saying Modim out loud
		Eli Turkel
		Andy Jacobs
	Re: Prelude to Mashiach (#217)
		Warren Burstein
	Response to Interfaith Marriage
		Anonymous
__________________________________________________________________________
 
I think that the authorities have made it very clear that the Shabbat
Pen, like the Shabbat Telephone (and other appliances based on the
Gramma switch), is only to be used in essential services where there
is safek pikuach nefesh (a possibility of saving a life), and will
rightly resist any efforts to let the use of these objects spread into
general use.
 
We also have to be careful about where we build our fences around the
Torah.
 
I'd also like to point out the idea is not to "make them feel a little
better about having to write on Shabbat", it is to reduce the amount
of work which must be done on Shabbat, even if it is permitted, and to
increase the effectiveness of the health care system (so no one has to
stand around thinking, "Do I need to write this down, maybe I can
remember it until after Shabbat?").
 
Warren Burstein
__________________________________________________________________________
 
The Shabbos pen was likely invented by the Institute of Science and
Halachah in Israel, for the specific reason stated in the previous
message: to allow doctors and others in Pikuach Nefesh [life threatening
- Mod.] situations to write on Shabbos.  This concept is similar to the
"Grama Phone," a telephone developed by them, based on optical, rather
than electronic technology.
 
The point about both inventions is that they turn a M'Lachah D'Oraiso
[Biblically forbidden action on Shabbat - Mod.] into a M'Lachah
D'Rabbonon [Rabbinicly forbidden action on Shabbat - Mod.] .  The latter
is categorically prohibited under normal circumstances; the former (and
the latter) are categorically permitted in the case of real, immediate
Pikuach Nefesh.  However, in the case of a doctor or soldier, where
there is a potential personal danger or danger to others, but it is not
immediate and life threatening, it is always better to violate a
M'Lachah D'Rabbonon rather than a M'Lachah D'Oraiso.
 
-Sheldon Meth ([email protected])
__________________________________________________________________________
 
	Neil Parks, in #217, quotes an ad for a Sabbath pen developed by
Israeli scientists, primarily for doctors and soldiers on active duty.
The ink remains visible for several days, allowing photocopies, then
fades. Parks is dubious, since nurses and doctors and soldiers on duty
on Shabbath are permitted to write because of _pikuach nefesh_, anyway.
The pen might make them feel more observant, perhaps, thinks Parks. He
objects to the reduction of the fence around Torah.
 
	I had just asked Bob Werman, who works in a hospital in
Jerusalem, about Sabbath observance in a Jerusalem hospital. He replied,
on the issue of writing, "Here the hospital is religious and there are
Arab cooks and secretaries to write things the nurses and docs say."
 
   So, three points about Sabbath pens:
 
   (a) From custom, in an Israeli hospital that is religious, Jews do not 
   write on the Sabbath.  [Pikuach nefesh permits only *necessary* labor 
   to save a life.] While writing may be necessary at the time, and so is 
   permitted, it is predictable and can be done by a "shabbas goy."
 
   (b) The user of the so-called Sabbath pen writes words that disappear
   in a few days. While the forbidden labor of completing a creative work
   might be circumvented by the use of the pen, I had always understood 
   that it was the act of writing--even so much as one letter--that was 
   proscribed [punning semi-intentional].
 
   (c) If the impermanency of the medium--in the case of the Sabbath pen--
   alters the labor of writing, and if writing on a computer disk is [as
   has been ruled] an impermanent medium consisting of machine readable
   magnetic impulses, can I use a computer that has been left on during 
   Shabbat in order to write, as long as I am not completing a creative
   work? Or a Sabbath pen, with the same proviso?
 
A further question: can one do maze puzzles that require making a pencil track
on Shabbat? No letter is produced.
 
Sigrid Peterson (Nitzhi'a) - [email protected]
 
__________________________________________________________________________
 
It is important to remember that people involved in life-saving
activities (pikuach nefesh), including doctors and perhaps soldiers, are
*required* to disregard the standard Shabbat prohibitions.  As a result,
they do not need a special kind of pen for use on Shabbat and Yom Tov,
nor should they really need a special kind of pen to "make them feel a
little better about having to write on Shabbos."  I agree that the
widespread distribution of disappearing-ink pens sounds problematic
because people may come to use them "l'chatchila" (as a first recourse)
for writing on Shabbat, thereby undermining the actual halacha (law).
But, on the other hand, might it fall into the same category as "eruv"
(the nearly invisible fence surrounding an outdoor area that allows us
to carry within that area on Shabbat) which some poskim (decisors)
object to for similar reasons, but which most people accept because it
sticks to the letter of the law, and makes our lives so much more
pleasant?
 
Susan Hornstein - bellcore!pyuxd!susanh
__________________________________________________________________________
 
 
Perhaps I am shortsighted, but I do not forsee every household having a
Shabbos pen.  They will be a bother to use, because anything that is
written with them must be either written again after Shabbos, or at
least taken to a copy machine before the ink dissapears.  This would be
true for whatever purposes the writing was for, including "pikuach
nefesh" (saving lives).
 
  - Andy Jacobs ([email protected])
_____________________________________________________________________________
 
I wonder if anyone on this list would like to comment on Dennis Prager's
campaign, expressed in two recent issues of Ultimate Issues, that Jews
should seek out converts to Judaism.  Please comment only if you've read
his articles.  He makes some interesting arguments, and I'd be
interested in seeing informed replies.  (The only letters he published
in his most recent issue were supportive of his position.)
 
David Sherman		[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________________
    In the last volume of Mesorah (p6-8) Rabbi Soloveitchik explicitly states
that all parts of the shemonei esreh must be recited out loud by the chazan.
He specifically lists
 
Hashem Sfesai Tiftach  at the beginning
Yehiu Leretzon at the end
modim
the abbreviated shemonei esrei on friday evening (meain sheva)
 
In all cases at least 9 people must listen to the chazzan saying it
out loud.
 
     As Aryeh Frimer says Rabbi Henkin has a similar opinion.
 
Eli Turkel [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I do not remember the reason for the different texts, but I do remember
an idea mentioned by Rabbi Weinbach (Rosh Yoshiva of Ohr Somayach,
Jerusalem) in a sheur (talk) he gave last year.  The idea was that this
paragraph is about one accepting Hashem as their King, leader, etc.  One
cannot do this through a sheliah (messanger).  Therefore if one is being
yotze (fulfilling the commandment) though the sheliah (messanger), this
part of the mitzvah (commandment) would not be fulfilled otherwise.  So
an individule adds the appropriate paragraph himself.
                                                      *     *
  - Andy Jacobs ([email protected])               *
______________________________________________________________________
Before the Gulf War, I attended a shiur at the Israel Center in
Jerusalem, the subject of which was something like connections between
Mashiach and current events.  A number of arguments were advanced as
to why Mashiach was likely to come soon, based on what was happening
in the world, and the unusually warm and dry winter.  Several sources
were cited, including the part (it is not clear if it is part of the
Mishna or Gemara, some printings label it a Mishna, the Steinstaltz
version calls it Gemara) at the end of Sota about the time that the
Mashiach will come which, the speaker said, perfectly describes the
current situation.
 
I sealed my room and picked up my gas mask, anyway.
 
Warren Burstein
______________________________________________________________________
 
Three years ago, when I started working in my present job, I shared
an office with a Roman Catholic Italian woman.  We had a lot in common,
considering the similarities between Jewish and Italian family structure.
We have both since transferred to other areas within the company but have
kept in touch.  During this time, she had been dating a Jewish man, who 
had absolutely no Jewish upbringing at all.  
 
When I spoke with her earlier today, she told me that they had announced
their engagement last week and plan to get married next April.  Obviously, 
I can't attend the ceremony.  I believe, also, that I cannot give a 
gift nor support the marriage in any way.  The question that I have is, 
according to Halacha, how far do I have to go?  Do I have an obligation 
to express disapproval?  Keep in mind that I am friendly with the Catholic
woman and not the Jewish man.  There is no "inyan" of "hochaich tochiach 
et amitechah" (warning your fellow man against transgressing a commandment).
Exactly what are the Halachot involved here?
 
Anonymous

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Baal Taschit
		Eli Turkel
	Re: Covering of Hair by Married Women (#181)
		Aryeh Frimer
	Re: Status of "Messianic Jew" (#202)
		Will Shulman
	Plunge Coffee on Shabbos/Yom Tov
		Isaac Balbin
______________________________________________________________________
Hi everyone! I'm back from my conference and hope to get through the
backlog of mail.jewish submissions, so expect a few postings over the
next several days.
 
Avi Feldblum - Moderator - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
    A few people have referred to the prohibition of Baal Taschit with
regard to chumrot. One thing is clear is that Baal Taschit only refers
to unnecessary destruction, if there is a purpose then baal taschit does
not apply. Thus, for example, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein says that one should
turn on a water fountain before using it to make sure the water is
running to avoid saying a bracha in vain. The avoidance of unnecessary
brachot is more important than the waste of the water.  Similarly if one
takes out trumot because of a chumra one would not violate baal taschit.
 
Eli Turkel      [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
	I thank Shlomo Pick for his discussion of my comments regarding
Kisui Se'ar and Chumra and find it necessary to respond to several of
the points made. (I again note that I am on sabbatical and have few
seforim available.)
	My statistics regarding hair covering come from an informal
survey that my brothers and I have been carrying out for the past 10
years. There is little doubt that more and more religious women in the
US and Israel are covering their hair outside of Shul, but the majority
still don't.
	I agree with Reb Shlomo that in shul religious married women
almost universally cover their hair, but I disagree that it is a remnant
of the obligation of Kisui se'ar. After all, women who do not generally
cover their hair will nevertheless do so for a variety of other rituals
even when done IN PRIVATE. For example: when lighting Sabbath Candles,
before making a Beracha in the mikva, before birkat hamazon or when
saying Shma before going to sleep etc. I conjecture that this stems from
the time when all (men and women) covered their heads for prayer. Indeed
it is not at all clear why our unmarried women don't cover their head
for Berachot. Rav Ovadya Hadaya Zal and (Sheyibadel le'chayim Tovim) Rav
Ovadya Yosef both insist that Sefardi unmarried women cover their hair
for Tefilla, Berachot and Torah Learning.  Rav Eliezer Waldenberg does
try to justify the ashkenazi custom, but in my humble opinion is not
very convincing (Resp. Tsits Eliezer).
 
	Learning Halacha from Agaddah is extremely problematic. The
encyclopedia Talmudit article makes this very point. While indeed there
are instances in which the Rishonim and Acharonim used certain Aggadot,
there are an equal number of cases where these were rejected as
unauthoritative. One classic example is the Medrash that Esther was
married to Mordechai cited by the Tosafot in Sanhedrin. Yet the Ramban
in the Milchamot on the Rif ad Locum states that that medrash is
unauthoritative! This is merely one example of many. Martyrdom is in
fact a tragic example and I ask all to see the Da'at zekenim Miba'alei
hatosafot on Bereishit on the Pasuk "Ach es dimchem Lenafshoseichem
edrosh".  The Kesef Mishneh makes it clear throughout his discussion of
the laws of martyrdom that the Rambam learned different P'shat in
various Medrashim than the Baalei Hatosafot. I suggest EXTREME caution
in the use of any medrash for halachic purposes.
	I continue to stand by my statement that it is Halachically
untrue to say that "Minhagim Never Change". Below is a short list of
minhagim that have changed:
	Our custom of Readings from the Sefer Torah differ substantially
from what is recorded in Masechet Sofrim.
	In the Laws of Morning: we no longer overturn our beds, expose
our our shoulders, do the Avelut benedictions with its 10 cups of wine
in the city square, rarely have i seen mourners say the special zimmun
and birkat hamazon (See artscroll siddur).
	Despite what is cited in the RAMBAM and Shulchan Aruch, I have
never seen religious JEWISH women wear a REDID (Veil covering head face
and body) as part of Dat Yehudit. The Perisha more than 200 years ago
noted this and states that dat Yehudit is a custom and has Changed.
	I'm sure that with a little more thought all of us could easily
come up with a much longer list.
 
Aryeh Frimer - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
     There seems to be a misunderstanding of the Halachic problem of
Brother Daniel.
 
     The basic Halachik legal problem is "Where is the seat of
'Jurisdiction' for the issue??". Does it lie with the Israeli Supreme
Court? This juritical body is here today but may not be constituted in
the same form or political position tomorrow. I say it lies with the
Halachic chain from from Moshe Rabbenu.
 
     The basic halachic issue is "personal status". This issue is in the
hands of our Masters who were turned over the Torah in a continuous
chain from Moshe Rabbenu. Ben Gurion's request from Rabbinic and
non-rabbinic scholars is invalid. The Government of the State of Israel
is no longer in the hands of Labor but in the hands of a non socialist
party. The old socialists have been discredited. The Yeshiva heads were
here prior to Ben Gurion, are here now, and will be here when the true
meshi'ach comes. There is no place for divergent opinions.
 
     Brother Daniel in accordance with Halacha is a Jew who has gone astray.
The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. IT IS WRONG!!!!
 
                                               Will Shulman
                                               [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
Plunge or Plunged Coffee is a nice and quick way to drink a better cup of
coffee. The system works as follows: you take some ground coffee
and place it into the bottom of an empty beaker; pour hot water onto
the coffee; cover the beaker with a plunger/strainer and let the
coffee stand for a few minutes. Then plunge the strainer downwards into
the beaker collecting many/most coffee refuse in the motion and forcing the
refuse to be trapped at the bottom of the beaker. The coffee is now
ready for drinking.
 
As I see it, there are two potential problems here.
One is the problem of cooking (bishul), since the water is poured
onto coffee rather than coffee added to water. One might get around this
using water that had been poured into another container and then
poured into the beaker.
 
The other problem relates to Boirer (selection). In this instance are we
not removing the bad from the good by forcing the psoiles (coffee
refuse) to the bottom of the beaker, or do we argue that such psoiles is
not really psoiles because people don't mind a bit of it in their
coffee.  Indeed, there is always a bit of it in the coffee. On the other
hand, we might argue that this much coffee psoiles is intolerable and
must be considered refuse. Then again, there is a Mishna Bruro (and a
Tshuva (responsa) in the Tzitz Eliezer relating to tea kettles that have
strainers built in to the spout. From memory, because people don't mind
a little stray tea, we don't consider the tea psoiles.  Are we guided by
the amount of psoiles, or is it a matter of characterisation and if it
isn't psoiles because you may drink coffee (eg Turkish) with the psoiles
in it, then it doesn't matter how much you are dealing with in reality.
 
Has anyone asked or seen this Sheila before?  Alternatively, have you
any thoughts on this?
 
Isaac Balbin

Topics:
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Re: Marriage Ceremony question (#219)
		Jon
		David Cohen
		Neil Parks
	Introduction to Mathematical Structure in Torah
		Chaim Schild
	Re: Halacha concerning ingesting your own blood
		Art Kamlet
		Fran Storfer
	Re: Shabbat Pen (#217)
		Frank Silbermann
______________________________________________________________________
I will be going to a new format (and some new software) with the next
mailing. Each submission will contain a Date, From and Subject field. I
will start a new Volume number with this change in format, so It will be
volume 2 number 1. Please give me feedback on what you like or don't
like about the revised format. It is open to change or being dropped if
it doesn't work for us.
 
Avi Feldblum - Moderator - [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
        To effect a maximum impact upon the world at large, you should
balance the effect of your not going (as it pertains to people believing
Othodox are snobs, and embarassing the relatives, etc...) versus the
effects of you going (as it pertains to showing support of transgression).
 
However, since you asked for an answer with both Rachamim and Din (mercy
and justice), I would find out if the wedding contains the essentials of
Halachik practice- that is: a ring, and a legal document, given by the
groom to the bride, and witnessed by two shomer shabbat men. Then, I would
attend by making it clear in a moment of honesty and intimacy, that you are
delighted to attend, and they shouldn't mind if you don't eat or dance,
because it just thrills you to know that they are getting married, mazal
tov!
 
If there will not be a kosher ketubah (which is likely), then if there is
only ONE OR NO other orthodox people going to the wedding, I would consider
very weightily in NOT attending, so that if there are no kosher witnesses,
there will be no need for a Get if it should Chas V'shalom come to a
divorce (which is a very serious issue). If there are other orthodox people
attending anyway, find out what they're eating.
 
That's not the end of the subject, and I don't think there ever will be.
 
-Jon- (JONB@FAIR1)
 
P.S. Maybe you can give a handmade Ketubah as a wedding present, and they
will be made to feel guilty if they don't use it. My wife makes them. Such
a bargain.
P.P.S. Make sure the cermeony doesn't involve swapping rings- that's
invalid, I believe.
______________________________________________________________________
 
 
A few years ago I went to a wedding of friends in a sort of conservative
shul in Paris,France.  This was the first time I went in such a shul
(and think the last).  At first I thought that since they were both
jewish there was no problem. but I felt very uncomfortable at the same
time for the atmosphere in the shul and for the way the rabbi lead the
ceremony.
 
I also went to a wedding of friends in an orthodox shul.  In this case
the father of the bride was a "conservative" rabbi and he took active
part in the ceremony.  I cannot remember if he did the kidushin or
something else.  But in this case there was no problem at all since the
Rav of the shul was there and he wrote the ketuba.
 
The question of #219 may be different since in Israel usually wedding
ceremony are celebrated in the reception room and I do not know who is
able to be mesader kiddushin and so on according to the rabbinate and
also according to halacha in general.
 
If there is no problem for this couple to be married by an official
rabbi, it would have been a lot simpler that an official rabbi leads the
ceremony and the father of the bride says the beracha. Is there any
problem in this case?  It seems that it is a sort of provocation to be
an example so that government be more lenient to permit non orthodox
marriages and civil marriage in Israel
 
In any case the main question is :
Is this couple considered married according to halacha 
afterwards. If they decide to be married by the rabbinate 
afterwards don't they need to divorce and get married again?
 
I would like to widen the debate and ask what people feel also about the
attitude to have with a close relative making an intermarriage.  A few
month ago part of my family fall out with me seriously because I did not
go to the wedding of a cousin neither to the civil marriage nor to the
reception that followed.  Since all others who did not go for the same
reason had also a true second reason not to go and were excused by it,
was it better to give a false excuse?  I think I did the good thing but
I was accused to be extremist and had very hard time with the family...
 
I think also it is more a question of feeling of the situation than a
simple psak.  What concessions are permissible to keep shalom?
 
David Cohen [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
My personal opinion is, either go to the wedding--ceremony and
reception--or don't go at all.  Going just to the reception would, IMHO,
be an insult to the bride and groom.
 
I got married in a Reform temple.  It was not my choice.  My wife and
her family have always been members of that temple, so that is the way
it had to be.  The rabbi of the temple officiated, along with my wife's
cousin who is a Conservative rabbi.
 
Most of the people that we invited to the wedding had no problem coming
to the ceremony and the reception.  But one couple, friends of my
parents, decided that they would be uncomfortable in a Reform temple.
So they had my mother ask me if I would mind if they came just to the
reception.  I said yes, I would mind.  I felt that if they wanted to
enjoy themselves at the party, then it was only right that they should
sit through the ceremony.  So they did not come at all, and that was
fine with me.
 
Maybe I was wrong to feel that way.  Maybe your cousin and her fiance
would not feel insulted if you did that.  Maybe you can do what my
parents' friends were smart enough to do--discreetly ask via a third
party whether anyone would be unhappy if you boycotted the ceremony but
went to the party.
 
NEIL EDWARD PARKS
______________________________________________________________________
 
Does anybody know how to obtain the book "Introduction to Mathematical
Structure in Torah" by Rabbi Y. Ginsburgh. Its listed in the references
to his book on the alef-bait.
 
Chaim Schild
______________________________________________________________________
 
The Talmud deals with biting the inside of your mouth and accidentally
swallowing blood, and deems it OK. (Sorry - no reference).  In addition,
people are not beasts.
 
Consider:  Are humans kosher?  Are they not kosher?
 
Answer:  It's Complicated:  The prohibitions against cannibalism are
not based on people being non-kosher per se.  People are not Treife.
The prohibitions against defiling of a corpse would come into play,
not the business of being non-kosher.  Also the fact that killing a
person through schechting would be murder.
 
Kashrut laws prohibit drinking the milk of a non-kosher animal.
 
Question:  Is mother's milk kosher?  Answer:   Complicated.
 
A mother may certainly nurse her child, and there's never, never an
issue of Is the milk kosher.  May a nursemaid, not the mother, nurse a
child?   Most authorities hold yes.
 
But once a child has been weaned, the child may not nurse any longer.
 
But what this shows is whereas the milk of a non-kosher animal is
never permitted, mother's milk is, in the normal cases, permitted.
But this does not say people are kosher animals!
 
Art Kamlet  [email protected]
 
______________________________________________________________________
 
Art raises some interesting points in the above posting.  I know
couples who, when the woman had a child, tasted her breast milk out of
curiosity.  From what Art said about human milk only being permissible
until the child is weaned, their actions were not in accordance with
halacha.  But is it a kashrut problem?  A 'cannibalism' problem?  A
problem of potentially depriving the baby, who can not yet eat other
foods, of sustenance?
 
fran storfer   --  [email protected] ---  [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________
 
I have read of several Israeli inventions designed to facilitate
activities which otherwise would be prohibited on Shabbat.  The latest
was Neil Parks citation in mail.jewish #217 of the June 1991 issue of
"Dateline World Jewry", which described a pen that writes with
disappearing ink.  This pronouncement, along with the others I have
seen, was accompanied by a caution that the product should only be used
in case of pikuach nefesh (life-saving activity) lest the unlearned
mistakenly assume that the activity (in this case, writing) is generally
generally permitted on Shabbat.
 
How is use of such a product different from the use of a blech for
keeping food warm, or the reliance on an Eruv for carrying?  Unless we
accept these products for general use (e.g. so that return to
Yiddishkeit becomes less difficult), and encourage people not to use
them _as a Chumra_, this kind of scientific research doesn't seem very
helpful.  In case of pikuach nefesh, the product was unnecessary in the
first place!
 
Are hospital administrators now _obligated_ to buy pens with
disappearing ink, since their very existence may invalidate the heter
for using ordinary pens when saving lives?
 
Frank Silbermann	[email protected]
Tulane University	New Orleans, Louisiana  USA

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 1
                 Produced: Tue Jul 30  15:41:12 EDT 1991
 
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
	Administrivia
	Mixed Dancing and Kashrus (#220) (2 Submissions)
	Re: Mushrooms (#218)
	Re: Some Thoughts on Yiftach (#219)
	Jewish cemetary within a public cemetary
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, Jul 30  12:41:12 EDT 1991
From: [email protected] (Avi Feldblum)
Subject: Administrivia
 
All right, all, how do you like this format? I would like to thank Dan
Faigin for a perl script to make some of the work easier. I would like
to remind everyone submitting things to please try and translate all the
hebrew words you use to english, that will make my job easier and help
all those for whom the transliterated hebrew is difficult. If you are
using mail software that allows you to modify the Subject: line, it
would be helpful if you would do so. Any thoughts on whether the author
should be included in the subjects section above? The format is likely
to change somewhat over the next several issues, as we see what works
well for us, so if you have comments, please send them to me.
 
Avi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 91 11:30:50 EDT
From: [email protected] (Steven Schwartz)
Subject: Re:  Glatt Yacht
 
In issue @220, Warren Burstein says:
 
  - If there exists a demand for a "premium" supervision, which also
  certifies that the entertainment will be halachically permitted, that
  would be fine.  The standard Rabbinate supervision should be limited to
  the food.
 
I am initially inclined to agree.  We should, especially in eretz
Yisrael, strive to make kashrut the standard and tarfut the exception.
Then I hesitate.  I've spent some years in and around Boston.  The
Massachusetts Vaad (kosher food council) has two levels of
supervision:  shomer Shabbat bakeries are "certified" for kosher
food; mechallel Shabbat (conducting business on Saturday) bakeries are
merely "approved" for kosher ingredients.  The Brookline/Brighton
Orthodox rabbinate is split on whether to accept some or all
Vaad-supervised baked goods.  To their credit, the Vaad (I am told)
no longer issues "approvals," though most existing "approvals" have
been grandfathered.
 
Living in Boston, I would only purchase food from "certified" bakeries.
Eating with friends created minor hassles: while those who keep kashrut 
buy from kosher bakeries, -which- kosher?  I surmise that in most cases
(excepting baked goods purchased Saturday night or Sunday), the chances
of substantial kashrut problems with "approved" bagels were less than
the chance of embarrassing a fellow Jew by conducting a household kashrut
investigation.  Nevertheless, this two-tiered system creates awkwardness.
 
This, Warren, is why I fear introducing "premium" supervision.
An alternative is to create a second certification for entertainment,
to be given along with a standard kashrut certification.  But this could
lead to a new trend in supervision: certification that diners are forced
to wash before eating bread, or that a mechitza (synagogue partition) is
10/15/20 handbreadths high, or is translucent/opaque/soundproof, etc.
 
The upshot of all this is that kashrut certification provides me a level of
certainty regarding something I cannot readily control: food preparation
prior to and during my visit to the restaurant.  I would definitely like
to see more catering halls which prohibit mixed dancing, shuls with a 
proper mechitza, etc.  I do -not- want this to come about by increased
governmental intrusion, whether the "government" is the municipality
or the local (or national) halacha police.
 
-- Shimon Schwartz
   [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 91 11:39 N
From: <VTFRST%[email protected]>
Subject: Mushrooms
 
        Regarding mushrooms, they are halachically NOT plants, and as
such are not chayav on shmita, teruma, pe'ah,etc. I heard of a question
about the use of wheat straw as a substrate for growing mushrooms during
Pesach, but the answer was essentially that the streaw and any remianing
kernels would have decomposed so much that they would not be chametz.
This, of course, is the reason that we can use all kinds of fertilizers
on plants, including blood and bone (phosphorus, nitrogen, iron
sources); the original animal may have been tref , but it's non-edible
(halachically, material in a state such that a dog would refuse to eat
it; this does NOT refer to certain people's culinary abilities)
by-products are OK to use. Thus we wear leather shoes, play violin
strings, and put tortise shell combs in our hair. If we took things too
far, we wouldn't be able to use metal utensils to eat, since metal comes
from the ground, which could have the status of tum'ah...
 
Josh Klein
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 91 07:52 JST
From: "Najman Kahana. Ext:7313" <NAJMAN%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Some Thoughts on Yiftach (#219)
 
Food for thought.
 
In ancient Jewish history we have two outstanding incidents in which
fighters chose "death before dishonor": Mazada and Gamla (the latter
less publicized as it is harder for tourists to reach it).  While these
examples are corner-stones of modern bravery, Chaza'l never mention
them.  Mazada does not appear even once, and Gamla is mentioned only as
a religious center.  Please note that Chaza'l do not criticize these
incidents either.  I think Chaza'l also had no clear thoughts on
martyrdom and felt that when the choice has to be made, no one else may
(has the capability to) review it.  (Source: Torat Hamoadim. Rav Goren)
 
A clear, concise discussion may be found in Daat Zkenim MeBaalei
HaTosafot (Chumash Mikraot Gdolot) on Bereshit 9:5. They discuss
Chanania-Mishael-Azaria, Shaul, and the medieval Spanish
question/answers dealing with the life or death choice during the
en-mass kidnapping of small school children for Shmad.
 
And finally; The Beit Yosef, Yore Deah 159, brings to Halacha that it is
an individual choice based on the circumstances and your understanding
of the events.
 
Najman Kahana
E-MAIL: Najman@hadassah
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri Jul 12 10:59:41 EDT 1991
From: avi
Subject: Mixed Dancing and Kashrus
 
I have some comments to add regarding whether mixed dancing and keeping
kosher are compatible. Before we got married, my wife and I worked out a
compromise about our wedding.
 
Much of my family is Orthodox so we needed to be Kosher, but much of her
family is Conservative/Reform so we wanted mixed seating and dancing. We
managed to find a place on Staten Island (another compromise between my
Brooklyn family and her New jersey Family) that agreed to allow dancing
and was strictly kosher. The place was owned and operated by a "Rabbi"
who appeared to be on the Chassidic side and we thought things would go
well. As it turned out, he was one of the minority of Orthodox that is a
crook in dealing with his fellow men/women while claiming to be pious
otherwise.
 
I won't go through the litany of how everything was late, items we had
agreed on were not put on the tables, some food was spoiled, etc. The
thing that bothered us the most was that when people started dancing
with people of the opposite gender, he came running out and chasing
people off the floor. He told us that he couldn't allow such dancing in
his "kosher" place. We decided not to press the matter, but we
renegotiated his payment after the wedding based on all the agreements
he had broken -- including this one.
 
I still don't understand what happened. As has been mentioned by others,
food can be strictly kosher if prepared properly by anybody under some
level of supervision. I can understand it if people wonder if a person
that commits non-observant acts is making a living by selling/preparing
kosher food -- since they may be more likely to "cut corners" and
violate additional rules since "nobody will notice or be hurt" if they
forget to salt the meat or something. However, why is it an aspersion on
the caterer if some of the guests do something that is borderline --
such as mixed dancing.
 
In my opinion, the caterer/Rabbi violated many other rules (both Jewish
and secular) by lying to us. Had he been honest with us, we certainly
would have chosen to get married elsewhere. I believe he was in it for
the money and would easily shave any rules he could to make a bigger
profit. I think he was worried about the mixed dancing because of the
effect it could have on his future business -- especially since I had
some relatives present that were Orthodox Rabbis and might mention
details of the wedding to the Boro park community. I suggest his
behavior would be appropriate reason to yank his kashrus license.
 
I prefer not to mention the names of the place/people involved. Can
anyone shed further insight on what may have been going on?
 
                Avi Gross
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1991 10:46 CDT
From: [email protected]
Subject: Jewish cemetary within a public cemetary
 
A question has come up in our community about the halacha for creating a
Jewish cemetary within a public cemetary.  Can you help?
 
Steve Silvern
 
--
Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to: 
        [email protected]

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 2
                 Produced: Wed Jul 31 12:23:36 EDT 1991
 
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
	Glatt Yacht and related Issues (4 submissions)
		(Justin Hornstein, Mindy Schimmel, Warren Burstein,
		Susan Hornstein)
	Dennis Prager and converts
		(Evelyn Leeper)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 91 13:55:22 edt
From: 51231-Justin M. Hornstein <violin!jmh>
Subject: G. Yacht Redux
 
I would like to add one or two more musings about the "Glatt Yacht"
set of issues.
 
Although much of the issue is about the need to set standards about
public types of behavior, its central point is the idea of where
individuals are in their spiritual growth. If a person said to a Rav,
"I currently feel connected only to mitzvot x y and z", the person 
would not be discouraged from pursuing those mitzvot--there is
certainly the notion of "mitzvah goreret mitzvah" (one mitzvah bringing
another in tow).
 
It seems that there are institutional applications of this as well. It
is certainly the case that establishments are not owed Kashrut
certificates. However, when an establishment requests in all good faith
that they be supervised, and adhere to the directly related issues, it
seems that they are taking as big a leap as an individual who Kashers
their kitchen; even more so since its effect is multiplied for the
public in general.
 
Pursuing a host of issues that relate to other aspects of Jewish life,
Shabbat check-ins (it seems that there is middle ground to be found for
this), or mixed swimming, (ditto for the middle ground), or all others
that have been discussed, cause the hotel, restaurant and all the
individuals who are their patrons to be pushed away at times when they
may be drawing near to mitzvot.  Restaurants and hotels are not
necessarily institutions that embody spiritual growth, but they can grow
along with their patrons. Everybody should be given the chance to start
where they can.
 
(No, nobody is "starving"--at least for want of kosher food in New York;
 but the only way that the amount of kosher products and services
 exists is due to kashrut agencies working out many difficulties
 related to inconsistencies and organizational problems.)
 
I would like help in locating a written source for this item; it seems
appropriate for the discussion and the time of year:
	
	Somewhat before the nine days between Rosh Chodesh Av and
	Tisha B'av (I believe in the 1920's), Rabbi A.Y. Kuk was asked if a
	kitchen that served kosher meat meals to laborers (I believe
	in Tel Aviv) should close, even though many of the patrons
	would eat trief food elsewhere. The response was that not only
	should the kitchen remain open and serve meat, but that it
	was permissible for anyone to eat there; presumably the
	mitzvah of maintaining kashrut outweighed implications of eating
	meat during the nine days.
 
					Justin Hornstein
 
					[email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 91 14:03 EDT
From: Mindy <[email protected]>
Subject: Kashrut and Mixed Dancing
 
Regarding the issue of kashrut supervision of establishments which allow
mixed dancing.  It would seem that there is a broader issue at stake,
namely: Should one help a Jew to avoid an `avera [negative commandment] (or
do a mitzva [positive commandment]) when this requires overlooking the fact
that he is simultaneously doing another `avera?  This is an especially
important concern for people involved in qiruv [bringing Jews back to
observance of commandments] work.  My understanding of halakha would
suggest this question cannot be decided in general but would depend on the
specific nature of the `averot [pl. of `avera] (or mitzva) involved, and
also, as in all religious psaq [halakhic ruling], on the details of the
particular situation.  Thus, in this case, one would want to consider the
`averot of eating non-kosher food and of mixed dancing (which is an `avera
in many circumstances though maybe not in all) as well as the weights given
to the `averot by the many particulars of this case (location, individuals
and groups involved, various possible solutions).  The other `averot and
mitzvot mentioned by others (grace after meals, head covering, slander,
unethical business practices, etc.) would each have to be considered
individually.
 
Mindy Schimmel ([email protected])
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 91 1:12:12 IDT
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Glatt Yacht
 
Robert Klein says
 
> from a Torah point of view a cruise on the Glatt Yacht is probably
> bitul zman
 
By this argument no restaurant should receive kashrut supervision
if it serves anything more complicated than sandwiches.  Ditto for
vacation resorts unless they offer a formal program of Torah study,
catering halls that perform Bar Mitzvas, anything located near
entertainment districts.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 16 Jul 91 09:27:08
From: Susan Hornstein <[email protected]>
Subject: the issue devoted to Glatt 
 
In reply to Susannah Danishefsky, who refers to the Biblical requirement
of "tochechah" (reproof):
 
"Tochechah" is one of the most widely misapplied Biblical requirements
that I know.  I do not mean to imply that any of the readership intends
to misapply this requirement, but I would like to make a few points
about it.  The Biblical phrase from which this requirement is derived
is: "Hocheach tochiach et amitecha," "You should definitely reprove your
fellow/friend."  The part of this requirement that I'd like to focus on
is the last part, "your fellow/friend."  The Torah, as we know, uses no
word or suffix superfluously.  Thus, it is certainly important that the
word "fellow/friend" is used in this context, referring to a person with
whom you are connected, and that the possessive suffix "your" is
attached to that word, emphasizing the relationship between the
"reprover" and the "reprovee."  I have been taught the following "nafka
mineh" of this use of language.  One is only permitted to reprove a
person with whom he/she is connected, indeed only someone he/she has a
personal relationship with.  This is because the only rationale for such
reproof is to help the person grow or improve in their Torah observance,
for their own good.  Of course, this rules out reproving a person in
order to assuage one's own guilt, or to make one's self feel superior.
Furthermore, the only way that one is permitted to apply "tochechah" is
in a way that the person will hear it.  In other words, any reproof must
be applied gently, kindly, and helpfully, without making the person feel
embarrassed.  Clearly, then, this is a very difficult commandment to
apply, and it should be approached with the utmost of care and
self-knowledge.  I agree, to some extent, (as I've previously stated)
with a Mashgiach's (Kashrut supervisor's) reponsibility to insure proper
behavior, however, I don't think that "tochechah" is the proper
principle to apply.  
 
Susan Hornstein bellcore!pyuxd!susanh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
From: mtgzy!ecl (Evelyn C Leeper +1 908 957 2070)
Subject: Dennis Prager and converts
 
Regarding David Sherman's question about Dennis Prager's arguments about
why Jews should seek converts, I will address Prager's arguments that
this would help prevent future Holocausts because then more people would
have Jews in their families:
 
Jehovah's Witnesses seek and sought converts; they too were gathered up
and killed.
 
And, more directly addressing the "one in every family" argument, many
(most?)  families have at least one gay member (if by family Prager
includes aunts, uncles, and cousins).  That didn't help them during the
Holocaust either.  (I have no great desire to argue statistics here.  My
experience, based on various diversity workshops and my own friends and
family, leads me to believe that this are correct.)
 
If Jews seek converts, it should be because we think we have a better
answer than because we are looking for insurance, because the latter
won't work.
 
Evelyn C. Leeper   |   +1 908 957 2070   |   att!mtgzy!ecl or [email protected]

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 3
                 Produced: Tue Jul 30 13:25:18 EDT 1991
 
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Summary of "Human Identity - Halakhic Issues"
		Elie Rosenfeld
	Re: Response to Interfaith Marriage (#221)
		Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth
	Mesechet (Tractate) Tamid
		Mechael Kanovsky
	Shabbes Goy
		Ellen Prince
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 22:00:11 EDT
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia
 
So far the responses have been in favor of the new format. I, and
several others, would prefer to have the names in the list on top, so I
am going with that for the moment. I still have a few overdue mailings
to get out, so I apologize for the information/mailbox overflow this
week.
 
Avi Feldblum - Moderator - [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 17:02:21 -0500
From: bellcore!iscp.bellcore.com!er (Elie Rosenfeld)
Subject: Summary of "Human Identity - Halakhic Issues"
 
The following is a summary of a portion of the article "Human Identity -
Halakhic Issues", by Rabbi Azriel Rosenfeld, which appeared in the
Spring, 1977 (Vol. 16 No. 3) edition of Tradition magazine, published by
the RCA.  Summarized with Dad - uh, the author's permission.
 
The article deals with several related issues, including cloning, gene
design, brain transplants, etc.  For the current discussion, I will
summarize the portion dealing with the halakhic status of artificial
intelligence.
 
First, some basics:
 
The child of human parents is considered human even if it doesn't have
human form.  This is clear from Talmud Bavli Nidda 23a-b, and especially
Yerushalmi Nidda 3:2, which talks about people born with the facial
features of beasts and vice versa.  Conversely, it is murder to kill an
idiot (Shoteh) or deaf-mute (Heresh) [1].  Thus, neither human form nor
full "intelligence" is considered a necessary condition of halakhic
humanity - just human parentage.  This raises the question of whether
human *creation* (manufacture) can be considered a substitute for human
parentage.  To explore this issue as it pertains to modern concepts such
as AI and Robotics, sources dealing with a *golem* - a creature of human
manufacture using magical rather than scientific means - may be
relevant.
 
Many sources indicate that a golem could be considered halakhically
human.  The Talmud in Sanhedrin 65b relates that Rava made a golem and
sent him to Rav Zeira, who spoke to him, and, when he could not answer,
destroyed him.  This certainly implies that Rava's golem was not
halakhically human, since Rav Zeira was allowed to destroy him.  The
Hakham Tzvi [2] points this out and concludes that such a golem could
not be counted to a minyan.  Other authorities discuss this question and
agree that such a golem could not be counted, but none suggests that
this is because of a lack of human parentage.  For example, Rav Yaakov
Emden [3] states that Rava's golem lacked human intelligence and was
like an animal in human form.  This implies that an intelligent golem
could possibly be counted to a minyan and thus would be halakhically
human.
 
Other sources discuss the issue of whether ritual slaughtering done by a
golem would be valid.  The Darkhei Teshuvah [4] initially posits that a
golem would be in the category of a Heresh and Shoteh, whose
slaughtering is valid if done while others watch.  He concludes that a
golem is worse that those and is completely excluded from the category
of mankind.  He bases this on a Shelah on Parshas Vayeshev, which
discusses the Midrash that Joseph's brothers, within the letter but not
the spirit of the law, made a female golem and were playing with it.
This implies that their golem was not deemed human at all.  The Darkhei
Teshuvah also quotes the Maharsha on Sanhedrin 65b, which says that
Rava's golem could be destroyed because it lacked the spiritual power of
speech and only had animal vitality.
 
Thus, there is doubt that a golem such as Rava's would be considered
human, but in the case of an intelligent golem, possibly all the above
authorities would agree to regard it as human.  The Sidrei Taharos
further confirms this in a discussion on whether a dead golem has the
impurity of a corpse.  He considers the case in Sanhedrin 65b, and
concludes that Rava's golem was not considered human because it lacked
the basic power of communication - i.e., intelligence - as opposed to a
Heresh whose mouth is incapable but does have this basic power.  He
relates this to Rava's preceding statement, "If the righteous wished, he
could create a world", and states that Rava's could not create a truly
human golem because he lacked perfect righteousness, but that the truly
righteous could create a golem with the full status of a human.
 
These sources imply that it *is* theoretically possible to create a
human, intelligent golem.  Of course, they state that it could only be
done by one free from sin, but presumably this requirement only applies
to a being created by supernatural means (using the "Book of Creation")
and not scientific ones.  In any event, all authorities seem to agree
that an intelligent artificial being, once created, has halakhically
human status in all regards.
 
We can conclude from this that if intelligent artificial beings are
created in the laboratory, they would have the status of humanity.  In
this regard, it would not matter if they are biological ("androids") or
mechanical ("robots"); note that the golems discussed in halakhic
literature were created from "dust".  Moreover, it would not matter if
the artificial beings were not even in human shape ("computers"), since
the child of human parents is considered human even if it lacks human
form.  In this regard, as seen in in the case of golems, human
manufacture seems to be an acceptable halakhic substitute for human
parentage.
 
Of course, the above discussion does not attempt to define
"intelligence" or set a standard.  However, as technology continues to
advance, the question of the humanity of artificial beings becomes more
and more pertinent.
 
[1] Mishnah Berura on Orach Hayyim 329.
[2] Responsa Hakham Tzvi, Lemberg 5660, No. 93
[3] Responsa Sh'eilat Yavetz, Lemberg 5644, Pt. II No. 82
[4] On Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 6, para. 11
[5] Sidrei Taharos on Ohalos, Pietrykow 5663, p. 5a
 
Now, a few questions for thought - some of which appear later in the article:
 
1) What would be the halakhic sex of an artificial human?  In terms of
golems, a female golem is mentioned in the above Midrash, and we also
discuss whether golems can count to a minyan, thus implying male golems.
What about an intelligent computer without human form?  Would it be in
the category of one whose sex is indeterminate (Tumtum), or perhaps
assume the sex of its creator?
 
2) Similarly, what would be the Judaic status of an artificial human?
Again, the question raised about counting to a minyan implies
halakhically Jewish golems.  Does a golem take on the Judaic status of
its creator?  Would this apply even if the creator ("father") were male
- or is that perhaps a case of partrilineal descent!
 
3) On a related note, what is the halakhic relationship of an artificial
human to its creator(s)?  Would multiple creators all be considered
halakhic "parents"?  How does this affect laws of inheritance, mourning,
marriage (e.g., can the creators marry one another's close relatives?)
If some of the multiple creators are Jewish and some not, what is the
being's status?  How do we know whom to include in the category of
"parents" - programmers, designers, perhaps even hardware manufacturers?
 
4) How would one define life and death for an artificial human?  Would
turning off an intelligent computer be considered murder?  What if it
could be turned on again safely?  How does this impact laws of mourning,
inheritance, ritual impurity (is a powered-off intelligent computer
"Tameh"?)
 
5) If one makes multiple copies of a program for an intelligent being,
are they all separate beings?
 
6) Finally, the most difficult question: can a halakhic "Turing test" be
defined to determine when an artificial being would cross the boundary
into humanity?  If so, what would this test consist of?
 
Elie Rosenfeld
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1991 16:12:58 EDT
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: Re: Response to Interfaith Marriage (#221)
 
In response to the anonymous questioner with the Italian woman
friend who's about to marry a Jewish man.  I believe that prior to the
marriage you have an obligation to discourage it to the best of your
abilities.  I don't believe you are permitted to attend the wedding, or
in any way to give legitimacy to the marriage should it occur (includes
gifts, etc.).  After the marriage, you should try to break it up in any
(reasonable) way possible.
 
Sheldon Meth
([email protected])
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 17:24 EST
From: KANOVSKY%[email protected]
Subject: Mesechet (Tractate) Tamid
 
I have a question regarding mesechet (tractate) tamid. As far as I know
it is the only tractate in the bavli that does not have gemorah on all
of its mishnayot just on some of them . Does anyone know the reason for
that were the gemorot lost? not written? thanks .
 
mechael kanovsky.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 08:53:58 -0400
From: Ellen Prince <[email protected]>
Subject: Shabbes Goy
 
I have a question about the concept 'shabes goy'. Growing up, I was
taught that asking **anyone**, including a gentile, to do work on the
sabbath or hiring someone expressly for that purpose or even permitting
someone to work in one's house on the sabbath was strictly forbidden. My
father explained the fact that such things were common due to a
combination of ignorance and hypocrisy, both rampant in the 'goldene
medine'. What is the general view? Has there been discussion of this?
(i'm sure there has!) Thanks.
 
--
Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to: 
        [email protected]

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 4
                 Produced: Tue Jul 31 21:28:14 EDT 1991
 
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
	Kosher, mixed dancing and Duchening
		Matt Saal
	Magic
		Stephen Phillips
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 15:17 BST
From: Matt Saal <[email protected]>
Subject: Kosher, mixed dancing and Duchening
 
I would like to put my tuppence into a current debate and perhaps
start a new one.
 
The current debate about the Glatt Yacht calls to mind some of the
things which were said at an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Oxford
Jewish Congregation which was called last June to debate whether or not
the priestly blessing [duchening] should be a part of the Yom Tov
service. I will elaborate on that below, since now that I have been
moved to write in to mail.jewish it would be interesting to hear some
views on that issue as well. As for the issue at hand, the relevant
recollection was the explanation one prominent member of the community
(himself a Kohen) provided for his objection to duchening. He began with
a quote from the Ethics of the Fathers [Pirkei Avot], "Rabbi said...Be
as attentive to a minor mitzvah as to a serious one, for you do not know
the reward assigned for each mitzvah." [Ethics of the Fathers 2:1,
translation from The Authorised Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew
Congregations of the Commonwealth, 1990 edition] This suggested to the
Oxford "macher" that, since we don't know the reward for any given
mitzvah, there were others we should be encouraging, like Shabbat and
Kashrut, rather than getting sidetracked with things like duchening.
 
I am concerned here with the exclusive way this Ethic was applied, which
bears an uncanny resemblance to the approach adopted by some
participants in the Glatt Yacht debate. That approach sets prerequisites
to mitzvot: we shouldn't duchen until we keep kosher; we shouldn't keep
kosher unless we abstain from mixed dancing as well.
 
While it may be technically correct that Judaism is an all-or- nothing
proposition (that too may be debatable), we should be careful not to
drive people from "some" to "nothing." It seems to me that the more
reasonable interpretation of Rabbi's words would be an inclusive one:
since we do not know what is most important, we should perform whatever
mitzvot we are able to perform (hopefully all those which apply to us).
Applying this reading to the Yacht issue would suggest that while
encouraging observance of all mitzvot is desirable, withdrawing Kashrut
supervision unless patrons observe (an arbitrarily chosen selection from
among) all mitzvot would be depriving people of an opportunity to
properly observe a mitzvah which might (or might not) be more important
than the others. As a community, we should provide as many religious
facilities (be they restaurants and yachts or schools and mikvot) as we
can, and encourage people to use as many of them as they can as best
they can.
 
As for the question of whether or not this approach cheapens or reduces
the moral authority of the supervising body, this is a function of
perception. I support the free market approach of Phil Chernovsky,
quoted by Warren Burstein (mail.jewish #220): kashrut supervision should
concentrate on the food. If that is publicly stated, there should be
little problem. Nobody who disapproves of mixed dancing is forced to go
on the yacht (or to the wedding).  All he or she needs is adequate
information about the facility before using it so as to determine if it
is up to standard. If there is sufficient demand for supervision of the
entertainment, that can be provided as a second "Yasher" certification,
either officially (rabbinic supervision of the dance floor?) or by word
of mouth.
 
On a more personal note, you folks in the States have it too good if
your biggest problem is that there are kosher facilities which are
pleasant enough to attract (relatively) non-religious people.  Perhaps
some time on this island would remind you how spoiled you are.
 
As promised above, some comments on the Oxford duchening issue:
Duchening has been banned for ten years or more. The facts are somewhat
obscure. However, I tend to believe the version which has duchening
taking place about 10-15 years ago, since those who claim it was never
done in Oxford tend to be those with an interest in rooting the current
aversion in historical tradition. The issue has been a source of
town-gown tension for some time. In recent years it has heated up
somewhat, beginning with Shavuot 1988, when a group of students tried to
organize an alternate musaf service which would include duchening.
[There is often a significant group of "more religious" students. They
cannot be completely disregarded, since the community relies on students
to help lead services during the term (and must import torah readers
[baalei kreyah] from London during the vacations)]. Last year a semi-
permanent resident who had managed to achieve acceptance by the ruling
clique raised the issue again, since he is a Kohen and would like to
duchen. I can only assume that the original reasons for the ban mirror
those which were expressed at last year's meeting. They
were:
        	-Duchening is a barbaric ancient bit of voodoo.
		-It's a very theatrical thing.
		-It's embarrassing to the families of the Kohanim when
          the Kohanim sing off key.
		-It's divisive: who put these Kohanim over us that they
          bless the rest of us (it was interesting/ironic that the
          meeting was held the week after Parshat Korach).
		-It's the thin end of the wedge encouraging "those
          people" to impose their fanaticism on "the rest of us."
          If we allow this, next thing you know we'll have a ten
          foot brick wall mechitzah and a lubavitch minister (Brit-
          speak for "Rabbi"; left unexplained is how "those people"
          can impose their will on "us" since the issue is being
          decided by majority vote).
 
The vote went against duchening. Footnote: during Succot, which fell
during term, there were a significant number of people interested in
duchening present at the services. Most of the people who voted against
duchening are not regular attendants at services, thus the majority on
the day was clearly in favor of duchning.  Rather than hold a separate
musaf simultaneously ("too divisive"), those who were interested waited
(and answered ameyn, etc.) until after the congregation's musaf and then
did a second musaf Amidah (actually their first, but the second to take
place in the synagogue that day), with duchening. The second day of
Succot there were only about half a dozen people who davened the first
musaf and left, and about thirty who stayed for the second round while
the others started the kiddush in the next room.
 
To put this into question format: Are there other (generally
traditional) congregations which share Oxford's aversion to duchening?
What do you think about the various pros and cons? How about the notion
of voting on matters of religious observance? The double-musaf solution?
 
Looking forward to leaving Oxford in August (anyone know if they duchen
in Kobe?),
 
Matt Saal [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 13:27 GMT
From: Stephen Phillips <[email protected]>
Subject: Magic
 
The following question was asked in soc.culture.jewish. I don't have
write access to Usenet, so I thought it might be an intersting topic
of debate on mail.jewish.
 
[Quoted from s.c.j]
>  Question......the Torah states something to the effect of the death
> penelty for sourcerers. What exactly is meant by that? I am a professional
> magician, is that forbidden???
>                Thanks in advance,
 
I believe that the magic referred to in the Torah is real magic, that
is magical powers that actually exist in the world such as used by
Moshe Rabbeinu and Pharaoh's magicians.
 
I don't want to discuss this magic as I am not qualified to do so.
What I want to discuss is the "magic" of the conjuror, which involves
"sleight of hand".
 
A friend of mine who studies at Yeshivat Torah Or in Jerusalem drew
my attention to a passage in the Rambam's Sefer Hamitzvos that had
been drawn to my friend's attention by his Rosh Yeshivah, Harav
Scheinberg.
 
I cannot recall the actual Mitzvah the Rambam was discussing, but he
refers to people who "trick the eye" by doing tricks such as throwing
an object in the air and making it disappear or transforming it into
something else. The Rambam says that such trickery is forbidden Min
Hatorah (from the Torah) and more so when it is played upon children
who are led to believe something that is not so.
 
My friend, having discussed the passage with Harav Scheinberg, will
not now permit his children to go to parties where their is a
"magician".
 
I wondered about this, because I know many Orthodox people who allow
their children to see "magicians" at work and even have them in their
own homes at parties.
 
I was even more intrigued because the Cantor at a local Orthodox Shul
is a very proficient "magician" who entertains at adult gatherings (I
have seen hime, and he IS good).
 
So I asked the Rabbi of that Shul about their Cantor's extra
curricula activities and he said that he does not understand how he
has been allowed to perform his tricks all these years without any
objection from previous Rabbis at the Shul. Indeed, he said, his
mother would never let him attend parties as a child where there was
going to be a "magician". As, however, no previous Rabbi of the Shul
had raised any objections, he felt that he could not now do so.
 
Now, should I let my children see "magicians"? Their favourite T.V.
programme is a magic show.
 
Stephen Phillips
[email protected]

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 5
                 Produced: Fri Aug 2 12:33:23 EDT 1991
 
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
	_Ultimate Issues_ outreach campaign (3 submissions)
		Alexander Herrera, Robert A. Levene, Frank Silbermann
	Electronic Door Locks on Shabbat
		Harold Himmelfarb
	Plunge Coffee on Shabbos/Yom Tov
		Yaacov Haber
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 09:38:54 PDT
From: [email protected] (Alexander Herrera)
Subject: Re: _Ultimate Issues_ outreach campaign
 
 
David Sherman writes:
> I wonder if anyone on this list would like to comment on Dennis Prager's
> campaign, expressed in two recent issues of Ultimate Issues, that Jews
> should seek out converts to Judaism.
 
I've read the articles in Ultimate Issues. You asked for an "informed"
response. I think that means counter or supportive arguments to his
citations from the Talmud, and other sources. I am not competant to
engage in such a dialogue, but I can comment on the issue from
experience. I am a convert to Judaism, and although I hesitate to
criticise a religion that I hold in such high esteem, I have to say
that the attitude of the typical Jew toward converts is a little short
of amazing. When I told one of my Jewish friends that I had decided to
convert to Judaism, he asked, "Why?" He reacted to me as if I had told
him that I had decided to stuff raw fish down my shorts. I was struck
dumb. In another instance, a Jewish aquaintence of mine admitted to
knowing someone who converted. The upshot to her story was, "The
husband and the wife BOTH converted!" It was as if the only reason a
sane, normal person would choose Judasim is because of marriage. I got
that one a lot.
 
I had decided to become a Jew a little over two years after marrying a
Jew. I came to Judaism because I thought it was the best religion, and
it fit best with my own thinking. I still think that several years
later.
 
Reform Judasim has taken a formal stand that seeking converts is a good
thing to be doing, but they have not acted upon it. I was converted
under Reform (for many who read this, that would make me a non-Jew.
More on this in a moment). Even though they are supposed to seek
converts, I found the rabbi strangely disinterested. He seemed more
interested in bringing my wife back to services than in converting me.
I was persistent, and eventually I was able to convince him that I was
serious. It strikes me that there is something seriously wrong here if
a simple, unsolicited inquiry cannot be handled with a little more
enthusiasm. It would make the casual observer think, "Is there
something wrong with Judaism?" or "They just want to be an exclusive
group."
 
After much reading and study, I've grown disenchanted with Reform
Judaism. I am now looking for something else. I've joined a local
Orthodox minyon, and I've told the rabbi my status because I knew he
would not be able to count me in the minyon. He suggested to me that I
undergo an Orthodox conversion. He says that I am in an "indeterminant
state". That is what he said, but his eyes said non-Jew. Good for him.
He was trying his best to draw me in without himself getting drawn into
a big argument. I like him. I am doing some reading as he suggested,
and I am generating a list of questions for him. We'll see how it goes.
In my eyes, I am already a Jew. If I have not conformed to all the
proceedures, it was not a fault of mine. I was sincere, and innocent. I
am still sincere, but no longer so innocent. I want to look deeply into
this before I make another commitment.
 
I've reprinted part 2 of the Dennis Prager article, and I will send it
by email to anyone who requests it.
 
Alexander Herrera
uunet!mdcsc!ah
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 10:04:57 -0400
From: [email protected] (Robert A. Levene)
Subject: Re: _Ultimate Issues_ outreach campaign
 
  Regarding DP's article on seeking converts.  A new issue of _UI_ just
came out, so I'm sure _UI_ subscribers will find out more information
shortly.
 
  Prager, like many people, has good intentions.  Like many of us, he
wants to bring Jews to a Torah-true lifestyle.  He also wants to reach
out explicitly to non-Jews who have rejected their religions.  This
raises some questions which I imagine he has answered on his
radio program or lecture circuit.  Anyone have details?
 
1) How will he determine if the gentile has "seriously" rejected his
   former faith?
 
2) Who will sponsor these outreach efforts, and how will the
   conversions will be done?
 
3) Which Torah leaders or organizations, if any, have approved
   his proposal?
 
  These are critical questions which have to be answered thoroughly
before I'd support any outreach programs to non-Jews.
 
  I'm also waiting to hear more about his new "Institute for Ethical
Monotheism" of which I can't make heads or tails.  Perhaps he's
symbolically re-starting "yeshivat Shem v'Eber?"  Pointers to articles
on this subject would be appreciated.  Please Post.
 
Rob Levene 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 15:21:07 -0500
From: Frank Silbermann <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: _Ultimate Issues_ outreach campaign
 
Though Dennis Prager's writings were a big factor in my redirection
towards Yiddishkeit, I read this article with some skepticism.  He
begins with the assumption that Jews actively sought converts until
oppression forced us to reconsider.  Though I have often heard this view
from secular sources, my rabbi cited a passage in the Gamarra saying
that it is only because of oppression that we accept converts at all.
Otherwise we would suspect that the candidate is converting for material
reasons, rather than for the sake of heaven, and that in the days of the
Moshiach no more converts will be accepted.  I don't know how to
reconcile these two opinions.
 
I agree with Dennis Prager that our tradition has much to teach the
world (isn't that our ultimate purpose?).  However, this need not
involve mass conversion to Judaism.  Suppose we _did_ convert several
hundred million people.  How would they all fit into Eretz Yisrael when
the Moshiach comes?  Somehow I suspect that Mr. Prager is not concerned
about such contingencies, and might even deny belief in Moshiach were it
not such a central tenet of faith.  I can sympathize with those who are
skeptical of the supernatural events associated with the redemption, but
one cannot decide Jewish policy without taking these beliefs into
consideration.  On the otherhand, maybe Mr. Prager feels that with all
the miracles prophesized, why worry about one miracle more?
 
	Frank Silbermann	[email protected]
	Tulane University	New Orleans, Louisiana  USA
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91  11:23:55 EDT
From: "Harold Himmelfarb" <[email protected]>
Subject: electronic door locks on Shabbat
 
Does anyone out there have any good ideas about how to handle the
presumably electronic door locks that hotels are installing if one must
stay in the hotel on Shabbat?  I am talking about the kind that open by
inserting a programmed card that releases the lock mechanism, sometimes
a little green light goes on to indicate that the door can be opened.
Is there someway to deactivate lock?  Is opening it from the inside of
the room also a problem?  (Someone suggested to me that some of these
locks might be mechanical rather than electronic.  How would one know?)
 
H. Himmelfarb (FKK@NIHCU)
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 23:32:51 EST
From: Yaacov Haber <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Plunge Coffee on Shabbos/Yom Tov
 
To use the traditional disclaimer of "I have no seforim with me etc."
I think that if you are using a kli hameyuchad lborer - a designated
borer vessel, even ochel min  hapesoles (good from bad) is osur
(forbidden).

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 6
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
	Baal Tashchis and Chumros
		Ezra Tepper
	Glatt yacht discussion
		Steve Prensky
	Re: Mushrooms
		Francine Storfer
	Shofar Calls
		Joel Ehrlich
	Re: Shabbat Pen
		Elise Jacobs, Eli Turkel
	Re: Introduction to Mathematical Structure
		Shlomo Kalish
	Re: Jewish cemetary within a public cemetary
		Ellen Prince
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 12:54:37 +0300
From: Ezra L Tepper <RRTEPPER%[email protected]>
Subject: Baal Tashchis and Chumros
 
Eli Turkel (#222) comments on my earlier posting mentioning the problem
of baal tashchis with regard to a chumra of separating tithes from
products that are under reliable supervision and from which tithes
had already been removed. The thrust of my argument was not that
the person violated the prohibition, but that he was not observing
that commandment in the best possible manner. If, for example, the
consumer would be particular to obtain produce from which tithes were
definitely not removed, he would take the required percentages according
to halacha and not be the cause of double tithing the produce he eats.
    Moreover, Turkel's mention of the psak of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein about
turning on the water fountain before using it, raises some interesting
questions. Because the entire process of drinking water from a water
fountain definitely wastes water -- aside from that initially wasted to
check it before blessing -- perhaps one should try and avoid
using them at all. Or at the least, one should carry a collapsible cup
for catching the water before drinking it. Moreover, there is a
Jewish custom of not eating or drinking while standing up. That is an
additional reason for avoiding water fountains, except of course in
a case where one was beginning to feel dehydration coming on and had
forgotten his cup at home.
 
Ezra L. Tepper <[email protected]>
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 Jul 91 08:33:00 MST
From: "STEVE PRENSKY" <[email protected]>
Subject: Glatt yacht discussion
 
Re: Glatt Yacht
 
Two points that were not explicitly stated in any of the discussion are (based 
on an article in the NY Jewish Week, 5/10-16/91):
 
1. The Chof-K was not so particular about the goings on at private
   parties they catered (maybe the difference between "private" and
   "public" ?)
 
2. When United Kosher Supervisors (OK) took over Rabbi Spivak, the
   administrator stated, "I don't get involved in anything [besides the
   kashrut of the food] else. Most Jewish people don't eat kosher food
   today, and I believe it is of supreme importance to provide them with
   the opportunity to experience the mitzvah of eating kosher food."
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 10:44:13 -0700
From: Francine Storfer <[email protected]>
Subject: Reply to mail.jewish #218 -- for m.j
 
Regarding the kashrut of synthetic foods:  In April, I attended a
shiur given by R Moshe Heinemann of the Vaad haKashrus of Baltimore,
and this was one of the topics he discussed.  The specific synthetics
he mentioned are xanthan gum and nutrasweet, both of which are made by
bacteria.  Here's a summary of his logic, as taken from my notes:
 
1)  If you have an animal that was given only treif food (for example
a cow or a chicken), then that animal is treif.  An animal MUST eat
some kosher food at some point in its life in order to be kosher.
 
2)  Bacteria are without question kosher.  Since we can't see them
singly with the naked eye, there is no discussion of them in the
Torah, so they are kosher.
 
3)  Bacterial excretions depend on the kashrut of the food fed to the
bacteria, in the same way that cow's milk is only kosher if it comes
from a kosher cow -- that is, a cow that at some point in its life has
eaten kosher food.  
 
4)  Most of the foods the bacteria are grown in are kosher.  However,
at one point in the production of xanthan gum (or nutrasweet), the 
bacteria are grown on pepsin, which is treif.  Are all the bacteria
treif after that point?  [You need to know that bacteria can divide --
i.e., be "born" -- every 20 minutes.]  Based on the succession of
foods given to the bacteria, and the point at which the production of
xanthan gum (or nutrasweet) was induced, R Heinemann poskened that the
bacteria, and their excretions, are kosher.
 
 
I would imagine that each food additive has to be considered
separately, as the bacteria might be fed different foods in different
successions to produce the different additives.  Another topic, also
of interest, that R Heinemann discussed was the pressure being put on
kosher slaughterhouses (by the purchasers of the non-kosher halves of
the cattle) to put an electric current through the animal after
schechting (ritually slaughtering) it, to tenderize the meat.  I can
give a summary if people are interested.
 
Fran Storfer  --  [email protected]   --   [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 19:28:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joel I Ehrlich <[email protected]>
Subject: Shofar Calls
 
I posted the following last week on s.c.j. but got an unsatisfactory
response.  I am very interested in these questions, and I hope that some
of you halacha experts can help me:
 
I know it's a little early, but I just bought a new shofar and came upon
some questions while I was practicing:
 
1. How/where are the four shofar calls defined?  
 
2. Does the "player" have any interpretive freedom, that is, could I
extend the length of the upper tone on a shevarim or tekiah gedolah, or
make changes in the volume (crescendo), or anything like that?
 
3. What is the meaning of the various calls? Do they symbolize anything,
or are they just notes?  How is the order in which the notes are blown
on Rosh Hashana determined?  Does the order have any significant meaning
in itself?
 
4. Would a physically modified shofar, say, one with a trumpet
mouthpiece attatched, be acceptable (this is purely hypothetical, I have
no intention of doing this!)?
 
    -Joel
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 11:17:28 EDT
From: [email protected] (Elise G. Nussbaum)
Subject: Re: Shabbat Pen
 
I don't understand what the point of having a Jewish state is if one
needs to rely on non-Jews to do various things.  Specifically mentioned
were the Arabs who write on shabbos in the religious hospital, but my
questions extends more generally to how Jews can plan for self-sufficiency
when they rely on goyim to fill in.  It seems more reasonable to come up
with solutions within the Jewish community.
 
Elise Jacobs
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 17:20:08 -0400
From: Eli Turkel <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Shabbat Pens
 
In regard to the question of special pens for shabbat and other modern
inventions to circumvent shabbat there was a general prohibition
issued several years ago to use such devices. This was signed by
Rabbi Shach, Rabbi Wosner of Bnei Brak and several other rabbis. I
later saw a responsa from Rabbi Chaim Dovid Halevi, chief Sefardi
rabbi of Tel Aviv in which he strongly agrees with the above
prohibition. The basis of this prohibition is that one should not
do things that are considered work on shabbat but with some 
technological twist so that it is not technically against halacha.
Such devices would destroy the whole spirit of shabbat. One could
drive cars, turn on electricity, light fires, cook, write etc.
and say that one is using a modern invention that circumvents the
technical issur.
 
If I remember these rabbis even would not allow such devices (as
special phones) for hospitals. They felt that if a life was in danger
one could use a regular phone and otherwise one should not use these
special phones either.
 
Eli Turkel - [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 91 08:58:31 IST
From: Shlomo Kalish <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Introduction to Mathematical Structure in Torah
 
As far as I know "Introduction to Mathematical Structure in Torah" has not
been published yet, but I will ask Rav Ginsburgh, as I see him regularly.
Shlomo Kalish
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 17:26:30 -0400
From: Ellen Prince <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jewish cemetary within a public cemetary
 
i believe that is the norm--if not the rule--in france (and probably other
countries as well), so french jews ought to know all about it.

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 7
 
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
	Kosher, mixed dancing and Duchening (V2#4)
		Keith Bierman, Susannah Danishefsky
	Mothers' Milk 
		Ezra L Tepper, Mark Rayman
	Human Identity - Halakhic Issues (V2#3)
		Lou Rayman
	Magic (V2#4)
		Frank Silbermann
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 91 10:16:03 PDT
From: [email protected]
Subject: Kosher, mixed dancing and Duchening
 
In a budding young Orthodox shul in LA some years back we had a
mixture of various Sephardim and Askenazim, the rabbi was an American
who had trained and been ordained in Israel. The Sephardim wanted
duchening done every week. The rabbi knew I often dovened with a group
of Morrocans in North Hollywood ... so I put the two rabbis in touch.
When asked if they did duchening every week the Morrocan rabbi
replied:
 
	"Of course. Don't you need blessing? We certainly do...."
 
Of course, they then discussed various halachic issues ;> We adopted
the policy of weekly duchening since there was no _good_ reason not to,
and lots of reasons to do so.
 
As for the more general philosophic question Matt raised, viz. Is
Judiasm All or Nothing ? I prefer those that say certainly not!
 
Every time we act, we *choose* whether to act with accordance to
halacha or not. This does not give us *permission* to do wrong, it
means that no matter what else we have done before (or will probably
do later) observance of each mitzvah is *required*. 
 
If we encourage the notion that "all or nothing" is the exclusive
attitude, ultimately there will be no Jews .... for even the tzadkim
stray from the path of perfection (albeit incredibly slightly). 
 
We must strive to perfect ourselves, our observance, our community,
our world. We must not accept defeat due to a few setbacks (no matter
how major or minor).
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 14:37:07 EDT
From: [email protected] (Susannah Danishefsky)
Subject: Kosher, mixed dancing and Duchening
 
I don't think that it is at all appropriate to leave matters of HALACHA
up to a vote.  That is saying that the community will not abide by the
decision of a Rabbi who is well versed in the laws of Hashem but rather
to the whim of the majority of it congregants.  It also says in Pirkei
Avos (Ethics of the Fathers) that we are to "make His will our will" and
not the other way around.  Now that we are on the topic of Avos, the
justification given for ditching Duchening was that we must be attentive
to a minor mitzvah as to a serious one.  To me this is support for being
careful with things that we may perceive as minor like Duchening rather
that a reason to drop it.
 
Despite the fact that voting is an entirely inappropriate way to
determine Jewish practice, it seems to me that education is in order
when a community has something as strong as an aversion to a Mitzva.  A
good shiur on Duchening and what it is supposed to accomplish is
critical for the Oxford Community.  To call it voodoo, theatrical, or
divisive shows that basic understanding is lacking.  The concept of
getting Brachos from other people in general is a complex one and
perhaps should be addressed by the mailing list.  Briefly, my
understanding is that it is not magical but rather through the activity
the blessee straightens out his/her priorities and mindset, becomes a
better person, and thus is more deserving.  However, one thing is quite
straightforward about this blessing from its text as well as from a
simple reading of the chumash.  The Kohanim are agents of peace.  Aharon
HaKohen was famous as a Peacemaker so much so that when he passed away
*ALL* of Israel - men women and children mourned his death.  Duchening
is supposed to be the antithesis of contention and ill will.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 91 12:11:39 +0300
From: Ezra L Tepper <[email protected]>
Subject: Mothers' Milk
 
Your issue (#223) had some postings relevant to mother's milk. I
remember reading in the Chochmas Odom (written by the author of the
Chayei Odom) that expressed mother's milk is permitted to be drunk
by all. There is, however, a reservation about taking a tipple
directly from the nipple. That is the reason why once weaned a
child may not return to _nursing_. He may clearly, according to the
Chayei Odom, have mother's milk in his Post Toasties. (This is not an
advertisement.)
    I have an interesting query to pose to your experts. In the
world of our forefathers, children were weaned at 3. In the modern
world we wean children early, a year -- maximum two. My wife (who
works in a mother-and-child care center) came across a mother who
was still nursing her child at the age of five. (She simply enjoyed
the experience.) Halachicly speaking, must a mother quit nursing at
the time most people quit; can she go on to three, as did our
foremothers (or their wet-nurses)? Or can it go on and on and on, as
in the case of this Israeli woman? Is there a difference here between
a son or daughter?
 
P.S. As a psychologist, my wife thinks that nursing until 5 can
cause irreparable psychological damage to the child.
 
P.P.S. There are common stories about nursing mothers telling their
children to be sure to make a _berochah_ before getting down to nursing
(naturally, before they exposed their breast).
 
Ezra Tepper <[email protected]>
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 10:22:44 EDT
From: [email protected] (Mark Rayman)
Subject: Re:  mail.jewish #223
 
In reference to the mothers milk issue:
 
Not only is it kosher, it is parve!  However, there is a rabbinic
prohibition for an adult to "nurse" directly from a womans breast.
However if the woman expresses the milk into a vessel, it can be eaten.
(Yore Deah 81:7).
 
There is also a problem of "maris ayin" [see m.j #11 for more info on
maris ayin] to actually cook meat together with mothers milk.  However,
if mothers milk was accidentally mixed with meat, the mixture is
permitted.  (Yore Deah 87:4).
 
Moshe Rayman - [email protected] -(908) 699-6533
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 06:59:39 PDT
From: BIG Louuuuuuuuuuuu <[email protected]>
Subject: re: Summary of "Human Identity - Halakhic Issues"
 
Regarding the Judaic status of Rabbi Rosenfeld's intelligent golem,
(i.e. how does such a creature become Jewish), I would like to draw a
parallel to the Laws of Geirut (Conversion).
 
There are two ways a non-Jewish person becomes a Jew.  A free person
can, of his own volition, approach the community, represented by a
Beit-Din (Rabbinic Court) and apply for admission.  It is then up to the
Beit-Din to decide whether to admit the person.
 
The other way to become Jewish is involuntary - A freed Eved Cana'ani
(non-Jewish slave) automatically becomes fully Jewish.
 
There are a number of stories in the Gemara about a Rabbi (Gamliel?) who
owned a slave, of which he was very fond, named Tebi.  I seems to recall
one in which only 9 men, plus Tebi, showed up for minyan.  The rabbi
immediately freed Tebi, he became fully Jewish, and was counted for the
minyan.
 
Now, which of these laws would apply to our theoretical golem?  If a
non-Jewish golem of sufficient intelligence would come by himself to a
Beit-Din, it seems that we would be dealing with a normal case of
Geirut.
 
If, however, a Jewish person owns a machine (or anything else) which he
endows with intelligence, it would seem to me that in order for the
machine to become a full Jew (assuming that "humanity" comes
automatically with intelligence), the creature would first have to pass
through some Eved Cana'ani stage.
 
This opens up another set of questions: if the "master" of this creature
would harm him (it?) in any way, the creature would automatically become
free (the law of Shen V'Ayin by an Eved).  The master could not sell his
creature to a non-Jew.  Once freed, an Eved (who is now fully Jewish)
cannot be re-sold.  The same would hold true for our golem.
 
Louis Rayman - [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 13:48:30 CDT
From: Frank Silbermann <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Magic
 
Stephen Phillips asks whether he should forbid his children from
watching magicians.  He knows of Orthodox Jews who perform and watch
such entertainment, and others who consider both to be forbidden.  He
recalls a passage in the Torah forbidding sorcery, and speculates as to
whether this refers to trickery, or to "real magic" (i.e. willful
transgression of the laws of physics).  He also recalls a Rambam that
forbids sleight-of-hand magic, _especially_ when played upon children,
as they are easily fooled.
 
If Rambam believed that the Chumash passage against sorcery referred to
theatrical magic (I suspect Rambam believed that "real magic" does not
existed in our time), I wonder why he added the phrase "especially when
played upon children."  Isn't a blatant Torah violation bad enough?
Perhaps Rambam forbids use of magic tricks to convince others one has
unnatural powers.  (This view would justify the phrase about fooling
children.)
 
For example, in the American south, there is a tradition among some
fundamentalist Protestant Christian ministers to install religious faith
in their flock via magic tricks presented as miracles (e.g.
faith-healing presentations).  Presumably, this kind of deception is
forbidden even to convince the gullable to believe in G-d and Torah.  (I
generalize this to the point that I am even offended when I hear the
Torah defended by unsound arguments --- the mental analog of a
magician's tricks.  Though the speaker may have good intentions, to me
the Torah is being mocked.)
 
Apparently, some rabbis have concluded that entertainment by magicians
is acceptable so long as the magicians do not misrepresent the source of
their craft.  If entertainment by clever illusions were generally
prohibited, as some believe, then what about ventriloquists?  What about
radio?  (It really does sounds like there's a little man inside the
box.)  How about movies that use special effects, or even movies in
general?  (I present these arguments with some trepidation, lest some of
the more ardent among us use this as a basis to forbid movies and
radio.)
 
Frank Silbermann	[email protected]
Tulane University	New Orleans, Louisiana  USA

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 8
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
	Shabbat Pen
		Zev Kesselman, Warren Burstein
	Plunge Coffee on Shabbos/Yom Tov (#222)
		Francine Storfer
	Electronic Door Locks on Shabbat
		Steven Schwartz
	Status of "Messianic Jew"
		Warren Burstein
	Glatt Yacht
		Warren Burstein
	Human Identity - Halakhic Issues
		Warren Burstein
	Mother's Milk
		Warren Burstein
	Sefer Tehillim Division
		Arnie Gershon
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 08:02 JST
From: "Zev Kesselman" <NAJMAN%[email protected]>
Subject: Shabbat Pen
 
	In #221, Andy Jacobs wrote:
 
>Perhaps I am shortsighted, but I do not forsee every household having a
>Shabbos pen.  They will be a bother to use, because anything that is
>written with them must be either written again after Shabbos, or at
>least taken to a copy machine before the ink dissapears.
 
	I disagree.  If there really were a general Heter for such a thing,
I'd get one today.  Then I could do crossword puzzles on Shabbes, and even
be able to reuse the form at some later time!  Or do my computer coding:
anyway, it has to be reentered later.  Or keeping score for card games,
or Scrabble:  who ***cares*** if it self-erases next Tuesday?
 
Zev Kesselman - ([email protected])
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 17:39:57 IDT
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Shabbat Pen (Volume 2 Number 3)
 
The difference between the writing with a normal pen, a Shabbat pen,
and keeping food warm on a blech is that the former is a direct
violation of Shabbat, the latter falls into the class of acts which
are "patur aval assur" - one has not violated the Shabbat but it is
still not allowed, while the latter is fully permitted.  I don't know
the details of why the Shabbat pen is a member of the middle group,
but I assume it is (or shuls would already be using it to keep track of
who pledged money after getting an Aliya).
 
The pen is for cases of possible pikuach nefesh, where the person
might hesitate to wonder if the writing was permitted or not
(obviously in cases of clear pikuach nefesh there is no doubt what to
do).  It would certainly be a good thing for hospital administrators
to provide these pens for their staff, and for staff members to
provide them for themselves if this is not done.  If they run out of
Shabbat pens, of course they can use regular pens.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 91 17:32:45 -0700
From: Francine Storfer <[email protected]>
Subject: Plunge Coffee on Shabbos/Yom Tov (#222)
 
Regarding plunged coffee on Shabbat:  I've been avoiding the issue of
borer (selection by sifting or straining) on Shabbat by making a 4-5X
concentrate beforehand, and then adding it to hot water.  Still much
better than instant.  
 
Regarding the issue of borer:  a cat's litter box presents a similar
situation to what Isaac Balbin describes with the coffee, in that the
bad is being selected away from the good.  The refuse is scooped out
of the cat litter using a special shovel with slits in it, so the cat
litter can fall back through, to be used later (one hopes) by the cat.
If I don't deliberately try to sift the refuse away from the litter,
and am willing to throw whatever comes up in the shovel away, can i
scoop out the cat box on Shabbos?  Barring that, can i use the shovel
to bury the refuse (sometimes my cat is lazy) so there is no odor?
Certainly, in the latter case, I would prefer if the slits in the
shovel did NOT act to 'sieve' through the litter, so borer presumably
would not be an issue?
 
Fran Storfer -- [email protected] -- [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 07:54:50 EDT
From: [email protected] (Steven Schwartz)
Subject: Re: electronic door locks on Shabbat
 
I am told that electronic locks may register opening of the door on a
central computer.  This is consistent with my stay at the Rye Town (NY)
Hilton last year.  My room key combination was programmed at the desk.
I did not need to surrender my key at check-out: the combination, i.e.
the "password" datum at the front desk computer, was presumably changed
automatically at the next check in.
 
When you make a reservation at an unfamiliar hotel, call the hotel
directly (-not- the 800-number consolidator) and ask about getting a
"metal key" room.
 
Steve Schwartz - [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 17:39:57 IDT
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Status of "Messianic Jew" (#222)
 
Will Shulman approaches the ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court as a
problem, perhaps he thinks the Supreme Court or the Knesset in the Law
of Return, either as currently worded or proposed amendments thereto
have some bearing on whether an individual is a Jew.  None of these
bodies tell the Rabbinate whether they should perform a marriage or
not, they inform the Interior Ministry whether a person is eligible to
Israeli citizenship under the provisions of the Law of Return.
 
The government of Israel, (and this has nothing to do with its
economic philosophy), and not the Rabbinate, decides who may be a
citizen of Israel.  The Rabbinate decides who is a member of the
Jewish People.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 17:39:57 IDT
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re:  Glatt Yacht  (Volume 2 Number 1 )
 
I don't call for the establishment of premium supervisions, just that
since we already have one here in Jerusalem, if there are consumers
who demand a supervision that deals with matters other than the
kashrut of the food served, the premium supervision is the correct
avenue, not the standard one.
 
I don't think this would lead to governmental intrusion, anyone who
wanted to run an establishment with the standard supervision would be
free to do so.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 17:39:57 IDT
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Human Identity - Halakhic Issues (Volume 2 Number 3)
 
I think that a better model for non-human intelligences would be
demons (despite the fact that I have no idea whether the term as used
in the Gemara describes anything real).  Demons are described as
having human intelligence, but are not bound by Mitzvot.
 
I think that this would render irrelevant questions of the sex, Judaic
status, relationship to its creator, whether one could turn it off and
such. 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 17:39:57 IDT
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Mother's Milk (Volume 2 Number 3)
 
The halacha concerning human milk is (or at least what I find in these
sources is - Ketubot 60a, Rambam, Hilchot Maachalot Assurot 3:5, Yoreh
Deah 72:7) that it is permitted, but there is a Rabbinical prohibition
against anyone other than a nursing baby to drink it directly from the
breast.  I do not understand the nature of this prohibition (I think
it is not based in kashrut) and would appreciate anyone who could
point me at a commentary that deals with it.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 14:06:29 PDT
From: koa!agershon (Arnie Gershon)
Subject: Sefer Tehillim Division
 
Can anyone authoritively tell me who divided the sefer Tehillim into:
 
    1. Books (sefer rishon through sefer chamishi).
 
    2. Days of the week (yom rishon through yom Shabbos).
 
    3. Days of the month (yom aleph through yom lamed).
 
Avrohom Gedalia Gershon - ...!sagpd1!agershon
 
                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 8
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
	Shabbat Pen
		Zev Kesselman, Warren Burstein
	Plunge Coffee on Shabbos/Yom Tov (#222)
		Francine Storfer
	Electronic Door Locks on Shabbat
		Steven Schwartz
	Status of "Messianic Jew"
		Warren Burstein
	Glatt Yacht
		Warren Burstein
	Human Identity - Halakhic Issues
		Warren Burstein
	Mother's Milk
		Warren Burstein
	Sefer Tehillim Division
		Arnie Gershon
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 08:02 JST
From: "Zev Kesselman" <NAJMAN%[email protected]>
Subject: Shabbat Pen
 
	In #221, Andy Jacobs wrote:
 
>Perhaps I am shortsighted, but I do not forsee every household having a
>Shabbos pen.  They will be a bother to use, because anything that is
>written with them must be either written again after Shabbos, or at
>least taken to a copy machine before the ink dissapears.
 
	I disagree.  If there really were a general Heter for such a thing,
I'd get one today.  Then I could do crossword puzzles on Shabbes, and even
be able to reuse the form at some later time!  Or do my computer coding:
anyway, it has to be reentered later.  Or keeping score for card games,
or Scrabble:  who ***cares*** if it self-erases next Tuesday?
 
Zev Kesselman - ([email protected])
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 17:39:57 IDT
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Shabbat Pen (Volume 2 Number 3)
 
The difference between the writing with a normal pen, a Shabbat pen,
and keeping food warm on a blech is that the former is a direct
violation of Shabbat, the latter falls into the class of acts which
are "patur aval assur" - one has not violated the Shabbat but it is
still not allowed, while the latter is fully permitted.  I don't know
the details of why the Shabbat pen is a member of the middle group,
but I assume it is (or shuls would already be using it to keep track of
who pledged money after getting an Aliya).
 
The pen is for cases of possible pikuach nefesh, where the person
might hesitate to wonder if the writing was permitted or not
(obviously in cases of clear pikuach nefesh there is no doubt what to
do).  It would certainly be a good thing for hospital administrators
to provide these pens for their staff, and for staff members to
provide them for themselves if this is not done.  If they run out of
Shabbat pens, of course they can use regular pens.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 91 17:32:45 -0700
From: Francine Storfer <[email protected]>
Subject: Plunge Coffee on Shabbos/Yom Tov (#222)
 
Regarding plunged coffee on Shabbat:  I've been avoiding the issue of
borer (selection by sifting or straining) on Shabbat by making a 4-5X
concentrate beforehand, and then adding it to hot water.  Still much
better than instant.  
 
Regarding the issue of borer:  a cat's litter box presents a similar
situation to what Isaac Balbin describes with the coffee, in that the
bad is being selected away from the good.  The refuse is scooped out
of the cat litter using a special shovel with slits in it, so the cat
litter can fall back through, to be used later (one hopes) by the cat.
If I don't deliberately try to sift the refuse away from the litter,
and am willing to throw whatever comes up in the shovel away, can i
scoop out the cat box on Shabbos?  Barring that, can i use the shovel
to bury the refuse (sometimes my cat is lazy) so there is no odor?
Certainly, in the latter case, I would prefer if the slits in the
shovel did NOT act to 'sieve' through the litter, so borer presumably
would not be an issue?
 
Fran Storfer -- [email protected] -- [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 07:54:50 EDT
From: [email protected] (Steven Schwartz)
Subject: Re: electronic door locks on Shabbat
 
I am told that electronic locks may register opening of the door on a
central computer.  This is consistent with my stay at the Rye Town (NY)
Hilton last year.  My room key combination was programmed at the desk.
I did not need to surrender my key at check-out: the combination, i.e.
the "password" datum at the front desk computer, was presumably changed
automatically at the next check in.
 
When you make a reservation at an unfamiliar hotel, call the hotel
directly (-not- the 800-number consolidator) and ask about getting a
"metal key" room.
 
Steve Schwartz - [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 17:39:57 IDT
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Status of "Messianic Jew" (#222)
 
Will Shulman approaches the ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court as a
problem, perhaps he thinks the Supreme Court or the Knesset in the Law
of Return, either as currently worded or proposed amendments thereto
have some bearing on whether an individual is a Jew.  None of these
bodies tell the Rabbinate whether they should perform a marriage or
not, they inform the Interior Ministry whether a person is eligible to
Israeli citizenship under the provisions of the Law of Return.
 
The government of Israel, (and this has nothing to do with its
economic philosophy), and not the Rabbinate, decides who may be a
citizen of Israel.  The Rabbinate decides who is a member of the
Jewish People.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 17:39:57 IDT
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re:  Glatt Yacht  (Volume 2 Number 1 )
 
I don't call for the establishment of premium supervisions, just that
since we already have one here in Jerusalem, if there are consumers
who demand a supervision that deals with matters other than the
kashrut of the food served, the premium supervision is the correct
avenue, not the standard one.
 
I don't think this would lead to governmental intrusion, anyone who
wanted to run an establishment with the standard supervision would be
free to do so.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 17:39:57 IDT
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Human Identity - Halakhic Issues (Volume 2 Number 3)
 
I think that a better model for non-human intelligences would be
demons (despite the fact that I have no idea whether the term as used
in the Gemara describes anything real).  Demons are described as
having human intelligence, but are not bound by Mitzvot.
 
I think that this would render irrelevant questions of the sex, Judaic
status, relationship to its creator, whether one could turn it off and
such. 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 17:39:57 IDT
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Mother's Milk (Volume 2 Number 3)
 
The halacha concerning human milk is (or at least what I find in these
sources is - Ketubot 60a, Rambam, Hilchot Maachalot Assurot 3:5, Yoreh
Deah 72:7) that it is permitted, but there is a Rabbinical prohibition
against anyone other than a nursing baby to drink it directly from the
breast.  I do not understand the nature of this prohibition (I think
it is not based in kashrut) and would appreciate anyone who could
point me at a commentary that deals with it.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 14:06:29 PDT
From: koa!agershon (Arnie Gershon)
Subject: Sefer Tehillim Division
 
Can anyone authoritively tell me who divided the sefer Tehillim into:
 
    1. Books (sefer rishon through sefer chamishi).
 
    2. Days of the week (yom rishon through yom Shabbos).
 
    3. Days of the month (yom aleph through yom lamed).
 
Avrohom Gedalia Gershon - ...!sagpd1!agershon
 
--
Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to: 
        [email protected]

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 9
 
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
	Shabbos pens (V1#217)
		Bruce Krulwich
	Magic (V2#4)
		Morris Podolak, Art Werschulz
	Baal Tashchis (V2#6)
		David Sherman, Neil Parks
	Shofar Calls (V2#6)
		Neil Parks, Steven Silvern
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 09:32:39 CDT
From: [email protected] (Bruce Krulwich)
Subject: Shabbos pens
 
Eli Turkel writes:
>In regard to the question of special pens for shabbat and other modern
>inventions to circumvent shabbat there was a general prohibition issued
>several years ago to use such devices. ...  The basis of this prohibition is
>that one should not do things that are considered work on shabbat but with
>some technological twist so that it is not technically against halacha.  Such
>devices would destroy the whole spirit of shabbat.
 
I don't know about the prohibition mentioned above, but I do know that
Kibbutz Chofetz Chayim currently uses a system for milking cows that
keeps some of the milk that is milked on Shabbos.  They use a system
designed for them by the Chazon Ish, in which starting the milking
process is permitted because of Tzar Ba'alei Chayim [the pain to the
animal] (the pain of the cows not being milked), and a system causes
some of the subsequent milk (randomly) to be kept and not discarded, in
a way that's not a Psik Reisha [a definite outcome].
 
The reason why this isn't "destroying the spirit of Shabbos" is that
these are all situations in which the actions would be performed anyway,
e.g., the cows would have to be milked to alleviate their pain, the
doctors have to write because of Pikuach Nefesh [saving lives], etc.  In
these situations, the technological innovation is not allowing something
to be done that is effecting the spirit of Shabbos, rather it's
minimizing the Shabbos violations that are already being done in a
permitted situation.
 
As far as using Shabbos pens, Shabbos phones (yes, they exist too), etc
for regular use (i.e., not by doctors or others who need them for valid
reasons), I believe that most of them are still Assur MiDerabbanan
[Rabbinically prohibited].  Thus Torah-observant people still cannot use
them unless Halachically necessary.
 
Dov (Bruce) Krulwich
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon,  05 Aug 91 19:54:12 +0200
From: <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Magic (V2#4)
 
In reply to Stephen Phillips question about magicians (those who
practice sleight of hand).  This is a matter of dispute.  Rav Ovadiah
Yosef in his responsa Yechave Dat (sorry I don't have the sources handy)
indeed prohibits the practice of sleight of hand (I don't recall whether
he prohibits viewing it as well).  He bases himself on the opinion of
the Rambam, among others.  The problem is that it is not completely
clear that the Rambam is indeed referring to this, or to some other
practice.  The term he uses, "achizat eynayim" literally translates as
"holding the eyes".  That could mean sleight of hand, but it might mean
hypnosis, or something else.  Rav Chayyim David Halevi, the Sephardi
Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv argues that sleight of hand cannot be forbidden,
since if one is more practiced in watching, one can see how it is done.
Just because one "magician" can move his hands faster than another,
shouldn't make his act more forbidden than that of his slower collegue.
(Aseh Lecha Rav is the name of Rav Halevi's work, but I don't have a
more complete source listing in front of me).
 
Morris Podolak D77@TAUS[DNOS
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 10:19:11 EDT
From: [email protected] (Art Werschulz)
Subject: Magic (V2#4)
 
For what it's worth, there was an announcement of a magic show on the
radio show "JM in the AM" (Jewish Music in the Morning). 
 
[Unabashed plug: This show airs on Upsala College (NJ) radio station
WFMU 91.1FM five days a week from 6:30-9:00, and is a truly
outstanding program (IMHO) for music, Divrei Torah, community
announcements and the like.  (Especially Rabbi Benjamin Yudin's Dvar
Torah on the parshat ha'shvua on Fridays at 8:15 am).]
 
Anyway, they stressed that the show would be kosher in all respects.
They said it was all illusion (in fact they would explain one of the
effects), and so nobody needed to worry about a possible averia.
 
What I found especially interesting was that they also said that
the magicians would all be non-Jewish.  Is there an asur against
performing "magic", but not against watching same?
 
Art Werschulz - [email protected]
Columbia University (212) 854-8642 854-2736 Fordham University (212) 636-6325
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 18:42:12 EDT
From: [email protected] (David Sherman)
Subject: Re: Baal Tashchis (V2#6)
 
 
Is it clear that this [using a water fountain] is "wasting" water in the
halachic sense?  What qualifies as "wasting"?  The water in this case
will be recycled through the drain system, back to the nearest lake or
other source of water, and refiltered.  Also, given the miniscule cost
of water in North America, is there a concept of de minimis that might
apply?
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 01:30:18 -0400
From: [email protected] (Neil Parks)
Subject: Re: Baal Tashchis (V2#6)
 
>Moreover, there is a
>Jewish custom of not eating or drinking while standing up. 
 
>Ezra L. Tepper <[email protected]>
 
This is a very interesting custom that I have not heard of before.  I
have been to many different shuls which have water fountains, and where,
except on special occasions, people eat and drink standing up at the
Kiddush following Shabbos morning services.
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 01:30:18 -0400
From: [email protected] (Neil Parks)
Subject: Shofar Calls
 
>3. What is the meaning of the various calls? Do they symbolize anything,
>or are they just notes?  How is the order in which the notes are blown
>on Rosh Hashana determined?  Does the order have any significant meaning
>in itself?
 
 
The sound of the shofar is variously described in Tanach as "sighing" or
"weeping".  Because of uncertainty over the exact sound, two different
patterns called "Shevarim" and "Teruah" are used, both separately and
together.
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1991 11:22 CDT
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Shofar Calls (V2#6)
 
This is in response to the questions regarding the shofar.  The 
information is _not_ my own, it is taken verbatim from Siegel, R., 
Strassfeld, M., & Strassfeld S.  (1973).  _The whole Jewish catalog_ 
(pp. 64-72).  Philadelphia:  Jewish Publication Society of America.  I 
would recommend reading the full article.
 
> How/where are the four shofar calls defined?
 
The order of blowing is ordained in Vayikra 25:9 and 23:24 and in 
Bamidbar 29:1. [However this does not define the individual notes, 
the notes are defined in the article, thusly] . . .tekiah, which means 
blast and is exactly that--one long blast with as clear a tone as 
possible.  Shevarim, broken sound, is three shor calls, together 
being as long as one tekiah.  Teruah alarm, is a rapind series of 
very short notes, at least nine of them, that also should together 
equal one tekiah.  Tekiah gedolah. . .a single unbroken tekiah blast 
that is stretched out and held for as long as your breath holds out.
 
> Does the player have any interpretive freedom, that is could I
> extend the length of the upper tone on a shevarim or tekiah gedolah, 
> or make changes in the volume (crescendo), or anything like that?
 
I think from the above description that there is room for individual 
variation, however, I know a musician who can play the shofar as he 
plays the french horn--just because he _can_ doesnt mean he 
_should_.  You are not playing a melody you are arousing the 
slumbeerers.
 
> What is the meaning of the various calls?  Do they symbolize 
> anything, or are they just notes?  How is the order in which the 
> notes are blown on Rosh Hashana determined?  Does the order have 
> any significant meaning in itself?
 
The reply to this question is rather long involving several kavvanot-
-check out the above cited article.  The meaning of the calls relate 
to calls of alarm and wailing.  The symbolism is intensive for the 
holidays.  The order of blowing is related to local minhag and can be 
nine notes, 30 notes or 100 notes.
 
> Would a physically modified shofar, say, one with a trumpet 
> mouthpiece attatched, be acceptable (this is purely hypothetical, I 
> have no intention of doing this!)?
 
No, by attaching a mouthpiece the shofar would be relegated to 
merely amplifying the sound made by the mouthpiece.
 
--
Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to: 
        [email protected]

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 10
 
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
	Mathematical Structure in Torah
		Shlomo Kalish
	Human Identity - Halakhic Issues (V2#3)
		Louis Steinberg
	Duchening (V2#4)
		Warren Burstein
	Magic and Codes in the Torah
		Anonymous
	Baal Tashchis (V2#6)
		Eli Turkel
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 91 21:06:53 IST
From: Shlomo Kalish <[email protected]>
Subject: Mathematical Structure in Torah
 
I checked with Rav Yitzchak Ginsburgh, the author of "The Hebrew
Letters" about "Introduction to Mathematical Structure in Torah."  This
book is not published yet.  In fact it is not finished yet.  Those that
are interested in getting pre - press chapters, can write to the
publisher, Gal Einai,POB 14132, Jerusale m. 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 17:38:25 EDT
From: [email protected]
Subject: Human Identity - Halakhic Issues (V2#3)
 
In regard to the discussion of humanity and Jewishness of artificial
intelligences, but on a lighter note:
 
Some years ago the Stanford AI Lab had a computer-controlled robot arm
and a voice synthesizer.  One evening a friend (Ray Finkel) and I were
speculating on how one could use this equipment to produce a kosher
mezzuzah :-) [Ray and I both know such a mezzuzah would NOT really be
kosher].  The hand could wield the pen, the voice synthesizer could say
the words.  We had everything figured out until we remembered that
before writing the Name of G-d, the scribe has to go to the mikveh
[ritual bath].  When we considered the effect on the hardware of
immersion, we gave up.
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 0:52:36 IDT
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Duchening (V2#4)
 
In the shul at which I grew up, the adult Kohanim were all convinced
that they were "not religious enough" (e.g. not shome shabbat) to
duchen and would go into another room during Musaf on those days on
which duchening is said outside of Israel.  Is there any basis to
this?  There were two friends of mine, Kohanim, who the Rabbi knew did
not keep shabbat, but he encouraged them to duchan.
 
And does anyone know why outside of Israel they don't duchen on Yom
Tov if it is also Shabbat?  I assume that they only duchen on Yom Tov,
because if you lived outside of Israel when the Temple existed, you
only got blessed on Yom Tov when you went up to the Temple.  But why
not on Shabbat?
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 1:00:35 EDT
From: Anonymous
Subject: Magic and Codes in the Torah
 
Frank Silbermann writes:
> For example, in the American south, there is a tradition among some
> fundamentalist Protestant Christian ministers to install religious faith
> in their flock via magic tricks presented as miracles (e.g.
> faith-healing presentations).  Presumably, this kind of deception is
> forbidden even to convince the gullible to believe in G-d and Torah.  (I
> generalize this to the point that I am even offended when I hear the
> Torah defended by unsound arguments --- the mental analog of a
> magician's tricks.  Though the speaker may have good intentions, to me
> the Torah is being mocked.)
 
What about the use of "Hidden Codes in the Torah"?  Should the
use of such "tricks" to encourage return to Judaism be
encouraged?  Does it depend on whether the "codes" are
ultimately proven to be mathematically meaningful, meaningless
or inconclusive?  The scientists who present the "codes" on behalf
of Aish Hatorah certainly believe that they are meaningful.
 
	-- Anonymous
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 10:37:56 -0400
From: Eli Turkel <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Baal Tashchis (V2#6)
 
     In regard to minimum quantities they one may watse. The gemara states
that if a fruit tree bears only a small amount of fruit than one can chop the
tree and use the wood of the tree. I assume from that , that one may not
simply destroy the tree for no reason even if its worth is small. Hence,
my assumption is that one may destroy food or waste water needlessly
irrespective of the amount. However, that is a personal opinion.
 
     As far as water being recycled, that is a technological question rather
than a halachic question.  I assume that water from a water fountain goes to
sewage after it is used. Throwing out water into a river I assume is counted
as wasting the good drinking water, even though in some sense it is being
recycled.
 
      I wish to point out that this became an issue in Israel in the recent
past when farmers were destroying vegetables to keep the prices in the
marketplace high.
 
Eli Turkel
[email protected]
 
--
Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 11
 
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
	HELP NEEDED
		Jacob Gelfand
	Birkat Kohanim
		Elhanan Adler, Sheldon Z. Meth
	Dennis Prager and converts
		Alex Herrera
	Eating While Standing
		Ezra L Tepper
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 16:15:32 +0200 (MSD)
From: [email protected] (Jacob Gelfand)
Subject: HELP NEEDED !
 
[ I believe that this is our first posting from the Soviet Union, but as
you see from the posting, the poster will hopefully be out soon. Mod]
 
Dear friends :
 
Could anybody provide me with the information about the city of
Milwaukee and places near it ?
 
I am especially interested in computer/software career opportunities
in this area !
 
At the end of this year my family and me are going to enter the USA
as refugees (the US authorities have already granted us refugee status).
The Jewish community of the city of Milwaukee is sponsoring our family.
Unfortunately we have neither friends nor relatives in this city or near it.
 
Any useful information on the above topic will be highly appreciated!
 
Looking forward to your messages
  Jacob Gelfand
August 10,1991 Moscow
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1991 21:50:26 GMT+0400
From: [email protected] (ELHANAN ADLER)
Subject: Birkat Kohanim
 
1) The Rambam clearly states that the Kohen is the channel for Divine blessing,
not the source of the blessing - therefore his own personal level of observance
is irrelevant. Hil. Tefillah 15/6-7: 
 
"A Kohen who does not have any of the things which prevent nesi'at kapayim
[previously listed], even though he is not wise and not scrupulous in
observance or people speak badly of him [i.e. his behaviour], or his business
affairs are not proper (be-tsedek) - he does nesia't kapayim and one does not
(should not?) prevent him, because this is a positive commandment on every able
Kohen, and one should not say to an evil-doer "do another evil and avoid
mitzvot". And do not wonder and say "what good will the blessing of this simple
person (hedyot) do" - for receipt of the blessing is not dependent on the
Kohanim but on Hakadosh-barukh-hu ... the Kohanim do their mitzvah which they
have been commanded and Hakadosh-barukh-hu in his mercy blesses Israel as he
wishes" 
 
2) The Rema (Orah Hayyim 128/44) gives the reason for Nesiah Kapayim being
limited only to holidays in the diaspora as being because of a lack of joy
(simhah) at other times. He appends this to a discussion of whether an
unmarried Kohen (also presumably joyless) is able to participate in nesi'at
kapayim. 
 
3) The Aruch ha-Shulhan (128/64) considers this a poor custom ("minhag garu'a")
and mentions unsuccessful attempts to initiate daily nesi'at kapayim (and
perhaps since they were unsuccessful, this indicates that they were not
divinely approved). 
 
4) Here in Haifa, there was a custom that nesi'at kapayim was done only at
mussaf (including Shabbat and Rosh Hodesh). This gradually changed, and several
years ago the chief rabbis of Haifa called upon all the synagogues in Haifa to
institute daily nesi'at kapayim - I believe most Haifa synagogues now do. 
 
On another topic: I have it on good authority that the Shabbat Pen does not yet
exist. It has been discussed (and prematurely announced) but the actual
development has not been done. 
 
Elhanan Adler - [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1991 10:48:53 EDT
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: RE: mail.jewish Vol. 2 #10
 
Regarding duchening on Shabbos Yom Tov in chutz la'aretz: some shuls DO
duchen on Shabbos Yom Tov, but the Kohanim don't sing their melodies at
the end of each pasuk; it is actually similar to duchening in Eretz 
Yisroel in this case.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 08:32:28 PDT
From: [email protected] (Alexander Herrera)
Subject: Re: Dennis Prager and converts
 
Evelyn C. Leeper writes:  
> If Jews seek converts, it should be because we think we have a better 
> answer than because we are looking for insurance, because the latter 
> won't work.  
[the latter refers to having a Jew in each family prevents another
Holocaust -ah]
 
That was precisely the point of his article. We have a better answer
(my personal opinion), or at least just as good an answer as any other
religion, and we should seek converts from the ranks of those who have
no affiliation. The idea that there might be other benefits is just a
side issue, but something to be considered.
 
I am most familiar with his second article. He points out that there
are many, many places in the Talmud, and other sources that point out
that seeking converts is an imperative. Here is a quote from the
article (Part II of "Jews Must Seek Converts or Become Irrelevant",
Ulitmate Issues, Vol 7 Num 1):
 
	In the Talmud, Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat held that the Jewish
	temple and the Jewish state were destroyed, and that the Jews
	were exiled from their land - the greatest Jewish catastrophes
	until that time - so that the Jews would be able to gain
	converts! (Pesachim 87b).
 
I find it difficult to understand the resistance to the idea of seeking
converts. I have found in Judaism a wonderful way of living. I am
giving it to my children. Why wouldn't I want to share that same path
with anyone who asked? Also, why wouldn't I want to make such a path
available to others. There has been such an campaign against seeking
converts that many Jews (most?) believe that Jews never seek converts.
 
As a convert, I am coming to Judaism from the outside. I don't have any
background, no history, and no emotional baggage to carry with me. Some
Jews my age told me that as children they were tied up by some of their
school mates and forced to proclaim Jesus as their saviour. I never
experienced this as a child. I know what it is because I experience it
as an adult. I live in Yorba Linda, California (home of the Skinheads,
and Tom Metzker). 20 years ago a Jew wouldn't be caught dead in this
town. Now there are two synagogues here. Flyers are dropped on the
street proclaiming that the Jews killed Jesus. Someone tried to burn
our synagogue down.
 
I get the feeling that Jews avoid seeking converts because we abhor the
people who come to our door to try to convert us. Frankly, I love it
when these people come to my door. I am genuinely glad to see them. It
gives me a chance to expose them to some Judaism, and let them know
what we are. I am not so stupid that I will fall helplessly into there
clutches, and I am conversant enough that I can hold my own in most
debates on the subject (with *them* anyway. I'm sure I'd get hung out
to dry in *this* forum after too long. :-) ).  I know Dennis Prager is
not advocating that we start knocking on doors proclaiming the good
news. He is saying that we need a formal mechanisim for bringing the
unaffilated under our wing. It should be part of our organization like
any other part.
 
I still have part II of the Dennis Prager article available through
email. I have sent out several copies already, and will gladly send
more.
 
Alex Herrera       uunet!mdcsc!ah
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 91 01:06:19 +0300
From: Ezra L Tepper <[email protected]>
Subject: Eating While Standing
 
Neil Parks (2#9) queries the custom of not eating or drinking while
standing. You will find that halachah in the _Kitzur Shulchan Oruch_
(English version: _Code of Jewish Law_) Chapt 42, Halachah 2; in
_Ta'amei Haminhagim_ (_Likutim - Aliyas Derech Eretz_), p. 557, Eshkol
Edition, 5717 (1957); and in the Rambam (Yad) _Hilchos Dei'os_, Chapt 4,
Halachah 3. All are based on the Gemorah, _Gittin_ 90a, that teaches
that eating and drinking while standing is damaging to the body.
     I, like Neil, have noticed the standing during _kiddush_ at some
synagogues, which I think has entered Jewish life from the Gentile
world, namely the standing up at cocktail parties and receptions.
Perhaps one might ask a synagogue rabbi about his view of the stand-up
_kiddush_.
    As a side point, I spoke recently with a Rosh Hayeshiva who said
that he heard that one must make all _birchos hanehenin_ [blessings over
food] while seated. But he could find no source for that practice. I
suggested that this might be a consequence of the halachah requiring
eating and drinking while sitting. Standing for the _berochah_ and then
sitting down to eat might be considered an unncessary interruption.
 
Ezra Tepper <[email protected]>
 
 
 
--
Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 12
 
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
	Administrivia
		Moderator
	Reprint Permission
		Alex Herrera
	Standing for a Bracha
		Eli Turkel
	Converts
		Sheldon Meth, Morris Podolak, Keith Bierman
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91  7:10:00 EDT
From: [email protected] (Avi Feldblum)
Subject: Administrivia
 
Well, I've just about caught up with the backlog of mail.jewish, so
maybe I will even get a chance to write something myself :-). I've made
a few changes in the format, mainly at the message trailer, so that
mail.jewish is now "undigestefiable" if one is using gnuemacs to read
m.j. This allows one to directly respond to a posting, if one so wishes.
I am also including the location of the ftp archive site in the trailer
information.
 
Avi Feldblum - [email protected]
[Note: [email protected] and [email protected] are basically the same, so
you can use either address]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 10:39:37 PDT
From: [email protected] (Alexander Herrera)
Subject: reprint permission
 
A number of people have expressed concern that my reprinting of the
Dennis Prager article, "Judaism Seeks Converts" Part II of "Jews Must
Seek Converts or Become Irrelevant" might be improper.
 
I am reprinting his article with permission. Here is a quote from his
journal, Ultimate Issues (Volume 7 Number 1, Jan-Mar 1991, pp 9-10):
 
	All articles that appear in Ultimate Issues are copyrighted.
	However, they may always be reprinted provided we are notified
	in advance, proper identification is given (i.e., author and
	journal), and the address of UI is listed for people to write
	for subscription information.
 
I had sent notification to Ultimate Issues prior to distributing the
article. I have since called Ultimate Issues on the phone (just to be
sure) and I was told that there is no problem with reprinting the
article, but that I must also send them a copy of the reprinted
article. I hadn't been aware of this additional condition, so I've
corrected the situation. I don't anticipate any problem since I
reprinted the article in it's entirety. Upon reflection, I think I
should have included a line in my offer that said "permission pending",
but there it is.
 
Alexander Herrera    uunet!mdcsc!ah
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 91 13:20:45 -0400
From: Eli Turkel <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Standing for a Bracha:
 
     I was confused by the suggestion that standing for kiddush comes
from the gentiles. We have many instances where one is required to stand
as a sign of honor, e.g. shemonee esrei, blowing shofar etc.
 
     The reason for sitting when saying a birchat hanehenin [blessing
over something we are about to take pleasure from - MOD.] (for example
birchat hamozi on shabbat) is so that all the people are considered as
one group and one person can exempt everyone. If the people stand they
are considered as separate entities. This applies only to birchat
hanehenin. However, for blessings over mitzvot [birchat hamitzva] one
should stand as a sign of honor.
    
      The question with kiddush is what category it is in. One can
consider it as birchat hanehenin since one is drinking wine. In this
case everyone around the table has to sit to be exempt by one bracha.
However, if one considers kiddush as birchat hamitzva then it is
preferable to stand. This leads to the various customs regarding standing
at kiddush and havdala.
 
Eli Turkel - [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1991 10:12:27 EDT
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: RE: Converts
 
The following is from the "Yayno shel Torah" on the Yomim Nora'im (High
Holydays), for your consideration:
 
Horeym Keren Yisroel Amecha (lit. "Lift up the horn of Israel Your
Nation").  Our Rabbis taught (Pesachim 87b):  Hakodosh Baruch Hu did not
exile Israel among the nations, but so that they should add to themselves
converts."  It turns out, that the Children of Israel, which are the
"Keren" (principle), suffer the lengthy exile due to the "interest" which
is added to the "keren" - the converts.  Therefore we entreat: Lift up the
"keren" of Israel - that HKB"H should lift up Israel, which is the "keren,"
and NOT wait for the "interest," for if He does, the end of the exile
will be dissolved.
 
-The ADMO"R Rabbi Moshe Leib of Sussov, ZTZ"L
 
It seems to me that we should not go out of our way to cnvert Gentiles.
Our job is to be a "light unto the nations," but in the context of them
being B'Nei Noach (children of Noah), to teach them the 7 laws.  On the
other hand, those sould who have been sparked to SEEK OUT Judaism, of their
own will, should not be turned away, but should be examined for their
motives, and if found sincere, should be encouraged to join the fold.
 
In fact, there is a Chaza"l that says that when Hashem offered the Torah
to the nations of the world before offering it to Israel, there were 
individuals among the nations who desired it sincerely.  Because no
single nation desired it unanimously, the Torah was only given to
Israel which said Na'aseh V'Nishma unanimously.  Those souls among the 
Gentiles which desired the Torah were destined to become Gerim in the
future.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon,  12 Aug 91 20:10:36 +0200
From: <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Converts
 
The problem of making converts to Judaism is a complicated one (what
issn't?)  The reluctance to accept converts is  possibly based on
bad experiences in our history especially in Roman times and in the
middle ages.  The immediate reason for this is however to be found in the
Gemara (Yevamoth, 47b).  There Rabbi Elazar (I'm quite sure this is the
same R. Elazar ben Pedat that Prager mentions) says that in dealing with
potential converts, we push them away with the left hand, and draw them
close with the right.  In other words we try to discourage them to some
extent.  This is to guarantee that the convert is completely sincere,
and has no ulterior motive.  He brings his proof from the story of
Ruth, the prototype for a convert.  In fact, Naomi was able to dissuade
Orpah while Ruth remained firm in her intent, and became a full convert.
For a complete discussion see the Gemara there.
If one really believes we have the correct approach, then it is proper
to encourage a non-Jew to keep the seven mitzvoth incumbent on a ben
Noach (a non-Jew).  He will thus have a much easier time getting his
reward in the world to come than if he converted to Judaism and had
to keep all 613.  This reasoning was in fact used by Tosafot in the middle
ages to dissuade at least one potential convert (sorry no source handy).
I would suggest, on the basis of this, that if one is happy with one's
Jewish life, and would like to share it with more people, one should
consider "spreeading the word" to non observant Jews.  Since they have
so many more mitzvoth they have to keep and are not, they have more
to lose as a result of their non-observance.
 
Morris Podolak - [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 14:45:09 PDT
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Converts
 
I can see how one can derive that we have an obligation to teach
non-jews about the Noachidic mitzvot. In our world view, they must
comply with them...
 
However, even if they completely accept our "theology" and world view,
they have no additional obligations. If they chose to convert, they
accept a much greater burden .... if they later fail, to the extent
the world is judged on our collective observance/nonobservance ....
they have tipped the balance in the wrong direction; thus it is in
neither their interest nor in ours to have them accept the extra
risk.
 
I suppose one could translate nearly all the rituals to refer to the
mitzvot the Jews are commanded to perform ;
 
Nonetheless, we should certainly accept all those who insist on
joining us; I can even see making it easier ..... but actively seeking
converts doesn't seem to me to have a solid halachic foundation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]
 
End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 13
 
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
        Chimp/human hybrid?
             [[email protected]]
        Converts
             [Susan Hornstein]
        Standing when eating
             [Ezra L Tepper]
        Who wrote the last 8 psukim of Torah? (mail.j submission)
             [Jerry B. Altzman]
        priestly blessings
             [Finley Shapiro]
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 00:22:05 -0400
From: [email protected]
Subject: Chimp/human hybrid?
 
The golem discussion and a friend's research topic brought some questions to
my mind:
 
What are the halachic issues surrounding inter-species hybrids?
 
Many of these are known to exist (the obvious one being horse/donkey,
less-known ones being housecat/leopard, chicken/turkey, sheep/goat,
dog/fox, gibbon/siamang, scientific references available on request).
 
Many of these pairs differ genetically much more than we differ from the
chimpanzee (the difference is less than 1%).  Such seeming obstacles as
different numbers of chromosomes turn out to be surmountable (the gibbon
has 44, the siamang has 50, humans have 46, chimps have 48).  It thus seems
fairly likely that humans and chimps can hybridize.
 
Clearly Halacha wouldn't sanction a Jew breeding with a chimp, but what
if such a hybrid approached a Beit Din and petitioned to convert?
 
Dave Eckhardt
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 91 11:44:00
From: Susan Hornstein <[email protected]>
Subject: Converts
 
In response to Alex Herrera, who expresses amazement at the negative attitude
of many Jews toward seeking converts and sharing Judaism with non-Jews... 
 
I would guess that most observant Jews agree with you that we "have a better
answer," than other religions, and that the Jewish religion/way of life offers
unparallelled opportunities to grow close to Hashem, and enjoy the benefits of
His world (this one, and the one to come).  We would very likely also agree
that the customs of Jewish everyday life are beautiful and meaningful, and
something that we would not want to do without.  If that were the end of the
story, it would be foolish not to share these benefits with others, as you have
pointed out.  However, along with these benefits comes a great responsibility. 
(N.B. If my explanation sounds simplistic or patronizing, I apologize in
advance -- I do not mean to imply that any of the readership is unaware of any
of these points, I just want to be sure that I make myself clear.)
 
As Jews, we are obligated in two ways:  in "Ol Mitzvot," literally the
"yoke/burden of commandments,"  and in "Ol Malchut Shamayim," the "yoke/burden
of the Kingdom of Heaven."  Briefly, the latter refers to recognizing the
supremity, omnipotence, and omniscience of the Creator.  I shall leave further
discussion of this responsibility to others -- it might make for an interesting
discussion.  My point, however focuses on the other "ol."
 
"Ol Mitzvot," or "a burden" may sound like an unusual way to refer to the
responsibility for following Hashem's laws.  However, it is an apt term.  Our
sages relate that it is much easier to do something voluntarily than to do
something because you have to;  this is why the divine reward for performing an
act to which one is obligated is understood to be greater than the divine
reward for performing an act to which one is not obligated (e.g. one who is not
obligated to shake a lulav -- such as a female or a young male, while receiving
divine reward, receives a lesser reward for doing so than one who is obligated
to shake a lulav -- such as an adult male).  This is borne out in real life --
I'd much rather bring home flowers for my husband to surprise him than bring
home flowers because he is expecting me to!  And, of course, the responsibility
to follow Hashem's laws brings with it the punishment for *not* following
Hashem's laws.  Just as we have 613+ ways to grow close to Hashem, we also have
613+ ways to "mess up" before Hashem.  This is a daunting thought!  All our
lives, as we grow closer to Hashem through observing His mitzvot, we are also
racking up demerits!  As much as we'd like to share the aforementioned benefits
with someone else, why would we want to place this burden on them!  (This last
point also relates to the reason why one is cautioned about explaining a
mitzvah to a non-observant Jew if they cannot be expected to perform it.  If
they are uninformed about a mitzvah and do not perform it, the laws are much
more lenient than with a person who is informed about a mitzvah and does not
perform it.)
 
Anyway, the yoke/burden of commandments can at times be an overwhelming
responsibility.  It is very important that one who enters into this
responsibility do so completely willingly, under no duress, and *not* because
someone has painted such a beautiful picture of Judaism that they are drawn in,
without knowing just exactly what they are getting themselves into. 
 
Susan Hornstein - bellcore!pyuxd!susanh
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 10:52:24 +0300
From: Ezra L Tepper <[email protected]>
Subject: Standing when eating
 
Eli Turkel (2#12) writes
 
>    I was confused by the suggestion that standing for kiddush comes
>from the gentiles. We have many instances where one is required to stand
>as a sign of honor, e.g. shemonee esrei, blowing the shofar etc.
 
WHOOPS. He should be confused. My contribution in (2#11) dealt with
"standing while eating" and the standing was related to the congregation
standing around and eating the refreshments and cake accompanying
the blessing over the wine. Whether one stands for the blessing or not is
a matter of custom and not connected with the gentile world. However, because
of the requirement to sit while drinking the wine, many do not bless standing
up either, despite the blessing being a _birchat hamitzvah_ {blessing before
a commandment}.
 
By the way, while the long blessing over evening kiddush is clearly a _birchat
hamitzvah_, it is not clear that the _borei pri hagofen_ at morning kiddush
is anything else than a _birchas hanenehin_ {a blessing over something we are
about to take pleasure from}.
 
Ezra Tepper <[email protected]>
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 17:37:35 -0400
From: Jerry B. Altzman <[email protected]>
Subject: Who wrote the last 8 psukim of Torah? (mail.j submission)
 
I'm looking for references about who wrote the last 8 (or 12) psukim of
Torah (the last 8, are, by the way, the ones which start "And Moses died
there...")
 
Rashi says to look in the Gemara, the Gemara in Baba Batra (14b-15) gives 2
or so opinions:
	Joshua wrote them
	Moses wrote them (with variants on how he did it)
 
I (along with my chevruta) have checked out some other poskim on the
subject: the Gemaras we were working with didn't really show anything (the
"boys in the back", &c) and those like the Ibn Ezra don't much expound on
what the Gemara has to say (which isn't very much)
 
Does anyone know of any other good references?
 
//jbaltz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 13 Aug 91 10:54:14
From: Finley Shapiro <[email protected]>
Subject: priestly blessings
 
The discussion of duchening reminds me of a custom I saw in 1985 in a synagogue
in Rome (not the main synagogue in Rome).  It was Shabbat morning, and as the
time for the priestly blessings in mussaf approached the men gathered their
families, often including women who came down from the balcony (there was no
women's section on the main floor of the sanctuary).  The men then spread their
talisim over their families and said the priestly blessings over them as the
leader said it from the bimah (or at least so it appeared).  I have never seen
this custom anywhere else, neither at Sephardic services (as this one was) nor
at Ashkenazic ones.  Can anyone tell me more about it?
 
Finley Shapiro
[email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]
 
End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 14
 
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
        Chimp/human hybrid?
             [RABBI CHARLES ARIAN]
        Converts
             [KANOVSKY%[email protected]]
        Duchening
             [Neil Parks]
        Who wrote the last 8 psukim of Torah? (2)
             [Sean Philip Engelson, Bob Werman]
        help needed regarding mikveh
             [Fran Storfer]
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 16:54:54 EDT
From: RABBI CHARLES ARIAN <CARIAN%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Chimp/human hybrid?
 
Dave Eckhardt asks about the halachic implications of a possible chimp-
human hybrid.
 
I remember reading about a responsum which addressed the question of whether
or not a chimpanzee could be a shochet. The assumption, correct or not, was
that the chimp could be trained to do the procedure with the correct mechanics.
 
The answer was negative on two accounts: 1.) since the chimp was not obligated
to observe kashrut, he could not help others fulfill it. (This is the reason
a woman or minor could theoretically be an acceptable shochet but a gentile
could not.); 2.) a chimp could not have the proper kavvanah (intentionality)
but would simply be mechanically performing the act. I doubt that a chimp/
human hybrid would be considered human and thus capable of obtaining the
required degree of understanding or kavvanah in order to convert.
 
I hasten to add that I have not read the actual responsum, merely a precis of
it in an anthology of responsa literature. Unfortunately, I lack the citation.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 16:19 EST
From: KANOVSKY%[email protected]
Subject: Re: Converts
 
About the atitude of judaism to converts there is a dichotomy in the
talmud. On one hand there are many cases of converts who contributed a
great deal towards judaism and the jewish people like Ruth and Naamah ,
Shmaiya and Avtalion. On the other hand the gemarah in tractate Nidah
says "kashim gerim leyisrael kemo sapachat" meaning that converts are
hard or burdonsome on Israel like a sickness meaning that they did more
harm than good. Also when one wants to convert to judaism there is a
process where the convert to be is persuaded not to become a jew for
the reasons that were mentioned in a previous article i.e. the burden
of the commandments that we jews have to follow. These reasons might
help explain the atitude of the jewish community towards
converts.
 
mechael kanovsky 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 20:13:04 -0400
From: [email protected] (Neil Parks)
Subject: Re: Duchening
 
>And does anyone know why outside of Israel they don't duchen on Yom
>Tov if it is also Shabbat?  
 
The custom seems to vary from shul to shul.  In many shuls, it is not
done on Shabbos.  In others, it is done on Shabbos but the Kohanim do
not sing before saying the last word of each verse, as they do on
weekday festivals.
 
While the priests are singing, the congregation silently meditate on
prayers regarding dreams and sustenance.  "...may it be thy will...that
all the dreams which come to me and to all Israel may be for good...but
should they presage ill health, then may thy healing come..."  "...Grant
that I and all the members of my household may get our good and needed
sustenance in plenty and not scarcity, by lawful and not forbidden
means..."  (Excerpts from the De Sola Pool translation)
 
These meditations are not said on Shabbos, probably for the same reason
that the intermediate benedictions of the weekday Amidah, which also 
request favors from Hashem, are not said on Shabbos.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 12:56:14 EDT
From: Sean Philip Engelson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Who wrote the last 8 psukim of Torah?
 
The G"ra has an interesting piece on this topic, included in the
collection of his writings _Orot HaG"ra_.  My translation of this
follows. 
 
OROT HAGR"A
Sha'ar HaTorah I:
 
16: "[The last] eight verses in the Torah were written by Joshua, as
we learn ...  are the words of R. Yosi; R. Shimon said to me ...
except that up to here [i.e, Deut. 34:4] the Holy One blessed be He
spoke and Moses spoke and wrote; from here on, the Holy One blessed be
He spoke and Moses wrote with tears ..." (Bava Batra 15a) In truth we
can explain that both views are the words of the Living G-d and they
do not argue.  At first glance, the words of the Gemara are difficult.
Why ask how the last 8 verses in the Torah were written if Moses was
still alive?  Given that the Torah was written 2,000 years before the
creation of the universe, when there did not yet exist heaven and
earth and all that is in it, or generation of the Flood, or that of
the Dispersement, or the going out of Egypt, and so on, how were they
written in the Torah before they came to be?
    In truth, it is known that the entire Torah consists of the names
of the Holy One blessed be He, via the combinations of letters and
words.  Before the creation of the universe, the Torah was nurtured by
the Holy One blessed be He according to the combinations and hidden
secrets, and it was not read as it is today, but only according to the
names of the Holy One blessed be He.  After the Holy One blessed be He
created the universe, and gave the Torah to Israel and surrounded them
with Mitzvot that must be done within the boundaries of space and
time, He wrote the Torah as a clear explanation how to do all the
Mitzvot, and divided the whole Torah into words and letters to reveal
and explain "all the ideas of this Torah".  The secrets of the Torah
according to the combinations are given to those who know `grace' [or
"hidden wisdom" --SPE], which is only made known to wise and
understanding people via their intellect.
    Now the words of the Gemara can be explained.  It seems to me that
R. Shimon's motivation is the question: How is it possible for a Torah
scroll to be deficient, even by one letter, and not be falsehood, chas
veshalom?  Therefore he says "up to here the Holy One blessed be He
spoke and Moses spoke and wrote", that is, that Moses spoke each word
as it is written in our hands, with the revelation of the Mitzvot.
However from here on he was not able to write clearly "and Moses died
there", as it would appear to be falsehood.  But it also could not
have been completed by Joshua, as it is impossible to have a Torah
scroll missing even one letter!  Therefore he says that he wrote with
tears [dema`]; the explanation comes from the phraseology "your
failures and your mixups" [m'latecha udma`echa], that is, the words
that he wrote from here on were mixed up and unclear according to the
combinations of the letters, and those are the names of the Holy One
blessed be He.  So it was not read as "and Moses died there", but
other words according to the secrets of the Torah.  After Moses died,
Joshua wrote the verses down as he was given permission to reveal
them....
	(Quntres Acharon, Parshat Vezot Habracha)
 
	-Shlomo Engelson-
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Sun,  18 Aug 91 10:37 +0300
From: [email protected] (Bob Werman)
Subject: Re: Who wrote the last 8 psukim of Torah?
 
    An interesting problem.  Allow me to offer a sideline, from the
Midrash, of interest - even if not an answer.
 
     In the story of Moses visiting Akiva's academy [Machot 23b, from
memory], we are told that he sat in the eigth row.  The classical Yeshiva
had 7 rows in it [23 according to another tradition].  I have always
assumed that the seating of Moses in the eigth row implied two things:
 
1] Moses is an outsider; one of the obvious implications of the story.
2] As a reference to the ultimate mystery of the authorship of the last
   eight lines of the Humash.
 
__Bob Werman  -  rwerman@hujivms  -  Jerusalem
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 01:42:42 EDT
From: [email protected] (Fran Storfer)
Subject: help needed regarding mikveh
 
my shul has just acquired land, and i have become involved won the
mikveh committee.  i would appreciate any help anyone could give me
regarding any of the following:
 
	we are looking for educational materials to use within our own
and the surrounding jewish community, to teach people the importance
of mikveh (both so they use it once it is built and so they give us
money now with which to build it).  we do have one video, that is
supposedly educational, but it is high on gloss and low on content.
suggestions of videos, tapes, books, magazine articles, pamphlets,
etc. would be most welcome.
 
	we are also looking for something short, one or two pages,
that we could send to potential corporate donors, explaining basically
what a mikveh is.  for example, if we want to try to get plumbing
fixtures or towels donated, we need some kind of one-page explanation
that would make it clear to these companies that they could give us
such materials as a contribution, and that these contributions would
be seen/used by many women, thus giving the companies high visibility.
 
has anyone out there done this sort of thing before?  any comments,
guidance, etc. you can offer would be most welcome.  of course, if you
happen to know of any organizations that give grants and particularly
enjoy supporting mikva'ot, i'd love to hear about them, as well!
 
thanks for your help,
 
fran storfer
[email protected]			[email protected]
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]
 
End of mail.jewish Digest

                         Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 15
 
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
        Do Christians have souls?
             [Alexander Herrera]
        Duchening (3)
             [Andrew Tannenbaum, Rick Turkel, Ronald Greenberg]
        Wedding Information
             [Green,David S. ]
        help needed regarding mikveh
             [Yaacov Haber]
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 15:28:04 PDT
From: [email protected] (Alexander Herrera)
Subject: Do Christians have souls?
 
I am considering enrolling my three year old boy in the local Chabad
Preschool. It was recommended to me by a non-Chabad, Orthodox Rabbi. My
wife visited the preschool and was suitably impressed. Upon telling one
of her friends about our plans, her friend told her that the Chabad
preschool taught her daughter that Christians do not have souls, and so
she pulled her daughter out. My questions are these:
 
1. Is it true that Christians do not have souls?
 
2. If this is true, is this a regular part of the Chabad preschool
curriculum?
 
Thanks in advance for your response.
 
Alex Herrera	uunet!mdcsc!ah
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 21:16:35 -0400
From: [email protected] (Andrew Tannenbaum)
Subject: Re: Duchening
 
When I spent yomim tovim at the Lubavitch rabbinical school in
Morristown, NJ, families would always receive the Birchas Cohanim as
Finley described the Jews of Rome doing it.
 
Having a huge tallis was extra necessary here, since you were bound to
have a family full of children to put under it.  The Lubavitcher's
customs of prayer (Nusach Ha-Ari Zal) are based on Sephardi, but not
the same.  The duchening ceremony is lovely - communal with nice
chanting.  Yayaya yayaya yayaya yayaya yayaya yayaya Yevarechecha!
 
In the Lubavitch Nusach Ha-Ari Zal siddur, before the Seder Nesias
Capayim (the order of lifting of the hands, as the priestly blessing is
called) it says, in part:
 
    It is a custom in all of these countries [of the Diaspora] to
    recite the priestly blessing only of festivals, for then the
    people are in a festive mood.
 
The "[of the Diaspora]" part is a direct quote, not my amendment.
I don't understand the implication that we shouldn't recite the
blessing unless we are in a festive mood, but there you have it.
 
As for the discussion of duchening, I think it's a fine practice, and
I'm saddened by folks who want to ditch every custom or law that
doesn't seem politically correct.  I was out at the movies last week
with a friend, and we ran across a woman she knew who was pregnant.
The woman invited us to a "brit shalom," which I found out was a
ceremony without the physical circumcision (she knew that the baby was
to be a boy).  My eyes bugged out, but I kept my opinion to myself.  We
were about to watch the movie "Europa, Europa," in which bris milah
turned out to play a relevant part, so I guess that episode made it
that much more poignant.  (I am also aware of the custom of not
discussing plans about after a baby's birth until it is actually born,
see the play/movie "the Dybbuk" for the classic artistic treatment of
this question.)
 
	Andrew Tannenbaum   Interactive   Cambridge, MA   +1 617 661 7474
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 11:13:48 -0400
From: rmt51%[email protected] (Rick Turkel)
Subject: Re: Duchening
 
        Neil Parks may have hit on an answer as to why duchening is done on
Shabbat in Israel but not elsewhere.  In the Rinat Yisrael machzorim, which
seem to reflect Israeli minhagim (customs), the duchening uniformly lacks the
petitions beginning Yehi ratzon.... (May it be thy will....)  In the absence
of these prayers, there is no problem with duchening on Shabbat.
 
                Rick Turkel             ([email protected])
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 13:23:18 -0400
From: [email protected] (Ronald Greenberg)
Subject: Duchening
 
 
  >While the priests are singing, the congregation silently meditate on
  >prayers regarding dreams and sustenance.  "...may it be thy will...that
 
There are opinions that these meditations are not said even when it is
not shabbat.  My sense is that's the dominant position, but I have not
done any real research on this.  My recollection is that Donin makes
this indication in "To Pray as a Jew".  The Rabbi in my shul announces
on Shabbat that is Yom Tov something along the lines of "If there is
ever a time when these things are said, certainly they are not said on
shabbat."
 
Ronald I. Greenberg	(Ron)		[email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: 21 Aug 1991 8:51 EDT
From: hlwpi!dsg (Green,David S. )
Subject: Wedding Information
 
I am getting married on December 22, 1991.  I've read Rabbi Lamm's book
"The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage" (I believe that is the correct
title).  Are there any other books about the subject of Weddings and
Marriage that are recommended?
 
David Seth Green  att!hlwpi!dsg
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 9:48:51 EST
From: Yaacov Haber <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: help needed regarding mikveh
 
> 	we are looking for educational materials to use within our own
> and the surrounding jewish community, to teach people the importance
> of mikveh (both so they use it once it is built and so they give us
> money now with which to build it).  we do have one video, that is
 
Rabbi Ravad of Israel/NY is heavily involved in this and has
videos, books, samples etc. I think he is at 1368 44th st. in Bklyn.
His organization is called JPI Jewish pride and identity.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]
 
End of mail.jewish Digest
**************************

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 16
 
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
        Birkat Kohanim
             [ELHANAN ADLER]
        Chimp/human hybrid?
             [Frank Silbermann]
        Mother's Milk
             [Rivka]
        Question about Kol Isha
             [M.H. Nadel]
        Standing for the Shema?
             ["Victor S. Miller"]
        hidden codes in the torah
             [Jeffrey Klein]
        program to compute candle lighting time
             [David N. Blank]
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1991 0:06:01 GMT+0400
From: [email protected] (ELHANAN ADLER)
Subject: Birkat Kohanim
 
  >In the Rinat Yisrael machzorim, which >seem to reflect Israeli
  minhagim (customs), the duchening uniformly lacks the >petitions
  beginning Yehi ratzon.... (May it be thy will....)  In the absence >of
  these prayers, there is no problem with duchening on Shabbat.
 
Rinat Yisrael reflects prevalent Israeli custom which is really Minhag
ha-GRA - custom of the Vilna gaon (as is much of Israeli Askhenazi
custom). The custom of the gaon was to concentrate on the priestly
blessing itself and not mix in any prayers, verses etc. See Maaseh Rav
(1888 ed., p. 37). This has nothing to do with Shabbat, or with the
specific content of these prayers.
 
Elhanan Adler - University of Haifa Library -  [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 10:27:22 CDT
From: Frank Silbermann <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Chimp/human hybrid?
 
Dave Eckhardt asks about the halachic implications of a possible chimp-
human hybrid.  Rv. Charles Arian doubts that a chimp/human hybrid would
be capable of the required degree of understanding to convert.
 
Suppose the hybrid had a chimp father and a Jewish mother (let's avoid
the issue of patrilineal descent for the moment).  Since chimp/human
mating is, I believe, forbidden min Hatorah, I expect that such a Jew
would be considered a mamzer.  What's not clear to me is whether the
hybrid could marry other mamzerim and converts in general, or only other
chimp/human hybrids.
 
If chimp/human hybrids are fertile, we must consider people with
trace-levels of chimp ancestry.  Understanding and kavanah for
conversion might be possible.
 
	Frank Silbermann	[email protected]
	Tulane University	New Orleans, Louisiana  USA
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1991 4:42:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rivka
Subject: Mother's Milk
 
We recently had occasion to look up the Halacha (law) as my baby is over
two and I was going away for two days...(if someone wants the exact
reference I'll ask my husband ) IF a baby is over two, and stops nursing
for three days, to resume is called "Keyonaik misheretz" (nursing from
an unclean crawling thing, I guess).  We once asked about this (for
another child who was turning two the day I came home from the hospital
with her sister) and were told if the baby didn't stop voluntarily, it
might be different.
 
However, it's clear that under two years old there's no problem at all
with re-lactating...
 
I also recall hearing that while there's no upper limit on girls, a boy
baby can't nurse above a certain age, it maybe three or four - and it has
to do with is remembering the experience.
 
Rivka
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 07:57:28 -0700
From: M.H. Nadel <[email protected]>
Subject: Question about Kol Isha
 
There was an article in the Jewish Journal in Los Angeles last week
which raised an interesting question about kol isha.  The story involved
a woman who is a professional singer and after spending some time in a
women's yeshiva now sings only for women's groups.  She has made
recordings, though, and as a result of these, MTV is interested.
 
She won't sing for the men to audition but has no problem with her music
being on MTV.
 
My question is essentially whether her position really makes sense
halachically.  Is there a problem with a man hearing a woman singing on
record or only in person?  Is the issue for her just one of lifneh irev
(not putting a stumbling block before the blind, literally, interpreted
more generally to mean not doing things which lead others to commit an
averah) or is it more direct?
 
Miriam Nadel - [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 17:07:28 -0400
From: "Victor S. Miller" <[email protected]>
Subject: Standing for the Shema?
 
While attending two different Conservative synagogues (including one
where I used to be a member) there seemed to be a local minhag that the
congretation should rise for the recitation of the Shema.  I always
learned that one should sit for the recitation of the Shema.  I had
heard a number of explanations for this.  One (given in the book
"Reasons for our Minhagim (a translation from Yiddish", is that when
Hashem visited Avraham Avinu during his recuperation from Milah, is that
he was bidden to remain seated).  Another was from tractate Brochos (I
forget where exactly) which discussed the conduct of R' Tarfon who was
following the interpretation of Bes Shammai that one should stand in the
morning and recline at night (taking the words of the first paragraph
literally).  He did this while traveling, and was set upon by robbers.
The prevailing opinion was that he was liable for death, since he was
trying to add something to halacha (which, as usual had agreed with Bes
Hillel).  Another reason was given by Donin in "To Pray as a Jew".  He
stated that standing for the Shema was one of the notable minhagim of
the Karaites, and that the Jews began remaining seated so as to
differentiate themselves, and to emphasize that the oral law was on a
par with the written.
 
I recently noted the indication of such a dispute in Dershowitz's book
Chutzpah.  Can someone shed some more light on this minhag (or is this a
minhag shtut)?
 
Victor S. Miller - IBM Research - [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Wed Aug 21 00:07:44 1991
From: [email protected] (Jeffrey Klein)
Subject: hidden codes in the torah
 
I am responding to the person who wrote asking whether using the hidden
codes as a tool to push belief in torah is acceptable.  I had the same
question after attending a Discovery seminar one Sat.  night.  It turns
out that the son-in-law of a neighbor of my mother gives these talks on
occasion (his name eludes me at the moment).  So one Shabbos after
mincha I asked him about it.  His response was that if that was the
impression you left with, then the speaker failed to give the right
impression.  The intent is to make you walk away with the idea (or
impression) that there is a lot more to the Torah than you might have
originally seen.  This should pique (ain't my spelling grand??? [ispell
reads this a correctly spelled word, but does not garuntee that it is
the word you were thinking of. Mod.]) your interest in looking into the
Torah (and Yiddishkeit) further.  It is NOT meant to prove divine
authorship etc.
 
Jeff Klein  - [email protected] - [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 18:23:58 EDT
From: David N. Blank <[email protected]>
Subject: program to compute candle lighting time 
 
Howdy-
  I tried this request on soc.culture.jewish to no avail, perhaps you
fine people can help: I am looking for source code for a program to
generate candle lighting times/sunset for chagim  (for at least
Boston) given a future date.  Thanks.
            Peace,
              dNb
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]
 
End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 17
 
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Mikveh
             [e.l.krischer]
        Standing for Shema (4)
             [Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth, Susan Hornstein,
             [email protected], Len Moskowitz]
        Wedding information (2)
             [a.i.samet, Eliot Shimoff]
        challah from pasta dough
             [Francine Storfer]
        want to rent apt in Boston
             [ron adin]
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 7:52:35 EDT
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia
 
 
There was a small bug in the software, that may have lead to some
articles being lost. In particular, I'm pretty sure there was an article
on the book The River the Kettle and the Bird in reply to the Wedding
information request, besides the one posted here. That message appears
to have disappeared. If the author has a copy, please resend it to me.
The source of the bug has been discovered, and the problem corrected (we
hope). If you have sent me stuff before Aug 29 and it does not appear by
the next mailing, please contact me. Sorry about this problem.
 
Mail.jewish will be taking a vacation over the period of the upcoming
Yomim Dovim, in particular from Yom Kippur till about week past Succot.
I will be going to Israel for Succot. If any of our Israeli members
would like to contact me while I am there, you can reach me (or leave a
message for me with my father at : 3-932-9858.
 
Avi Feldblum
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Aug 1991  11:17 EDT
From: [email protected] (e.l.krischer)
Subject: Re: Mikveh
 
Reply to Fran Storfer - Re: Mikveh
 
One good source for background material on Mikveh is
   "Mikveh" by Aryeh Kaplan.
It is short and fast reading.  (It has a subtitle like
"Waters of Eden" or "Waters of Life" or something like that.)
 
Ellen Krischer
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 8:20:30 EDT
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: RE: Standing for Shema
 
Regarding standing for Shema, I believe the halacha is to sit, as Beis
Hillel, as quoted in Gemara Berachos.  However, I also recall anothe
halachah which prohibits changing venue once Shema has started, i.e. if
one started Shema standing, one may not sit until completing it, and
vice versa.  I also notice many people stand during the entire Ma'ariv,
thus necessitating standing for Shema; perhaps that is an attempt to be
yotzeh kol hadayos [satisfy all opinions].
 
-Sheldon Meth
[email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 28 Aug 91 09:22:43
From: Susan Hornstein <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Standing for Shema
 
I was taught that one should simply remain in the same position for
saying the Shema as they were in before they said the Shema -- as
opposed to changing position (e.g. standing up) specifically for the
Shema.  This custom of remaining in the same position is a fulfillment
of our obligation: "l'daber bam b'shivt'cha b'veitecha, uv'lecht'cha
vaderech, uv'shoch'becha, uv'kumecha" -- "to speak of them (words of
Torah) when you *sit* in your house, when you *walk* by the way, when
you *lie down* and when you *rise*.  I've seen many people (why, I do
this myself) specifically sit down at the beginning of the Ma'ariv
service so that the position they are in when they get to Shema is a
seated one, presumably so they won't appear to be standing up
specifically for Shema.
 
Susan Hornstein - bellcore!pyuxd!susanh
 
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 11:24:13 PDT
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Standing for Shema
 
While I can't speak to the validity of the practice, I can add the data
point that in most Conservative shuls I've been to (admittedly few) and
all Reform shuls, the practice is to stand for the Shema, and then sit
for the Vehafta that follows. Thus, the standing may be more than just a
local minhag.
 
Daniel
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 08:05:48 EDT
From: [email protected] (Len Moskowitz)
Subject: Standing for Shema
 
 
If memory serves, according to the Ariza"l, the various divisions of
the prayer service correspond to specific spiritual states associated
with the various worlds.  The Shma corresponds to the world of the
Throne (Olam Ha-Briyah, the world of Creation), and that is why we
specifically sit during the Shma's recitation.  Similarly, the Amidah
corresponds to the world above the Throne, the world of Atzilut (the
world of Emanation), and we therefore stand.  The same reasons apply
to why he stood for kiddush on Shabbat night but sat for Shabbat
morning kiddush, a common minhag today.
 
The source for the association between the world of Creation and the
Throne comes from the visions of Yechezkal Ha-Navi (the prophet
Ezekial) and the Zekainim (the elders, "livnat sapir") at Har Sinai.
 
 
Len Moskowitz - [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Aug 1991  13:29 EDT
From: [email protected] (a.i.samet)
Subject: Wedding information
 
Mazel Tov.
 
There is a book called "Made in Heaven" which is by far the  best
I've come across. It addresses philosophy, custom, and law.
 
There are also books for husbands ("The River the Kettle and  the
Bird",  Feldman)  and  wives ("Ezer Kenegedo", Radcliffe) dealing
with how to understand your partner. HINT: Don't  read  the  book
intended for the other sex - it's guaranteed to  backfire.
 
You might also take a look at "The  Jew  and  His  Home"  (Kitov,
trans. by Bulman).
 
Of interest is also a book called "Zivugim and Shiduchim",  which
is  basically  about  looking for a mate. It goes through the the
different views among Torah sages concerning what a zivug is.
 
There are also seminar weekends every couple of  months   at  the
Capitol  Hotel  in  Lakewood, which are lectures to men and women
about marriage. Call the hotel for info.
 
behatzlacha,
Yitzchok
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 11:42:21 -0400
From: [email protected] (Eliot Shimoff)
Subject: re: Wedding information
 
 
Aryeh Kaplan's _Made in Heaven_ provides an excellent description
of traditional ceremonies, their halakhic bases, and their mystical
meanings.  (The primary focus is the wedding rather than the marriage.
My daughter (a recent kallah and computer scientist [proud Jewish
father]) always reminded me that the marriage was more important
than the wedding, but the wedding is important too.)
 
Incidentally, if you are planning to invite many non-Jewish or
non-observant guests, you may want to prepare an explanatory
handout to serve as a guide.  If you would like a sample, please
write to me (Eliot Shimoff, University of Maryland Baltimore County,
Baltimore, MD 21228), and I'll send you a hard copy.
 
V'tizkeh livnot bayit ne'eman b'Yisrael.  Mazal Tov !
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 14:14:27 -0700
From: Francine Storfer <[email protected]>
Subject: challah from pasta dough
 
re: my earlier question [Vol 1 # 219] about whether one needs to take
challah from pasta dough: the shulchan aruch yoreh deah says that one
must take challah only from doughs that are to be baked, not from doughs
that are to be boiled or fried.  so if one's intention at the time of
making the dough is to cook it by boiling, challah is not necessary,.
but if one then changes one's mind and decides to bake it, challah does
become necessary.
 
so, then, i would interpret this to mean that if i make lasagna
noodles that will go directly into the oven, i need to take challah
from them, but if i make noodles that i'll be cooking on top of the
stove (i.e. boiled or fried), then i don't?
 
fran storfer
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 19:02:36 +0300
From: [email protected] (ron adin)
Subject: want to rent apt in Boston
 
A shomer-mitzvot family from Jerusalem is looking for a 2-bedroom apartment
for 6-9 months (starting Rosh Hashana) in Boston, preferably Brookline or
Brighton.  Should not be too expensive.  Please write to: [email protected].
 
 
 
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
 
Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]
 
 
End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 18
 
 
Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 
 
        Emendation to earlier article about _Ultimate Issues_
             [Robert A. Levene]
        Lamed-vavnikim
             [Bob Werman]
        Purpose of Discovery
             [Joel Goldberg]
        Question about Kol Isha (mail.jewish Vol 2 #16).
             [Immanuel Burton]
        Shabes Goy, second try
             [Ellen Prince]
        Sittin for Shema
             [Avi Bloch]
        Wedding infromation
             [David Isaacs]
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 21:40:49 -0400
From: [email protected] (Robert A. Levene)
Subject: Emendation to earlier article about _Ultimate Issues_
 
In a recent mail.jewish I wrote:
 
>  Prager, like many people, has good intentions.  Like many of us, he
> wants to bring Jews to a Torah-true lifestyle.
 
Having read the April-June _Ultimate Issues_, my position is now:
 
|   Prager, like many people, has good intentions.  He wants liberal
| Jews to bring more Torah into their lifestyles.
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed,  28 Aug 91 21:48 +0300
From: [email protected] (Bob Werman)
Subject: Lamed-vavnikim
 
Lamed-vavnikim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    In his comment on the opening of this weeks parasha, the
Ba'al Turim notes that the ki in ki tavo is 30 and from this we
learn that there are at least 30 righteous men in Eretz Yisrael
at all times.
     This tradition is somewhat different from that of the lamed
vavnikim, the 36 righteous men, which is much better known.
     The tradition of the 30 is based on TB Hullin 92b where are
told that there are 45 tzaddikim, 15 in Bavel [abroad] while there
are 30 in Eretz Yisrael.  We also read on the same page that there
are 30 [goyim?  in our text yes, but not in the Munich
Manuscript] righteous men who are responsible for the Nations of
the World.  The number 30 righteous men appears in hazal in a
number of places, including Midrash Tadshe, and in Bereshit Rabba
[35.2] where R. Shimon bar Yochai says that the world never is
without 30 righteous men.
     The number 36 also appears in hazal, for example in TB
Sukkot 45b where we read that 36 righteous men are invited into
the Divine Presence every day.  But there is nothing to support
the idea we Ashkanazim know of the 36 secret tzaddikim who are
responsible for the fate of the world and who will even number
the Messiah among them.
     It is interesting to speculate how the connection between
the passage in Sukkot [also in TB Sanhedrin 97b] and the legend
we know arose.  The sources in hazal would seem to indicate that
30 is a more likely candidate for that honor than 36.
     I would appreciate any clarifications.
 
__Bob Werman rwerman@hujivms Jerusalem
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 09:40:21 EDT
From: Joel Goldberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Purpose of Discovery
 
Jeffrey Klein wrote (I've edited it):
 
I am responding to the person who wrote asking whether using the hidden
codes as a tool to push belief in torah is acceptable.
[Discovery teacher's] response was that if that was the
impression you left with, then the speaker failed to give the right
impression.  The intent is to make you walk away with the idea (or
impression) that there is a lot more to the Torah than you might have
originally seen.  It is NOT meant to prove divine authorship etc.
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
   My experience at a Discovery Seminar is that this Discovery teacher
is incorrect. They start off with an exercise where back at `Mossad
Headquarters' you are supposed to evaluate a message from `an agent in
the field' as to its authenticity and value. The criteria suggested are
accuracy of the message and its predictive success rate to establish
value, and coding and special knowledge to establish authenticity. The
point is that the Torah meets these tests, so its authenticity (ie.
divine origin) is established.
 
I think that the original question is not moot.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 14:39:36 BST
From: Immanuel Burton <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Question about Kol Isha (mail.jewish Vol 2 #16).
 
Following on from Miriam Nadel's query in mail.jewish vol 2 #16, I
remember that when in school we were told that one may not listen to a
recording of a woman singing if one had either seen the woman in
question or a picture of her, i.e. if one knew what the woman looks
like.  Unfortunately, we were not given a source for this.  I suppose
that this is logical if one bears in mind the whole reason for the
prohibition of listening to the singing of a woman.
 
While on the subject of recorded music, does anyone have a definitive
source for being allowed to listen to recorded music during the Three
Weeks?  I have heard that this prohibition applies only to live music
and excludes recordings.  My reasoning against this is that since most
music we listen to nowadays is recorded, i.e. one tends to listen to
recordings far more often than going to concerts, they should be
included in the prohibition of music during the Three Weeks.  Also, with
media like compact discs, who can tell the difference anyway?
 
Immanuel M. Burton - [email protected]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 10:28:38 -0400
From: Ellen Prince <[email protected]>
Subject: Shabes Goy, second try
 
quite a while back, i asked about the rules/customs relating to the use of
a 'shabes goy'. so far, there's been no response. could someone tell me 
whether this is due to a lack of discussion of the subject in the literature,
or a lack of interest on the part of the mail.jewish subscribers? i find
both possibilities fascinating, given that the subject deals directly with
work on the sabbath, clearly a hot topic in judaism.
 
thanks.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 18:38:57 GMT+3:00
From: sun!nsc!taux01.nsc.com!avi (Avi Bloch)
Subject: re: Sittin for Shema
 
I would like to clarify some points on this issue.
 
The argument between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai regarding this topic
is on the interpretation of 'Beshochvecha uvkumecha', i.e., when you lie
down and when you stand up. According to both of them these terms define
the times when Shema should be said, i.e., evening and morning. However,
Beit Shammai claims that it also defines that manner in which it should
be said, i.e., in the morning you should say it standing up and in the
evening you should say it while lying down.  Now Beit Hillel does not
say how Shema has to be said only that it doesn't HAVE to be said as Bit
Shammai says.
 
Now, as mentioned in previous articles, we go according to Beit Hillel.
This means that we are not allowed to say Shema specifically like Beit
Shammai, as R' Tarfon did.
 
 From this discussion I would like to point out 2 points. First of all,
standing while saying Shema in the evening is absolutely OK, because
this is the time that according to Beit Shammai you are supposed to be
lying down, so if you're standing you're not like Beit Shammai. The
second point is, even if you do like Beit Shammai says, e.g., stand up
during the morning Shema, this would only be wrong if you were doing it
on purpose to be like Beit Shammai. Also, it shouldn't APPEAR that you
are doing it on purpose, therefore, for example, you shouldn't get up
right before Shema in the morning.
 
I hope this sheds a little more light on this topic.
 
Avi Bloch
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri Aug 30 11:00 EDT 1991
From: spuxll!dei (David Isaacs)
Subject: Wedding infromation
 
In Response to David Seth Green's request for books on Jewish
Marriage, there is one book I would recommend staying away from
(typically Jewish, the guy asks what to do, and I respond with what
not to do ;-) ).
 
On our engagement, a friend of my wife's gave us a book entitled
"The River the Kettle and the Bird".  The book starts with a beautiful
Gemora explaining it's title.  All relationships must make a natural
progression. First you have the River.  The River is symbolic of
commerce.  For everything you give, you need to receive something in
response.  Everything you receive requires "payment".  Only after you
have established this relationship can you proceed to the Kettle.  The
Kettle symbolizes a more communal effort, were accounts of payment and
benefit are not as strict.  Each partner both does their best to work
toward a common goal, but self gratification is still the motivating
factor.  Finally, only if you have successfully achieved the "River"
and the "Kettle", can you reach the "Bird".  The Bird symbolizes the
unselfish love, where love is the sole motivation for your giving in a
marriage.
 
In my opinion, this is were the Author should have stopped.
The rest of the book, mainly goes on to ascribe Male Ego as the primary
cause of marital disharmony.  The solution for the problem is not for the
husband  to compromise with his wife, but give in totally.  Example
after example shows typical marital conflicts were the Authors advice
is not the settlement of differences by mutual concession, but Male
capitulation.  I left the book confused, because this advise seemed to
contradict it's original premise of the need for the "River" or give
and take in marriage.
 
Some people (especially former students of the Author) have defended
this book, by saying it's intended audience is Yeshiva Bochrim (male
students), who having grown up is a sexually segregated society, have
little understanding of or respect for women.  So these defenders say,
the Author intended to teach them respect for the views and feelings
of their wives.  Should that have been the case, this book should not
have been mass marketed, but targeted to that select group.
 
Finally, there are many good books on both marriage and Jewish
marriage.  The one word of caution I would give you is this.  Each
relationship is different.  The majority of these books seem to have
a set formula for marital bliss.  In my experience, each couple needs
to find their own formula (thats part of the pain and the joy of
any marriage ;-) ).  I have one friend whose marriage follow the
prescription of "The River the Kettle and the Bird".  He seems very
much in love and very happy.  While some might call him henpecked, I
call him lucky (even though his type relationship would not work for
my wife and myself).
 
P.S.   MAZAL TOV !!!!!!!!!
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
 
Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]
 
 
End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 19


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Birchat Kohanim
             [Laurent Cohen]
        Mikveh
             []
        Standing for Shema
             [Morris Podolak]
        Teddy Bears and Book Recommendations
             [Laurent Cohen]
        challah from pasta dough (Vol.2 #17)
             [M. C. Block]
        converts
             [Alexander Herrera]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 91 14:17:21 +0200
From: [email protected] (Laurent Cohen)
Subject: Re: Birchat Kohanim

I found in the book Encounter, essays on Torah and modern life
(companion volume to challenge published by AOJS,Feldheim) an article by
Rav G Ellinson on the minhag of restriction of birkat Kohanim to Yom Tov
in the diasporah.

I give here the main points shortly :

The first reference he founds is from Rav Aharon Hakohen (14th century)
it tells about the custom to restrict to Shabbat and Yom Tov probably to
avoid "burdening the community".  Maharil a century later explains the
custom of restricting only to YomTov.  One point is "the insistence of
the Kohanim on purifying themselves by immersion in a mikveh prior to
uttering the sacred blessing.  This would be arduous on a daily basis
and particularly unpleasant during the cold winter months.  A second
factor is the cost involved in terms of working time.

Rav Yossef Karo cites Maharil's argument but declares it inadequate and
says it is better to perform birkat Kohanim every day and desist from
nonmandatory immersion.  Rema justifies the Ashkenazi custom by the
previous second factor of cost in working time and lack of contented
disposition which is a prerequisite for the blessing (this is the reason
why mourners do not participate in the blessing nor unmarried Kohanim in
some communities).  This joyful disposition is achieved only for Mussaf
of Yom Tov towards the end of the Tefillah.  Omitting the blessing when
Yom Tov coincides with shabbat is rejected as as mistaken by the leading
post-Shulchan Aruch authorities.  Despite R. Y. Karo's strong
exhortation to maintain the blessing everyday several later sephardi
codifiers restrict it to Yom Tov also.

I can now give my own experience.

In France, in ashkenazi communities the custom is to perform birkat
Kohanim only on Yom Tov.  The minhag usually found in sefardic
communities is to do it on shabbat and Yom Tov (at mussaf for Tunisians
at Shacharit for most others, at both in some communities, some do only
h'azarah of mussaf on shabbat which avoids the question).  Some do it
every day.  However there are sefardic synagogues in paris where it is
done only on yom tov.  There are also former ashkenazi synagogues where
most people are now sephardi and the rabbi also, so they often keep some
in between minhagim.  I remember also that in Maguen David Sephardic
Congregation in California the minhag was to do the blessing everyday.

As an answer to the query from Matthew Saal about communities which
would reject the blessing, here is a violent experience but with a happy
end.  During my military period, I have been visiting a small community
for shabbat, east of France where the ashkenazi president was attached
with old traditions not to do birkat Kohanim, never.  The Rabbi and most
congregants were sephardi.  Actually there was only one Cohen there who
did not want and was afraid to do it, so there was no problem ..  I
stayed for shabbat with the rabbi and asked him what was the minhag
there.  He told me that the only Cohen didnot know how to do it and that
I could do it since it is my custom.  so at the beginning of "retseh" I
went to the aron and then the president came and stopped me yelling that
the birkat cohanim had never been said for 20 years since he is
president and that it should not been done in his presence.  I turned to
the rabbi who could not speak since he was saying h'azarah but made a
sign to go on.  The custom for some sephardi communities (which I
belong) is to go out before "retseh" when birkat Kohanim is not said.
Since I was in I had to do it.  So I had almost to fight with the
president until he gave up.

On sunday there was a special meeting of the synagogue members to decide
about it and by the decision of a dayan it was agreed that if a cohen
wanted to duchan nobody had to say anything which is the general
halacha.  Since I had to spend 2 more shabbattot in this community, I
was advised by the Rabbi to go out at the time of birkat Kohanim for the
second shabbat to calm down the "opponents", and wait the third one to
do it again.  That third and last shabbat in that community was shabbat
Hanuka, and one among the many personal "miracles" I experienced during
that Hanuka was that I was asked by everybody to go and make birkat
Kohanim. I did it with the perfect joy needed for it since I was now
integrated in the community and also since my real military period was
over a week in advance.

David  Cohen [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 August 1991 11:10:09 CDT
From: <[email protected]>
Subject: Mikveh

For complete information on mikvaot refer to the sefer Toharas Hamaim, by Rov
Telushkin. It mentions all the opinions, concerning all aspects of the issue,
has a chapter dedicated to the history of Mikvois with sketches and drafts.
It is easily read.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun,  01 Sep 91 09:55:36 +0200
From: Morris Podolak <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Standing for Shema

With regard to the question of standing for the shema.  Certainly the
recitation of the shema is of fundamental importance to Judaism.  It
is an affirmation, each morning and each evening, of our acceptance
of the existance and uniqueness of G-d.  It also is our means of taking
upon ourselves all the responsibilities that devolve on us as a result
of our particular relationship with Him ("Hashem is our G-d").  As
a result it is necessary to say this with a great deal of
concentration.  I suppose that is why conservatives adopted the custom
of rising for the recitiation.  The fact is, however, that the accepted
halacha is that the shema can be recited either sitting, standing, or
even (certain parts of it anyway) walking.  This is the ruling of Beit
Hillel as opposed to Beit Shamai who rule that we should stand during the
morning recitation and lie down during the evening recitation.  Thus, although
standing in the morning (like Beit Shamai) is acceptible to Beit Hillel,
one who is sitting and then stands to say the shema demonstrates that he is
following Beit Shamai.  This is wrong since even in the time of the Mishna
Beit Hillel had already been accepted as the definers of normative practive.
That is why, when Rabbi Tarfon once lay down by the side of the road to
say the evening shema, and thus put himself in danger, he was criticized
by his fellow rabbis as deserving of death for having gone out of his way
to act in accordance with Beit Shamai insetead of following Beit Hillel.

M. Podolak - [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 91 14:17:21 +0200
From: [email protected] (Laurent Cohen)
Subject: Teddy Bears and Book Recommendations

Has anybody heard of a custom not to possess or to give to children
teddy bears and fluffy animals that are not kosher.  The reason I heard
is that it would give children later an appetite to eat forbidden
animals.  My first reaction was I donot think that bugs bunny or Mickey
mouse ever gave me a desire for rabbit or mouse, I would say on the
contrary.

About Marriage I wanted to recommand a short book of Rav Yoel Schwartz:
Guide to Jewish Marriage.  although intended to Torah students,it may be
useful for anybody.  it can be obtained together with two other books of
the authors (the eternal jewish home and Zion today) at the

Jerusalem Academy of Jewish studies
POB 5454 
18 Blau st 
Sanhedria Jerusalem

for only $5.50 (the price and address may have changed since
I ordered it  3 years ago).

Concerning laws of family purity in english I would recommand The paths
of purity of Rav Mordechai Eliyahu published by Sucath David and for a
more in depth survey but not yet complete I believe: halachos of niddah
of Rabbi S.D. Eider distributed by Feldheim

David  Cohen [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 
From: [email protected] (M. C. Block)
Subject: Re: challah from pasta dough (Vol.2 #17)

Some (:food:) for thought.

> [...] the shulchan aruch yoreh deah says that one must take challah
> only from doughs that are to be baked, not from doughs that are to
> be boiled or fried.  [...]
> 
> so, then, i would interpret this to mean that if i make lasagna
> noodles that will go directly into the oven, i need to take challah
> from them, but if i make noodles that i'll be cooking on top of the
> stove (i.e. boiled or fried), then i don't?

This would seem to warrant further investigation.  Looking at this
from the point of view of the lasagna noodle, surrounded (and therefore
being cooked) by hot sauce and cheese; am I really being "baked"?
The question is in what is being implied by the word "baked".

There is also a minimum requirement of 2 pounds 10 ounces (1.2kg, even
more to say the blessing), below which challah is not necessary (even if
it will be baked).  Is pasta usually made in large enough quantities?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 15:16:09 PDT
From: [email protected] (Alexander Herrera)
Subject: Re: converts

In response to Susan Hornstein <[email protected]> 12
Aug 91 11:44:00: I want to thank you for your response. It reflects
much of my own thinking a year or two ago. I have since changed my
mind.

You wrote (taken slightly out of context. Please see orignal):

> And, of course, the responsibility to follow Hashem's laws brings with
> it the punishment for *not* following Hashem's laws.  Just as we have
> 613+ ways to grow close to Hashem, we also have 613+ ways to "mess up"
> before Hashem.  This is a daunting thought!  All our lives, as we grow
> closer to Hashem through observing His mitzvot, we are also racking up
> demerits!  As much as we'd like to share the aforementioned benefits
> with someone else, why would we want to place this burden on them!
> (This last point also relates to the reason why one is cautioned about
> explaining a mitzvah to a non-observant Jew if they cannot be expected
> to perform it.  If they are uninformed about a mitzvah and do not
> perform it, the laws are much more lenient than with a person who is
> informed about a mitzvah and does not perform it.)

In the Metsudah Siddur on pages 265-266 it says:
	They will realize and know, all the inhabitants of the world,
	that to You every knee must bend, every tongue must swear
	[alligiance to You]. Before You, Ad@noy, our G@d, they will bow
	and prostrate themselves, and to the glory of Your Name give
	honor. And they will all accept [upon themselves] the yoke of
	Your kingdom, and You will reign over them soon, forever and
	ever.

I think this passage is speaking about the time when G-d's kingdom will
be established over the whole earth. Apparently, the mitzvot will
continue to be a yoke even at this time. I am sure it will be a burden
happily shouldered, but it will be there. The passage also speaks about
the world being perfected and idolatry being banished. I'm sure you
would agree that Jews shouldn't be waiting for all this work to be done
by G-d. Jews should be doing their best to perfect the world, take
action to banish idolatry, and (here is my point) seek converts.

(One thing I've noted in my prayers is that I always seem to be praying
for G-d to do all these things, but then I am told that the action must
be done by me. I've come to accept this as normal. I pray as if
everything depended on G-d, and I act as if everything depended on me.)

If I were to accept the notion that not telling a non-observant Jew
about a mitzvah is actually helping them, then I must take action to
help my children by not teaching them about mitzvot at all. Of course
it would be a sin on my part, but I would be saving my children and my
children's children from G-d's judgement because they didn't know. This
would also free Orthodox Jews from any obligation to inform Reform,
Conservative, et. al. about their divergence and possible harsh
judgement from G-d. This is how it seems to me. I'm sure there must be
a good response to this. I can't be the first to have pointed this out.
I am willing to be wrong, so please correct me.

> Anyway, the yoke/burden of commandments can at times be an
> overwhelming responsibility.  It is very important that one who enters
> into this responsibility do so completely willingly, under no duress,
> and *not* because someone has painted such a beautiful picture of
> Judaism that they are drawn in, without knowing just exactly what they
> are getting themselves into.

Let me tell you an event in my life where I took your stance and where
it led. My neighbor was being visited by Jehovah Witnesses, and she was
considering converting. When I told her that mainline Christianity does
not consider them to be Christian, she was surprised. She then put a
stop to their visits. She then began to ask me about Judasim. I told
her a few things about it, but because I thought it was easier to be a
Christian than a Jew and because I knew she would receive the same
salvation anyway, I suggested she pursue Catholicism (her grandmother's
religion). She was motivated, but not highly organized, so I made a few
calls for her, and set up an appointment for her to see someone at the
local church.

As you can see, I was trying to convert her to Christianity. Absurd,
but true. She had no religion, and I was doing my best to talk her into
Catholicism. All this stems from my two ideas that if everyone had a
religion the world would be bettter, and that Christians attain the
same salvation as Jews (except that Jews have an extra burden "racking
up demerits"). The bottom line is that she couldn't understand (and I
think she was a little hurt) why I didn't want her to be a Jew. She
ended up not becoming anything. She now has no religion at all. I don't
think I was being a "light unto the nations" by doing what I did. I
should have made Judaism more available, more accessible, more
welcoming. I'm not talking about sugar-coating anything, but I'm not
going to begin with a detailed study of Leviticus either. What about
inviting her to a Shabbat dinner, and services? If when she learned
more she didn't want Judasim, so be it.

I have another chance. Actually, I have two chances. A friend of mine
at work is interested in Judasim as well. What should I do? Should I
let them know that Judasim is available, or should I keep my mouth
shut? What would G-d want me to do? Would He want me to leave them
G-dless, convert them to Christianity, or let them know that Judaism
welcomes them?

Alexander Herrera    uunet!mdcsc!ah


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 20


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Challah from pasta dough (Vol.2 #17)
             [M.H. Nadel]
        Purpose of Discovery
             [Frank Silbermann]
        Shabbos Goy
             [Morris Podolak]
        Souls, Souls, Souls (2)
             [Ezra L Tepper, Morris Podolak]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 91 08:01:10 -0700
From: M.H. Nadel <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Challah from pasta dough (Vol.2 #17)


But you do have to take challah from pastry dough (i.e. pie crust) if you're
making it in sufficient quantity and many pies are baked filled, in a similar
manner to lasagna.  I have to admit that I find it hard to imagine a person
baking at home making sufficient quantities for this to be an issue, but
surely your local bakery should be taking challah from their pastry dough.
(You also have to take challah from cake batter if you're making enough.
Again, unlikely for the home baker, but something to consider if you're
asked to bake a wedding cake.)

What about something which is boiled and then baked?  You could briefly
(a minute or two) boil the lasagna noodles before assembling the casserole.
Which raises the question of bagels.  I do take challah when I bake them,
but maybe I shouldn't since they're boiled before they're baked.

Miriam Nadel - [email protected]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 91 18:36:56 CDT
From: Frank Silbermann <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Purpose of Discovery

It had been suggested that the deliberate use of unsound logic to
convince people to accept Torah might be analogous to use of
sleight-of-hand magic to convince others of one's supernatural powers
(i.e. sorcery).  This analogy may or may not be appropriate; still, an
anonymous reader asked whether this view had implications for those
running the Discovery Seminars.

Jeffrey Klein quoted a Discovery speaker saying that the goal of these
lectures is merely to suggest that there is more to the Torah than one
might think, and that it is NOT meant to prove divine authorship etc.
Joel Goldberg disputed this -- at the lecture he attended, the speakers
suggested that objective analysis of the text would indicate the Torah's
divine authorship.  Joel therefore reposited the question as to
Discovery's appropriateness.

Proof of the Torah's divine authorship may be equivalent to proof of
(our conception of) G-d's existence.  Despite centuries of work,
philosophers have been unable to prove the existence of G-d, nor could
they disprove it.  My guess is that both are unprovable, and indeed, I
have seen Rabbinic support for this hypothesis.  I recall reading a
prayer in the ArtScroll Siddur asking G-d to cease "hiding his face"
from us.  The footnote explained that (in our day?), G-d performs all
his miracles in such a way that it is impossible to prove that he is
indeed the force behind them.

I also recall a description of a book by Rv. S. R. Hirsch, written in
the form of letters to a straying friend (The title was something like
_Letters to Ben Uzziel_).  In the introduction, Rv. Hirsch cautioned
that this book was not meant for someone acting as an impartial judge of
Judaism's validity, and that, indeed, objectivity places the reader both
outside of and above the Torah -- a position of intolerable arrogance!

Therefore, when someone claims to have objective evidence
of Torah's validity, I suspect that either:
A) He is lying;
B) He doesn't know what the phrase "objective evidence" means;
or
C) He is Moshiach.

Usually I assume B).

Thus, I have no interest in the Discovery seminars.  (Personally, I
decided to put my faith in Torah when I realized that the _best_ ideas
and values of modern humanism can all be traced to an origin in Torah
tradition, and the worst modern follies resulted from their deviations
-- so why not drink from the Source?)

	Frank Silbermann	[email protected]
	Tulane University	New Orleans, Louisiana  USA

P.S.

Re: my previous contribution on human/chimp hybrids: I had suggested
that, were the mother a Jewess, the issue would be a bizarre (yet
Jewish) mamzer.  My rabbi corrected me, saying that mamzerkeit results,
not from just any Torah-forbidden relationship, but _only_ from
adultery.  (So where did I get that idea, I wonder?)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon,  02 Sep 91 09:40:30 +0200
From: Morris Podolak <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Shabbos Goy

With respect to the question of a shabbes goy: The material is discussed
extensively in the literature.  So extensively, in fact, that I didn't
bother responding to the first query because I was sure someone else
would do so, and do a better job.  However, since no one else took up
the job, here goes...

According to the Torah, there is no prohibition in asking a goy to do
something for you on Shabbat.  There is, however, a rabbinic prohibition
to do so.  This is called "shvut" in halachic parlance.  Because of
this, we may not ask a goy to open lights, cook something, turn on the
air conditioner, etc.  Indeed there are a number of prohibitions on
enjoying the results of a goy's work on Shabbat if done specifically for
the Jew.  Forgive me for not going into details here, I'd like to check
out the details before giving them, just to make sure I don't
misremember.  If you are interested, a translation of the Kitzur
Shulchan Aruch (The Code of Jewish Law by S. Ganzfried transl. by Goldin
(?)) in English is a reliable source for the basics.

In any event, since the prohibition is rabbinic in nature, there is room
for leniency.  Thus a shvut de shvut i.e. a second order shvut is
permitted if necessary.  One could, for example, ask one goy to ask a
second goy to do work on Shabbat, although I doubt if many rabbis would
condone such an action unless it was something important.  The idea here
is that asking a goy is a rabbinic prohibition (shvut) and all you are
asking him to do is ask a goy to do something.  Since this latter is
also only rabbinically prohibited, it is a second order effect (shvut de
shvut) and may be done.

Another example: You open the refrigerator on Shabbat, and realize that
you forgot to unscrew the light bulb inside.  You are not allowed to
close the door because that would put out the light, but if you leave it
open all the food will spoil, and you will sustain a significant
monetary loss, not to mention the fact that you will not have a Shabbat
meal.  In such a case there are a number of poskim (Rav Moshe Shtern in
Be'er Moshe for example) who permit asking a goy to remove the bulb.  In
this case the basis for the permission, is that it is letzorech mitzvah
(you need the food to do the mitzvah of eating 3 meals on Shabbat) and
perhaps hefsaid merubah (a large monetary loss).  

Another example of where asking a goy is permitted is letzorech rabim.
If it affects a large number of people.  I have heard this used as a
basis for asking a goy to turn on the air conditioner in a synagogue on
a particularly hot Shabbat, although not everyone is happy with such a
ruling.  Rav Chaim David Halevi, the Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv
tells about when he was a young boy in Jerusalem and prayed in a
synagogue where the rabbi was a noted scholar.  One Shabbat evening the
lights didn't go on and it was too dark to pray.  They called an Arab
in, but couldn't tell him outright to open the lights, so they merely
pointed out to him that it was too dark to pray.  The idea was that he
should open the lights on his own, without being directly asked.  He
didn't catch on, however, and suggested that they open the lights.  They
told him it was Shabbat and they were forbidden to do so.  He still
didn't catch on.  After a while the rabbi simply asked him to open the
lights, which he did.  When he was asked how he could do such a thing,
since asking a goy is forbidden, he replied "asking a goy is forbidden,
but nobody said anything about a jackass" (with apologies for the free
translation).  There is much more to be said, of course, but I hope this
gives the general idea.

Morris Podolak - [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 91 11:14:02 +0200
From: Ezra L Tepper <[email protected]>
Subject: Souls, Souls, Souls

Alexander Herrera reports (2#15) that he has heard that a Habad
preschool teaches three year olds that Christians do not have souls.
Because such a teaching is in direct conflict with the writings of the
Rambam in his Yad Hachazakah and is (on first blush) denial of Torah
teaching that man is created in the image of G-d (see Yad, Yesodei
Hatorah, 4:8), I can only conclude that there must have been some
misunderstanding of what was taught the children. There is a particular
danger here, because young children -- as all parents know -- cannot be
relied on to bear witness as to what their rebbis actually said or did
not say. If, however, the parent heard such ideas from the teacher
himself, the Chabad educational system -- or that particular school --
seems to have a real problem. Moreover, since the idea of souls is
deeply enmeshed in the Kabbalah, the whole subject is certainly not a
topic of discussion for three year olds.

Because of the question raised and my lack of knowledge of the idea of
"soul" in Jewish sources, I glanced into the _Mei'am Lo'ez_ commentary
on B'reishis. The information I found there might be of interest to
the group as it contains some ideas that were entirely new to me.

The _Mei'am Lo'ez_ comments are given in his explanation of the
verse _Vayipach b'apov nishmas chayim_ [and He blew into his
nostrils the _neshoma_ of life] (_B'reishis_, 2:7, _Me'am
Lo'ez_, Vol. 1, p. 151, Heb. Edition). The word _neshoma_, literally
breath, is also the Hebrew word for _soul_. Clearly, Adam and all his
descendents received souls. But the story here is certainly not simple,
as the Me'am Lo'ez explains that every person is born with a tripartite
soul. One part -- the _nefesh_ -- is distributed throughout the body and
provides it with the power to grow and develop; the second -- known as
_ru'ach_ -- gives the body the power to move and engage in motor
activities (eating, walking, etc.); and the third -- known as _neshomah_
-- is what separates man from the vegetable and animal worlds. It is
located in his brain and is connected with what one commonly refers to
as intellect and which allows a man to enjoy and benefit from the _olam
haba_ -- the world to come or afterlife. This third, eternal part of the
soul is provided to Jew and non-Jew alike at birth and can serve them
well (if they take advantage of it, Jew and non-Jew alike). (See Yad,
Hilchos Melochim 8:11).

However, this is just the aleph-beth of Jewish psychism, as there are
several other kinds of souls mentioned. These, in contrast to the
tripartite soul, are provided to people only if they merit it. One of
them is known as _ru'ach hakodesh_, a soul that makes prophesy possible;
a second is the _neshomah yeseira_ (supplemental soul), that descends
for the 24-hour period of the Sabbath and makes possible an enhanced
spiritual and physical enjoyment of the sanctified day. Of particular
importance is the special _neshoma kedosha_ that is provided to boys
at the age of 13 (or girls at the age of 12) and which is connected with
the study and fulfillment of the Torah commandments. (I assume that this
form of soul is also provided to a non-Jew when he undergoes conversion.)
According to the sources of Mei'am Lo'ez, Jews do not necessarily possess
these extra souls. Today, no one receives the soul of prophesy; Jews who
do not observe the Sabbath do not enjoy the supplemental, _neshomah
yeseira_; and those that do not observe and study Torah following bar or
bas mitzvah do not receive the _neshoma kedosha_, until (I assume) they
decide to accept Torah practice.

However, what I derive from the discussion of the Me'am Lo'ez is
that the soul(s) of a 3-year-old born to Christian parents and that of a
3-year-old born to a Habad Hassid are entirely identical!!!

Ezra Tepper <[email protected]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun,  01 Sep 91 10:22:43 +0200
From: Morris Podolak <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Souls, Souls, Souls

I am writing about Alex Herrera's question about the statement,
allegedly made in a CHABAD kindergarten, that Christians don't have
souls.

In fact, Christians do have souls, all human beings have souls, and even
animals have souls.  The Tanya, the basic work of CHABAD doctrine, does
state that Jews have an EXTRA soul.  This presents a problem, since a
convert to Judaism would seem to be missing an essential ingredient.  In
fact, I don't know how CHABAD deals with the problem.

Perhaps by arguing that the convert had some Jewish background
somewhere.  Perhaps the potential convert is born with the extra soul in
anticipation of his conversion (perhaps that is what drives him in the
end).  A more satisfactory answer is one based on a statement of the
Maor Vashemesh in his commentary to Exodus (beginning of chapter 20).
He explains that the additional souls (yes there are more than one) are
acquired through Torah study and the fulfillment of mitzvot.  The deeper
one goes into the study of Torah the higher the level of soul he
acquires.  Thus, when a gentile converts to Judaism, and begins to study
Torah he gets the additional soul he lacked originally.  Indeed he can
get several additional souls.

The Maor Vashemesh also warns that someone who has not acquired the soul
for a lower level should not attempt to reach for the higher levels.  In
other words, if you don't understand the plain meaning of the Torah,
don't go reaching for the esoteric secrets therein.  In addition, don't
go teaching things like this to children in kindergarten!

M. Podolak - [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 21


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Alexander Herrera's reply to me about converts:
             ["Susan Hornstein"]
        Bircas Cohanim
             [Boruch Kogan]
        Posting re Temple Mount
             [Yisrael Medad]
        Standing for Shema
             [Warren Burstein]
        Wedding infromation
             [Warren Burstein]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 8:10:00 EDT
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

First of all, I would like to wish all of the list members a G'mar
Chatima Tova and best wishes for this new year. In addition, the post of
Moderator is one in which one always runs the risk of upsetting or
insulting people. To any whom I have, I ask your forgiveness. I look
forward to another year of interesting and enlightening discussions.

Next, after this and maybe one more mailing, the mailing list will be
going on vacation for Succot, and will resume, bezrat HaShem, around
October 6.

-- 
Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 4 Sep 91 10:06:32 U
From: "Susan Hornstein" <[email protected]>
Subject: re:  Alexander Herrera's reply to me about converts:

I'll be happy to point out the place where you draw erroneous
conclusions about teaching your children about mitzvot.  This flaw in
the logic of your argument is the source of your confusion, I believe.
I stated in my original response that it may be better not to tell
non-observant Jews about mitzvot, IF THEY ARE NOT GOING TO OBSERVE THEM
ANYWAY.
 Thus, you might not want to go up to a person named Schwartz in the
cafeteria at work and say, "You know, the Torah forbids you to eat that
cheeseburger."  If you had not said that to them, they might be
transgressing the laws of Kashrut unknowingly.  If you had said that to
them, there is still a better than 99% chance that they will transgress
the laws of Kashrut, but now they will know.  (This may be an extreme
example, since most Jews have heard at least once that the laws of
Kashrut prohibit such things, but I think you get my point.)  Hopefully,
your children do not fall into this category, and a person becoming more
interested in Judaism probably doesn't either.  This is because your
children are likely to listen to you, to have a positive experience with
mitzvot, and to observe those mitzvot that you teach them about.  The
person you invite over to experience Shabbat is likely to have a
positive experience as well, and may indeed come to observe mitzvot by
means of that positive experience.  This does not equate to willy-nilly
education of the masses of Jews who will not benefit from this
education, being either uninterested in mitzvot, or predisposed to a
negative attitude.  Since they are unlikely to observe, a little
knowledge can be bad.  If one is *likely* to observe, a little knowledge
can be good!
 The final point that I'll comment on refers to your friend who ended up
with no religion, and perhaps to you as well.  There is a difference, as
I've pointed out, between educating Jews in mitzvot and educating
non-Jews in mitzvot.  There are three categories of Jews (in this
over-simplified view): 1) observant of mitzvot, 2) non-observant and
negatively inclined, 3) non-observant and neutral or positively
inclined.  *All are obligated in mitzvot.* Now here's the question: if
any one of these Jews is not observing some mitzvah, do you tell them?
Category 1, you certainly tell, but as I wrote in my submission about
"tochecha" (reproach), you only tell them in a way that they will hear
and accept, and only for the reason of helping them grow in mitzvot (cf
that submission, several months ago).  By telling this person about
their mistake, you take them from the category of "b'shogeg"
(accidental/unknowing transgressor) to the category of one who is not
transgressing that obligation.  Category 2, you don't usually tell,
unless you are in a special position that might change their
predisposition, because this is the category of people who are 99%
likely to go on not observing, and now you've taken them from the
category of "b'shogeg" (accidental/unknowing transgressor) to "b'mezid"
(intentional/knowing transgressor) or perhaps worse.
 Category 3 is the hardest case.  These are the people that you might
invite to a Shabbat dinner, to a talk at your synagogue, to your seder.
You try to get them interested.  You have the potential to help them
observe mitzvot, which they are already obligated in.  You can possibly
do them them great service of taking them from the category of
"b'shogeg" (accidental/unknowing transgressor) to the category of
*observant of many mitzvot*!!!
 Now, this analysis works only because these people are all Jewish, and
therefore obligated in mitzvot in the first place.  It works differently
for non-Jews.  If they are non-Jewish, they are obligated only in the 7
mitzvot of Noah.  By becoming Jewish, they become obligated in all 613
mitzvot.  If they become Jewish for the wrong reasons (coersion, the
wrong idea about what is involved, without total commitment, etc.) and
do not keep all 613 mitzvot, they go from the category of observant of
all their obligations (presumably) to the category of transgressing one
or many of their obligations (worst case scenario).  If they become
Jewish for the right reasons (whatever they may be) and *do* observe all
613, they receive heavenly reward for all these extra mitzvot (best case
scenario).  This best case scenario is pretty rare.  So, we Jews are
usually pretty wary about getting non-Jews with 7 obligations into the
613 ballpark.  It doesn't turn out to be the analagous case to "kiruv"
(bringing non-observant *Jews* closer) because all Jews start out being
obligated in all 613 anyway.
 Anyway, I hope this sheds some light on the issue.  I'm a big fan of
"kiruv" in ways like inviting co-workers home for Shabbat or seder.  I
believe that Judaism has much to offer in terms of spirituality and
quality of life.  But, it's worth being careful and watching what one is
getting one's self and others into!
 Susan Hornstein


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 5 September 1991 10:26:26 CDT
From: Boruch Kogan <[email protected]>
Subject: Bircas Cohanim

Regarding Bircas Cohanim, we have two psulim: a murderer and an oved
avoda zoro- a person who worships idols. However, many poskim (see
Mishna Brura) state, that the one who transgresses the laws of Shabbos
can't make B.C. either, since he is considered as an idol worshipper,
because Shabbos is equalized with the whole Torah.

HoRav HaGoen Aaron Soloveichik recalles, that decades ago, in the
Yeshiva Univ.  there were lots of cohanim for the Yomim Noiroim services
(he mentioned a figure of a few thousand). And at that period it was
very hard to keep Shabbos in the US.  People, who were very makpid
[careful - Mod.] on many things, when it came to Shabbos gave up,
because of the hardship.

[I strongly suspect the above figure is erroneous. The "community" Yamim
Noraim services at YU were held in the main Auditorium, which maybe
could hold a thousand people, but no way could hold enough people to
have a thousand cohanim. I believe that the "yeshiva" Yamim Noraim
services at YU were started by my father and a few other Eastern
Europeans who came to YU after WWII. The minyan was fairly small the
first few years. It grew rapidly after that. By less than a decade later
I was old enough to remember the davening there. We had a good group of
cohanim, but nowhere near that amount, and I do not remember any
Soloveichik dovining there. In recent years, with the decline of the
Washington Heights (non-Broyars [sp?] ) community, the "community"
services and the "yeshiva" services have been joined into one that meets
in the main Beit Medrash, I think. Moderator]

Therefore, when it was time for the cohanim to wash for the duchan, many
didn't want to go, because of Mishna Brura's psak. (A lot of people
present at the moment were not observing Shabbos). However, Rav Aaron's
father, HaRav HaGoen Reb Moshe, made everyone go. A lot of people
disagreed but he used to answer them something like this: "Mishna Brura
was a great giant, but you also have to know, how to paskin".

Good year to everyone,
                     Boruch Kogan


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 10:42 IST
From: MEDAD%[email protected] (Yisrael Medad)
Subject: Posting re Temple Mount

In three weeks time we will be marking the first anniversary of the
Temple Mount Incident. Despite impressions to the contrary, there is a
Jewish angle to the story.  The Arabs were attempting to prevent Jews
from entering an area which is the most sacred site (take note, not the
Kotel Maaravi but the Har Habayit) to Jews.
I would like to address the issue of permission/prohibition of entry
into the Temple Mount.

There are several problems involved:
1. Is today's Temple Mount continguous with the Har Habayit?
2. Is the rock under the Dome of the Rock (mistakenly called the
   Mosque {which it isn't} of Omar) the Even Ha'Shtiya?
3. What is the measurement in centimeters of the amah (Cubit)?
4. To what extent can we utilize historical and archeological evidence
   to aid the halachic decision?
5. For what purposes wouild entry be allowed, even if we identify the
   exact dimensions of Har Habayit?
6. If we can identify Har Habayit - the 500 by 500 cubit square - can
   we go further and identify the subdivisions within: the Machaneh
   Leviyah, the Chail, etc.?
7. Is it enough to delineate where Har Habayit wasn't than where it was
   to satisy the requirements for a decision?
8. Was the Rabbinical ban on entry from 1967 based on halachic studies or
   more of a folklore or guesswork?

Anybody interested?

Yisrael Medad - <MEDAD@ILNCRD>


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 91 23:41:15 IST
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Standing for Shema

Len Moskowitz writes:

> If memory serves, according to the Ariza"l ...
> and that is why we specifically sit during the Shma's recitation.

How is it possible that the Ariza"l requires that one sit during
Shema when neither Beit Hillel nor Beit Shammai requried this?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 91 22:26:17 IST
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Wedding infromation

> Some people (especially former students of the Author) have defended
> this book, by saying it's intended audience is Yeshiva Bochrim (male
> students), who having grown up is a sexually segregated society, have
> little understanding of or respect for women.

A friend who attended a men's yeshiva in Jerusalem told me that an entire
Mussar class was once devoted to the topic of "How to Behave on a
Shidduch Date" after a teacher who taught in a women's yeshiva as well
received complaints of behavior that could only be explained by simply
not knowing what to do.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                       Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 22


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Converts (v2n19)
             [Neil Parks]
        Discovery (Vol. 2 #20)
             [Rick Turkel]
        Human/Chimp Hybrids (Vol. 2 #20)
             ["Dave Novak"]
        Ignorance (was: Converts)
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Souls, Souls, Souls (Vol. 2 #20)
             [[email protected]]
        Teddy Bears (v2n19)
             [Morris Podolak]
        Wedding infromation
             [Mike Allen]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 91 18:51:35 EDT
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

Hello all!

I hope that you have all had a meaningful Yom Kippur and a very happy
Succot. I have had a wonderful two weeks in Israel for the Succot
holiday, and am trying to re-aclimatize to being back in Chutz-La'Aretz
(out of Isreal). This mailing covers the backlog of stuff received
before Yom Kippur, the next will cover what came during my vacation. 

Mail.Jewish is now back in action, so you can resume sending your
submissions in. Just a quick reminder, if you use transliterated Hebrew
in your submission, please translate it into English as well.

-- 
Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 91 00:37:56 -0400
From: [email protected] (Neil Parks)
Subject: Re: Converts (v2n19)


>I have another chance. Actually, I have two chances. A friend of mine
>at work is interested in Judasim as well. What should I do? Should I
>let them know that Judasim is available, or should I keep my mouth
>shut? What would G-d want me to do? Would He want me to leave them
>G-dless, convert them to Christianity, or let them know that Judaism
>welcomes them?
>
>Alexander Herrera    uunet!mdcsc!ah

I can't imagine that Hashem would want a Jew to convert a goy to
Christianity, if the goy were not already a Christian!

If a non-Jew expresses interest in Judaism, there is nothing wrong with
telling them who we are and what we stand for.  But tell them also that
"the righteous of all nations have a share in the world-to-come", and
tell them about the 7 Noachide laws.

Then if they want to know more, suggest a book that they could read.
(The Hertz Chumash is one I would suggest, but I know there are many
other possibilities.)  Invite them over for Shabbos or a Passover Seder.
Then if they want more, invite them to shul to meet your rabbi.  If the
rabbi sees that the person is sincere and not just interested in
marrying a Jew, he will give the person plenty of opportunity for
further study.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 09:59:02 -0400
From: rmt51%[email protected] (Rick Turkel)
Subject: Re: Discovery (Vol. 2 #20)

To my mind, Frank Silbermann has the right idea about Discovery, particularly
regarding the nature of objective evidence (m.j 2#20).

About a week or two after the first Discovery seminar in Columbus, Ohio,
the religion page of the local (secular) newspaper had a lengthy article
about Aish Hatorah in general and Discovery in particular.  I have never
felt the least bit attracted to their approach to Judaism, but could
never quite put my finger on what it was that bothered me about it.
However, the local Aish Hatorah director was quoted as saying that their
programs are geared specifically to "Jewish Yuppies who are under 40 and
not observant."  My interpretation of the word "Yuppie" in this context
is someone who lacks any personal philosophy or level of introspection,
among other things.  In that context, Discovery is not aimed at the
likes of me at all -- I'm over 40, hardly a Yuppie, and I AM observant
-- or, I suspect, at the majority of the rest of the readers of m.j!
Much of what I have heard about their presentations (needless to say,
I've never been to a Discovery weekend, although I have heard a lecture
or two) strikes me as superficial and "cute."  The problem is, "cute"
doesn't last very long or take you very far, and they don't offer much
beyond that first taste.

Having written all this, I do feel compelled to state one positive
aspect of all of what Aish Hatorah is doing.  If they are successful in
getting nonobservant Jews interested in Judaism enough to seek more
depth and breadth to their understanding and level of observance, more
power to them.  I'm all in favor of that.  However, my experience has
shown very little of this; many if not most of their attendees, at least
here in Columbus, seem to be pretty observant, and those who aren't
don't appear too keen on changing their ways, even though they find what
Aish Hatorah has to say to be interesting.  Perhaps A.H. needs to work
some more on developing some programs for the next level beyond "cute."

                Rick Turkel             ([email protected])



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri,  6 Sep 91 10:37:41 EST
From: "Dave Novak" <novak%[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Human/Chimp Hybrids (Vol. 2 #20)

In mail.jewish Vol 2 #20, Frank Silbermann writes:

>Re: my previous contribution on human/chimp hybrids: I had suggested
>that, were the mother a Jewess, the issue would be a bizarre (yet
>Jewish) mamzer.  My rabbi corrected me, saying that mamzerkeit results,
>not from just any Torah-forbidden relationship, but _only_ from
>adultery.  (So where did I get that idea, I wonder?)

I am neither a rabbi nor an expert on halacha, but I happen to have read
about this subject lately. In Mishna Yebamot (I do not have the chapter
and mishna handy), a mamzer is defined as the issue of any relationship
which is Torah-forbidden and punishable by karet ("being cut off").  The
issue of an incestuous relationship, for example, would be a mamzer.  I
am not sure whether having a relationship with an animal is in the same
category, but if it is then presumably the issue would be a mamzer.

A relationship which is Torah-forbidden but not punishable by karet, as
for example a kohen marrying a divorced woman, does _not_ cause the
issue to be a mamzer.  (In this example, it does have an effect on the
kohen-status, however.)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 91 20:19:13 +0200
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Ignorance (was: Converts)

The question of whether to tell an ignorant Jew of the mitzvah he's
violating is not such a simple one.  As I recall, it was one point of
contention between the early Hasidim and their opponents.  The Hasidim
adopted the view that he's better off doing something in ignorance than
doing it intentionally and knowingly; the Litvaks held that he should be
told about it, and then it's his decision.  Mind you, the difference
between the two camps is really one of nuance, since the plain halacha
is that he should be told if it will make a difference, and not if
otherwise.

Alex Herrera made a reductio ad absurdum: Aren't my children better off
if I teach them nothing, since then they will not be liable for anything
they do?  I submit the Mishna in Shabbat, 7:1 (which I will paraphrase
backwards, for effect):

One who knows that it's Shabbat and performs various forbidden actions
(while ignorant of the relevant prohibitions) must bring a sin-offering
(Hatat) for each category (av-melacha); one who knows of the principle
of Shabbat but who forgets what day it is, thus being led to violate it,
must bring a single offering for each day on which this happened; one
who has "forgotten" the principle of Shabbat and performs many actions
on many Shabbatot, only brings one offering.

Sounds logical: one brings an offering for each thing he "forgot," not
necessarily for each violation.  But what about the last case?  Here
we have, according to the Gemara, a "tinok she-nishba," a child who
was taken by non-Jews and raised without any knowledge of mitzvot.
WHY should he be obligated to bring any offering at all?  Evidently,
even a violation done in total ignorance upsets the world's balance
sheet, and has to be put right.

Ben Svetitsky  --  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat,  7 Sep 91 23:48 +0300
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Souls, Souls, Souls (Vol. 2 #20)

In: Volume 2 Number 20

Morris Podolak - [email protected] writes:

> In fact, Christians do have souls, all human beings have souls, and
> even animals have souls.  The Tanya, the basic work of CHABAD
> doctrine, does state that Jews have an EXTRA soul.  This presents a
> problem, since a convert to Judaism would seem to be missing an
> essential ingredient.  In fact, I don't know how CHABAD deals with the
> problem.

> Perhaps by arguing that the convert had some Jewish background
> somewhere.

     Since this issue always seems to get me into trouble with Habad
people, I accept that my views are disputed and even considered untrue
by those people.  What can I do?  I can only report what my eyes have
seen and my ears have heard.

     It is my experience that Habad is against conversion m'l'hatchila.
The reasons for this appear to be related to the spark that is in Jews
[and perhaps the extra soul reported by Morris Podolak].  According to
the view that a concentration of such sparks in Jews is necessary for
bringing the Meshi'ah, conversion may lead to dilution rather than
concentration.  Habad, on the other hand, is very active in bringing
Jews back to the fold, even those who have converted or are into dope,
zen, whatever, since the spark is genetic.

     Habad does accept what they call true conversion b'd'i'avad.  Their
rationalization is that they true convert does indeed have the Jewish
background suggested by Morris Podolak; in fact true converts are
considered to have been members of the 10 lost tribes.

     My apologies to all Habad people whom I upset; that is not my
intention.  A gmar hatima tova to all readers and to clal yisra'el.


Bob Werman - rwerman@hujivms - Jerusalem


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu,  12 Sep 91 10:41:25 +0200
From: Morris Podolak <D77%[email protected]> 
Subject: Re: Teddy Bears (v2n19)

Laurent Cohen asked about whether one is allowed to give toys in the
shape of non-kosher animals to children.  Quite by accident I came
accross a reference to something similar the other day.  Rabbi Isaiah
Horoiwitz, a prominent kabbalist around the 16th century, in his book
Shnei Luchot Habrit (SHELAH for short) cites a custom not to frighten
children by telling them that a cat or dog or other unclean animal will
get them.  This is because there are mazikin (destructive influences)
with the names of unclean animals who may be called up by these names.
These may cause harm to the child.  The point is that you should be very
carful about how you speak and what words you use.  The Shulchan Aruch
Harav which is the basic halachic work of Chabad chassidim brings the
warning of the SHELAH in his discussion of "shmirat ha guf ve ha
nefesh". [Taking care of the body and soul - Mod.]  Both the SHELAH and
the Shulchan Aruch Harav are cited by the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (Sec.
33, paragraph 14).  This is not exactly what Laurent asked about, but I
wonder if it doesn't derive from this source.

Morris Podolak

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 91 08:33:38 -0500
From: [email protected] (Mike Allen)
Subject: Wedding infromation

In response to D. Isaacs' submission in v2n18:

> In Response to David Seth Green's request for books on Jewish
> Marriage, there is one book I would recommend staying away from ...
> "The River the Kettle and the Bird" 
> [...]
> In my opinion, this is were the Author should have stopped.  The rest
> of the book, mainly goes on to ascribe Male Ego as the primary cause
> of marital disharmony.  The solution for the problem is not for the
> husband to compromise with his wife, but give in totally.  Example
> after example shows typical marital conflicts were the Authors advice
> is not the settlement of differences by mutual concession, but Male
> capitulation.  I left the book confused, because this advise seemed to
> contradict it's original premise of the need for the "River" or give
> and take in marriage.

I want to respond to this because I also read this book and have quite
different feelings about it.  I have included the part of Mr. Isaacs
message with which I would like to contrast my opinion.  Fist of all,
the book is definitely written for men.  The author (I apologize for
also not remembering his name) states in the preface that this book is
taken from a course he gives to his male students.  This in no way
detracts from the book's lessons, just keep in mind the lessons are the
things men most need to know about marriage.  If I had to state the main
lesson of the book to someone standing on one foot, it would be:

When something happens to make your wife cry, don't think to yourself:
"That wouldn't have made me cry, therefore my wife is over-reacting.".
Rather think to yourself: "That affected my wife as deeply as
something that would have made my cry."

The rest of the book is commentary on how to apply that lesson to your
everyday life.

One more comment, not directly in response to Mr. Isaacs, but about
the Jewish concept of marriage.  Jewish law puts *all* the burden on
the husband to make his wife happy.  The wife has no reciprocal
responsibilty.  How can this be?  It is because the obligation to
have children is on the man alone.  By becoming his wife, the woman
has enabled the man to fulfill this most important obligation; and
she has done this at the risk of her life and career.  No matter what
one does for his wife, how can he believe that he has repaid her in
full?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 23


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Har Habayis - Temple Mount
             [Eli Turkel]
        Ignorance
             [Bob Werman]
        S'micha question
             [Steve Silvern]
        Shalom Biet vs "Wedding?" question
             [Jay Shayevitz]
        Souls, etc.
             [Jay Shayevitz]
        Tefillin on Chol Hamo`ed
             [Rick Turkel]
        Wedding Information - "The River, the Kettle, and the Bird"
             [Yaakov Kayman]
        Yom Kippur Avodah
             [Eliot Shimoff]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 91 12:52:32 EDT
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Har Habayis - Temple Mount 

     A few short notes on the questions of Medad

1.  The issur of going onto the temple mount for a "tameh" applies 
    today according to the vast majority of rishonim (though not all).

2.  There are different levels of kiddusha [holiness - Mod.] on the
    temple mount. On the mount itself a person who has a bodily tumah
    (e.g. Keri, Nidda etc.) is forbidden. In other sections, e.g.
    azarah, a person who has come into contact with a dead person is
    forbidden (this is considered to apply to all people today).

3.  The relation between "amah" and inches is hotly debated anywhere
    betwwen 18 inches and 24 inches to an "amah". In fact I have seen
    articles that use the size of the present temple mount to determine
    the size of "amah".

4.  There have been numerous articles trying to identify individual
    parts of the temple especially the rock . As far as I can tell no
    two people agree.

5.  Herod extended the temple mount mainly on the South. The kedusha of
    this section is again not clear.

      Rabbi Goren based on his calculations says that one may enter the
section near south-west corner (after tevila in a mikveh and assumming no
bodily tumah) and has advocated building a synagogue there. The general
opinion seems to be that since it is so controversial why take chances.
better to be Machmir and not enter any part ofr the temple mount.

       In addition many rabbis have stressed that one should not insert
his (her) hands in the cracks in the western wall because that may be
also considered part of the temple mount.

Eli Turkel - [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 
From: [email protected] (Bob Werman)
Subject: Ignorance

In Vol.2, #22, Benjamin Svetitsky has some interesting thing to say
about the question of whether to tell an ignorant Jew of the mitzvah
he's violating.

In addition he deals with the specific question raised by

>Alex Herrera made a reductio ad absurdum: Aren't my children better off
>if I teach them nothing, since then they will not be liable for anything
>they do?  I submit the Mishna in Shabbat, 7:1 (which I will paraphrase
>backwards, for effect):

I would like to relate to the positive aspect of informing the ignorant,
not so much from concern about the isur [prohibition - Mod.], nor about
the missing korban [sacrifice - Mod.], but to our relation to the ol
[yoke] of mitzvot.

As observant Jews we are proud of the ol, we accept it as a chosen thing,
not a burden to be despised and to the extent that we can convey the
positive aspect of our relationship to the ol, I think we can also m'karev
[bring close] the ignorant Jew to Torah and mitzvot.


__Bob Werman     [email protected]    [email protected]    Jerusalem

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1991 08:19 CDT
From: Steve Silvern <[email protected]>
Subject: S'micha question

This is a general inquiry.

Does anyone have *specific* information about alternative routes for
s'macha (ordination)?  I'm aware of the requirements of the major
"parties"--they seem to assume that one is becoming a Rabbi as a primary
profession.  What about people who already have a very satisfying
profession, but would serve "part-time" to work with small communities?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 20:10:58 EDT
From: [email protected] (Jay Shayevitz)
Subject: Shalom Biet vs "Wedding?" question

I have a question about a personal matter that I have to deal with. My
wife and I are shomer shabbos. I was raised in a non-observant
household, however. My cousin, who is a homosexual, recently "married"
his partner, in a kind of mock-up of a wedding ceremony, with a chuppa
and even a "rabbi" (who was a woman, no doubt Reform) to conduct the
ceremony. Although we were invited, my wife and I declined to attend.
Now my mother says that, in order to maintain family relationships, we
should give them a gift. Is this appropriate? We do not want to seem
like we condone such a relationship or the mockery of marriage which
this event represents.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 91 09:13:46 EDT
From: [email protected] (Jay Shayevitz)
Subject: Souls, etc.

Morris Podolak writes recently, "In fact, Christians do have souls, all
human beings have souls, and even animals have souls. The Tanya...does
state that Jews have an EXTRA soul. This presents a problem, since a
convert to Judaism would seem to be missing an essential ingredient. In
fact, I don't know how Chabad deals with this problem."

This issue has come up over the course of my life, as my wife is a
convert, and during the course of her journey through Judaism, she
received much assistance from our local CHABAD rabbi and rebbitzin. One
of the things that we both learned early on from them was the idea that
true converts, the geirei hatzedek spoken of in the Shemonah Esrei, are
at birth given Jewish souls, yiddische neshomos, the nature of which is
hidden because of the happenstance of being born to non-Jewish parents.
And that at the time of immersion in the Mikvah, the convert receives
the neshomo kedosha. My wife took much comfort in learning this.

Also, with respect to Laurent Cohen's question about not giving teddy
bears and fluffy animals that are not kosher to children, this is a
custom widely followed particularly among Lubavitcher Chasidim. In fact,
they prohibit ANY representations of non-kosher animals in their homes,
including pictures, patterns on clothing or blankets, and so on. If you
look at children's books published by Merkaz L'Inyonei Chinuch (the
CHABAD publishing house), there are no representations of animals
whatsoever (unlike most other kid's books in the US, which picture
talking bears, horses, etc.).

Speaking of wives and kids, perhaps one of you knowledgeable subscribers
could help me with a question. I am a Levi. I am married to a convert.
Are my children considered Levi'im? Can my sons be called to the Torah
as Levi'im and wash the hands of the Cohanim before duchening? Our local
Vaad HaRabonim (which provided the Beis Din for my wife's halachic
conversion) ruled that my sons had to have a hotafos dam bris and be
immersed as well, because there was some doubt that my wife was
halchically converted before they were born (she originally went before
a Conservative Beis Din).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 91 11:31:21 -0400
From: rmt51%[email protected] (Rick Turkel)
Subject: Tefillin on Chol Hamo`ed

A recent ba`al teshuva (newly observant Jew) approached me on Yom Tov to
ask whether or not we put on tefillin on chol hamo`ed.  My first
response was to ask what his father or grandfather had done, but neither
EVER put on tefillin, and he had no idea about the previous generation.
So much for "minhag avot" (following the customs of one's parents)!  I
then asked him where in Europe his family had come from, since I know
that Litvaks (Jews from Lithuania) do wear tefillin on chol hamo`ed and
Chasidim and most others do not; he said they had come from Poland.
Since my family also came from Poland and we don't wear tefillin on chol
hamo`ed, I told him he probably shouldn't.  Then I asked around among a
number of knowledgeable people and got several different criteria to go
by.  One older man who had come from Europe said that in his town the
deciding factor was whether or not you worked on chol hamo`ed --
laborers and artisans did put on tefillin, while those who didn't work
didn't.  This seems to me to confuse `avoda (labor) with melacha (the
types of work not done on shabbat and yom tov).  Also, is white-collar
work to be classified together with physical labor in making this
decision?  And what if your father was a laborer and you were a student
-- doesn't "minhag avot" override the work/no work criterion?

The question boils down to this:  on what basis does a ba`al teshuva (or a
convert, for that matter) decide whether or not to put on tefillin on chol
hamo`ed?  Any clarification will be appreciated.

                Rick Turkel             ([email protected])


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 91 08:37:31 EDT
From: Yaakov Kayman <[email protected]>
Subject: Wedding Information - "The River, the Kettle, and the Bird"

    In response to Mike Allen's post regarding the abovementioned book,
I must say that I also have a very negative assessment of the book. Mike
Allen asserts, essentially like the book, that Jewish Law puts the
*entire* burden of making his wife, and by extension the marriage, happy
on the man. As the Gemara Ketuvot, the Shulchan 'Arukh Even HaEzer and
the RaMBaM's Mishneh Torah enumerate not only the obligations of a hus-
band, but also those of a wife, I take VERY strong exception to this
book and to this approach of placing all the onus on the man.

Yaakov Kayman ([email protected])
Acknowledge-To: <YZKCU@CUNYVM>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 91 15:35:11 -0400
From: [email protected] (Eliot Shimoff)
Subject: Yom Kippur Avodah

Those of us who have been keeping up with Daf Yomi [lit. page of the
day, there are many people who learn through the Talmud, at the rate of
one page a day, with everyone learning the same page each day. Mod.]
were at a particular advantage this Yom Kippur; the Daf Yomi has been
focusing on the Seder Avodah on Yom Kippur.

Careful reading of the Avodah as presented in the Ashkenazic piyyut
reveal numerous discrepancies; the payyetanic version differs from
that presented in Yoma and (I think) by the  Rambam.  A friend said
he had heard of a recent book that attempted to reconcile the
Ashkenazic piyyut with the Sephardic (and more accurate, it seems)
version.  But my friend couldn't come up with the name of the book,
or its author.  Help!



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 24


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Ignorance (was: Converts) (2)
             [Alexander Herrera, Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth]
        Levitical children of a Giyoret
             [Shlomo Engelson]
        Responses to open letters?
             [Robert A. Levene]
        Shalom Biet vs "Wedding?" question (3)
             [Frank Silbermann, Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth, Elise G. Jacobs]
        Tefillin on Chol Hamo`ed (2)
             [Larry Israel, Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth]
        Yom Kippur Avoda
             ["SHLOMO H. PICK"]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 08:53:32 PDT
From: [email protected] (Alexander Herrera)
Subject: Re: Ignorance (was: Converts)

Benjamin Svetitsky writes:

>Alex Herrera made a reductio ad absurdum: Aren't my children better off
>if I teach them nothing, since then they will not be liable for anything
>they do?  I submit the Mishna in Shabbat, 7:1 (which I will paraphrase
>backwards, for effect):
[paraphrase deleted -ah]
>Sounds logical: one brings an offering for each thing he "forgot," not
>necessarily for each violation.  But what about the last case?  Here
>we have, according to the Gemara, a "tinok she-nishba," a child who
>was taken by non-Jews and raised without any knowledge of mitzvot.
>WHY should he be obligated to bring any offering at all?  Evidently,
>even a violation done in total ignorance upsets the world's balance
>sheet, and has to be put right.

I've read three responses to this subject and two of them implied that
it is important to keep the quantity of sin to a minimum. In this
message Benjamin Svetitsky says that this upset in the balance sheet
needs to be put right. As I make a quick glance around me I see that
the balance is already well out of kilter. If the goal is to reduce the
amount of sin (or at least Jewish sin) in the world, it seems as if
Jews have been losing the battle for some time now. The reason this
subject came up was because I was told that Jews should not seek
converts because converts would add more sin to the general sin balance
of the Jewish people. I want to know if it is reasonable to quantify
sin in this way. As I understand it, not all sins are alike. Some are
worse than others. If a convert sins in some way, this sin will almost
certainly be offset with many mitzvot performed correctly.

I think this balance sheet approach to sin does not take into account
the children of converts. This is not physics. In physics, there must
be a balance. If energy is reduced in one area, it must show up
somewhere else. You cannot destroy it. By the same token, you cannot
create energy out of nothing. But human goodness does not work the same
way. Human goodness can sprout from a sinful environment. A local rabbi
here said on the radio that his mother was and still is an atheist. How
could it happen that an observant Jew issue from such a home? A convert
I know is having trouble observing the mitzvot. Luckily, his wife (also
a convert) is very enthusiastic, and keeps him more or less in line.
His children are now grown, and are much more observant than he is. He
tells me his children try to gently correct him.

I think the mistake Jews are making in quantifying sin in this way is
to forget the children of a convert. A person who takes Judaism
seriously enough to convert, will certainly raise their children as
Jews. To take up my last example again, although my convert friend may
add to the general sinfulness of the Jewish community, his children
have added greatly to the good of the community. His children's
observance (and wife's too) have more than offset any sin he may have
done. I think the argument that converts will add to the general
sinfulness of an already sinful Jewish community is fallacious.

Alex Herrera  uunet!mdcsc!ah

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 9:50:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: RE: Ignorance (was: Converts)

Bob Werman had a very nice thought about frum people's relationship to the
ol mitzvos, which I would like to emphasize.  There's a common Jewish
expression "Ess is shver rzu zein a Yid" - it is difficult to be a Jew.
Rav Moshe Feinstein, ZTZ"L, would always get annoyed by that expression; he
would say, "Nein, ess is gut tzu zein a Yid" - no, it is GOOD to be a Jew.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 09:09:13 -0400
From: [email protected] (Shlomo Engelson)
Subject: Levitical children of a Giyoret

In response to Jay Shayevitz's question in mail.jewish 2(23) regarding 
whether or not his children are Levi'im, that would seem to depend on
whether or not his wife was, in fact, halachically converted before they
were born.  If she was, then, to my knowledge, the children are certainly
Levi'im, since tribal affiliation goes by the father.  However, if she
was not halachically converted before the children were born, and hence the
children were not born Jewish, then they would not be Levi'im, even though
they were converted afterwards, since converts do not have halachic parents
(they are considered to have been born anew).  Thus, as regards various
technical halachic points, the children have no father, so do not inherit
his Levitical status.  The actual case here, though, seems to be one of
safeq [doubt]; in such a case I would suggest checking with your local poseq,
since the laws of s'fequt can be complicated, and may here depend on the
specifics of the case.

	-Shlomo-
[Similar response recieved from: [email protected] (Steven Schwartz)
                                 [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth) ]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 91 10:50:24 -0400
From: [email protected] (Robert A. Levene)
Subject: Responses to open letters?


I've been reading up on the past 4-5 years (and 'best of' past 25
years) of the _Jewish Observer_ magazine (published by Agudath Israel
of America) to get a feel of what their positions are on the issues.

In the 1970 issue, and apparently at regular intervals, I see various
open letters to Our Modern/Centrist/YU Brothers in Torah etc. and I'd
like to know if the people addressed in these articles/letters, such
as R's Lamm, Rackman and Riskin have written open responses or
open letters of their own in other Torah magazines.  Any pointers?

(Attn readers in Balto./DC - would someone please lend me the Jan'84 _JO_?)

Rob


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 10:14:29 CDT
From: Frank Silbermann <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Shalom Biet vs "Wedding?" question

How about a Chumash with commentary (e.g. Hertz or Hirsch)?  This book
is appropriate to give as a gift to most any Jew at any time.  It
contains within it everything you would like to tell them about this
relationship.  Yet, if they interpret the gift as an insult or put-down,
you could claim that since they were the ones who desired the sanction
of Jewish clergy for their relationship, you thought it reasonable to
assume they were interested in Torah & Judaism.

Frank Silbermann	[email protected]
Tulane University	New Orleans, Louisiana  USA


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 9:50:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: Re: Shalom Biet vs "Wedding?" question

Jay Shayevitz asked about sending presents, in the name of "Sholom Bayis"
to a hosexual cousin who "married" his partner.  I daresay that the issur
chomur (strong prohibition) of gilui arayos (immorality) far outweighs the
issue of Sholom Bayis.  My feeling is the only relationship you should have
to this "couple" is to try to discourage their behavior and get them to do
teshuvah.  Recognizing that this result is highly unlikely, I would not
communicate with them at all (IMHO).


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 10:14:57 -0400
From: [email protected] (Elise G. Jacobs)
Subject: Re: Shalom Biet vs "Wedding?" question

With regard to giving a gift to a homosexual cousin and his "spouse", perhaps
one way to deal with the dilemma is to give a gift of Judaica, a menorah or
a book or a kiddush cup, etc.  Essentially, these are gifts that a Jew 
should have (no matter what kind of sin he partakes of) and you would
be reinforcing Judaism, not necessarily a certain interpretation of Judaism.

Elise Jacobs


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 08:30:02 +0200
From: Larry Israel <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Tefillin on Chol Hamo`ed

My father, Z"L, had (what I thought strange) the minhag that if you
worked on Hol Hamoed you put on tefillin. If you kept the stringent
opinions of what you are allowed to do, and did not work, you did not
put on Tefillin.  He himself wore tefillin on Hol Hamoed until he
retired; then he stopped.

He was a misnaged from Transylvania, but there were also hasidim in the
are from which he came.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1991 9:50:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: RE: Tefillin on Chol Hamo`ed

Rick Turkel asked about putting on Tefilin on Chol Ha'moed for someone who
does not have an established minhag.  We have that situation frequently in
our community (White Oak, Maryland), and our Rav (Rav Kalman Winter, SHLIT"A)
paskened that one who has absolutely no minhag in this regard, SHOULD put on
Tefillin conditionally (i.e., he makes no blessing, and has in mind that if
the halachah is that Tefilin are required, they should count as a mitzvah, if
not, then he is putting them on without intent of fulfilling the mitzvah).
The reasoning is that by putting on Tefillin this way, he loses nothing, but
stands to gain the mitzvah if it is in fact required.  On the other hand, one
who has an established familial custom, then "minhag avoseinu b'yodeinu"
(the custom of our anscestors is in our hands).

Regards,
Sheldon Meth ([email protected])


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 16:23 O
From: "SHLOMO H. PICK" <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Yom Kippur Avoda

The Chayei Adam emends the Ashkenazic piyyut in order to realign it with
the halacha [i.e. the Rambam].  In recent years there are many books
that explain the avoda and I call your attention to the Kuntrous Shiurim
that Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein put out from his father-in-law's shiurim.

Yours, Shlomo




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 25


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Shalom Biet vs "Wedding?" question
             [[email protected]]
        Smicha
             [Morris Podolak]
        Tefillin on Hol ha-Mo'ed (again) (2)
             [Benjamin Svetitsky, Rick Turkel]
        Yom Kippur Avoda
             [Arnold Lustiger]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 14:40:24 PDT
From: [email protected]
Subject: Shalom Biet vs "Wedding?" question

[I probably erred in not removing the statement "no doubt Reform" in the
below referenced submission. Dan's submission below clarifies the
position of the Reform movement on the issue of homosexual "marriage".
I do not wish (nor will I allow) debate on the validity of Reform
responsa or the meaning of non-binding responsa. The point below is that
the Reform movement offically does not condone homosexual "marriage".
Mod.]


On Mon, 16 Sep 91 20:10:58 EDT, [email protected] (Jay Shayevitz)
said: 

> My cousin, who is a homosexual, recently "married"
> his partner, in a kind of mock-up of a wedding ceremony, with a chuppa
> and even a "rabbi" (who was a woman, no doubt Reform) to conduct the
> ceremony. 

I would like to address one of the implications here. Although there is
the possibility that the Rabbi was, indeed, Reform, there is no
guarantee. Quoting from "Contemporary American Reform Responsa" by Rabbi
Walter Jacob (CCAR Press):

			   201. HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE

  QUESTION: May a rabbi officiate at the "marriage" of two homosexuals
  (Rabbi L.  Poller, Larchmont, NY)

  ANSWER: The attitude of our tradition and Reform Judaism towards
  homosexuals is clear. For a full discussion, see the responsa by S. B.
  Freehof and W.  Jacob (American Reform Responsa, #13, 14). The
  resolution of the Central Conference of American Rabbis on
  homosexuality deals exclusively with the civil rights and civil
  liberties of homosexuals, and seeks to protect them from
  discrimination. It does not, however, understand it to be an
  alternative lifestyle which is religiously condoned.

  Judaism places great emphasis on family, children, and the future,
  which is assured by a family. However we may understand homosexuality,
  whether as an illness, as a genetically based dysfunction or as a
  sexual preference and lifestyle - we cannot accommodate the
  relationship of two homosexuals as a "marriage" within the context of
  Judaism, for none of the elements of qiddushin (sanctification)
  normally associated with marriage can be invoked for this
  relationship.

  A rabbi can not, therefore, participate in the "marriage" of two
  homosexuals.

Now, of course, as in any age, responsum are not binding. They serve to
guide the Rabbi in answering questions from congregants. Reform does
recognizes as legally valid civil marriages (although they may lack
qiddushin); there is the possibility that the couple added Jewish ritual
to their ceremony without it being a Jewish ceremony (if you understand
what I'm saying). But, in any case, the stated position of the Reform
Rabbinate is against such marriages.

Daniel
[W]:The Aerospace Corp. M1/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 213/336-8228
[Email]:[email protected]              [Vmail]:213/336-5454 Box#13149


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu,  10 Oct 91 09:22:42 +0200
From: Morris Podolak <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Smicha

With respect to Steve Silvern's question about smicha, I don't believe
that the granting of smicha has anything to do with being a full time or
part time rabbi.  The criterion for smicha should be a demonstration of
the ability to give halachic decisions.  There are various levels of
smicha depending on the range of expertise.  I have a friend who is a
mathematician. He decided that he wanted to get smicha, and went to Rav
Moshe Feinstein z"l.  He got his smicha in Orech Chaim (laws of prayer,
Shabbat, yom tov, etc.) rather than the usual Yore Deah (laws of ritual
slaughter, kashrut, and other things).  He had no intention of becoming
a rabbi in any professional sense, all he did was learn a body of
halachic material, and demonstrate that he had mastered it sufficiently
to give reliable rulings in those particular subjects.

Morris Podolak

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 14:20:00 +0200
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Tefillin on Hol ha-Mo'ed (again)

There was some discussion on this question a few months ago.  In my
posting, I quoted the Mishna Berura's statement that one should
definitely follow the custom of the PLACE, i.e., the minyan, rather than
the custom of one's fathers.  I don't see how one's custom could be
influenced by one's occupation, since the origin of the varying customs
is a controversy over a statement by Rabbi Akiva in the Gemara, which
doesn't mention occupation.  Either you interpret it one way, and put on
tefillin, or go the other way, and don't.

Ben Svetitsky

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 91 09:36:22 -0400
From: [email protected] (Rick Turkel)
Subject: Tefillin on Hol ha-Mo'ed (again)

        I am aware of the "minhag hamakom" approach, which worked well
in Europe and elsewhere where the communities were more or less
homogeneous.  However, in America there is usually no minhag hamakom,
since people (or their ancestors) came from all over Europe, where the
customs differed.  I have davened in many shuls over the years, and
NOWHERE have I seen a uniform minhag.  Usually there is a minority of
between ten and thirty percent of the men (Litvaks, for the most part)
wearing tefillin during chol hamo`ed.  Unless the Chief Rabbinate in
Israel has issued a decision on this issue, I would imagine that a
similar situation obtains there.  So the question remains....

                Rick Turkel                     ([email protected])


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 08:34:07 EDT
From: Arnold Lustiger <ALUSTIG%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Yom Kippur Avoda

I have a videotape of Rabbi Soloveitchik giving a Teshuva shiur (a
lecture on repentance) in which he discussed the role of the avoda in
Musaf. In this shiur, he indicated that the seder avoda (the recounting
of the Yom Kippur temple service) in Nusach sefard is more accurate than
it's nusach ashkenaz counterpart, and that it was composed around the
time of the tannaim, much older than the ashkenaz avoda. In fact, as we
go through Daf Yomi (the daily folio of Talmud), one can see that the
mishnayot are often repeated almost word for word in the avoda.

If there is some demand, I can summarize the two hour lecture (it's in
Yiddish). One part of the lecture which had the greatest impact was how
he recounted the indescribable joy of his grandfather Reb Chaim
Soloveitchik ztl while reciting the avoda, followed immediately by
searing pain in reciting the piyutim following: as if he had woken up
from a pleasant dream into a nightmare reality. The pain culminates with
the asara harugei malchut, (the recounting of the murder of ten Rabbis
by the Romans), where we borrow a kinah (dirge) from Tisha B'av. The
point of reading the kinah is not to evoke sadness per se, but to
impress on us that "mipnei chatoeinu galinu me'artzeinu",the lack of a
bet hamikdash(temple) is due to our own sins.  This admission of guilt
is what lies behind the introduction to vidui(confes- sion) "she'ain anu
azei ponim uk'shei oref loma lefanacha tzadikim anachnu v'lo chatanu",
our present state of galut, without a Bet Hamikdash and without an
avoda, is not because we are righteous, but because we have sinned.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 26


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Cable TV and missionaries
             [Robert A. Levene]
        Ignorance
             [Prof. Aryeh Frimer]
        Tefillin, Chol Ha-Mo'ed (2)
             [Steven Schwartz, Joshua Proschan]
        Tefillin, Chol Ha-Mo'ed, Converts
             [Eli Turkel]
        Tefillin, Chol Ha-Mo'ed, Israel
             [Shlomo H. Pick]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 18:54:44 EDT
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

Joshua Proschan  writes me the following:

A question:  why is the topic of non-binding responsa off limits?  I 
seem to recall a number of related discussions.  The question of when 
a p'sak is binding, what one should do if one is aware of contrary 
rulings, and how one should approach published responsa, all seem to 
be just the sorts of things this group was established to discuss. 

He is completely correct. Let me just clarify what I meant and/or what I
was trying to avoid. I was afraid a meta-topic on whether the term
"reform responsa" was meaningless since ALL such responsa, and the
halachic system itself, were non-binding according to their principles.
I wanted to avoid that before it could happen. A discussion of
non-binding responsa within the framework of Halacha, is of course
the kind of thing we want to discuss here. 

I hope this is somewhat more clear now.

One addressing note. If you are sending mail to me, [email protected],
[email protected], ayf%[email protected], att!avi_feldblum, att!pruxk!ayf
are all valid address (all go to the same place). However,
[email protected] (or [email protected]) is NOT. Sorry for
any confusion out there.

Just a quick note on the growth of the mailing list, we are now greater
than 400 strong and represent 13 countries.

-- 
Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 00:44:03 -0400
From: [email protected] (Robert A. Levene)
Subject: Cable TV and missionaries

[Let's start things rolling with a little humor, Mod.]

I heard a variant of the following today.  I thought mail.jewish readers
would enjoy it, although it would bring flames in SCJ ...

" A warning to shul members.  Some 'Jews for Yoshke'
  have been going around the neighborhood offering Cable TV
  as a front for proselytizing.  I'm not sure which is worse... "

- R


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 12:52 O
From: Prof. Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Ignorance


   Regarding the discussion on ignorance, or "Mutav sheyihiyu shogagin
ve'al yihiyu mezidin" (better they should violate unwittingly [[because
of lack of knowledge] than [know and] violate on purpose. This matter
is discussed in the codifiers to Gemara Shabbat 148b and Sulchan Aruch
Orach Chayim 608:2. This principle does NOT apply to situations where
the prohibition is explicit in the Torah ("davar hamefurash baTorah"),
or even if the prohibition is not explicit, it is a severe violation
punishable at least by "Karet" (A heavenly death punishment). In
addition, if there is good reason to believe that your comments will
heeded, you are obligated (because of areivut -religious responsibility
for our fellow Jews - and the commandment of Tochacha - TACTFUL
criticism) to educate the ignorant.
   Being a "Shogeg" does not mean that you are not held responsible for
your actions, it merely lessens the severity of the crime. A shogeg has
to bring a Guilt offering (chatat) too. So ultimately, ignorance is not
an out. The only one who is considered guiltless is the "Anus", he who
does an action against his will or had no control whatsoever.  I hope
this clears up some misconceptions.
          Aryeh Frimer
          f66235@barilan

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 10:29:41 EDT
From: [email protected] (Steven Schwartz)
Subject: Tefillin, Chol Ha-Mo'ed

Some years back, I was told that the minhag hamakom has priority, i.e.
one should wear (or not wear) tefillin with the congregation.  However,
if one has a different minhag, he should davven with a different
congregation during Chol haMoed.  I've also seen people with the
alternate minhag davvening in the women's section during shacharit, in
order that each "section" of the kahal is following the same minhag.
For this, I would think that a minyan is required in at least one
"section"; also, this obviously doesn't work if there are women present
for shacharit.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 01:24 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: Tefillin, Chol Ha-Mo'ed


Regarding the discussion of tefillin on chol ha-moed:  In #25, Rick 
Turkel mentions seeing minyonim that split on this question.  I have 
seen the same thing, and do not understand it.  The European approach, 
as practiced when I was growing up in Brooklyn, was to bring your 
tefillin with you; if those already there were wearing tefillin, you 
put them on, otherwise you didn't.  

This is the same as the question of whether someone who prays nusach 
sefard and is in an ashkenazi shul (or vice versa) should say the same 
kedusha as the majority, and the same kaddish.  There is a prohibition 
in the Torah of "lo sis-god'du".  This literally means "you shall not 
make rows" and is, in its simple meaning, a prohibition against making 
cuts on the face or body as a sign of mourning.  

It is, more broadly, a prohibition against having controversies in a 
community over minhagim and p'sak.  If there is one bais din [rabbinic 
court] in a community, its members are not allowed to publicly follow 
different practices; if there is one shul, everyone must follow its 
customs.  This applies to such things as when Shabbos begins and ends, 
which nusach to use for prayers (including kaddish and kedusha), 
whether to say hallel the night of Pesach, when to have hakafos, 
whether to wear tefillin on chol ha-moed, . . . .  In short, it 
applies to anything that would publicly display divisions in the 
community.  

In a larger community, this principle does not force all shuls to 
follow the same nusach and minhagim; but it *does* require everyone 
present in each one of the shuls to follow *its* customs in anything 
that can be seen or heard by others.  Rav Moshe Feinstein has a strong 
responsum on this (I do not have the reference available.)  As an 
example of how far this extends: Rav Moshe used to join a sefardishe 
minyon in his building.  I am told he kept a gartel there and wore it 
during prayers, even though that was not his personal custom and he 
never wore one under other circumstances. 

This is, in my opinion, a very important halacha that should be 
observed more strictly than it is.  It could be that the lack of 
cohesiveness many deplore in our communities--indeed, some argue that 
we no longer have communities, but merely population concentrations--
is a direct result of ignoring this halacha.  

Joshua H. Proschan   [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 10:01:25 EDT
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Tefillin, Chol Ha-Mo'ed, Converts

Subject: tefillim on chol hamoed

     The question of wearing tefillim on chol hamoed for a ger is part
of the more general question of what customs should a ger follow in
general (e.g. kitnoyot on Pesach etc.). There seems to be two general
approachs among poskim. One is to see what part of the world the ger
came from and to follow the customs of the jews from that community.
The other approach is that the ger follows the customs of the community
that helped him in his conversion. Thus, for example, people who became
jewish through Chabad follow chabad customs. Rav Ovadiah Yosef has said
that a convert from a European background that was converted by
Sephardim should keep Sephardi customs. For a Baal Teshuva he should
keep general Ashkenazi or Sephardi customs of his place of origin but
not family customs.

     In regard to tefillin on Chol Hamoed I have heard frequently of
the custom that it depends on whether one works on Chol Hamoed or not.
I have checked with several rabbis and they all say that there is no
basis to this custom. Basically chassidim do not wear tefillim on
Chol Hamoed while most litvak's do wear but without a blessing. However,
Rabbi hayim Soloveitchik did not wear tefillim on Chol Hamoed. In Israel
the universal custom is not to wear tefillim on chol hamoed.


Eli Turkel    ([email protected])


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 91 14:19 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Tefillin, Chol Ha-Mo'ed, Israel

> Unless the chief rabbinate in Israe has issued a decision on this
> issue, I would imagine that a similar situation obtains there...

It [appears (Mod)] that Rick has not been in Israel during Chol Ha-Moed.
There is absolutely no one who wears tefillin during Chol Ha-Moed.  And
if someone should put them on "go'arim bo" (lit. "shout at him" to
remove them).  Such is the custom from before the establishment of the
chief rabbinate and is already mentioned in the calendars and/or books
of customs in the holy land.  Since when this has been, I do not know,
but the fact is that my custom in usa was to wear them and since i have
settled here i follow the unaminous Eretz Yisrael custom of not wearing
tefillin on Chol Ha-Moed.

Shlomo Pick



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 27


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Har Habayit
             [Yisrael Medad]
        Minhagim in Israel
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Sleeping during the day
             [SAGIR S]
        Sunrise/Sunset program
             [Neil Parks]
        Tefillin, Chol Ha-Mo'ed, Israel
             [Avi Bloch]
        Tefillin, Chol Ha-Mo'ed, Minhag Hamakom
             [D.M.Wildman]
        Ten Bracha.
             [Bob Werman]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 91 13:09 IST
From: Yisrael Medad <MEDAD%[email protected]>
Subject: Har Habayit

In reference to Eli Turkel's response [Vol. 2 No. 23]:

1.  The whole question of "tameh" is a red herring.
	a) a "tameh met" is permitted to enter the vast majority of
the area of Har Habayit as is a corpse itself (see Pesachim 67a,
Sotah 20a, Rambam, Mishneh Torah Hilchot Beit Habchira Chapt. 7, 15,
Hilchot Biat Hamikdash Chapt. 3, 3).
	b) The problem of "baal keri" can be solved by a mikveh dip
that same day.

2.  The identification of the Har Habayit is done by a process of
elimination.  If the present-day compound is double the length of
the original sanctified esplanade, and given the psak of the Radbaz
that the rock at the height of the area is indeed the Even Shtiyah, and
given the fact that archeologists have identified the Herodian addition
(an area south of the line drawn from the Mugrabi Gate in the West
through the steps leading to the Ancient El-Aksa underground chambers
{which I have visited} to the split in the Eastern Wall some 32 meters
north of the south-east corner), it is possible to define those areas which
fall *outside* the sanctified portions.

3.   Even the longest amah measurement, of the Hazon Ish which is 57 cm.,
will still provide enough area that can be permitted to entry.

4.   As for the disagreements between the Rabbis, the dispute is not
halachic.  It is, unfortunately, political.  The extreme approach is
that of the camp of Rav Shach that it is good that the Moslems control
the Har Habayit and therefore prohibit the Jews from going up.  The
Chief Rabbinate knuckled under too and this is from discussions I have
personally had with Chief Rabbis Goren, Eliyahu, Shapira, Rabbis David
Chelouche of Netanya and Shear-Yashuv Cohen of Haifa and Former Ministers
of Religious Affairs Burg, Abu_Hetzeira and Hammer.

5.  As for the not sticking your hand in the Kotel cracks:
it is not "many" Rabbis but a view of a few (pardon the pun) "off the wall"
Rabbis and it doesn't make sense because the Kotel was the external
supporting wall.  If you believe this one about the cracks then it is
clear to other objective parties just how the halacha can be misinterpre-
tated.

6.  The best book on the subject is that of HaRav Zalman Koren, "B'chatzrot
Beit Hashem".  Rav Goren keeps promising me to bring out his consummate
study.  In computer printout it is over 400 pages long.

Yisrael Medad
<MEDAD@ILNCRD>


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 91 19:30:17 +0200
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Minhagim in Israel

When I came to Israel, I found that most Ashkenazim follow the rulings
and customs of the Gra, R. Elijah of Vilna.  This "most" is of course
qualified -- it obviously doesn't include chassidim.  Does it really
include the large majority of mitnagdim?  How universal is
minhag-ha-Gra?

I understand that the situation dates back to the early 19th century,
when the Gra encouraged many of his students to move to Israel and
establish communities here.  Where were these communities? And why were
these immigrants entitled to ignore the sepharadi customs (and customs
of the Ari) which were already established?

-Ben Svetitsky  ([email protected])

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 91 12:25:15 +0100
From: SAGIR S <[email protected]>
Subject: Sleeping during the day

What does one do with respect to sleeping during the day ?

At first there appears to be no problem, but when one reads about the
correct way of sleeping during the night then my question becomes valid.
I know that in the first place one should not sleep during the day, but
what happens if one does ? Furthermore, on Shabbat their is a mitvah to
sleep, so what does one do ?

With respects to sleeping during the night, both Ashkenasi and Sephardi
sources mention a particular approach.

For Ashkenasi' the Schulchan Aruch (Siman Ayin-Aleph, Se`if katan hey)
says when dealing the laws of the night:

" One should be particularly careful to sleep on ones side. It is a big
ISSUR [Prohibition] to supine, that is lying back down and face up, or
face down and back up,So one should surely sleep on ones side. And it is
better to sleep primarily on the LEFT side, and end up on ones RIGHT
side, and this is good for bodily health, since the liver is situated on
the RIGHT side and the intestine is on the LEFT side. And when one tilts
on the LEFT side, then the liver leans on the intestine and heats it
with its warmth, and thus the food digests quickly. And after the food
has digested it is befitting for him to tilt to the RIGHT side, so that
the intestines can rest and the food pulp can fall. And on should not
turn from side to side many times ".

For Sephardim the Ben Ish Chai (Parshat Pekudai Year 1, Se`if yud) says:

" At the beginning of the night one should sleep on the LEFT side
(before MIdnight using seasonal hours) and after Midnight (seasonal
hours), if one wishes, one may tilt to the RIGHT side. And this custom
helps to annul external forces (evil), as is written in "The Gates Of
Intentions". One should be careful to sleep with the small Talit on
(Tzitzit), and not take it off even when one sleeps at night on the bed,
and this will immensely help against evil forces, as is mentioned in
"The Gates Of Intentions".. And should also be careful not to have any
metals on when one sleeps ".

As you can see there is plenty mentioned with respects to night but
what about day ?

 What is definite is that one may not supine, but does one sleep on the
LEFT or RIGHT side ? One might say that we sleep on the RIGHT since we
only refer to the LEFT when speaking about the first part of the night,
or one might say that it doesn`t matter. Does it ?

 Your answers would be appreciated,

				Shlomo Sagir

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 01:11:03 -0500
From: [email protected] (Neil Parks)
Subject: Sunrise/Sunset program


>  I tried this request on soc.culture.jewish to no avail, perhaps you
>fine people can help: I am looking for source code for a program to
>generate candle lighting times/sunset for chagim  (for at least
>Boston) given a future date.  Thanks.

The program you want is called JCAL, by Lester Penner.  It is widely
available as shareware.  If you know your latitude and longitude, you
can have the candle lighting time for any date you want.  And that is
only one of many valuable features the program has.  It will convert
between Hebrew and popular dates for any year, it will give you dates
for Jewish holidays in any year you want, and if you enter any
significant date (a Yahrzeit, for example), you can find out when that
event will occur for as many years into the future as you want.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 91 18:20:02 EET
From: sun!nsc!taux01.nsc.com!avi (Avi Bloch)
Subject: Re: Tefillin, Chol Ha-Mo'ed, Israel

[Quoted from Shlomo H. Pick in "mail.jewish Vol. 2 #26" of Oct 16:]
> but the fact is that my custom in usa was to wear them and since i have
> settled here i follow the unaminous Eretz Yisrael custom of not wearing
> tefillin on Chol Ha-Moed.

Just a small point. When we made aliyah, my father did the same as Shlomo.
However, if I remember correctly, he still had to make a hatarat neder 
[anulling of a vow]. If I'm not mistaken, this was done according do a psak
given to my father by Rabbi Sinai Adler, the then chief rabbi of Ashdod.

Avi Bloch

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 17 Oct 1991   9:39 EDT
From: [email protected] (D.M.Wildman)
Subject: Tefillin, Chol Ha-Mo'ed, Minhag Hamakom

Josh Proschan writes (ellipses mine):

>This is the same as the question of whether someone who prays nusach
>sefard and is in an ashkenazi shul (or vice versa) should say the same
>kedusha as the majority, and the same kaddish.  There is a prohibition
>in the Torah of "lo sis-god'du"....

>It is, more broadly, a prohibition against having controversies in a
>community over minhagim and p'sak...
>...  This applies to such things as when Shabbos begins and ends,
>which nusach to use for prayers (including kaddish and kedusha),
>whether to say hallel the night of Pesach, when to have hakafos,
>whether to wear tefillin on chol ha-moed, . . . .  In short, it
>applies to anything that would publicly display divisions in the
>community.

I once heard that, at least from its own perspective, Nusach Sefarad
is "superior" to Nusach Ashkenaz with regard to kedusha and kaddish.
Therefore, those who pray Nusach Sefarad maintain their own version
even when praying (privately, not leading the prayer) in a Nusach 
Ashkenaz minyan, whereas they hold that someone who normally
prays Nusach Ashkenaz would switch to the Sefardishe kedusha and
kaddish when praying in a Sefardishe minyan. Can this one-sided
interpretation of "lo titgod'du" be real? Has anybody else heard 
this or know of a source?

Another common example of a breach in minhag hamakom is standing 
or sitting for L'cha Dodi.  Many American shuls look like a random 
hodge-podge of sitters and standers on Friday night. To the 
unfamiliar, it could easily look hefker [in this context, "out 
of control" seems like a good paraphrase].

As many have already noted, the concept of "minhag hamakom" [the
local custom] seems to have eroded in America. I have heard the
justification that our mobile society does not lend itself to the
development of "real" local customs, especially since many communities
were founded by Jews from different countries with differing customs.
This argument implies that things were different in Europe and the
Middle East in times past. I wonder if that's a valid assumption.

One might also question the veracity of the argument that American
Jewish communities (or shuls, at least) were "born" heterogenious.
Where I grew up in Rochester, New York, all the Ashkenazi shuls
were clearly Litvakish in origin. My current community in
New Jersey stems from three shuls in New Brunswick (for a time 
under a single Rabbi), each one catering to a homogenious grouping
of lansmen (fellow countryman, e.g., Hungarian, Polish, Litvakish).
In the midwest, where nusach sefarad [I can't translate this] is
standard, one guesses that most shul founders were from Chassidic
origin. Thus, I find it hard to justify the notion that American
shuls cannot standardize on a single minhag; indeed, many have.

Josh, refering to "lo titgod'du", concludes: 

>This is, in my opinion, a very important halacha that should be
>observed more strictly than it is.  It could be that the lack of
>cohesiveness many deplore in our communities--indeed, some argue that
>we no longer have communities, but merely population concentrations--
>is a direct result of ignoring this halacha.

I agree wholeheartedly. Is there any halachic basis for maintaining
one's personal minhag in a public gathering where there is a competing,
prevelant local custom? 

What should be done in a new shul founded by Jews of different
origins - adopt the nusach with the largest plurality among the
founders? Vote your favorite? Synthesize a "nusach ichud", a single 
unified version from the various constituencies?

Danny Wildman
[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun,  20 Oct 91 21:50 +0300
From: Bob Werman <[email protected]>
Subject: Ten Bracha.

An Israel - galut question.

We start to say Ten Tal u-Matar l'Bracha here on the 7th of marheshvon,
while in galut they start only on December 5.

Someone visiting here will say Ten Tal u-matar l'Bracha with us while
here.

I would imagine he would continue when he returns [before December 5] as
reversion to the summer form of Ten Bracha would seem to make no sense.

But what if he is asked to daven before the amud?  What should he do
then?

Has anyone encountered this question?   Thanks.

__Bob Werman    [email protected]    [email protected]
Jerusalem



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 28


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Help with a Translation
             [Rivka]
        Lo Titgodedu (2)
             [Eli Turkel, Joshua Proschan]
        Shalom Biet vs "Wedding"
             [Aryeh Blaut]
        Tfilin on Hol Hamoed for a Ba'al Tshuva
             [Aryeh Blaut]
        Trick or Treat
             [Aryeh Blaut]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1991 14:18:16 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected] (Rivka)
Subject: Help with a Translation

I am writing to see if anyone happens to be familiar with Israeli
government documents or their vocabulary.  

I am trying to translate letters for a school in Israel and am stuck on
a couple of words & abbreviations.  (I tried three local Israelis and
the nearest consulate, most were stumped, so if there's any mayven out
there, please help!)

Letter #1 is from Misrad HaDatot, certifying the school as a "Mosad
Torani".  They are told "Hamosad yetukzav al yadeinu bs"d behetem
lemispar hatalmidot v'al pi hata`arif hamatim". Which I translated as
"The institution will be budgeted by us, with G'd's help, according to
the number of students and the appropriate allocation".

The letter ends with copies to the Menahel Clali (general director?)
and the Chashev Hamisrad.  Would that be staff accountant or controller?

Letter #2 is from Misrad HaPnim, Rishum HaAmutot and includes the phrase:
"Hinneni le`asher ki `hatiknun' ha'amutah" - 
                      ^^^^^^^^
I may have that word wrong altogether, my fax wasn't clear I put - "I
hereby certify that the incorporated entity"?  .... 'she'misparah rashum
le`el, hu hatiknun hamatzui lefi se'if 10 "whose number is listed above,
is a legal entity according to paragraph 10...

Letter #3 is the most puzzling.
It's from the 'Netzivut Mas Hachnasah Umas Rechush' 
	       Office of Income and Property Tax
and then lists: "Hamachlakah leTipul bemosdot tzibur umelcharim"
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^
spelled mem-lamed-chaf-two lines to show abbreviation"-yud-mem sofit.
So I take this to be "Division of Public Institutions and ?????

Also, the heading has : Lichvod: to: name of school followed by
aleph-period-gimmel-period-nun-period.  Could this represent "Adon Oh
Geveret Nichbad"?

Finally, we have "mem-tzadi-"bet" ishur kevakashatchem"

Does that mean - we hereby certify as a 'mossad tziburi' as you requested,
or does the abbreviation stand for "masura tzerufah bazeh" - is enclosed?

Replies can be sent directly to [email protected]
---- Rivka

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 09:41:49 EST
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Lo Titgodedu


     In regard to the question of Nusach Sefard and Nusach Ashkenaz I
wrote a lengthy article that appeared about 2 years ago in the Journal
of Halacha and Contemprorary Society. In short there are a number
of authorities that state that Nusach Sefard is the "better" nusach
since it was done by the Ari. There is a whole kaballist approach
based on gates in heaven for prayers. There conclusion is that one may
change from ashkenaz to sefard. Other (many litvak) authorities
disagree with this approach. Rabbi Feinstein states that anyone of
European background can change from sefard to ashkenaz since the
chasidic communities prayed ashkenaz several hundred years ago and
that is their custom.

     In terms of lo titgodedu there is a disagreement among rishonim
whether the reason for this is to prevent fights in the community or
else to prevent the appearance of the existence of two torahs (or 2
sets of laws). The application in modern day shuls depends on these 2
approachs. In most places fights are not a problem since most people
recognize the other customs because of the intermingling of the
communities. Where a fight would arise everyone agrees that preventing
fights takes precedence over ones own custom.

    The general consesus is that one should practice ones own customs
in private and the community customs in public. The problem comes in
defining private and public. At one extreme Rabbi Feinstein states
that everything is public except for the private shemonei esrei.
Hence, he feels that anything in shul should be done my minhag hamokom
and not one's private custom. As pointed out in this forum Rabbi Feinstein
would even wear a gartel when praying in a chasidic minyan. Others
disagree and hold that most things are private. The only "public"
matters would be things that have to be recited out loud. For example,
hedusha, kaddish, and any prayers by the amud, anyone called up for
an aliyah, etc.

    As an aside Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef has come out very strongly against
the concept of a "nusach achid" which attempts to forge a new, unified
prayer. To the best of my knowledge that attempt never succeeded. I
know of many shuls where the determination of ashkenaz or sefard is
left to the chazzan of the day (rightly or wrongly) but know of no
shul that compromized by permamently adopting the "nusach achid" as
put out in the Israeli army siddur. When I am in the army on reserve duty
they usually pray in nusach sefard and not the army's nusach achid.

Eli Turkel

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 19:20 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: Lo Titgodedu

It seems to me that the situation Danny Wildman describes (one group 
regarding their nusach for kedusha and kaddish as superior to all others, 
and therefore claiming the right to follow it in any shul while insisting 
that others follow their nusach in their shul) is *exactly* what "lo sis-
god'du" [do not make divisions] is supposed to prevent.  

Danny raises the question of standing or sitting for L'cha Dodi Friday 
evening.  There is a technical difference here, from kedusha or kaddish.  
Those who sit, when the custom is to stand, are not obviously defying the 
custom.  They may be too tired to stand, they may not be feeling well, 
etc.  Since there are reasonable alternatives to saying they are 
following a different custom, sitting does not violate "lo sis-god'du".  
Of course, if someone announces "My custom is to sit" and does so, back 
to square one.  

Danny's point about American shuls not starting heterogeneous is a good 
one.  I grew up in Boro Park, at a time when there were active large 
shuls, both Ashkenazic and (East European) Sephardishe.  All of them had 
well-defined minhagim and nusach.  (Of course, in the old days many 
people were more interested in the chazzan than in the details of the 
nusach.)  Many of the shuls were founded by Societies from particular 
cities in Europe, so that they could continue to follow their customs 
here.  For example, Anshei Lubabitch was founded by immigrants from 
that city and had nothing whatever to do with Lubabivitcher chassidus.  

>                . . . . Is there any halachic basis for maintaining
>one's personal minhag in a public gathering where there is a competing,
>prevelant local custom? 

This is an excellent question.  I suspect that there is none, and would 
be fascinated to see the sources for this, if anyone has any. 

>What should be done in a new shul founded by Jews of different
>origins - adopt the nusach with the largest plurality among the
>founders? Vote your favorite? Synthesize a "nusach ichud", a single 
>unified version from the various constituencies?

I suspect that, given the enormous number of inter-related questions a 
nusach involves, it is not practicable to synthesize a new nusach by 
sitting down to do so.  There is an old saw about a camel being a race 
horse designed by a committee.  This is unfair to camels, but I have used 
programming languages that were designed by committees, and in which 10 
divided by 2 was (by design!) sometimes 5 and sometimes 0.  

I think the best way is to start with an existing nusach and let it 
evolve through use.  Having a highly knowledgeable Rav helps with this.  
*Having* a Rav is essential, in my opinion.  Otherwise, you are 
continually standing around arguing what to do while tempers fray and 
dinners burn.  I have been in shuls like that, and my choice is for a 
shul where there is a Rav in control, regardless of nusach.  



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 21:44:09 EST
From: [email protected] (Aryeh Blaut)
Subject: Shalom Biet vs "Wedding"

Jay Shayevitz had asked about being able to send a gift to a homosexual
couple.  I can only answer by applying the Tshuva (response) I received
regarding attending/sending a gift, etc. to a "Mixed marriage".

This was an immediate family member (male) who married a non-jewish
women.  We (my wife and I) were not allowed to attend the "wedding", my
wife could not attend the bridal shower and we could not send a "wedding
gift".  In a nut shell, we could not do anything to show that this
"marriage" was acceptable.

However, at the same time, we could not do anything to push the relative
away or to show him rejection.  As with any other avaira (wrong doing),
it is the act that is disliked, not the person.

I hope that this is of some help.

Aryeh Blaut


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 21:47:11 EST
From: [email protected] (Aryeh Blaut)
Subject: Tfilin on Hol Hamoed for a Ba'al Tshuva

In response to Rick Turkel's question of what a Ba'al Tshuva does on
Hol Hamoed, I had this question myself a number of years ago.  The only
thing I had going for me so to speak is that I knew that my great, great,
grandfather (on my father's side) came from someplace in Germany.

My posik spent a few days researching the question and came back to
me with it seems like a tie.  Just as many Poskim say to put it on
as do say leave them off.  He then said in such a case it was up to 
me what I wanted.

On another occation, I had the oppertunity to meet privately with Rav
Dovid Fienstein, shlita and I asked him if someone does not know
what his "family custom" is, what customs should he follow?  He answered
that he should follow the custom of the Rav who he is learning with.

Regarding "minhag hamakom" (custom of the place), I saw the answers but 
that does not help your question.  In the place that I live, all of the
"Kosher" minyanim do not put on Tfilin on Hol Hamoed.  There are several
of us "Hol Hamoed Tfilin wearers" who, after davening, go into a back room
and put on our Tfilin and say Shma over again.

Aryeh Blaut


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 21:47:48 EST
From: [email protected] (Aryeh Blaut)
Subject: Trick or Treat


I have been asked by several people as to if it is Asur (forbidden)
to had out kosher or non kosher candy on October 31.

My gut feeling is that it should be asur under Hukat Ha'akum (Laws
of the non-Jews).  

Does anyone have any information that can be of help in answering these
people (or am I off base and is it really okay?).

Thanks,

Aryeh Blaut (ablaut)



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 29


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Discovery Comes to Piscataway
             [Joshua Proschan]
        What Is Discovery?
             [Joshua Proschan]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 18:00 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: Discovery Comes to Piscataway

For those who want to judge for themselves, or who know someone who
would be interested or would benefit, Morasha's next Discovery seminar
will be in New Jersey on the weekend of November 8-10 (Friday afternoon
through Sunday).  The speakers include Rav Noach Weinberg (founder of
Aish HaTorah), Gerald Schroeder (physicist and author of "Genesis and
the Big Bang"), and Harold Gans (mathematician).  The seminar will be in
Piscataway, at the Sheraton Regal Inn.  Rates are $195/person double
occupancy, $250/person single occupancy, $125/third person in room, and
$65/child with parents.  Judging by the last seminar, the food should be
excellent; Morasha's approach isn't exclusively intellectual.  For
information about other family and student rates, call Morasha at
908-905-6770.  For any other questions, send me e-mail and I'll try to
answer them.

Joshua Proschan  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 18:00 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: What Is Discovery?

Recent postings have discussed the Discovery seminars and their
underlying approach.  These reflect a substantial misunderstanding of
the nature and purpose of Discovery.  I would like to present the
Discovery point of view, at least as we understand it in Lakewood.

[My credentials: I am now working on a training program for
Morasha/Heritage lecturers (Morasha/Heritage is Lakewood's kiruv
organization).  I attended a Morasha seminar given by Arachim's
founders, who originated this approach, in Lakewood for the Yeshivah
community.  I helped plan and participated in a Morasha-sponsored
Discovery seminar in Asbury Park for a general (and not observant)
audience.  I am helping with the planning for Morasha's next Discovery
seminar.]

The postings raise several questions.  First, can (or should) Discovery
offer proofs of the Divine authorship of the Torah, and are such proofs
"deliberately unsound"?  Second, is the material presented on "codes" in
the Torah "sleight-of-hand", or "tricks"? Third, is there any
intellectual content to the Discovery seminars?  Fourth, does it work?
The posters offer only their opinions (the "codes" are "tricks"; the
Torah excludes objectivity) and ridicule (anyone presenting objective
evidence of Torah's validity is either a liar, an ignoramus, or
Moshiach).  They do not challenge the facts presented in Discovery
seminars.  They do not point to flaws in Discovery's arguments.  They
simply do not like Discovery's conclusions, and challenge Discovery's
right to publicize them. This reminds me of W. K. Clifford's [as in
Clifford algebras] observation that the hardest lesson any scientist
must learn is to be tolerant of the views of others, even when those
others are so injudicious as to express them.  I would like to get this
discussion focussed on facts and reasoning, not opinions.

FIRST: Can there, and should there, be proof of Torah MiSinai [that
Torah was given to us by G-d on Mt. Sinai]?  The authors of the postings
confuse several issues.  They equate the claim that "objective analysis
. . . would indicate the Torah's Divine authorship" with a "proof of the
Torah's Divine authorship", with a "proof of G-d's existence", and with
"objective evidence of Torah's validity".  They then reject them all,
saying that there can be no proof of G-d's existence.  These arguments
confuse two meanings of the word "proof", and are fallacious.

There are several meanings of "proof".  We mathematicians consider a
proof to be a rigorous, verifiable, valid logical argument, based on
postulates, axioms, and previous theorems. (This, I believe, is why
there can be no mathematically rigorous proof of G-d's existence: every
proof rests on assumptions, and how do you prove those assumptions?)
Such proofs are but rarely found outside mathematics, and this is *not*
the normal meaning of the word "proof".

In common parlance a proof is a convincing argument or demonstration.
In some disciplines, there are standards for what is accepted as
convincing.  (For example, in law we find the standards of proof beyond
a reasonable doubt, and of the preponderance of the evidence.  In the
social sciences and medical research we find the standard of statistical
significance at the .05 level.)  Whether or not there are formal
standards, the meaning of proof is the same: not a rigorous, valid
mathematical proof, but a sufficiently convincing argument.

In this normal sense of "proof", I can very properly and reasonably
claim to have a proof of the Divine origin of Torah. I am claiming only
to have a convincing argument, not a logically-irrefutable one.  I am
also claiming only to convince the open-minded; advocates of some
particular position who filter all information through their
preconceptions will not find any proof convincing.  This is the sense in
which Discovery asserts that it has proof.  If you remain unconvinced,
or dislike my conclusions, you may say I do not (in your opinion) have a
good proof; but you cannot say that I am doing something dishonest or
fraudulent, am using unsound arguments, or do not have a proof.

Unless, of course, you catch me in an error of fact, logic, or rhetoric.
This, for the Discovery seminars, is unlikely.  Unlike the revival
meetings described in the previous postings, Discovery seminars place
all facts, arguments, and conclusions out for examination and
discussion.  If we tried to use fabricated facts or fallacious
arguments, they would very quickly be found out and the entire process
discredited.  This has not happened in the 18 years that Arachim and
others have been presenting these seminars.  There are people we do not
convince, but that is another matter.

It is significant that no one decrying Discovery's approach has
described an error of fact, whether literary, archaeological or
historical.  No one has pointed out a flaw in our logic.  No one has
produced a contradictory fact and challenged us to explain it.

One poster dismisses any possibility of objective evidence for Torah
MiSinai [the Divine origin of Torah], and ridicules anyone who asserts
such a claim.  He bases this on his interpretation of the introduction
to Rav S. R. Hirsch's "Nineteen Letters".  I cannot find this idea in my
copy; but I do not believe Rav Hirsch would say such a thing.  In an
article entitled "Belief" and "Knowledge" (Collected Writings of Rabbi
Samson Raphael Hirsch, Volume II, Feldheim, p. 138 et seq.), Rav Hirsch
vehemently attacks the notion that the basis for Judaism should be
subjective belief and emotion.  To quote just one sentence, "Rather, it
[Judaism] seeks to *implant* religion into man's emotions through clear
cognitive and intellectual perceptions based on the recognition and
acceptance of Divine truths that have been objectively documented."
This could be the motto for Discovery.

Let's take a closer look at this question of objective evidence.
Objective evidence is just that; facts, documents, observations, and so
on (but not, of course, their interpretations).  If I find written
records in an archaeological dig that corroborate information in the
Torah, then I have indeed found objective evidence of the Torah's
validity.  It is but one small piece of evidence, true enough; certainly
not conclusive evidence; but still evidence, and objective.

A specific example: Wellhausen and his gang [creators of the Documentary
Hypothesis] claimed that the Torah's account of the lives of the Avos
[Patriarchs] is--of necessity--false in detail, as it was (according to
Wellhausen) written many hundreds of years later and anachronisms would
be unavoidable.  (In support of his logic--but not his conclusion--the
movie "Back to the Future" is set within living memory and yet has such
errors.) One specific point Wellhausen made is that the Torah describes
the Avos as having herds of camels, while there was--in his day--no
archaeological evidence for domestication of camels until 300 years
after Avrohom.  We now have written records from the region, dated to
about 200 years before Avrohom, that include sales contracts for
domesticated camels.  This is incontrovertible objective evidence, and
it is evidence for the correctness of the Torah.  There are no lies; no
inability to understand the phrase "objective evidence"; no claims to be
Moshiach; no "deliberate use of unsound logic": just objective evidence.

Discovery does *not* claim to have a rigorous, logical proof that the
Torah is of Divine origin.  We *do* claim to have objective evidence
supporting the Divine origin of Torah.  We *do* claim to have massive
quantities of evidence.  We *do* claim to have at least as much
convincing, objective evidence for Torah MiSinai than is available for
any generally-accepted scientific or academic theory.  We *do* claim to
have stronger proof--in the common meaning of the word--than people
normally rely on for the most important decisions of their lives.  This
is the point of the Discovery seminars.  Not predicate logic, but
evidence that most people do not know.

There is an episode in the Torah that sheds much light on this. When
Israel left Egypt after the Ten Plagues, crossed the Red Sea, and saw
the Egyptians drowned, the Torah says that they then--and only
then--believed in Hashem.  After the Ten Plagues--they did not believe.
After the splitting of the Red Sea--they did not believe.  After the
miracles at the Red Sea--they did not believe.  After the Egyptians
drowned, when Hashem was visible to them all-- they finally believed.
Rashi says this proves that they were "believers, who were the
descendants of believers". This does not, at first glance, seem
possible.  Surely believers would have believed long before that.  The
later commentators say that, had they not been believers, they would
have rejected even this final evidence.  No amount of evidence or proof
is enough for those who are determined not to believe.

(I am fascinated by the reaction I can get from most educated people
simply by saying that G-d exists and created the universe, or that the
Torah is of Divine origin.  Nobody quite faints, but they start edging
towards the exits.  No one says "What evidence do you have; let's see if
you're right."  The reaction is always "That can't be true, it upsets my
philosophy or lifestyle, I define you to be wrong and now I don't even
need to know what your evidence is to attack it."  Well, it may not be
fashionable or Politically Correct to argue for the truth [make that
Truth] of Torah; but no Truth depends on whether any of us like it, or
want it to be true.  The evidence is either there or it isn't. Not
looking at it will not make it vanish, any more than the moons of
Jupiter vanished in Galileo's day.)

SECOND: Is the "codes" research "tricks", and comparable to the use of
magic and charlatanry?  Let us look at what this research is, what it
proves, and what claims Discovery makes for it.  The "codes" are better
called patterns; but the label "codes" is too entrenched to change.
Consider the following line of text, taken from an earlier issue of
mail.jewish:

    jeffreykleinquotedadiscoveryspeakersayingthatthegoaloftheselectur
                   ^          ^          ^

The three marked letters spell "try", with a spacing or skip of 11
letters.  This is an equidistant letter sequence, or ELS, for "try".  If
there is a large enough block of text, there will be many ELS's for
"try" with different skips.  We take the one with minimal non-trivial
skip (at least one letter skipped).  Minimal ELS's are a global property
of the text.  Change part of the text, and the locations will change for
most ELS's.  So far, we have described nothing that is unique to the
Torah.  These codes can be found in any piece of text, without much
trouble.  (The example above took me about 5 seconds, in the first piece
of text I tried.)

The first step in the statistical experiment, as described in the
Discovery seminars I have attended, is to select pairs of words that are
related to each other, in a deterministic way that is independent of the
text.  For the "codes" research, the pairs were the names and yahrzeits
[date of death] of 50 prominent rabbis, as given in an encyclopedia.
Next, a definition of "distance" between pairs of ELS is given.
Finally, one locates the pairs in the Torah and in control texts, and
tabulates their distances in each document.  (One control text is the
Samaritan version of the Torah, which is very close textually.  The
second is the Torah, divided into 1,000-character blocks with the first
definite-article "heh" in each block deleted.  The third is a
randomization of the Torah; same distribution of letters, but no
apparent ordering.)

The distributions can be analyzed statistically to decide whether they
could reasonably have arisen by random chance or not.  For the control
documents, the distributions are essentially uniform; i.e., random
placement of the ELS's.  For the Torah, the distribution is not uniform;
the probability against the null hypothesis (uniformity) is phenomenally
small: about .000 000 001 (ten to the minus ninth).  This was repeated
with a different set of names and dates.  Again, the probability of the
distances being from a uniform distribution was about ten to the minus
ninth.  Considered together, the two sets give a probability of about
1e-17 (ten to the minus seventeenth).  This is unquestionably a valid
proof.  Few things in the sciences have been established to this level
of confidence.  There is no medicine on the market, no surgical
procedure, whose efficacy has been proven at anything approaching this
level.  Journals in medicine and the social sciences routinely accept a
probability of .05 as publishable proof.

There is no need to take my word for the results.  Like any scientific
experiment, this is repeatable.  Witztum's book gives enough information
to allow repeating these tests (cf. chapter 6, especially p. 95 et seq.)
(I find the strongest argument for this work being respectable science
to be Arachim's encouragement of independent repetition.  I have had
dealings with the crackpot fringe, and their work is always
irreproducible and must be taken on faith.  Respectable science--not
necessarily correct, but respectable--is reproducible.)  All anyone
needs to duplicate the ELS results are a PC, a completely correct
machine-readable copy of the Torah, and some knowledge of statistics.
Reliable copies of the Torah are available on diskette, although at a
price; or you can keyboard and proof-read your own copy.

The question now remains, what does this mean?  What conclusions may
validly be drawn from the ELS results?  I have heard the following two
conclusions drawn from this statistical analysis of "codes":

1. The Documentary Hypothesis is false.  [The Documentary Hypothesis is
   Wellhausen's assertion that the Torah, and the rest of Tanach, is
   result of an editor combining the work of many independent authors.
   Despite having been repeatedly disproven by its own methods (cf.
   Cassuto), the D.H. has become part of pop culture and, like a
   starfish, multiplies each time it is destroyed.]

2. The Torah is a single, unified document that we possess in its original
   form.

Granted, these conclusions are based on the statistical evidence, and do
not inherit the original's confidence levels.  They are still not easy
to ignore or reject.  To discredit the first one, you would have to
demonstrate a feasible alternative--either by successfully inserting an
equally complex array of patterns in a text without damaging its meaning
or literary qualities, or by finding such patterns in other texts.
(Keep in mind that each change you make to insert a new pattern risks
destroying the previous ones).  Without this demonstration, all you are
saying is that you don't like the conclusion.  To discredit the second,
you would have to say that these patterns were not in the original
Torah, but appeared through the centuries either through random scribal
errors or through deliberate human editing.  Again, you would have to
show the feasibility of this.  If you claim that the patterns are
random, the same random processes should have affected all sufficiently
large and old texts.  Why don't they appear the same way in the
Samaritan bible?  If you claim that it is the result of human effort,
duplicate that success on another text.  For both conclusions, you would
also have to explain the editor's prescience.

The global nature of the patterns thus provides convincing,
statistically- valid evidence that the Torah has been transmitted
through the generations without change.  This is the key point of the
codes for the Discovery seminar.

There is far more to the "codes" (see "HaMaymad HaNosaf" by Doron
Witztum).  Minimal ELS's for groups of words relating on topics from the
American and French revolutions to diabetes have been found together in
the Torah.  None of this is trickery.  (The slides *are* arranged in
tabular form to make the patterns easy to see; but this arranging does
not *create* patterns, it only makes them visible.  This is showmanship,
not trickery or fraud.) I do not have statistical analyses for these
patterns, although they can be done.  Even without the calculations,
these collocated patterns are objective evidence; anyone with an
accurate text of the Torah can confirm their existence.  They are also
convincing.  To dismiss them, you would first have to demonstrate the
ability to generate such global patterns.  You would then have to
explain how your hypothetical editor, who even according to Wellhausen
lived over 2000 years ago (before the Septuagint was made), knew enough
to include them.  Alternatively, you would have to argue that these are
mere random effects; a form of textual evolution: but then similar
patterns should occur in every sufficiently large and ancient piece of
text.  Where are they?

Everything considered, the mere presence of the "codes" is
overwhelmingly convincing.

THIRD: Is the content of the Discovery seminars merely "cute", and too
superficial to be worth while?  Rick quotes an Aish HaTorah news release
as saying their programs are geared to yuppies.  This is not so.  The
seminars have been tailored for specialized audiences such as scientists
or yeshivah students, and could be tailored for yuppies.  Yuppies are
pretty much extinct around here; but possibly Columbus has enough
yuppies left to make it worth tailoring programs specifically for them.
:->.  Discovery speaks to all Jews interested in an intellectual
approach to Judaism, rather than an emotional approach.  I cannot
imagine anyone devoid of intellectual curiosity or lacking concern about
a philosophy of life signing up for a Discovery seminar.

If Rick found the lectures he heard superficial, it may be because he
heard isolated lectures, not a complete seminar.  The talks are not
independent.  Another likely cause is that Discovery seminars are
intended for those with little knowledge of Judaism or little
commitment.  If the audience is not homogeneous, the speakers must still
match the lectures to the less knowledgeable part of the audience.
There simply aren't enough lecturers to do separate, more advanced
lectures also. That doesn't mean it can't be done.  Morasha has
presented this material to the Yeshivah community in Lakewood (which no
one can accuse of superficial knowledge of Torah or lack of skepticism
about "new" approaches to Torah) to enthusiastic response and demands
for more seminars.  (I have the file for a news article on the Lakewood
seminar, which describes the sessions; if there is enough interest, I
can post it to the group, or perhaps Avi can put it on the archive
server.)  The material far transcends "cute", but you have to make
allowances for the audience not knowing everything that you know.

FOURTH: The final, key question for any kiruv effort is whether it
succeeds.  For Discovery, success cannot be judged by exit polls after
the last lecture.  Success depends on what the participants are doing a
month later, or a year later.  Remember, in Israel the Arachim seminars
last seven days.  In America the Discovery versions are only one or two
days.  (There is an interesting socioeconomic fact buried here
somewhere.)  Follow-up becomes a crucial factor.  The limiting factor in
scheduling Discovery seminars is usually lack of resources to follow up
with those who do want to change.  Nevertheless, I have seen people with
no interest in changing their ways walk out of a Discovery weekend
having become shomer Shabbos [Sabbath observers].

Joshua Proschan  [email protected]





----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 30


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Dead Sea Scrolls
             [Laura Creighton]
        New List: Welcome to Jewishnt !
             [Dov Winer]
        Shalom Biet vs "Wedding
             [Najman Kahana]
        Tefillin
             [Aryeh Blaut]
        Tefillin - a parting shot
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Ten b'racha
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Trick or Treat
             [Susan Hornstein]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 91 02:06:49 PDT
From: [email protected] (Laura Creighton)
Subject: Dead Sea Scrolls

What do you all think of the dead sea scroll revealment?  I hear that
the hidden portions talk of the development of the Rabbincal tradition.
I here that the writers were monastic Essenes, who rejected all world
values.  I hear that they were found at a decayed Roman fort.  I hear
that the Saduccess retreated there and wrote this.

I hear too much.  I read too many literate archeological journals.
Anybody know for more certain?  (``sure'' we are unlikely to get.)

Thanks very much,
Laura Creighton


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 01:26:26 IST
From: Dov Winer <VINER%[email protected]>
Subject: New List: Welcome to Jewishnt !



         Jewishnt on Listserv@BGUVM
                  or [email protected]

                  The Global Jewish Information Network Project

         Jewishnt at BGUVM is a discussion forum on all things
         concerning the establishment of the Global Jewish Information
         Network.

         Today's technology allows us to envision and implement projects
         that a short decade ago were no more than mere dreams. One dream
         that may come true is a computerized network used to connect all
         of the Jewish communities around the world, allowing them to
         share data, knowledge and experience in an effort to multiply and
         cement the ties that bind the Jewish people together.

         The Government of Israel through the Ministry of Communications
         decided to begin the steps leading to the creation of this
         computerized network. The network will cater specifically to the
         information and communication needs of the Jewish communities all
         over the world. This network will be readily accessible from
         every Jewish congregation, institute, school and home and will
         provide the following services:

         * Worlwide Electronic Mail facilities
         * Jewish Directories and Nameservers
         * Easy access to Jewish databases
         * Electronic newspapers, Bulletin Boards and conferences
         * Access to libraries of software on Jewish subjects
         * Jewish educational services
         * A Jewish Electronic University

         People with interests in these and related areas are invited to
         join the discussion. We expect to be able to enjoy their
         knowledge, accumulated experience and goodwill.

         To subscribe, Bitnet users should send the following command to
         LISTSERV@BGUVM via mail or interactive message.  Internet users
         should send the same command to [email protected] via
         mail:

         SUB JEWISHNT your_full_name

         where "your_full_name" is your name.  For example:

         SUB JEWISHNT Berl Shmerl

         Owner:  Dov Winer <viner at bguvm> or <viner at bguvm.bgu.ac.il>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 09:39 JST
From: Najman Kahana <NAJMAN%[email protected]>
Subject: Shalom Biet vs "Wedding

>Jay Shayevitz had asked about being able to send a gift to a homosexual
>couple.

Question: Would you include in a "zimun" a person eating a ham sandwich?
Tolerance is "nice", but, to quote (Clavel's) "Shogun": "The Law may
upset reason. Reason may not upset the Law".

Homosexuality is NOT accepted or tolerated by Judaism. It is a Lav
d'oraita (Torah transgression) for which the culprit deserves the death
penalty. In our days, it merits cherem (shunning).

Before we smile at the old fashioned rules which we, in our modern
outlook have discarded, we should note that homosexuality is one of the
three "yeareg, ve al yaavor"; that is, it is one of the three areas for
which a person is required to give up his life, but not trangress.

Najman Kahana - [email protected]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 06:44:24 EST
From: Aryeh Blaut <[email protected]>
Subject: Tefillin


In response to Rick Turkel's question of what a Ba'al Tshuva does on Hol
Hamoed, I had this question myself a number of years ago.  The only
thing I had going for me so to speak is that I knew that my great,
great, grandfather (on my father's side) came from someplace in Germany.

My posik spent a few days researching the question and came back to
me with what seems like a tie.  Just as many Poskim say to put it on
as say leave them off.  He then said in such a case it was up to 
me what I wanted.

On another occation, I had the oppertunity to meet privately with Rav
Dovid Fienstein, shlita and I asked him if someone does not know what
his "family custom" is, what customs should he follow?  He answered that
he should follow the custom of the Rav who he is learning with.

Regarding "minhag hamakom" (custom of the place), I saw the answers but 
that does not help your question.  In the place that I live, all of the
"Kosher" minyanim do not put on Tfilin on Hol Hamoed.  There are several
of us "Hol Hamoed Tfilin wearers" who, after davening, go into a back room
and put on our Tfilin and say Shma over again.

Aryeh Blaut


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 22:48:09 +0200
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Tefillin - a parting shot

I recall a morning minyan during chol ha-mo'ed in Princeton long ago,
where one of the fellows came in with his tefillin.  He was told,
"Come on, Josh, even a goy wouldn't put on tefillin today."

(Name changed to protect the innocent.)

Ben Svetitsky    [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 91 17:02:13 +0200
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Ten b'racha

The switch from the summertime "Ten b'racha" to the winter "Ten tal
u-matar" is geographic.  In Israel, the rainy season starts after
Sukkot, and we wait a couple of weeks (until 7 Marcheshvan) to give
pilgrims a chance to get home before the downpour.  In Babylonia the
rainy season starts later, so December 4th/5th was fixed -- naturally,
according to the solar calendar.  This spread to the whole galut, in
spite of the efforts of many poskim (e.g., the Rosh) to get people to go
according to the local calendar.  (This means saying it all year round
in New York, for example.)

So it's not a matter of where you live, but a matter of where you are.

And think about this:  When you guys in galut begin saying tal u-matar
on Dec. 4, you are praying for rain in Iraq.

Ben Svetitsky    [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 31 Oct 91 12:24:17 U
From: Susan Hornstein <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Trick or Treat

While it is important not to take part in explicitly non-Jewish customs,
we also have an obligation of not antagonizing those around us; some
things are allowed in the halacha "mipnei darkei shalom" (because of the
ways of peace).  In this regard, I would like to relate an incident that
occurred when I was a kid.

My family was actively Jewish, which included attending Friday night
services every Shabbat.  We lived in a family-oriented community with
*very* few active Jews.  Pretty much everyone went trick-or-treating
(including us, for better or worse).  One year (I must have been about
12) October 31 came out on a Friday night.  This meant that we were not
at home for the trick-or-treating, we were at shul, and therefore did
not hand out treats.  The next night our home was the victim of egging
(with rocks mixed among the eggs) resulting in a broken window.  (As an
aside, my younger brother and I were home alone, and I for one was
pretty shaken up.)  The general consensus was that this act was in
retaliation for not having been home to hand out candy (not necessarily
explicitly anti-Semitic).

So, the moral of the story is, it may be better to hand out treats (I
prefer boxes of raisins, healthier) (make it Kosher, in case there are
Jews out there, like us when we were kids, and anyway, I think it might
be asur [forbidden] to feed non-Kosher food to non-Jews, especially in
your own house) than not to hand out treats.  Better not to stir up
trouble, especially in these increasing violent Haloween times.

Susan Hornstein - bellcore!pyuxd!susanh




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 31


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Discovery (3)
             [Eli Turkel, , Ari Trachtenberg]
        Minhag and Nusach Hamakom
             [Morris Podolak]
        Morasha Discovery: new location, new rates
             [Joshua Proschan]
        Teddy Bears (v2n19)
             [Morris Podolak]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 11:55:42 EST
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Discovery

    Proschan recently presented the method of the discovery seminars.  I
for one would be interested in the news article he refers to. I have one
question about the use of codes or patterns in the Torah that has
bothered me for a while.

    It is well known that the our text of the Torah is not identical
with that in earlier generations (i.e. 2000 thousand years ago)
especially with regard to the letter vav (in Hebrew male and chaser).
There are several derashot mentioned in the Talmud based on the
appearance or lack of a vav in a word. However, this does not always
correspond to our text. Similarly the places where the masora indicates
is the middle of the Torah in either words or letters does not
correspond to the middle in our text. Given this discrepancy I am
confused as how patterns based on the exact number of letters in our
text can have any divine meaning.

     Would appreciate any explanations.

Eli Turkel

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 09:37:04 EST
From: Joel Goldberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Discovery

	In the recent posting about Discovery seminars we have:

"Unless, of course, you catch me in an error of fact, logic, or rhetoric.
This, for the Discovery seminars, is unlikely.  Unlike the revival
meetings described in the previous postings, Discovery seminars place
all facts, arguments, and conclusions out for examination and
discussion.  If we tried to use fabricated facts or fallacious
arguments, they would very quickly be found out and the entire process
discredited.  This has not happened in the 18 years that Arachim and
others have been presenting these seminars.  There are people we do not
convince, but that is another matter."

In the Discovery seminar I attended, there was one manuscript copy of
the as yet unpublished (in a refereed journal) paper describing the
work. Until the Discovery seminars include a number of copies of this
work to be handed out freely, and so that participants can peruse them
at leisure after the seminar, then they are using the tools of the
charlatan: a brief glance, but no more. I find it hard to believe that
they haven't got the budget to print up the paper and make a few laser
copies for each seminar.

Moreover, I asked the following question and was greeted with the
response, "I don't know, we're not on the technical end."  Before
getting to the question, let me point out the offputting nature of this.
It allows the seminar people to deflect any question without addressing
it, while giving the impression that they aren't ducking it.

My question was, what are the rules by which I can select two columns of
information (cf. the g'dolim and their yahrzeits) for my own independent
test? It has to be guidelines, not pre-approved two-column sets.

A second question, and this is no less important, is what are the
criteria by which the Discovery people themselves would say that the
statistical tests fail. Without that, there is no science. Allow me to
spell it out. The Discovery people have to say "doing X number of
independent tests with results less than Y will be considered by us as a
failure of the non-random hypothesis." If they are not prepared to take
a firm stand, then they cannot command scholarly respect. The article
included a remark about "fringe science."  The lack of such a "once and
for all, this is the test of success/failure" is the hallmark of fringe
science.

Joel Goldberg
Ph.D. Weizmann Institute, Israel.
Thesis Topic: Skip Distances in Spectra.
(Level Statistics of the Quantum Counterparts of Classically
Chaotic Systems.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 14:44:19 EST
From: Ari Trachtenberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Discovery

In reply to Joshua Proschan's article about "Discovery"...

	Personally, based on Joshua's explanation of Discovery, it seems
that their (Discovery's) whole approach is inappropriate.  Last century,
mathematicians attempted to codify mathematics in a strict, logical
form.  They achieved some success with propositional calculus and the
generalization to analysis.  However, then Godel came along with his
(in)famous proof that higher order systems (such as mathematics) are
either incomplete or inconsistent, and the tower or rigor came tumbling
down.
	A similar analogy may be made to Discovery's efforts.  An
attempt to prove the divinity of the Torah is not only in no way
conclusive, but it also detracts from the inherent beauty of simply
accepting the Torah (as per Abraham).  I don't really see why there is a
need to "prove" such theological ideas other than merely as an exercise
in textual analysis.

	-Ari


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri,  01 Nov 91 17:55:33 +0200
From: Morris Podolak <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Minhag and Nusach Hamakom

With regard to Danny Wildman's question about why sefaradim (in this
this context hassidim who daven nusach sefarad) consider nusach sefarad
preferable to nusach ashkenaz even to the extent of using it in a minyan
which is predominantly ashkenaz.  The reason goes back to the ARI
(Yitzchak Luria), who said that there are 12 gates of prayer, one for
each tribe.  One should use the version that is appropriate for one's
own tribe.  The exception is nusach sefarad, which can pass through all
the gates.  Therefore, if one doesn't know the nusach of his tribe,
nusach sefarad is the appropriate substitiute.  In addition, it is
always acceptible even in a case where the rest of the shul is using a
different nusach.  I beleive that Rav Ovadiah Yosef has said the same
thing about Sefaradi (i.e. not chassidic) nusach Sefarad, but I don't
have the source in front of me to check.  The above does not apply, of
course to the one leading the prayers.  This is a more complicated
question.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 17:44 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: Morasha Discovery: new location, new rates

The Morasha Discovery weekend has been moved to Lakewood.  The dates are
the same, from the afternoon of Friday November 8th through Sunday November
10th.  We can arrange for people to stay with families, or can arrange rooms
in local motels.  

The rates are $100 per person, for the seminar including meals.  Those who
do not need the meals, the seminar fee is $36.

To arrange accomodations, either in private homes or in the motels, call the
Morasha office at 908-905-6770.

Joshua Proschan  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri,  01 Nov 91 17:55:33 +0200
From: Morris Podolak <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Teddy Bears (v2n19)

I recently came accross something that addresses a question that
appeared here a while ago.  The question was with regard to keeping
images of non-kosher animals.  It was a question addressed to Rav Chaim
David Halevi, the Sefaradi Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv-Yaffo.  It appears in
volume 8 of his "Aseh Lecha Rav".  The Rabbi of Lubavitch requested all
his followers not to keep pictures of non-kosher animals.  Is there a
halachic source for this ruling?  Rav Halevi says that if one is a
chassid of the Rebbe, one may not question his ruling, however, for
anyone else, there is no halachic reason for being careful about this.
He cites a number of places where non-kosher animals or images of them
were kept and displayed.  One particularly good example is the flags of
the tribes in the desert.  The tribe of Binyamin had a wolf on its flag,
the tribe of Yehudah had a lion on its, and so on.  I might add an
example of my own.  The throne of King Solomon also hasd images (3-D
images at that!) of a lion and an eagle among others.  Indeed, lions are
commonly embroidered on the curtains covering the ark of the Torah, and
appear on the title pages of many old books.  Still, say Rabbi Halevi, a
chassid of the Rebbe has no right to question his rebbe's directives.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 32


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Dogs and Halacha
             [Joe Abeles]
        Homosexuality
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Minhag Hamakom
             [Isaac Balbin]
        Ten B'racha
             [Jeremy Nussbaum]
        electronic locks
             [Irwin Dunietz]
        Large Nun in Noseh, Why?
             [Najman Kahana]
        question about jewish practices
             [bob pasker]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 6 Nov 91 14:01:45
From: Joe Abeles <[email protected]>
Subject: Dogs and Halacha

The latest issue of Science News (the weekly newsmagazine which reported
on the babirusa (remember the kosher "pig"?) and t'chales from a cousin
of the dye murex) reports findings that ownership of dogs as pets is
very effective at reducing stress and prolonging life.  In fact, the
mere presence of a dog is effective at reducing stress, whereas the
presence of a female, for men, was effective at increasing stress
(obviously another subject altogether).

I have noticed few halachically-observant Jews who own dogs.  In fact I
don't personally know any currently who do.  I have never owned a dog
and I am curious about whether owning a dog would pose problems for an
observant Jew.

What are the halachic issues surrounding dog ownership?  Can you walk
the dog outside of an eruv on Shabbos?  (What about pooper-scooper laws
which require the bagging of a dog's semi-solid effluent? -- are they a
Jewish issue?)

Can normal shabbat rules be violated for pikuach nefesh, if the nefesh
is that of a dog?

What about treif food?  Pet food is not under hashgacha.  If you don't
intend to eat it, can you bring it into the house for a dog?  Where in
the house would you clean the dog's utensils?  What about purchasing
non-kosher meat for the dog (maras ayin problems?)?

Is the halacha regarding dog ownership similar to that for astronauts
(why should a Jew need to go into space, anyway) described on net.jewish
several years back?

If so, and scientific studies show that dog ownership aids human
longevity, will that alter the halachic perspective (or is it too
conservative)?

What about practical problems with dog ownership?  What problems arise
over a three-day shabbos/yomtov, for example?  Is the dog allowed to eat
food cooked on yomtov specifically for the dog (if you eschew pet food)?
Are there any special rules regarding burial of a dog?

I imagine in past times there were quite a few opportunities to
determine pet and livestock related halacha.  Are there any differences
between the two categories, "pet" and "livestock" from a halachic
perspective.  Or is "beast of burden" yet another category.  What
special requirements are placed on us regarding kindness to animals?
Could they conflict with other halachic imperatives?

Any comers?
--Joe Abeles

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 91 23:22:05 +0200
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Homosexuality

It is of course undeniable that homosexual behavior is a lav d'oraita,
in the realm of yehareg ve-al ya'avor, etc., as Najman Kahana points out.
But in our day, we have no Sanhedrin, no death penalty.  On an individual
basis, am I truly bound by a "cherem" forbidding communication with
an avowed homosexual?  Has anybody ruled this way?  Or is this mere
conjecture, based upon taste and subjective law?  (and James Clavell?)

I recall a similar query printed in the Chabad newsletter in Berkeley,
California, some years ago.  Rav Chaim Citron answered (to the best of
my recollection) that while indeed homosexuality is opposed to all
legal and ethical norms of behavior, this does not give even a Jewish
society the right to harrass homosexuals, to beat them up, to fire them
from jobs, or otherwise arbitrarily to make their lives difficult.
We are all bound by law, in all our endeavors.

Benjamin Svetitsky   [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 91 13:41:51 +1000
From: [email protected] (Isaac Balbin)
Subject: Minhag Hamakom

  | From: [email protected] (D.M.Wildman)

  | Another common example of a breach in minhag hamakom is standing 
  | or sitting for L'cha Dodi.  Many American shuls look like a random 
  | hodge-podge of sitters and standers on Friday night. To the 
  | unfamiliar, it could easily look hefker [in this context, "out 
  | of control" seems like a good paraphrase].

I can't fully agree. There are ample instances in Halacha that disprove
your seeming assertion that Lo Tisgodedu implies uniformity.  There is
an opinion that contends that standing for Krias HaTorah is the thing to
do. The Mishna Berura says that this is a Chumrah.  Let us assume that
one has decided to take this Chumrah upon himself (as I have). Does this
then apply that the only place that one can apply the Chumrah is in a
Minyan in which all the people (aside from the young, old and sick)
stand? I cannot accept such an assertion.  Deciding whether to stand or
not to stand during Lecha Dodi is most certainly of lesser importance
than the decision to stand during Krias Hatorah.

Lo Tisgodedu has many applications---such as not establishing Two Batei
Din in one city (even that needs reworking because all the laws of a
city, such as the Zayin Tuvei Hoir ``seven better citizens'' have all
but disappeared. For a recent discussion of related issues see the
responsa of the Tzitz Elizer to Rabbi Kimche on the matter of the London
Eruv.) I think that its application however is limited to those issues
in which the notion of ``representation of a Kehilla'' is threatened.
Therefore, where a Shliach *Tzibbur* decides to go his own way there is
an apparent split in the representation of the Kehilla. When one minyan
decides to split into two for no apparent reason then again the Kehilla
itself is seen as splitting.  The concept of B'rov Am Hadras Melech also
comes into play here.

Yet, we seem to find that the fabric of some Kehillos is more sensitive
to ``splits'' then others. In some Kehillos, where the nature of the
Kehilla is *already* non-uniform it is folly to suggest Lo Tisgodedu. My
Rav, Harav Abaranok Shlita, who is a musmach of the Chafets Chaim, was
Rav of a kehilla in which there was a mix of Ashkenazim and Sephardim
(nusach sfard). The practice was that whoever went to the Omud (lead the
prayers) davened in the nusach that he was most comfortable in. Rav
Abaranok was never happy about this situation and approached Reb Moshe
Z"TL. Reb Moshe told him that of course he should endeavor to make one
minhag in the Shule based on the Rov (majority), however, if (as was
this case) such an act would cause enmity and division then it was
antithetical to the whole concept of unity in the first place. Rav
Abaranok took Reb Moshe's advice and let things stay the way they were.

Unfortunately the problem has become one of ``superiority of nusach''
and ``superiority of minhag'' as opposed to protecting the inherent
Kedusha of each Nusach and protecting the kedusha of each minhag.

When a person davens in a minyan, and davens in that minyan's nusach (be
it different from his own) then he is making a statement of respect for
the traditions of a considerable body of people and THEREFORE qualifying
himself to LEAD that Tzibbur.  When somebody doesn't recognise another
nusach and arrogantly decides that his Nusach is ``superior'' and
``subsumes'' everything else then that person IS NOT QUALIFIED to be a
Shliach Tzibbur and would be better off Davening in another minyan.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 8:58:36 EST
From: jeremy@tcat16 (Jeremy Nussbaum)
Subject: Re: Ten B'racha

> And think about this:  When you guys in galut begin saying tal u-matar
> on Dec. 4, you are praying for rain in Iraq.

That's not all.  The date is 60 days after tequfat tishrei (the
equinox), which we now maintain ACCORDING TO THE JULIAN CALENDAR.
Thus it is a bit more than 2 weeks after the real (according to the
Gregorian calendar) date that it should be - a double anachronism.

Jeremy Nussbaum ([email protected]) (508)620-2800 x3516
Prime Computer  MS 10-15/Framingham, Ma 01701

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 
From: Irwin Dunietz <[email protected]>
Subject: electronic locks

	I anticipate staying over Shabbat in a hotel that uses
electronic (programmable) locks.  I presume that the "keys" cannot be
used on Shabbat (they are probably "muktzah" [taboo on Shabbat and Yom
Tov]).  Does anyone understand the technology well enough to indicate
whether the door can be opened from the inside?  I am given to
understand that the door is always locked from the outside.  I'm not
sure what is involved in unlocking from the inside.
	If the door is unusable on Shabbat, a ground floor room with a
balcony could allow an alternate means of entering or leaving,
although balcony doors generally cannot be locked from the outside.
How have others dealt with this problem?

Irwin S. Dunietz                                        [email protected]
AT&T Bell Laboratories Engineering Research Center      (609) 639-2742 (voice)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 10:07 JST
From: "Najman Kahana. Ext:7313" <NAJMAN%[email protected]>
Subject: Large Nun in Noseh, why?

	I apologize if this question is trivial, but I owe it to my seven
year old daughter. She came home with it from school and, after two day's
research, I am stumped.

	In Exodus 34:7 (13 Midot), the word "Noseh" is written with a large
Nun.  What do we learn from this?  I would appreciate ANY type of an answer.

Thanks

Najman Kahana - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue,  5 Nov 91 16:38:48 PDT
From: bob pasker <[email protected]>
Subject: question about jewish practices

I am interested in finding out about the practice of bequests of money
to non-indigent relatives and friends for the purchase of 'mourning
rings' and 'mourning suits.'  Has anyone heard of these practices, and
could they possibly point me to a reference?

Also, is anyone familiar with the practices of leaving money 
to a synagogue as a _legado_ for saying _escava_ (or _escovau_)?

i believe that these are sephardic practices.

thanks,




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 33


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Discovery (4)
             [Benjamin Svetitsky, Jonathan B. Horen, Robert Aaron Book, Seth
             Ness]
        har habait
             [Boruch Kogan]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 91 23:18:37 +0200
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Discovery

I find very curious the assertion that Discovery's pattern searching
gives results that appeal to the intellect rather than to the emotions.
The intellectual endeavor in Judaism aims at the elucidation of Halacha,
nothing more.  This begins with the most basic question of the Gemara,
"Mai nafka mina?" [what is the difference or what practical implication
is there. Mod.] and continues through the rishonim and aharonim to
the Brisker method of study we cherish today.  The search for pattern
is more typical of mysticism, a realm where the emotions dominate the
intellect.  So I ask of Discovery, "Mai nafka mina?"

The picture Mr. Proschan paints of the "enthusiastic response" of the
Lakewood Yeshiva community is therefore enigmatic and troubling.  How
can a talmid chacham spend a substantial amount of time on something
that has no "nafka mina?"  How can his teachers countenance such
bitul Torah?  And lest you say that Torah study is something we engage
in for its own sake, I remind you that conventional studies deal with
Torah she-ba'al peh:  Somewhere in there, in every apparently pointless
Midrash or gematria, there is a grain of "nafka mina," if we have but
the wit to find it.  Can Discovery claim the same pedigree?

Benjamin Svetitsky    [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 17:43:47 PST
From: [email protected] (Jonathan B. Horen)
Subject: Re: Discovery


As an ex-Aish HaTorah talmid (1980-81) perhaps I can shed some much-needed
light on the problem of "Proofs".

Rav Noach, Shlita, designed Aish HaTorah and it's hashkafa to appeal to
Western (read "American") college-age youth, who, as both an "age-group"
and a "nationality", find it difficult (at first) to listen-to, much less
accept, the promptings of their emotions.

One needs but read Joel Goldberg's or Avi's postings to see the high level
of scholarship among American Jewry -- and the habitues of mail.jewish
are but a fraction of the American Jewish youth (and adults, too).

But scholarship is a double-edged sword, and the skepticism required of
an academic, be s/he student or scholar, tends to affect other facets of
one's life.

This is the historical problem of the Greek mind-body split.

I could be more prosaic, and say that it's no different than the dilemma
of the door-to-door salesman, who must "get his foot in the door" before
he can sell his wares, but that's yet another problem:

   Scholars don't like to be "sold to"; they want to "discover it" themselves
   Rabbis don't like to "sell" Torah; they want it to be "discovered"

And so it is that Morasha/Discovery/Aish HaTorah, with its pseudo-scientific 
approach to Judaism, serves an (at least, initially) important purpose to
both "lay" Jews and Orthodox Jewish educators (Rabbis :-) -- it lets them
meet each other and (hopefully) start a dialogue, while still playing their
"everyday" roles.

If one were to ask Rav Noach (or, hopefully, his talmidim) "How can one
know something?", he/they would respond: "Trust your intuition" [when I
was learning at Aish HaTorah, the question was phrased a little differently --
"How do you know you're not a frog?" But the answer was still the same :-]

It's uncomfortable for an American college student to "trust his/her
intuition" -- Mom and Dad didn't/aren't paying all those dollar$ to hear
Junior sound like a beer commercial "When it's right, ya know it; when it's
good, ya feel it..." And Junior (and Janet) have also bought-off on this
way of thinking.

Religion is uncomfortable enough for Americans, and Judaism much more so
for American Jews, without adding to their discomfort by asking them to
"believe" or "trust their intuition".

The crux of the matter is "responsibility" -- at the outset one can be
comfortable as a college-educated American Jew and "investigate" Judaism
(one would do no less before purchasing a new car), and afterward, one
can be comfortable in one's "acceptance" of Orthodoxy -- and this is
because of the respectability of scholarship and science -- they assume the
burden of responsibility, leaving one free to "investigate" and "accept".

The interesting (and usually frustrating) part comes later on. It's much
like buying a suit -- does it adapt to you, or you to it (or both, or
neither)?

The problem with Morasha/Discovery/Aish HaTorah isn't their "Proofs";
rather, it's:

	How do you get them to let go of the Proofs and stay
	frum without them thinking that you've "conned" them?

And I don't know too many Aish HaTorah alumni who've removed the "training
wheels" from their bicycles without falling off.

 Jonathan B. Horen  -  [email protected] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 17:51:15 CST
From: Robert Aaron Book <[email protected]>
Subject: Discovery

     I attended a modified (one-day) version of the Discovery seminar
as part of the "Jerusalem Fellowships" Program in 1989.  (This is a
seven-week program of Jewish studies and Israeli politics held in
Israel for English-speaking Jewish students.  At the time, it was run
by the same people running Discovery, though I believe this is no
longer the case.)  I can thus confirm (as an outsider) most of what
Joshua Proschan <[email protected]> said regarding the
presentation of the seminars -- they are not superficial, and they are
definitely honest.  If there is any trickey involved, it is in the
reasoning, not in the presentation, and it is *extremely* difficult to
detect (and I am one who *loves* to find trickery in other people's
reasoning).  I can also confirm that the presenters were definitely
willing to accept hostile questions and respond to them.

    I must admit that at the time I took the seminar, I found the whole
thing about the codes very disturbing.  This was *not* because I object
to the idea of objective evidence for the divine origin of the Torah --
on the contrary, I would find it difficult to persist in holding such a
belief -- especially holding it to be a fundamental belief -- if there
were no such objective evidence.  (To those observant Jews who assert
that there can be or should be no objective evidence for the existence
of G-d or the divine origin of the Torah, I must ask: What, then is
your reason for believing in these things, and why do you observe laws
of the Torah?  Either you have a reason for doing this, or you are just
doing it out of habit.  And what is the merit in being observant if you
are doing it only out of habit?)

    The reason I found the codes disturbing was that the use of
complicated, statistical, computer-driven methods to derive the
validity of a document whose validity has been believed thousands of
years for totally different reasons seems a bit odd -- after all, back,
say, at the time of the Rambam, a much higher percentage of Jews
probably believed in the validity and divine origin of the Torah than
the corresponding percentage of Discovery participants.  In other
words, if it took codes to convince me, why didn't people disbelieve
before there were codes?  What I am trying to say is that there must be
other reasons for believing the Torah -- reasons that don't require
modern statistical techniques and high-speed computers.  In addition,
the whole process of calculating codes seemed to me to be a bit like
sorcery -- instead of consulting a "familiar spirit" (Leviticus), we
now consult a computer.  I will freely admit that this was only a gut
feeling, and I have no solid halakhic reason for objecting.  I also had
no solid reason to disbelieve the "codes," and this is even more the
case having seen Joshua Proschan's detailed posting (which was much
more technical, statistically speaking, than the seminar itself).

    I should add that while concept of codes is the most controversial,
and perhaps the most innovative element of the Discovery seminar, it is
not the only one, and to me it was not the most convincing.  There were
a number of other arguments for the divine origin of the Torah, some
based on the text itself, and some on later events.  For example, with
respect to the mass revelation at Sinai, it was pointed out that it
would be almost impossible to fake such an incident, or to get later
generations to believe such a seemingly fantastic story if they hadn't
heard of it before from their forebears.  Another example centered
around letters in Megillat Esther which are written smaller than the
others -- they are supposed to spell out the year (on the Jewish
calendar) in which the Nuremburg trials took place, and various
parallels are drawn between the Nuremburg trials and the execution of
Haman's sons.  I don't remember all the details, but it was pretty
striking at the time.  Personally, I found these other pieces of
evidence more palatable, and thus more convincing, than the codes.

    As for the success of the program in convincing nonobservant Jews
to become observant, I can say many people I have met who went through
Discovery and related programs *did* become observant, or more
observant as a direct or indirect result.  Usually in these cases there
was some kind of followup involved, either personal contact with
observant people, or participation in further programs.  In many cases,
however, the initial step was Discovery.  (I even know of one case in
which Discovery and related programs run by the same people played a
key role in preventing an interrmarriage -- a few weeks before it was
supposed to take place.)  In a similar vein, I should add the following
interesting but not surprising (to me) fact: It seems that those who
become most observant as a result of Discovery or other kiruv efforts
are those who are *least* observant before they encounter such efforts.

--Robert Book -  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 12:18:41 EST
From: Seth Ness <[email protected]>
Subject: Discovery

I don't understand how you calculate probabilities of a pattern in
any language. don't these calculations base themselves on a random distribution
of letters, while the language has an undetermined pattern inherent within
it which can't be used by us for statistics since we don't really know it

Seth Ness

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 6 November 1991 11:40:40 CST
From: Boruch Kogan <[email protected]>
Subject: re: har habait

>In reference to Eli Turkel's response [Vol. 2 No. 23]:

>1.  The whole question of "tameh" is a red herring.
> The problem of "baal keri" can be solved by a mikveh dip
>that same day.

The author is definitely right here as it is mentioned by all the
poskim, but the usage of "herring" (especially "red" one) can mislead
someone into thinking that there is no real problem. However everyone
agrees that the mitzva of fearing of the Mikdash is applicable today as
well. And that for example means that one should enter Har Habais
barefooted, as it is mentioned in the Mishna. The tvila [immersion in
the mikvah - Mod.] has to be preceded by a "chafifa"- thorough cleaning
of the body in hot water, just like by a woman. After tvila new garments
have to be put on, since there are rishonim who hold that the touch of a
tameh makes garments tameh (by a baal keri).

The author further states, that the question of entering Har Habait is
"political". I don't know how we can be sure of what is what in Har
Habait today. The psak of the Radvaz is very difficult. (See the
discussion in Moadim Uzmanim, Part 5 Simanim 349-350). He also made his
own measurements, and shows very well that WE CANNOT be sure what is
what in Har Habait!! Even if the printout is 400 pages.  The prohibition
is too strong - it is not less strong than eating chomez on Pesach or
Nida!  As far as putting notes inside the cracks and "off the wall"
-using the author's expression (and one might also say "cracked")
rabbis, I don't understand where the author's opinion comes from. One of
the "off the wall rabbis", Rav Moshe Shternbach in the siman mentioned
before discusses this issue, and it turns out that besides Avney Nezer,
who permits it, on the basis of the fact that there is no kdusha
[holiness - Mod.] in the wall there are other ways to interpret the
Yerushalmi, and whether there is or is not kdusha in the wall is not
clear. (As rav Shternbach concludes, it is therefore prohibited for the
tameh to stick his hand in a crack, since it is an issue of "spheika
d'oiraisa" [uncertainty in a biblical matter - Mod.)

Among other rabonim, we find, for example Brisker Rov,who did not even
go down to the kotel, because of another opinion in the achronim, that
it is the wall of Kodesh HaKodoshim.  (This is almost literally - "off
the wall").

Harav Aaron Soloveichik also says that you can't put notes in a crack.

Boruch Kogan - u13828@uicvm



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 34


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Homosexuality
             [Najman Kahana]
        Jewish Calendar program
             [Neil Parks]
        Minhagim from Berditchev?
             [Robert A. Levene]
        Nusach S'phard, Nusach Ari
             [Len Moskowitz]
        Minhag Hamakom
             [D.M.Wildman]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 10:52 JST
From: Najman Kahana <NAJMAN%[email protected]>
Subject: Homosexuality

>It is of course undeniable that homosexual behavior is a lav d'oraita,
>in the realm of yehareg ve-al ya'avor, etc., as Najman Kahana points out.
>But in our day, we have no Sanhedrin, no death penalty.  On an individual
>basis, am I truly bound by a "cherem" forbidding communication with
>an avowed homosexual?  Has anybody ruled this way?

[NOTE: all translations are my own]
- Shulchan Aruch. Choshen Mishpat. 425:1. Rama.
- All people who deserve death (chayvey mita) by the hand of a Bet Din in
  our days, we are not able to administer stripes (malkot), or expel
  them (galut), or physically punish them (le-chavatam). Instead, we ostracize
  them (m'nadim) and separate them from the community.

>Or is this mere conjecture, based upon taste and subjective law?
>(and James Clavell?)

- Since there seems to be objections to accepting Clavel as a Posek (justified,
  but I only liked the conciseness of the quote), I'll bring another one:
- Sanhedrin 51a. Said Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav:  We do not seat [a judge]
  in the Sanhedrin until he can prove that a Sheretz (impure species) is tahor
  (pure).  On this statement, Tosefot brings the following:
	"And Rabeinu Tam has a difficulty [in understanding the gmara].  Why
  do we need the brillance of being able to prove the purity of the Sheretz
  if the Torah made it impure?"

 In short: "The Law may upset reason. Reason may not upset the Law". Clavell.

>
>I recall a similar query printed in the Chabad newsletter in Berkeley,
>California, some years ago.  Rav Chaim Citron answered (to the best of
>my recollection) that while indeed homosexuality is opposed to all
>legal and ethical norms of behavior, this does not give even a Jewish
>society the right to harrass homosexuals, to beat them up, to fire them
>from jobs, or otherwise arbitrarily to make their lives difficult.
>We are all bound by law, in all our endeavors.
>
>Benjamin Svetitsky   [email protected]

- The original discussion related to social intercourse with the homosexual
  "couple", not with harrasing them.  Please note the Shulchan Aruch.
- I suggest reading Igrot Moshe. Orech chaim vol 4. Siman 115, where he remarks
  on how particularly vile this transgression is as compared with others.

Najman Kahana - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 01:33:55 -0500
From: [email protected] (Neil Parks)
Subject: Jewish Calendar program

Since I mentioned JCAL, the Jewish Calendar program, I have received
several email msgs asking for more information.  I have seen several
versions on local bulletin boards, of which the latest seems to be 7.4,
from the spring of 1990.

According to the doc file, the author's name and address are:


Lester Penner
25 Shadow Lane
Great Neck, NY 11021
(H) 516 466-5574
(W) 516 273-3100

Compuserve:
   75236,1572

In Internet format, that would be

   [email protected]

(Note that the comma is changed to a period.)


If you can't find JCAL on a BBS in your area, try one of the following
in Cleveland:

Northeast Ohio PC Users                         216-888-9943
Grasselli Library/John Carroll University       216-397-3068
Fleet                                           216-646-0655

All of them grant download privileges at no charge after you register.
On NEOPC and Grasselli, the file is JCAL74.ZIP.  
On Fleet, look for JCAL74.ARJ.
Grasselli seems to be the least popular of the three--I can't recall ever
getting a busy signal when I have called it.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 21:20:58 -0500
From: [email protected] (Robert A. Levene)
Subject: Minhagim from Berditchev?


I've been trying to unearth family minhagim, and would like some
suggestions for pointers on where to find this type of information.  It
is not possible to get much information from relatives.

Here's what I do know:

* They pronounced Hebrww like "B'mitzvosav" and "shofar" and affectionately 
  made fun of people who would say "B'mitzVOIsav" and "shoifer."

* The family name always was "Levene" and they originated from
  Berditchev.  Moshe Leib L. was a melamed-turned-maskil who left in 1880.

The questions are therefore:

1) What does the Hebrew pronunciation suggest about family
   customs/origin?

2) Where can I find information about the composition of the Berditchev
   community and its sub-communities?

I'm already looking into halachic issues concerning adoption and restoration
of customs, so the question now is "what *were* the customs which I
might restore?"

Rob



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 08:34:50 EST
From: [email protected]
Subject: Nusach S'phard, Nusach Ari

Morris Podolak writes in Vol. 2 #31:

 > The reason goes back to the ARI Yitzchak Luria), who said that
 > there are 12 gates of prayer, one for each tribe.  One should use the
 > version that is appropriate for one's own tribe.  The exception is
 > nusach sefarad, which can pass through all the gates.  Therefore, if
 > one doesn't know the nusach of his tribe, nusach sefarad is the appropriate
 > substitiute.

By all accounts, the Ariza"l used a modified nusach S'phard.  Some have 
tried to reconstruct his nusach.  The Lubavitch use what they call 
Nusach Ari, but it's really Nusach k'Ari, differing in certain places from
what is documented as the Ari's practice.  One clear difference is in the 
13 Midot that we recite on Yom Tovim, followed by the Ribono Shel Olam, 
and then Va'ani Tefilati.  Rav Chayyim Vittal documents the Ari as saying 
the 13 Midot and Va'ani 3 times each.  The Lubavitch only say them once.


Len Moskowitz
[email protected] (this account is closing soon)
[email protected] (unreliable at the moment)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 11 Nov 1991  12:04 EST
From: [email protected] (D.M.Wildman)
Subject: Minhag Hamakom

>From: [email protected] (Isaac Balbin)
>  | From: [email protected] (D.M.Wildman)
>
>  | Another common example of a breach in minhag hamakom is standing 
>  | or sitting for L'cha Dodi.  Many American shuls look like a random 
>  | hodge-podge of sitters and standers on Friday night. To the 
>  | unfamiliar, it could easily look hefker... 
>
>I can't fully agree. There are ample instances in Halacha that disprove
>your seeming assertion that Lo Tisgodedu implies uniformity.  There is
>an opinion that contends that standing for Krias HaTorah is the thing to
>do. The Mishna Berura says that this is a Chumrah.  Let us assume that
>one has decided to take this Chumrah upon himself (as I have). Does this
>then apply that the only place that one can apply the Chumrah is in a
>Minyan in which all the people (aside from the young, old and sick)
>stand? I cannot accept such an assertion.  Deciding whether to stand or
>not to stand during Lecha Dodi is most certainly of lesser importance
>than the decision to stand during Krias Hatorah.

I didn't intend to imply that one's position for recitation of
L'cha Dodi could be a literal violation of "lo titgodedu". Rather,
I intended to illustrate another case in which Minhag Hamakom (local
custom) appeared to have lost its force. In the spirit of Josh Proschan's
discussion of this topic, the lack of a singular custom for L'cha
Dodi is symbolic of the loss of a singular community.

Furthermore, L'cha Dodi is clearly different from the case of
Kriyat Hatorah. The latter is a question of halachically proper (in this
case preferred, but not required) behavior. I don't believe anyone
claims that there is a halachic preference for sitting or standing
for L'cha Dodi _other than_ Minhag Hamakom. 

What happens when the "chumra" is on the other foot, so to speak?
What's the ruling when a personal "kula" (leniency) or "normal" custom
conflicts with a local "chumra"? In a kehila where it is customary for
_everyone_ to stand for Kriyat Hatorah (or Chazarat HaShatz, or
Kaddish...), I assume that a guest or new resident would be bound by
that Minhag Hamakom. In fact, this may have been the thinking in an
incident that occurred to me 20 years ago. I was staying with the band
at the boy's Mesivta in Baltimore for Shabbat. The entire Yeshiva stood
for the repetition of Musaf, which was then not our custom.  Fearing an
implicit neder (vow), we sat down after kedusha, whereupon the Rosh
Yeshiva sent a messenger to request us to stand, as that was the
Yeshiva's custom. Our behavior, although intended l'shaim shamayim
(properly; lit. "for the name of heaven"), was inappropriate, possibly
because of the power of Minhag Hamokem or Lo Titgodedu. However, it
might have been the appearance of a lack of respect that motivated the
Rosh Yeshiva's request.

Isaac continues: 

>.. I think that its application however is limited to those issues
>in which the notion of ``representation of a Kehilla'' is threatened.
>....  The concept of B'rov Am Hadras Melech also comes into play here.

My Rav, and others he quotes, include in Lo Titgodedu the prohibition on
arbitrarily forming new minyanim in town. That is, he has always opposed
a new minyan - even our hashkama minyan in the same shul - unless some
need can be demonstrated. It appears that the definition of need is
within the perogative of the Posek. He also explains his position as
stemming from B'rov Am ("in the midst of multitudes is the King's
glory") as well as Lo Titgodedu.

Danny Wildman


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 35


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Discovery (2)
             [Joshua Proschan, Rick Turkel]
        Division of Shabbat Torah Reading into Aliyot
             [Michael R. Stein]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 20:08 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: re: Discovery

There were three articles on Discovery in mail.jewish #31.  Here are
some thoughts on their questions.  I would like add a comment based on
our just- completed Discovery Seminar.  I had the pleasure of hearing
Gerald Schroeder speak on one topic from his book, Genesis and the Big
Bang.  It was a tour de force, and I highly recommend his book.  Bantam
is bringing it out in paperback Real Soon Now, but the hardcover may
still be available.  Everyone interested in either science or Torah will
find the book fascinating.  And now, back to volume 2, issue 31:

First article:

Eli Turkel asks an excellent question in issue #31, concerning "melayos
v'chaseros" [lit. full and incomplete; referring to words that can be
spelled in two ways, differing by a letter] in the Torah, and how this
affects the "codes" research.  This is a much broader question.  Namely,
if we aren't sure of the correct text, how can we invalidate a Sefer
Torah for public use; conversely, how can we be sure that we are
fulfilling the obligations of Torah, tefillin, and mezuzah?  One of
Morasha's directors, Rabbi Meir Hertz, referred me to a book "Tefillin
u'Mezuzos K'Hilchoson" by Zev Greenwald.  It has a thorough discussion
of the accuracy of our standard text in chapter 18.  The question arises
in a discussion in Kiddushin (p. 30 side 1):

     The [letter] vav of gochon [Leviticus 11] is midway in the letters
     of a Sefer Torah. . . . Rav Yosef asked, "Is the vav of gochon in
     the first half or in the second half."  They replied, "Bring a Sefer
     Torah and we will see." . . . He rejoined, "They were expert in
     missing and extra letters, we are not expert".

Rabbi Greenwald cites a responsum from the "Sh'eilos u'Teshuvos Ginas
Verodim".  (The author was Rabbi Avrohom HaLevi, who lived in Egypt ca.
1700 CE.  It should not be confused with "Sefer Ginas Verodim" by the
P'ri Megadim.)  The responsum begins with a Gemorah in Maseches Sofrim:

     Three Torah scrolls were found in the Azarah [Temple courtyard].  
     In two was written "me'onah" and in one was written "me'on".  
     They accepted the [spelling in the] two and rejected the one. . . . 

This Gemorah, quoting Rav Shimon Ben Lakish, lists two more words where
one scroll differed from the other two, and says that in those cases as
well they followed the majority version.  The responsum states that this
is the general principle: "We accept the majority, where there are
discrepancies among them, and the scroll that has been corrected this
way has the status of having been given at Sinai, and all missing or
extra letters [in another scroll] that differ from [the corrected one]
invalidate [the other] as a Torah completely and it has no sanctity of a
Sefer Torah whatever."

The responsum then asserts that "this process was done by the early
sofrim, therefore the accepted text we have cannot be changed, and we
judge it [halachically] to be received into our hands from Sinai.  And
all [scrolls with] changes that are found now from what was accepted by
the first sofrim, even in missing or extra letters, may not properly be
read from in the congregation and we rule that it is no more than a
chumash."

Rabbi Greenwald has much more on this topic.  Among the sources he lists
for the accepted text, and for its acceptance and status, are the Rambam
(Laws of Sefer Torah Chapter 8 Law 4), the Meiri in Kiddushin (p. 30
side 2), The Ramah's introduction to "Masoras Syag LaTorah", Responsa of
the Rashba and Rashbatz, etc.

(The book is only out in Hebrew, but is an excellent book and well worth
the effort of finding and reading.  It originated in the author's
attempt to purchase a pair of kosher tefillin for a friend's son's bar
mitzvah.  The book records what he learned in doing this.)

This seems to me to resolve the problem Eli raises.  The difficulties
recorded in the Talmud, and the textual variants, occurred before the
sofrim had completed their work of eliminating errors.  We now again
have the correct text.  That is, at least are far as melayos v'chaseros
are concerned.  There is another class of variations.  The main
Ashkenazi and Sefardi texts differ in two letters; if all communities
are included, there are a total of nine letters that at least one
differs on.  These differences will destroy some equidistant letter
sequences; those that include one of the disputed letters.  The others
will be left untouched.  We would therefore be missing some "codes"
information; but most would remain.  (This argument also works for the
melayos v'chaseros; only sequences that span the added or missing letter
would be lost.)

Second article:

Ari Trachtenberg raises some theoretical issues from mathematics.
Goedel's theorem did indeed lead to revolutionary changes in what we
consider axiomatic systems and their proofs to be.  These changes would
affect Discovery only if we were attempting to provide rigorous,
logical, formal proofs of something.  We do not do this, as I said in my
article.

Ari asks whether proofs interfere with a direct approach to belief.  I
feel that proofs would detract from the inherent beauty of simply
accepting the Torah, only if everyone simply accepted the Torah.  They
don't.  We live in an "enlightened" world that is aggressively
anti-religious; a world that insists that religion is false and that the
Torah's accounts of Yetziat Mitzraim, Kabbolos HaTorah, etc. are
fabrications; and a world that claims to have proven all this
scientifically.

Jews who grow up in this world may see the beauty of the Torah way of
life, but still be troubled by questions from the secular tradition of
the enlightenment.  (Note well: I did not write "secular Jews" or
"unaffiliated Jews"; *every* Jew in America grows up immersed in this
secular culture and has, at some level, such questions.)  They may
accept the superiority of ethics or Jewish family life, but still be
disturbed at the view that there is more to Judaism than just emotion.
For these people, proofs are necessary.  Not to prove that the Torah is
true; in my opinion the Rashi I quoted proves that logical proofs are
not powerful enough.  The proofs can counter the influences of secular
society, and free Jews to examine Judaism objectively.  The greatness of
Avrohom was that he did, on his own, precisely this.

In response to Joel Goldberg:

Joel criticizes the refusal of a Discovery lecturer to hand out copies
of an unpublished paper.  Unfortunately, there is no choice.  I would
have to do the same thing if I were the lecturer.  That paper has been
submitted to a professional journal for publication.  It is, the last I
heard, in the hands of the referees.  Distributing copies would
interfere with the process of journal publication.  I regard this as an
obligation and courtesy to the authors and referees, not as a symptom of
charlatanry.  We simply have to wait for the paper to be published.

I am puzzled by Joel's second question.  He charges Discovery with doing
"fringe science" for not explicitly stating criteria we would accept as
showing "failure of a non-random hypothesis".  But we repeatedly do
state just that criterion.  Early in my article, while discussing
standards of proof, I wrote:

     "In the social sciences and medical research we find the standard of
     statistical significance at the .05 level."
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In the description of the codes results I wrote,

     ". . . the probability against the null hypothesis (uniformity) is
     . . . about .000 000 001 . . . .  This was repeated with a different
     set of names and dates.  Again, the probability of the distances
     being from a uniform distribution was about ten to the minus ninth.
     Considered together, the two sets give a probability of about 1e-17
     . . . .  Journals in medicine and the social sciences routinely
     accept a probability of .05 as publishable proof."
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That clearly states that the criteria for judging the statistical tests
are the normal, accepted criteria used by most researchers and journals.

Every presentation I have attended of the "codes" discusses the usual
criterion of statistical level of significance.  Indeed, I don't see how
anyone can even describe the results (1e-9, 1e-9, and 1e-17) without
explaining this.

We thus have an objective standard that we accept, and it is the same
standard that everyone else accepts.  (At least, they accept it for
everything but the "codes" results.  There, they suddenly develop an
insatiable appetite for decimal places. :-) There is no fringe science
here, at least not on our part.

But this is all irrelevant.  We shouldn't have to say *anything* about
what constitutes a failure.  Statistical inference is a well-established
field, and the criterion are set by the scientific community, not by
individual researchers.  The usual criterion for rejecting a null
hypothesis is, as I stated in my article, a probability of .05 or less.
Sometimes .02 or .01 are used.  It doesn't matter.  The choice is made
by the profession and by the journals.  It is not--and should not be--an
individual's choice.  It is not a matter for special pleading, with each
researcher deciding what to use.  Since we are not inventing statistics,
or statistical inference, and since the criteria are so well known,
there is no need for us to restate them.

Further, I do not see that it makes the slightest difference whether I
use the usual .05 test, or insist on the more stringent .02 or .01 test,
when the probability in question is 1e-9 or less.  To make the point
explicit: after we calculate the probability of the null hypothesis as
.000,000,001 (let alone .000,000,000,000,000,01), we do not need to
discuss whether we would have rejected the null hypothesis at the .01
level, or only at the .05 level.  The numbers do not fall in a range
where that question can even be asked.  The only question is: in a world
that normally accepts a probability of .05 as disproving the null
hypothesis, how many zeroes do we need after the decimal point before
people stop saying "Go away, I don't want to believe this"?

Joel has one valid point: that a person lecturing on a statistical
subject in public had better know enough statistics to answer the usual
questions, and at least know someone to refer the harder questions to.
All "codes" lectures in the Morasha-sponsored Discovery Seminars are
given by physicists and mathematicians prominent in their fields,
precisely to avoid this problem.  I understand this is also the policy
for Aish HaTorah's Discovery Seminars in America and Canada, and for
Arachim's seminars in Israel.  If not, it should be.

In summary:  I still stand by everything I said in the article in mail.jewish
#29.

Joshua Proschan.   (Degrees not relevant; ideas, especially in science, must
                    stand or fall on their own merit and not on someone's
                    union cards.)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 10:36:10 EST
From: rmt51%[email protected] (Rick Turkel)
Subject: Re: Discovery

        All of the discussion about the Discovery approach seems to me
to have forgotten one thing: hundreds of philosphers, Jewish and not
Jewish, over thousands of years, have tried unsuccessfully to formulate
a definitive proof for the existence or nonexistence of God.  The only
thing they have succeeded in proving is that neither premise can be
proved.  All Discovery does is enable people with a rationalist mode of
thinking to feel better about something that is inherently irrational.
I believe in the truth of the Torah because we have a direct line of
tradition stretching back to Sinai, not because someone hacked away at a
text with a computer until a pattern emerged that could then be
correlated with some historical event.  Such efforts are amusing, and
the results might be interesting, but they don't PROVE a thing.  If you
look hard enough you can probably find SOME event of SOME Jewish
significance in almost ANY year in history.

        I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that this type
of textual analysis also showed some patterns leading to some rather
negative conclusions about Jews or Judaism.  What would that do to the
faith of someone whose sole basis for belief is this type of "proof?"

        The bottom line is this: it's called "faith" or "belief" for a
very good reason.

                Rick Turkel                     ([email protected])

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 8:58:06 CST
From: [email protected] (Michael R. Stein)
Subject: Division of Shabbat Torah Reading into Aliyot

I am wondering whether anyone can help me trace the current division of
the shabbat Torah reading into standard aliyot.

On the one hand, the halachic sources I've looked at (gemara, mishna
torah, sha'are efraim, mishna b'rura) give general rules: number of
aliyot on shabbat, chagim, etc.; where it is permitted/not permitted to
make a stop in relation to the open and closed parshiyot; not to stop on
a "davar ra l'yisrael", etc.

On the other hand, printed chumashim, mikra'ot g'dolot, tikunim give
exact stops for the aliyot.  In the limited number of instances I've
checked, these agree to a remarkable extent -- there are some
differences indicated for ashkenazim and sefardim and a few other
disagreements (where does the first aliyah in d'varim end, for
example?). I find this somewhat surprising, especially since the
division into weekly parshiyot has changed relatively recently (one
example: the Sefer Hachinuch has a new parasha start with 'im kesef
talveh' in mishpatim).

I realize, of course, that most of our printed sources probably rely on
slightly earlier printed sources or are photo-offsets thereof, so my
sample is not very indepedent.  But the question still remains: where
did this division into aliyot originate?  Does it exist in its present
form in the early mikra'ot gedolot? If so, where does that come from?
And where do the disputes about stopping places trace back to?

Michael R. Stein					  [email protected]
Department of Mathematics, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-2730



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 36


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Dead Sea Scrolls
             [Alexander Herrera]
        Dogs and Halacha
             [Sara Svetitsky]
        Homosexuality
             [ANONYMOUS ]
        Middle of the Torah
             [Elie Rosenfeld]
        New Book of Potential Interest to Subscribers
             [Meir Laker]
        Recombinant DNA Technology and Kashrut
             [Francine Storfer]
        Salt
             [Seth Ness]
        Text of the Bible
             [Eli Turkel]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 14:56:57 PST
From: [email protected] (Alexander Herrera)
Subject: Re:  Dead Sea Scrolls

[email protected] (Laura Creighton) writes:
> What do you all think of the dead sea scroll revealment?  I hear that
> the hidden portions talk of the development of the Rabbincal tradition.
> I here that the writers were monastic Essenes, who rejected all world
> values.  I hear that they were found at a decayed Roman fort.  I hear
> that the Saduccess retreated there and wrote this.

> I hear too much.  I read too many literate archeological journals.
> Anybody know for more certain?  (``sure'' we are unlikely to get.)

I think this is a non-issue. I doubt if the foundations of Judaism will
crumble with anything that is to be found in the DSS. A lot has already
been revealed about Early Judaism (a rather diverse and inspired group
of Jews). They were by no means a monolithic group. In my reading, I
get a sense that the sects within Early Judaism were not well defined
either. Judaism was a dynamic, and changing force in those days. The
writers were prolific and inspired.

I'll give short simple answers to a subject that really has no simple
straight forward answers.

The Essenes were a Jewish sect that lived a monastic life near the Dead
Sea. They lived there from the second century BCE to 68 CE when Roman
legions on their way to Jerusalem destroyed them. The Essenes lived
under military discipline while waiting for the holy war that would
redeem Israel. The Essenes had abandoned the Temple "regarding it as
hopelessly impure, its calendar erroneous." (quote from Jacob Neusner,
_Judaism in the Beginning of Christianinty_, p 18). They wrote many
books that were extrapolations of biblical works. According to
Shemaryahu Talmon in a book edited by Jacob Nuesner called _Judasims
and their Messiahs_, p 114, "By this method of interpretation, scripture 
is shown to foreshadow the history of the Covenanteers, [Essesnes -ah]
which is presented as the fulfillment of preordained processes and
divine promises."

Please keep in mind that by making this response short, I've given the
impression that the Essenes beliefs were well defined and consistant
across the many years that they lived by the Dead Sea. That is simply
not true. I wish I could do better, but I am not a scholar. There must
be others on the list that can fill in what I have missed, and correct
any false impression I may have given.

I doubt that the Saduccess had anything to do with the DSS. We have
almost nothing written from them. I don't know anything about a Roman
fort.

I doubt if anyone can read too much. :-)

Alex Herrera - uunet!mdcsc!ah

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 09:24:02 +0200
From: Sara Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Dogs and Halacha

Here is a response to Joe Abeles questions about dog and other animal
ownership in halacha.  This is mostly going to be personal experience
and what I have seen and heard, I haven't looked up sources.  Anyway,
there is a certain prejudice against dogs in the traditional ashkenazi
culture; I think it is rooted in the old shtetl scene where the peasants
kept vicious dogs which they would sic on Jews.  So there is a "dogs are
for goyim" attitude in some circles (I heard that exact expression from
the Boro Park grandchildren of a Rav near Ithaca N.Y. The Rav was
mashgiach for chalav yisrael and lived on a farm--where else does milk
come from?--with lots of animals, including dogs.  The grandchildren
were shocked).
       I have never kept a dog but I have had cats, fish and birds. The
rules on their food are that you can give them treif that is not asur
b'hana'a, or "forbidden to derive any benefit at all"; not surprising
when you remember that the usual example of how to get benefit from food
without eating it is to give it to an animal.  So you can't give your
animal basar v'halav together, which you want to watch for in commercial
pet food, but you can give your cat 9-lives shrimp dinner, for example.
The biggest problem with their food is Pesach, I could go on for pages
about that alone, but due to popular demand I won't (if you really want
to hear, send me mail).
       The rule on yomtov, as I have heard it, is that animals which are
yours, which depend on you for their food every day, are to be treated
as members of the household and you can prepare food for them, but you
can't go out and feed wild animals.
       Since you don't walk cats, fish or birds I can't help you on that
question.
          Sara Svetitsky

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 17:11:47 EST
From: ANONYMOUS 
Subject: Re: Homosexuality

> All people who deserve death (chayvey mita) by the hand of a Bet Din
> in our days, we are not able to administer stripes (malkot), or expel
> them (galut), or physically punish them (le-chavatam). Instead, we
> ostracize them (m'nadim) and separate them from the community.

But is that done with people who don't keep Shabbos today?  Or people
who violate other lavim d'oreisa?

Is the real reason not closer to the below?

> I suggest reading Igrot Moshe. Orech chaim vol 4. Siman 115, where he
> remarks on how particularly vile this transgression is as compared with
> others.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 09:41:36 -0500
From: [email protected] (Elie Rosenfeld)
Subject: Middle of the Torah

In Mail.Jewish Volume 2 Number 35, Joshua Proschan brings up the
question of the Gemara's statements as to the middle of the Torah in
letters, words, and verses.  This Gemara presents a very difficult
puzzle because in modern times, these have been counted and all three
"middles" stated in the Gemara are totally off from the Torah we have -
not even close.

Now, as Joshua pointed out, the letters are not that serious a problem,
because we are not sure of melayos v'chaseros" [lit. full and
incomplete; referring to words that can be spelled in two ways,
differing by a letter].  Similarly, the verses can be explained in that
there are places where we're not sure where to split verses (as the
Gemara itself states).  However, the discrepancy in words is quite a
problem!

Anyway, I once read a facinating explanation for the discrepancies.
Note that the letter stated as the middle letter - the "vav" of the word
"gahon" - is written larger than a normal vav.  There are many dozens of
such "special" large or small letters in the Torah.  Could the Gemara
have meant that this vav is not the middle of all letters, but rather
the middle of all *special* letters?  In fact, this is exactly the case
- that vav is the exact middle of all large and small letters!

Similarly, the words stated as the middle are "Darosh Dorash", which is
a repitition of the same verb in Hebrew with different vocalization,
used for emphasis.  There are many such verb-pairs in the Torah.  Could
the Gemara have meant that these words are the middle of all such word
pairs?  In fact, this is exactly the case!

There was also an explanation for the verses, which I don't recall.
Anyway, this theory is very ingenious and it has the ring of truth.

Elie Rosenfeld     [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 13:42:39 EST
From: Meir Laker <[email protected]>
Subject: New Book of Potential Interest to Subscribers

I saw the following book advertised recently and thought that some of
the subscribers might be interested in it.  (I, myself, have not read it
and am not giving a book report.)

The book: "'Black' becomes a Rainbow" by Agi L. Bauer (Feldheim
Publishers, 800-237-7149).

The advertisement: "When Natalie became an orthodox Jew, her mother
thought she had lost her only daughter . . . Here is a fascinating book
that captures perfectly the dilemma of parents whose best laid plans
seem foiled when their daughter leaves home in search of `spiritual
fulfillment.'  Mrs. Bauer's account is an invaluable guide that can help
bridge the gap between parents and their `newly observant' offspring."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 18:18:52 -0800
From: Francine Storfer <[email protected]>
Subject: Recombinant DNA Technology and Kashrut

In a weekly shiur at shul, we have been learning the laws of meat and
milk, primarily from the Chochmat Adam, and going to other sources as
appropriate.  Last night we were learning about rennet and
cheese-making, and the question came up regarding rennetless cheese:
why is it not okay?  also:  if rennet, after the refining process, is
not regarded as a chemical but rather is still regarded as derived
from meat, then exactly what is used to make kosher cheeses?  Someone
pointed out that in Israel, something called "microbial rennet" is
used.  So, my question:  If "microbial rennet"  means rennet that is
produced in bacteria because the gene from another animal was cloned
into that bacterium, from which animal did the rennet gene originally
come?  and, is it important in such a case that the rennet gene come
from a kosher animal?  One can draw a parallel as follows:  if one
purifies rennet from an animal and reduces it to the level of a
chemical, but one had in mind the intention that the chemical rennet
would be used to curdle milk into cheese, then the rennet does not
lose its identity as "meat".  Similarly, if one clones a rennet gene
from a pig into bacteria with the intention of producing that rennet
to use in making cheese, would the rennet then retain its identity as
"pig"?

Fran Storfer

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 8:38:27 EST
From: Seth Ness <[email protected]>
Subject: Salt

does anyone know anything about the minhag of shaking salt onto the
table and then dipping the challah in it, rather then just shaking salt
onto the challah?

seth ness   [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 11:04:52 EST
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Text of the Bible

    I disagree with what Joshua Proschan states in regard to the
accuracy of our text of the bible.
He states

> The difficulties recorded in the Talmud, and the textual variants,
> occurred before the sofrim had completed their work of eliminating
> errors.  We now again have the correct text.  That is, at least are
> far as melayos v'chaseros are concerned.

     However, there are several difficulties with this. First of all
according to the shulchan aruch a sefer torah is not invalidated if it
is wrong in terms of extra or missing 'vav's because we are not sure
about "melayos and chaseros". Hence this lack of knowledge is still
current. The Shaagas Aryeh went a step further and claimed that all
our torahs are invalid because we don't know about missing vav's. He
claims that we accept torahs in our synagogues only on the basis of
custom and we do not fulfill the real mitzva anymore. Though his opinion
is not usually accepted it still shows our lack of knowledge.

     Second there are numerous examples where our text differs from that
of the Talmud in terms of the letter vav. The talmud was completed after
the soferim had completed their work and so these discrepancies arose
later. Minchat Shai deals with this in detail and concludes that we
write our torahs in accordance with our tradition and not what is in
the Talmud. Those even in recent times it was taken for granted that our
torahs are inaccurate with respect to "melayos and chaseros"

Eli Turkel



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 37


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Aliyot
             [Eli Turkel]
        Codes
             [Avrum Goodblat]
        Discovery
             [Joel Goldberg]
        Logistics of Tzitzit
             ["Victor S. Miller"]
        Minhag and Nusach Hamakom
             [Neil Parks]
        Recombinant DNA
             [Seth Ness]
        Salt
             [Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 11:54:18 EST
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Aliyot

     I would like to add one request to the questions of Michael Stein
about the aliyot. I have heard that there is a book that lists the
places in each parsha where one can make a stop for an aliya. Does
anyone know something about such a book for gabbaim?

Eli Turkel

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 15:19:56 +0200
From: Avrum Goodblat <[email protected]>
Subject: Codes

Let me put in my 2 grushim:

I personally believe that there is some validity to the hypothesis of
meaningful letter patterns in the Torah. BUT - I have seen a problem
arise which no one so far has brought up. Several years ago a friend of
mine went around trying to get together a seminar and invite all the
different groups to present and share their research. He failed
miserably. Not because research was not yet ready to be shared, but
because most of the groups were not interested in sharing a podium with
other groups. It was even hinted that certain places use the Codes as a
marketing tool. I do not know which institution(s) this was, so please
dont interpret this as a criticism of Discovery. However, I believe that
the fact that such a seminar has NOT occurred, despite the wealth of
activity makes me more skeptical on certain conclusions than I would
have been otherwise.

Perhaps some folks out there could encourage their favorite codes
research group to come out formally in favor of such a seminar, without
waiting for the others to go first! If there already has been one,
please send me details of which groups presented, and how to get the
proceedings.

(p.s. I am on the board of advisors of the Meru Foundation, which has
their own hypothesis - so personally I am a bit biased. But certainly if
we are taught that everyone of the letters is another path of truth,
then there might be 600,000 (or more?) code hypotheses;-)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 09:28:00 EST
From: Joel Goldberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Discovery

>Joel criticizes the refusal of a Discovery lecturer to hand out copies
>of an unpublished paper.  Unfortunately, there is no choice.  I would
>have to do the same thing if I were the lecturer.  That paper has been
>submitted to a professional journal for publication.  It is, the last I
>heard, in the hands of the referees.  Distributing copies would
>interfere with the process of journal publication.  I regard this as an
>obligation and courtesy to the authors and referees, not as a symptom of
>charlatanry.  We simply have to wait for the paper to be published.

    It is standard practice in `physics world' to mail out preprints
    to all and sundry. I have never heard that this intereferes with
    the publication process. Perhaps this is not usual in the 
    mathematics/statistics community.

>     "In the social sciences and medical research we find the standard of
>     statistical significance at the .05 level."
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>In the description of the codes results I wrote,
>
>     ". . . the probability against the null hypothesis (uniformity) is
>     . . . about .000 000 001 . . . .  This was repeated with a different

    Ok. My memory of the Discovery seminar is that no confidence
    level was given, but if .05 is the firm benchmark, then I am
    satisfied. I must ask, though, that given a 1e-09 probability
    against, is this sufficient for the Discovery people to rule which
    of the nine textual variations is correct? If not, why not?

    My other question was not addressed: What are the guidelines by
    which I can choose two columns of information, as was done for
    the g'dolim and their yahrzeiten, so that I can perform the test
    by myself. It must be guidelines, and not a specific set of
    information, so that I can be sure that no vetting has been done.

 Joel Goldberg      (Aseh lecha Rav.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 17:47:00 -0500
From: "Victor S. Miller" <[email protected]>
Subject: Logistics of Tzitzit

This questions might seem rather mundane, but I was hoping that
someone might have some good suggestions.  I have a large Tallit, and
a good fraction of the time when I'm gathering the four Tzitzit before
saying the Sh'ma, I always seem to come up one short.  Either I stop
concentrating on what I'm saying to fumble around (obviously not
good), or just content myself with three (which isn't quite optimal).
Does anyone have any suggestions how I can overcome this problem?

			Victor Miller


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 13:49:33 -0500
From: [email protected] (Neil Parks)
Subject: Minhag and Nusach Hamakom

In Livingston, New Jersey, the rabbi of Synagogue of the Suburban Torah
Center is a Lubavitcher Chassid, although most of the congregation are
Ashkenazim.

So while they use the Philip Birnbaum Ashkenazic siddur, he uses Nusach
Ari--not only privately, but also on the rare occasions when he serves
as Shliach Tsibbur (the one who leads the service).

On Sukkos, before the waving of the Lulav and Esrog, Rabbi Kasinetz
always explains the procedure--forward, right, back, left, up, down--and
then says: "But I do it differently, so watch the chazan, don't watch
me."


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 12:28:19 EST
From: Seth Ness <[email protected]>
Subject: Recombinant DNA

I don't know about cheese, but a friend of mine asked Rav Herschel
Schecter about the cows that had had a recombinant hormone(i don't
remember from what animal the hormonee originated) cloned into them to
increase the amount of milk they produced. He said that there was no
halachic problem with the cows or the milk.

seth ness



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 9:58:45 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: Re: Salt

Sefer Ta'amei Haminhagim, 182:

The reason that the motzie is to be dipped in salt is because the table
is compared to an altar, and the meal to a sacrifice.  [The Torah] says
"on all your sacrifices you shuld bring salt."  This is a shield against
punishment.  Further, when Israel sit and wait for each other until they
finish washing their hands, and they are without mitzvos and the satan
accuses them, the covenant of the salt shields them.

It is a custom to dip the piece of bread three times into salt, because
the Tetragrammaton [has the gematria of] 26, and three times 26 is [the
same gemmatria as] three times melach [salt].  This is a great secret
[see Note below].  Some have a custom to leave the salt on the table
until after Bircas Hamozon.

Note: In the sefer Ohr Tzadikim it is writtedn that one must dip three
times in salt corresponding to the 3 [times the gemmatria] of the
Tetragrammaton, for they sweeten the bitterness of the salt three
strengths [?], and through this dipping, the klipot [shells] are removed
from the table.  And he should also shake [the salt off] each time; this
is in the name of a secret.

----Loose translation mine ... Sheldon Meth



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 38


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Breaks for aliyot
             [Anthony Waller]
        Logistics of Tzitzit (2)
             [Bruce Krulwich, Warren Burstein]
        Logistics of Tzitzit and Tefillin
             [Louis Rayman]
        Request for Info: Kosher Food in Chile
             [JACOB RICHMAN]
        Salt (2)
             [Joshua Proschan, Seth Ness]
        Shabat in Indianapolis
             [Meir Loewenberg]
        Subject: Don't throw out last week's Jerusalem Report
             [Warren Burstein]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 08:43:46 IST
From: Anthony Waller <P85014%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Breaks for aliyot


  The Koren Tikkun.  This tikkun has asterisks marked at each possible
stop.  Large asterisks at places where stopping is allowed and smaller
asterisks where stopping is possible in times of "great need."  These
possible stops were recommended by R. Barukh Yashar of Yerushalaim,
formerly Chief Rabbi of Acco.

  I have used this tikkun for many years.  Unlike most others, it does
not have a "tora-like" page opposite the page with vowels and notes,
rather it has an exact image of the "vowels and notes" page without
the vowels and notes.  The advantage of being exactly parallel to the
"vowels and notes" page is offset by the fact that one does not practice
from a page which looks exactly like a sefer tora.

Anthony Waller           <[email protected]>
Bar-Ilan University, Israel.

[ Same or similar response received from:

[email protected] (Michael R. Stein)
David Chasman <[email protected]>
Assaf E. Bednarsh <[email protected]>

Thanks to you all!  Mod.]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 09:57:18 CST
From: [email protected] (Bruce Krulwich)
Subject: Logistics of Tzitzit

When I got married 6 months ago I grappled with various logistics of
tallis-wearing.  One thing that I do is that whenever I sit down I first
grab the sides of the tallis and flip it upwards and back so that I'm
not sitting on it -- the bottom of the back is around my waist.  Then I
gather the corners of the tallis in my lap.  This has several benefits:
the tzitzis don't touch the ground (which is considered disgraceful to
the tzitzis), and they're easier to gather together for Kriyas Shma.
It's also more comfortable.

[The grab all four Tzitzit and hold in lap was also submitted by:

[email protected] (David Sherman)
[email protected] (Harold Wyzansky)
MEDAD%[email protected] (Yisrael Medad) 

Yisrael adds:

If you still have problems, when you gather them together (as above),
wind them around a finger and hold on to them.

Thanks to all!  Mod.]

One problem that I still have is wearing the tallis such that (a) I can
cover my head with it without its weight making it hard for me to look
down, and pulling it back off (and taking my kippah with it), but (b)
having enough of it stay along my back to go down to my knees (which I
believe is preferable).  What I try to do is gather some slack around my
neck, for my head to be able to nod, and then using the sides that are
folded onto my shoulders to hold the slack in place.  Am I the only
person who has a problem with this?

Dov (Bruce) Krulwich - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 13:27:55 IST
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Logistics of Tzitzit

I don't wear a tallit.  I was never able to get even two tzitzit from
my tallit katan without all sorts of contortions (and possibly finding
myself needing to wash my hands before continuing to daven) so I just
gave up.  I guess it would easier if I wore my tzitzit on the outside
but when I try that the result is my shirt keeps coming out of my
pants.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 10:00:47 EST
From: [email protected] (Louis Rayman)
Subject: Re: Logistics of Tzitzit and Tefillin

I have a different problem when gathering my tzitzit before Kriat Shema:
when I reach behind me to grab the back left tzitzit, my tefillin on my 
left hand unravels!!  I've tried tying them tighter and looser, but they 
always unravel right before Shema.  

I'm sure some of the more experienced tallit wearers out there (I've only
been married for 5 months) will share some of thier experience about this
pressing issue. :-)

Lou Rayman - [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 03:06:11 -0800
From: [email protected] (JACOB RICHMAN)
Subject: Request for Info: Kosher Food in Chile

A friend of mine will be traveling on a business trip to Santiago, Chile 
next week. Does anyone know or have a list of kosher restraunts or food
stores available there.
If you have any information please email me directly at the address 
below.

Thanks in advance,
Jacob - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 17:28 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: Salt

There does not appear to be a requirement either to have the salt literally on
the table itself (rather than in a salt cellar), or to literally dip the bread
into the salt.  Some people do pour the salt on the table first, but others
pour it into a dish and still others sprinkle the salt onto the bread from a
salt shaker.  The use of salt shakers is possibly not the majority practice,
but is common enough.  (I have seen recognized poskim use salt shakers in
their homes.)

Joshua Proschan  [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 23:52:15 EST
From: Seth Ness <[email protected]>
Subject: Salt

Thanks, but I still don't understand why you dip the challah into the salt
rather than pour the salt on the challah. The Taamei Haminhagim explains why
you have salt on the challah in general but if the challah is compared to
a sacrifice then "on all your sacrifices you should bring salt" would
seem to be fulfilled just as well by pouring salt on the challah, and you
could pour three times. 

[Same question submitted by:

Eli Turkel <[email protected]>
Avi Feldblum <[email protected]>
Mod.]

As for the gematria, don't you mean that 3 times the tetragrammatron
equals one salt, not three salts--melach=78 and three times
tetragrammatron(26)=78

seth


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 15:51 O
From: Meir Loewenberg <F46022%[email protected]>
Subject: Shabat in Indianapolis

I am scheduled to attend in mid-March a Wednesday/Friday conference at
University of Indiana/Indianapolis.  I would appreciate information re
Shabat facilities (Orthodox minyan, kosher restaurant, etc.).

Meir Loewenberg (F46022@BARILAN).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 7:52:13 IST
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Subject: Don't throw out last week's Jerusalem Report

The following is a letter to the editor in the November 21 issue.  I'm
reproducing it in case someone has the November 7 issue but doesn't
read the letters column.

    Your Special Report "Unveiling the Treasures of Qumran" (Nov. 7)
    reproduced a fragment of a Dead Sea Scroll which included printed
    versions of the Divine name.  An accompanying photograph of the
    fragment also contained one such name.

    Printed Hebrew versions of these names (when written in full) are
    considered to have a certain level of holiness.  Texts containing
    these names are disposed of by burial.  Destruction of such material
    is considered desecration.

    When disposing of that issue, readers should ensure that at least page
    7 is buried or passed on to a synagogue.

    Stephen Kostyn
    London

The editors responded:

    We thank Mr. Kostyn for bringing this oversight to the attention of
    our readers.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 39


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Minhag and Nusach Hamakom
             [Bob Werman]
        More on Discovery (2)
             [Jonathan Chody, Joshua Proschan]
        The Modern Sacrifices of Judaism
             [Roger Brooks]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed,  20 Nov 91 9:14 +0200
From: [email protected] (Bob Werman)
Subject: RE: Minhag and Nusach Hamakom

In Volume 2 Number 37, Neil Parks writes:

>In Livingston, New Jersey, the rabbi of Synagogue of the Suburban Torah
>Center is a Lubavitcher Chassid, although most of the congregation are
>Ashkenazim.

Although the Lubavitcher are quite popular among Sphardim here,
they originated in Russia and are still considered Ashkenazim.
They do not daven nusah ashkenaz, however, even though that
nusah is not uniform with Polish and German subforms.


__Bob Werman    [email protected]    [email protected]
Jerusalem


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 15:09:47 GMT
From: Jonathan Chody <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: More on Discovery

Without taking sides on this interesting discussion, a thought occured
to me.

The following point was raised in Volume 2 Isssue 33 :-

 > The intellectual endeavor in Judaism aims at the elucidation of Halacha,
 > nothing more.  This begins with the most basic question of the Gemara,
 > "Mai nafka mina?" [what is the difference or what practical implication
 > is there. Mod.] .............  So I ask of Discovery, "Mai nafka mina?"

In issue 35 another point was raised :-

 > Eli Turkel asks an excellent question in issue #31, concerning "melayos
 > v'chaseros" [lit. full and incomplete; referring to words that can be
 > spelled in two ways, differing by a letter] in the Torah, and how this
 > affects the "codes" research.

My point is this. Could the codes be used to resolve the question
of melayos v'chaseros to determine the correct spelling of a word?
This would then be an important "nafka mina".

[Response of Joshue below to Joel may also apply to this question. Mod]

Johnny Chody  ([email protected])


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 17:28 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: More on Discovery

I would like to add one comment to Robert Books's article in m.j. II
#33.  We need things like the "codes" now, when they weren't needed in
the Rambam's day, because of the Enlightenment.  In the Rambam's day no
one was telling Jews that they were naive to believe in G-d; they were
just pushing a different religion.  Today we are constantly bombarded
with the false claim that science disproves Judaism.

Seth Ness's question (also in #33) regarding statistical analysis
applies to all statistical research, not just the "codes".  Calculations
must always be based on the true properties of the system being
examined.  If there are known patterns they must be accounted for.  Even
when there is no reason to suspect problems, it is still necessary to
confirm that the correct distributions are being used.  The "codes"
research deals with this by using comparisons between the Torah and
three control variants.  Two of the controls are almost identical with
the Torah, and share any non-randomness that results from the language,
style, and other literary qualities.  The behavior of the controls is
calculated by experiment, and proves to be essentially random.

In response to Joel Goldberg's questions in m.j. II #37: The "codes"
technique probably cannot discriminate among the 9 existing one-letter
variations.  It is not likely that enough of the minimal ELSs would be
affected by those few changes to make a meaningful difference in the
probabilities.  However, I don't know whether anyone has tried.  I
suspect that if this question could be decided at all by textual
analysis, something far more complex than ELSs would be needed.

Regarding the selection for the names and dates, it is not a matter of
selecting two columns that contain the names and dates; rather, those
whose entries in the encyclopedia were larger than an a priori minimum
size were included, those whose entries were smaller were not.

[There appears to be different standards for the release of preprints,
but the topic of professional publications is getting off the topic,
unless anyone has some specific jewish/halachic points to make. Josh and
Mod.]

Finally, in response to Avrum Goodblat's call for a conference.  Are you
really talking about groups doing *research* on the "codes", or about
groups doing *presentations* on the "codes" or having opinions on the
"codes" presentations?  There is a difference.  I only know of about 6
or 8 people doing research, and they are more or less a single group.

Joshua Proschan  [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 10:40:35 EST
From: rlbro%[email protected] (Roger Brooks)
Subject: The Modern Sacrifices of Judaism

     In place of the Temple as the locus of worldly power and authority,
the rabbis created a system of thought, in which the paramount virtue
was found in study of the Mishnah's various rules regarding Temple
sacrifices and proper maintenance of the Temple's purity.  The Temple
remained at the center of Judaism, but through the wondrous use of the
rabbinic mind, it was now transformed into a utopian institution; the
divine service now a matter for scrupulous study in the schoolhouse.

     As we turn to Sunagogues, we can find in early rabbinic literature
hearty confirmation of their growing role in the Land of Israel after
the destruction of the Temple.  Archeology has shown how Jews adorned
the synagogue Torah shrines with images taken from the ancient Temple,
including the altar, the shofar, and the menorah.  These now everyday
articles of Judaism all came to Jews of our day directly from that older
institution.  As Judaism moved through the crisis of the Temple's
destruction, in other words, the religious center of all Judaism--the
Temple worship--was utterly and completely transferred to a new
institution and focus--the synagogue and Torah.

     The very structure of the Synagogue liturgy, with its three daily
services, itself replicated the day-to-day events of the Temple.  Words
came to replace deeds-- which were now impossible anyway--as the daily
sacrifices were transformed into moments of communal prayer.  Roles that
had been exclusively those of the priestly elite who carried out the
offerings of the ancient Temple, now became available to all Jews who
could recite the details of the rituals: a nation of priests, if you
will.  And the yearly calendar, under rabbinic supervision, found new
emphases: in addition to revised (verbal) celebration of the pilgrimage
festivals--Passover, Shavuot, Tabernacles, when each Jew was to appear
in the Temple with a festival offering--the rabbinic movement punctuated
the year with two critical new commemorations: Tisha B'Av, a mid-summer
remembrance mourning the Temple's destruction, and Hanukkah, a
mid-winter recollection of how joyous it would be to rededicate the
Temple as in Maccabean times.

     Transformed Temple imagery, furthermore, shapes the way in which,
from rabbinic times on, Jews have conducted their religious home life.
Perhaps the most familiar example-- although the Temple's influence is
often unrecognized--is found in the Sabbath Evening Meal.  Here the
table around which the family gathers is, through the power of human
imaginiation, made in the image of the Temple altar, replete with
offerings and jubilant worship.  The Sanctification of the Sabbath, or
Kiddush, which praises God as creator of the cosmos, is pronounced over
a cup of wine during Friday evening's meal.  This ritual emerges from
the analogy between altar and table: during the Temple service of
antiquity, wine was poured out upon the altar, while the levitical
assistants sang praises to God.  And, the Talmud specifies, "Kiddush may
be pronounced only over the finest wine, suitable for being poured on
the altar."

     Similarly, the braided loaves of Challah used on Friday night at
times are compared to the "Showbread" of the Temple worship.  Like this
ancient counterpart, Challah is baked without salt, which in antiquity
was added only after bringing the offering to the altar, as Lev. 2:13
specifies: "You shall not omit from your meal-offering the salt of your
covenant with God; with all your offerings you must offer salt."  So too
nowadays, after blessing the Challah, Jews sprinkle salt upon each piece
before eating it.

     And finally, the Grace after Meals-- shared between the Sabbath and
all other meals--devotes one of its four paragraphs solely to a petition
for rebuilding Jerusalem and its center, the Temple.  Such a recitation,
while sitting at the table, reinforces the image that the rabbis worked
so hard to create: through the use of words and intellection, all Jews
can minister in the Holy Temple, which continues to exist not
physically, but in the religious imagination, even after the ravages of
the Roman wars.


This excerpt is from a book I am writing, entitled "The Modern Sacrifices
of Judaism," which I hope to finish over the next year or so.  I would
appreciate hearing back on these topics, either from interested individuals
or through postings to Mail.Jewish.


Cordially,

Roger Brooks
Elie Wiesel Professor of Judaic Studies
Connecticut College
New London, CT  06320

[email protected]    or  [email protected]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 40


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Har Habayit
             [Yisrael Medad]
        Koren Tikkun
             [Jeff Finger]
        Minhag Makom
             [Yisrael Medad]
        Pure Poultry
             [Josh Klein]
        Tzitzit during Shema (2)
             [Josh Klein, Prof. Aryeh Frimer]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 9:34:18 EST
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

Hello all,

	It has been a while since I've had an administrivia piece. A
couple of things as we approach the end of 1991. The list has grown
quite a bit during this year, both in the number of people on the list
as well in the frequency of issues. I hope I have been able to maintain
the kind of level of editing and moderating that I think most of you
want.
	The increase in email traffic of the list makes it necessary to
move the list off of my work machine and network onto someplace that
will be specifically for mail.jewish. It appears at this point that a
machine that will be dedicated to American-Isreali technical exchange
that is being set up will also serve as a center for communal Jewish
electronic communications. If all goes well, mail.jewish should be
moving to a new home at Isreal.nysernet.org by years end. It is not
completely clear at this point if this will be free or there will be
some nominal fee for us to set up there.
	That brings me to a second issue. Editing and moderating this
list now takes a larger fragment of my spare time than in the past. I
have been thinking about asking for a voluntary nominal donation for
people to make. I really feel unsure about this issue, and would like
any thoughts from anyone out there. This is not to be a commercial
affair with a subscription price. It would be asking for a voluntary
donation (to me) of say $0.-$10., whatever each person wants to give.
Voluntary would mean just that, no one will be dropped from the list or
sent reminder notices about it. As you may be able to tell from the
convoluted writing above, I have mixed emotions about this idea, but I
do know that my "free" time is valuable to me and while I really enjoy
doing this, it also takes a lot of time. If you have thoughts on this,
please email me.

	With that, I wish anyone commemorating Thanksgiving - happy
turkey and don't eat too much (to those who question whether one is
permitted, I can only say that each year I was in his shiur, the Rav (R.
Yosef Dov Soloveitchik) would give shiur early on Thanksgiving in order
to make the plane back to Boston to be there for dinner. Of course,
there was the year of the famous (infamous?) Thanksgiving shiur where he
got stuck on a Tosfot, and sat for over three hours, mainly silent,
trying to figure it out while his shamus went crazy, sending him notes
that he was missing his plane.). To all I wish that you celebrate and
experience a joyous and meaningful Hanuka.

Avi Feldblum
mail.jewish moderator
[email protected]   or  [email protected]
(609) 639-2474

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 12:18 IST
From: MEDAD%[email protected] (Yisrael Medad)
Subject: Har Habayit

Responding to comments:

1.  May I point out that not only the mitzva of "mora hamikdash" (the
fear of the sanctuary) is extant even today despite the fact that the
physical building was destroyed but also "shmira" (guarding/protecting).
Within this dimension, it is proper and fitting to find ways of being
on the Har Habayit.

2.  Just want to point out that the measurements I mentioned were not mine
but that of former Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren.

3.  As to the degree of severity of the problem, the Rabbi of the Kotel,
Yehuda Getz, once told me: "if we managed to solve the problem of milking
cows on Shabbat, we can solve the question of entrance to those permiited
portions of the Har Habayit.

4.  And as to the notes in the Kotel, minhagim aside, there is absolutely
no halachic basis that I know of to stand away from the Kotel.  The whole
matter started, I think, in a misinterpretation of the Midrash that the
"Shechina does not move from the Western Wall".  What some people missed
is that the "western wall" of the midrash is that of the Holy of Holies
and not the outside retaining wall of which there is abundant archeological
evidence of its existence, identification and location.

Yisrael Medad - <MEDAD@ILNCRD>


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 07:59:02 PST
From: [email protected] (Jeff Finger)
Subject: Koren Tikkun

I like the Koren Tikkun very much, but feel it has one gigantic problem:
Sof-pasuk stands out in the *unpunctuated* text because of the bigger
gap between words; all they have done is to reprint the pages without
punctuation, and the space formerly occupied by the period shows.

If people know of other good tikkunim besides Ktav's Sharfstein Tikkun I
would be most interested. I like to use as many tikkunim as possible to
avoid unconsciously memorizing line breaks and page breaks that won't be
there when the hour of reckoning rolls around.

-- Jeff Finger --




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 08:26 IST
From: MEDAD%[email protected] (Yisrael Medad)
Subject: Minhag Makom 

Regarding another aspect of "Minhag Makom":
Here in Shiloh, when we rise for the chanting of the last verse
in the Shabbat Eve hymn {L'cha Dodi}, we do a 90-degree turn to
the right thus mixing up any guests who are present.  They, like
most, normally turn completely around to the rear.

Our Rav, Rabbi Elchanan Bin-Nun, has paskined in accordance with
the Gemara in Baba Bathra that "the Shechina is in the West" (which
is the way the Bet Mikdash was set up whereby the Holy of Holies was
closest to the Western Wall) and Kabbalistic commentaries.  Thus,
when the bow is made at the end of {L'cha Dodi}, it is done in Shiloh
facing West - being North of Jerusalem, we davin facing South so to
face West we turn to the right.

In Askenaz (that territory from the banks of the Don stretching on
until California's sunny beaches), since everyone was facing East
towards Jerusalem, to face West one simply turned around to the rear.
Well, we don't do that in Shiloh.  And in Hebron, for example, there
are people who turn left 90-degrees.

Yisrael Medad
<MEDAD@ILNCRD>


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 17:53 N
From: Josh Klein <VTFRST%[email protected]>
Subject: Pure Poultry

Although I recall learning years ago that *in principle* one cannot have
'glatt chicken', here in Israel there are all kinds of 'super
hechsherim' for poultry that essentially mean 'glatt'. With Thanksgiving
almost upon us, can someone explain what has changed to allow fowl to be
more than just kosher?

Josh Klein VTFRST@VOLCANI

[Have no fear that Israel is ahead of Boro Park in this regard. There I
have seen Glatt Kosher cheese. Mod]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 17:44 N
From: Josh Klein <VTFRST%[email protected]>
Subject: Tzitzit during Shema

 I used to daven in the same minyan as Rav J.B. Soloveitchik 20-25 years
ago.  I clearly remember that a) he sat on his talit and b) that he
didn't gather all 4 tzitziot for Sh'ma. What he DID do was hold one or
two of the 4 tzitziot and glance at them when saying "u'r'item oto" [and
you shall look at them] during parshat tzitzit [the third paragraph of
morning Sh'ma]. This may be a brisker (or Brisker) adaptation of the
custom I've noticed among some of poking themselves in the eye when
clutching tzitziot, which seems to negate the intention of the pasuk.
Does anybody know why we kiss tzitziot at all?
  By the way, non-tallit wearers can get easy access to the tzitziot of
their tallit katan by opening up the reinforcing squares of the beged to
make pockets.

Josh Klein VTFRST@VOLCANI

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 13:41 O
From: Prof. Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Tzitzit during Shema


Regarding the "logistics of Tzitzit":
      Perish the thought I should want to shake anybody up but it is not
at all clear halachically that one should gather up all 4 tzitzit
together during the recitation of Shma. [The discussion that follows is
based on the "Ma'aseh Rav" of the Vilna Gaon and the Siddur Tzeluta
DeAvraham].
     One is obligated to wear his tallit Gadol or katan (large or small)
such that two tzitzit are in front and two in back. Indeed, the Shulchan
Aruch (O.H. 19:3) allows a child to where a tallit katan ONLY if he
knows how to keep two in the front and two in the back). This is why we
wear a Talit gadol over the shoulder and NOT as a "Prayer Shawl" with
all four tzitiyot in front. This is also one of the reasons why shirts,
though they have four corners, are freed from tzitzit - namely, because
all four corners are in front! Hence, says the Vilna Gaon, contrary to
what the Zohar says (and contrary to what you may have learned in
Kindergarten) you should never gather all four tzitzit to the front,
because then you are freed from the obligation of tzitzit!
    The custom of holding, looking and/or kissing the tzitzit is found
in Shulchan Aruch O.H. 24:4 and 5. Indeed, the Mechaber (R. Yosef Karo)
only mentions holding and looking at TWO (2) tzitzit. The Rama adds in
his gloss the custom to kiss them a little (But not necessarily at the
word tzitzit - see below). It is obvious to one sensitive to the
halachic details cited above that the mechaber goes to the trouble of
mentioning TWO - and only TWO - that he is rejecting the "all four" for
the reasons cited above.
   Returning now to the issue of kissing the Tzitzit, From the flow of
the Rama's gloss it is clear that he is noting a minhag to kiss the
tzitzit at "Ureitem oto". Kissing them at "tzitzit" can be a bit of a
problem since you will be deviding up words that should be joined
together. For example, at the end of the second verse of "Vayomer"
we say "Tzitzit hakanaf" which means the tzitzit OF the Kanaf (corner).
It is the Smichut form and hence should not be separated, by a kiss,
from "hakanaf".
   Ever since I became aware of this detail, I have studied gedolei
Torah (torah scholars) as they say Kriat Shma and again, as an informal
poll, most litvishe (i.e. not chassidishe) gedolim take only two and do
NOT kiss their tzitzit!

                         Aryeh Frimer
                         F66235@BARILAN

[I have this definite memory that there is a comment from one of the
Gaonim, braught down in the Otzer Hagaonim (but I don't remember where)
that one does not kiss the tzitzit, just as one does not kiss the mezuza
when that is mentioned in the Shema. Anyone else come across that and
possibly know the reference? Mod.]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 41


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Discovery (2)
             [Ephraim D Becker, Arnold Lustiger]
        Hebrew calendar program
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Salt (2)
             [SAGIR S, Louis Rayman]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 12:01:29 -0600
From: Ephraim D Becker <[email protected]>
Subject: Discovery

I have been watching with interest the excellent discussions regarding
the Discovery and Arachim Seminars.  I would like to add the following
concern which has, as yet, not been addressed: The Seminar presenters
must be concerned about being NICE.  Permit me to explain.

It is clear that one of the underlying designs of this outreach approach
is to promote thoughtful re-evaluation of perspectives on the part of
the participants.  This is always a difficult process and calls for
great compassion.  The Discovery Seminar not only tends to promote this
re-evaluation, it tends (and I venture to say attempts) to pull the rug
out from under the life-assumptions of the participants, catapulting
them into disarray, and, hopefully, redirecting their thinking.  This
requires a great deal of love and caring and, perhaps, even restraint.

It is a great challenge to have information which can unseat or at least
unsettle one's listener.  I am afraid that it is a potentially
corrupting power.  It is far too easy to lose sight of the pain and
anxiety which is being suffered by the participant while hiding behind
the noble outreach mission.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the brief Discovery/Arachim
Seminars which have been conducted for certain American yeshiva students
have been received with "enthusiasm."  I, too, have been exposed to the
Discovery model, both as part of such an "awareness" session, as well as
a sponsor, through our local outreach efforts.  I can report that there
is a strong pull towards a "gotcha!" feeling.  I refer here to the
powerful sense that, once and for all, the nay-sayers to the Torah will
be silenced; apathy and agnosticism will be wiped away with the brush
strokes of Discovery or Arachim.

Ultimately, there is no substitute for the compassionate sharing of
Rebbe and Talmid.  There is no shortcut to draw our brethren back from
religious indifference, except to immediately commence with the
back-breaking work of learning to love every member of klal yisrael
(*beginning with one's spouse*) and to communicate the A-lmighty's love
to each of His children.  The yeshiva students who were enthused by the
"Discoveries" are hardly likely to find those findings useful in their
study of the Talmud.  Rather, they are perhaps enthused by the "power"
of the findings to overwhelm any rival hypothesis.  They may be looking
forward to "using" some of these findings to make a point with a
not-yet-G-d-fearing Jew.  This would, if true, be a tragic use of Torah
as "shovel to dig with."  Certainly such a "use" of Torah could hardly
be "useful" in conveying the extent of G-d's love for every one of His
children.

R' Noach Weinberg, Shlita, the Rosh HaYeshiva of Aish HaTorah, (and the
mentor of many of the Discovery presenters) has spoken eloquently (as
evidenced by his taped discussions) regarding "Noseh b'ol im chavero"
(sharing a burden with one's friend), that there can never be a
compromise of caring and sharing.  If he is to be their Rebbe, then the
Discovery presenters must keep his example ever before them when they
are presenting the material.  We need to ask the question, "what is it
like to be on the receiving end of me?"  There is nothing inherently
wrong in trying to unsettle another's belief system.  There is something
terribly amiss, though, if one hides behind the "truth" to shield
oneself from the pain and anxiety of those impacted by that "truth."

As far as those who have been drawn close to Torah Judaism through the
American Discovery, there are some complex psychological forces at work
which are beyond the scope of this posting.  Suffice it to say that we
always celebrate when a person comes close to the Torah, regardless of
the path which brings him or her there.  At the same time we recognize
that the path which brings them there may be one indicator of the path
within Torah which they will subsequently take.  With G-d's reputation
on the line, the subtle nuances of these variations become quite
significant.

Some caveats, please.  What I have written is not meant as an
indictment, G-d forbid, of the Discovery Seminar or its presenters.  I
have met Discovery presenters who are, I believe, highly empathic
people.  Second, the material, most of which is derived from classical
Jewish sources such as the Kuzari, needs to be shared with Klal Yisrael
as much today as ever before.  Finding a novel way to present our
eternal truths is a wonderful pursuit.  Further, while I imagine that
for most participants it is the first and last time they will ever hear
anything about the documentary hypothesis, it is appropriate, for some,
to discuss even this esoteric area.

Finally, I wish to confess my guilt to the obvious charge of hypocrisy.
Even as the director of the Seminar, "Sensitivity: The Jewish Way," I
have not begun, in my own interactions, to embody the model which I have
prescribed for Discovery.  May it someday be true that *even once* I was
not indulging my ego when I spoke words of Torah to others.  How often
have I spoken too quickly to be fully understood, or used jargon to
impress, or felt a need for my listener to think that I was clever such
that I was actually rooting for myself at the expense of other.  If
these words benefit no one else, perhaps reading them in mail.jewish
will have some impact on me.  So let each one who is inclined to coax
our brethren back to Torah feel encouraged to do so.  But: Gently,
please, you are tugging on my heart.

Ephraim D. Becker
Mashgiach Ruchani
Darche Noam/Shapell College - Jerusalem

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 08:55:14 EST
From: Arnold Lustiger <ALUSTIG%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Discovery

Johnny Chody's question about the possibility of code findings shedding
light on melayos ve'chasayros tangentially raises a fundamental issue
regarding the entire subject which has bothered me since this thread
started on this mailing list. First of all, with regard to Johnny's
question, presumably the answer is negative: no aspect of the mesora,
even those in doubt, could be affected by this research.

In other words, codes research exists only to "prove" a point: that
Torah is Min Hashamayim. If the codes research took a "wrong turn" and
"proved" that the Samaritan Bible was "min hashamayim", and the Torah
wasn't, then codes would be rejected as an invalid hermeneutical tool by
its staunchest proponents in Aish Hatorah. The fact that the Samaritan
Bible was tried and failed the "codes test" is entirely besides the
point.  When one applies objective scientific criteria to any problem,
one must be prepared to keep his mind open to possibilities other than
the hypothesis he is trying to prove.

As an example, in my own polymer science activities, I have been a
strong proponent of the view that "tie molecules" exist and are
responsible for the mechanical properties of polyethylene: I have been
promoting this view in public forums for about 12 years. Let's say
that a new universally accepted experimental technique becomes available
which can prove or disprove my theory. Before I apply it, I have to be
mentally prepared to abandon my theory in light of any new evidence
*before* I apply the technique.  Otherwise, my advocacy of tie molecules
is not intellectually honest: it is not science, it is religion.

Torah Min Hashamayim is not open to question. Applying scientific
criteria to any problem requires objectivity and not advocacy. The
application of codes to advocate a previously held view, and whose
view will not change in light of *any* evidence to the contrary, is in
my opinion fundamentally dishonest.

Conservative Judaism *has* applied objective criteria, in this case,
historical research, to modify basic precepts of emuna. The result, in
my opinion has been grotesque: a movement vacillating between emuna and
chaos. However, they have been intellectually honest in their inquiry,
making "changes" whenever the objective historic criteria warrant such
changes. Frankly, I am always a litle scared when I speak to a
Seminary professor. An observant professor recently told me that he
follows Shulchan Aruch, except for one law: Kiddush Levana. He cannot
bring himself to say Kiddush Levana because he knows, in detail, it's
"pagan" origins. Another told me that he had found the thirteen midos
of Rabbi Yishmael in a Roman text predating the Mishna.

In the 1940's, Rabbi Soloveitchik wrote a book called "The Halachic
Mind". In it, he writes that science and religion have fundamentally
different epistemologies, differing ways of perceiving knowledge.
Mixing epistemologies,(for example, advocating Shemirat Shabbat because
of its psychological benefits) is invalid. Applying codes research to
"prove" Torah Min Hashamayim fits in this category.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 22:54:19 +0200
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Hebrew calendar program

I have been using a Hebrew calendar program called hdate, written by
Amos Shapir, dated 1985.  It's written in C and runs nicely under
UNIX.  Unfortunately, it's been off by a day since the 1st of Kislev
this year, presumably having miscalculated the length of Heshvan
which varies from year to year.  Queries:  (1) Does anybody know the
whereabouts of the author of this program, so I can bother him?
Alternatively, (2) can someone send me (or point me to) a suitable,
reliable, and free replacement for hdate?  I need source code I can
compile for use in a UNIX environment.  Thanks,

Ben Svetitsky    [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 09:44:43 GMT
From: SAGIR S <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Salt

I am aware of the correction made by Seth in #38 but I still feel that
what I will add should clear matters further.

Firstly, I would like to confirm Seth's opinion that Sheldon Meth has, I
believe, not correctly understood the issue of the Gamatriah (Numerical
Value of Hebrew Letters).  The true meaning (as Seth mentioned) is that
3*26=78 which is the Gematriah of salt (Melach) where 26 refers to the
Tetragrammaton (Name of G-d). [Melach is spelt Mem Lamed Chet = 40+30+8
= 78].

Now comes the clarification :

We dip 3 times since each dipping corresponds to the Tetragrammaton (26)
and the total accumulates to Melach (78). With reference to the
sweetening aspect of the article it is necessary to add an additional
point of information. Bread (Lechem) has a Gamatriah of 78 and is in fact
spelled from the same letters as Melach but in a different order (This I
believe has a meaning in itself although I do not know what it is). So
Bread also has the concept of 3 Tetragrammatons attached to it.

Now comes the analogy :

The 3 Tetragrammatons of lechem correspond to 3 good qualities which are
used via dipping to sweeten the 3 Tetragrammatons of Melach
corresponding to 3 evil qualities !!

And there you have a slightly deeper insight as to what is meant by the
sefer Ohr Tzadikim.

However, the reference to shells in this article may seem a bit odd (and
indeed are) but I would say to any of you who have doubts as to what
they are or what their significance is , 'Dont concern yourself with
them !!!!!!!'. They do refer do something Mystical and are better left
alone (Kabbalah) !!!  I do not know the significance of shaking the salt
off and I have never heard of it before (or even read about it).

For those of you who might want to know more see :

Ben Ish Chai,	Parshat Emor (Year 1),	Paragraph 10

I will now discuss Seths questions using the above source.

Firstly the salt is said to be dipped into 3 times and so I presume that
this means that dipping is necessary and not sprinkling.  Secondly the
dipping is referred to as a Mitzvah (Law) and I deduce from this that it
is necessary to use salt each time (However, he does mention that if no
salt is in front of you, don't delay, but rather Bless the bread and eat
and should the salt be available later then simply dip and eat).

Shlomo Sagir

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 16:19:48 EST
From: [email protected] (Louis Rayman)
Subject: re: Salt

RE the question of dipping the challa into the salt, instead of shaking
the salt onto the challa:

Might the reason be that salt shakers were not prevelent in the Old 
Country?

If so, the table would have had a bowl of salt on it, and the
easiest way to get the salt on the challa would be to dip it in!

(I know its not a very lumdish answer, but I bet its very close to the truth!)

Lou Rayman - [email protected]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 42


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Kosher cheese
             [Francine Storfer]
        Kosher food in Japan
             []
        No Subject Given
             [Eli Turkel]
        mail.jewish Vol. 2 #40 (3)
             ["Prof. Aryeh Frimer"                       , Dr. Sheldon Z.
             Meth, Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth]
        mail.jewish Vol. 2 #41
             [Warren Burstein]
        temple
             [Eli Turkel]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 16:24:29 -0800
From: Francine Storfer <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Kosher cheese 

In our shiur, we learned that rennet is not subject to the bitul
b'shishim, because it is an essential ingredient that plays a vital role
in changing the milk into cheese.

I would also be interested in a discussion of gvinat akum and, in
a discussion of why rennetless cheese is still subject to gvinat akum,
while in the U.S. it has become customary in many circles to drink
milk that is not chalav yisrael, just relying on the USDA to certify
that it is cow's milk.  Why should cheese and not milk be subject to
gvinat akum?  It seems inconsistent.  Why can one g'zera be suspended
(chalav yisrael) and not another, when the situations are comparable?

fran

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 November 1991 22:09:38 CST
From: Robert Gordon <[email protected]>
Subject: Kosher food in Japan

I will be traveling in Japan for six weeks and am concerned about
starving for lack of kosher food.  (I will not be in Tokyo most of the
time.)  Does anyone have experience with obtaining food there?  What
commercial products (bread, canned food, etc.) can one eat?  What fish
are OK?
I would appreciate any advice you can send me.  Please write to me at
U08383 @ UICVM.

   Thanks,   Robert Gordon

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 08:25:42 EST
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Glatt

The word glatt means smooth in yiddish (Hebrew - Chalak) and originally
referred to the lungs of an animal. Any kashrut question involving the
lungs was declared nonkosher and not given to a Rabbi to decide. Today
glatt is a general term for "more stringent kashrut". Glatt chickens in
Israel usually refer to not using hormonal injections in chickens which
some Rabbis object to.

Eli Turkel - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 08:25:42 EST
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Tumah and the Kotel

With regard to hands in the kotel most everyone agrees that the modern
western wall is the wall to the temple mount and not the temple itself.
Nevertheless people with a bodily tumah (nidah, zav etc.) are not
permitted on the temple mount. The halachic discussion revolves about
where the temple mount starts in terms of the walls. In other walls are
the walls themselves part of the temple mount. If the mount starts from
the outside of the walls then one is not permitted to put his (her)
hands inside the cracks unless they are sure they have gone to a mikveh
after conclusion of the timah period.

Eli Turkel - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 09:38 O
From: Prof. Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Glatt


    There is clearly no Halachic justification for calling poultry
"glatt" as is clear from the Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Hilchot Treifot.
However, the meat business uses the term for marketing purposes. In the
States it usually means the Shochet or the Mashgiach is Glatt! (i.e.
without any sfeikot - questions or doubts. He comes from the right
chassidic sect or litvishe hashkafa (world view)).
    In Israel, Mehadrin (Of Yerushalayim) is more substantive and has to
do with the Salting procedure. Namely, the chickens are totally cut open
before salting and are not salted whole as is the usual practice.
    The term glatt has clearly been abused in recent years; but as my
father Shlita would always quip "There is no upper limit to FRUMKEIT
(religiosity)". He said this upon seeing erev Pesach a bottle of Shemura
olive oil (Shemen zayit shemura). But he would always temper this
touch of cynicism with a deffinition of "Meshuga Frum" (Too Religious):
"The Meshuga frum is anyone more religious than me!"

                  Yom ha-Hodaya Sameach
                  Aryeh Frimer (f66235@barilan)
P.S. Do Hodu (turkey) and Hodaya (thanksgiving) have a common root?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 9:41:50 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: RE: Kissing Tzitzis

Kalte Litvakes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I come from Chassidim, and grew up in a Shtibbel in Bensonhurst (the only one).
EVERYONE kissed their tzitzis at the three mentions of the word, and at 
"emes" at the end.  In fact (check the "holy" art scroll siddur), we gather
our tzitzis at "me'arba kanfos ha'aretz" in ahavah rabbah, between the fourth
and fifth (pinky) fingers of the left hand.  At the beginning of the third
paragraph, we hold the fringes in the right hand.  We continue to hold the
tzitzis, kissing them two more times in v'yatziv, at "umalchuso v'emunoso
la'ad kayemes" and "ne'emanim v'nechemadim la'ad," at which point we
(respectfully) let the tzitzis drop.

Sources for these minhagim follow.

The Ba'er Hetev, in Orach Chayim 59:3:

"When he reaches `arba kanfos ha'aretz,' he should take the four tzitzis in
his right hand and place them upon his heart until the paragraph of
`vayomer.'  Then he should take them in his right hand until he reaches
`chayim vkayamim;' [then] he should kiss them and put them down."

The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 17:7:

"Before Keriyas Shema, when he says `vehavieinu,' he takes the tzitzis in
his hand, and holds them during Keriyas Shema in his left hand between his
fourth and fifth fingers, next to his heart.  When he reaches `vayomer,' 
which is the parsha of tzitzis, he holds them also in his right.  When he
says `u're'eesem oso,' he places them on his eyes, gazes upon them, and
kisses them.  It is a custom that every time he says the word `tzitzis,'
he kisses them.  He holds them until `v'nechemodim lo'ad,' at which time he
kisses them and releases them from his hands."

See also Orach Chayim 24:2 and 4, and there in the Magen Avraham (1) and the 
Ba'er Hetev, who quote the writings of the Ariz"l.  Also the Ba'er Hetev 
there (2), who says "we find that whoever passes his tzitzis before his eyes 
when he reads the parsha of tzitzis is assured that he will not come to 
blindness."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 7:48:56 IST
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Hebrew calendar program

I put copies of Amos Shapira's hdate and hcal on itex.jct.ac.il.
The files can be ftp'd from the hebrew-calendar directory.  This is
his 4th version, dated July 1989 - Tamuz 5749.  I am running the
second version which gives the correct date on my computer.  The
version number is only found in the README file, not in the source
code, so anyone who has a broken copy should check the README.

My Sefirat Haomer program is there, too, as well as some programs to
calculate the times of sunrise and sunset, but I don't know if they
work or not.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 11:30:18 EST
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Temple

    With regard to Roger Brooks comments on the influence of the temple
on modern day practices I wish to point out that there is some tension
between two opposing poles. On one hand as pointed out we do many things
to remind us of the temple service. On the other hand many things are
forbidden because it appears we are performing temple activities outside
of the temple.

     Some examples:

     On passover evening at the seder one is forbidden to eat a lamb or
goat fully roasted as what done in the days of the temple for the
korban pesach. Based on this mishna the ashkenazi custom is to distance
oneself from any similarity and not eat roasted beef or any lamb even
if not roasted. On the other hand the sefardi custom is to eat a lamb
at the seder and only not to roast the entire lamb without water in
accordance with the mishna.

    Another example is given by chanuka. Many people have the custom to
use oil for the chanuka menora since the original miracle was with oil
and olive oil was used in the temple service. On the other hand I have
heard of a "brisker" custom not to use olive oil as it looks like we
are lighting a menora outside of the temple area.

Eli Turkel



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 42


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Glatt (2)
             [Eli Turkel, Prof. Aryeh Frimer]
        Hebrew calendar program
             [Warren Burstein]
        Kissing Tzitzis
             [Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth]
        Kosher food in Japan
             [Robert Gordon]
        Temple
             [Eli Turkel]
        Tumah and the Kotel
             [Eli Turkel]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 08:25:42 EST
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Glatt

The word glatt means smooth in yiddish (Hebrew - Chalak) and originally
referred to the lungs of an animal. Any kashrut question involving the
lungs was declared nonkosher and not given to a Rabbi to decide. Today
glatt is a general term for "more stringent kashrut". Glatt chickens in
Israel usually refer to not using hormonal injections in chickens which
some Rabbis object to.

Eli Turkel - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 09:38 O
From: Prof. Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Glatt


    There is clearly no Halachic justification for calling poultry
"glatt" as is clear from the Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Hilchot Treifot.
However, the meat business uses the term for marketing purposes. In the
States it usually means the Shochet or the Mashgiach is Glatt! (i.e.
without any sfeikot - questions or doubts. He comes from the right
chassidic sect or litvishe hashkafa (world view)).
    In Israel, Mehadrin (Of Yerushalayim) is more substantive and has to
do with the Salting procedure. Namely, the chickens are totally cut open
before salting and are not salted whole as is the usual practice.
    The term glatt has clearly been abused in recent years; but as my
father Shlita would always quip "There is no upper limit to FRUMKEIT
(religiosity)". He said this upon seeing erev Pesach a bottle of Shemura
olive oil (Shemen zayit shemura). But he would always temper this
touch of cynicism with a deffinition of "Meshuga Frum" (Too Religious):
"The Meshuga frum is anyone more religious than me!"

                  Yom ha-Hodaya Sameach
                  Aryeh Frimer (f66235@barilan)
P.S. Do Hodu (turkey) and Hodaya (thanksgiving) have a common root?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 7:48:56 IST
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Hebrew calendar program

I put copies of Amos Shapira's hdate and hcal on itex.jct.ac.il.
The files can be ftp'd from the hebrew-calendar directory.  This is
his 4th version, dated July 1989 - Tamuz 5749.  I am running the
second version which gives the correct date on my computer.  The
version number is only found in the README file, not in the source
code, so anyone who has a broken copy should check the README.

My Sefirat Haomer program is there, too, as well as some programs to
calculate the times of sunrise and sunset, but I don't know if they
work or not.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 9:41:50 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: RE: Kissing Tzitzis

Kalte Litvakes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I come from Chassidim, and grew up in a Shtibbel in Bensonhurst (the only one).
EVERYONE kissed their tzitzis at the three mentions of the word, and at 
"emes" at the end.  In fact (check the "holy" art scroll siddur), we gather
our tzitzis at "me'arba kanfos ha'aretz" in ahavah rabbah, between the fourth
and fifth (pinky) fingers of the left hand.  At the beginning of the third
paragraph, we hold the fringes in the right hand.  We continue to hold the
tzitzis, kissing them two more times in v'yatziv, at "umalchuso v'emunoso
la'ad kayemes" and "ne'emanim v'nechemadim la'ad," at which point we
(respectfully) let the tzitzis drop.

Sources for these minhagim follow.

The Ba'er Hetev, in Orach Chayim 59:3:

"When he reaches `arba kanfos ha'aretz,' he should take the four tzitzis in
his right hand and place them upon his heart until the paragraph of
`vayomer.'  Then he should take them in his right hand until he reaches
`chayim vkayamim;' [then] he should kiss them and put them down."

The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 17:7:

"Before Keriyas Shema, when he says `vehavieinu,' he takes the tzitzis in
his hand, and holds them during Keriyas Shema in his left hand between his
fourth and fifth fingers, next to his heart.  When he reaches `vayomer,' 
which is the parsha of tzitzis, he holds them also in his right.  When he
says `u're'eesem oso,' he places them on his eyes, gazes upon them, and
kisses them.  It is a custom that every time he says the word `tzitzis,'
he kisses them.  He holds them until `v'nechemodim lo'ad,' at which time he
kisses them and releases them from his hands."

See also Orach Chayim 24:2 and 4, and there in the Magen Avraham (1) and the 
Ba'er Hetev, who quote the writings of the Ariz"l.  Also the Ba'er Hetev 
there (2), who says "we find that whoever passes his tzitzis before his eyes 
when he reads the parsha of tzitzis is assured that he will not come to 
blindness."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 November 1991 22:09:38 CST
From: Robert Gordon <[email protected]>
Subject: Kosher food in Japan

I will be traveling in Japan for six weeks and am concerned about
starving for lack of kosher food.  (I will not be in Tokyo most of the
time.)  Does anyone have experience with obtaining food there?  What
commercial products (bread, canned food, etc.) can one eat?  What fish
are OK?
I would appreciate any advice you can send me.  Please write to me at
U08383 @ UICVM.

   Thanks,   Robert Gordon

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 11:30:18 EST
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Temple

    With regard to Roger Brooks comments on the influence of the temple
on modern day practices I wish to point out that there is some tension
between two opposing poles. On one hand as pointed out we do many things
to remind us of the temple service. On the other hand many things are
forbidden because it appears we are performing temple activities outside
of the temple.

     Some examples:

     On passover evening at the seder one is forbidden to eat a lamb or
goat fully roasted as what done in the days of the temple for the
korban pesach. Based on this mishna the ashkenazi custom is to distance
oneself from any similarity and not eat roasted beef or any lamb even
if not roasted. On the other hand the sefardi custom is to eat a lamb
at the seder and only not to roast the entire lamb without water in
accordance with the mishna.

    Another example is given by chanuka. Many people have the custom to
use oil for the chanuka menora since the original miracle was with oil
and olive oil was used in the temple service. On the other hand I have
heard of a "brisker" custom not to use olive oil as it looks like we
are lighting a menora outside of the temple area.

Eli Turkel

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 08:25:42 EST
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Tumah and the Kotel

With regard to hands in the kotel most everyone agrees that the modern
western wall is the wall to the temple mount and not the temple itself.
Nevertheless people with a bodily tumah (nidah, zav etc.) are not
permitted on the temple mount. The halachic discussion revolves about
where the temple mount starts in terms of the walls. In other walls are
the walls themselves part of the temple mount. If the mount starts from
the outside of the walls then one is not permitted to put his (her)
hands inside the cracks unless they are sure they have gone to a mikveh
after conclusion of the timah period.

Eli Turkel - [email protected]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 43


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Advice Needed
             [[email protected]]
        Agunah
             [Will Shulman]
        Codes Research (2)
             [[email protected], Avrum Goodblat]
        Columbia, Missouri?
             [Francine Storfer]
        Good Tikkun
             [David Sherman]
        Macintosh Calendar
             [Seth Ness]
        Originality
             [Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund]
        Salt
             [Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth]
        Tolerance of Non-Believers and Halakha
             [[email protected]]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 8:11:24 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected] <Sherri Chasin Calvo>
Subject: Advice Needed

Friends,
   Recently I was a guest at the home of a lifelong friend of my
mother's; the gathering included mostly non-observant Jews and a few
non-Jews. Someone commented on the fact that a synagogue was being built
a few doors down, which comment opened up a big can of worms.  It turned
out that there was a neighborhood protest against the building of this
synagogue, led by (you guessed it) the very woman who was our hostess,
also a Jew.
   It seems that there was great resentment in the town against "the
Orthodox", who were said to be "moving in and taking over." I tried to
point out that it would be very convenient to have a shul down the
block, and also that the anticipated traffic problem would be unlikely
to materialize, as "the Orthodox" would be walking to shul on Shabbos
and holidays. All to no avail. The climax of this conflict was to take
place on the day planned for dedicating the synagogue and bringing in
the Torahs; our hostess' children were planning to show their feelings
by decorating the ornamental shrubbery on their lawn with colored lights
for Xmas on that day.
    The usual stereotypes about pushy people thinking they can do
whatever they want because they "own the town" were cranked out.  It
sounded like a room full of anti-Semites! Also, I thought it was a
shonda for the non-Jews in the room. What are they to think, if we talk
like this about our own?
    I should say that I could by no means speak to these people as any
kind of expert on halacha; nor is my own observance unfortunately up to
Orthodox standards. But enough is enough, already. Can anyone tell me
what would have been an appropriate thing to do or say under these
circumstances? I was reduced to spluttering and leaving the room.

Thanks,
Sherri

Sherri Chasin Calvo - [email protected]
Chag sameach, everybody!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 8:19:44 EST
From: Will Shulman <[email protected]>
Subject: Agunah

     I would like to discuss a substantive problem that has reared its
ugly head in our community. A married couple, unfortunately, do not get
along and they split. The man refuses to give the woman a get. She is
stuck. She is a living agunah and has no recourse to living a normal
life with an other man.  I wonder if the readers of this "mail.jewish"
have any ideas of what should be done about this problem.
                              Will Shulman <[email protected]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 12:03 EDT
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Codes Research

Some time ago, somebody asked about the criteria that were to be used to 
select data sets for testing the "codes hypothesis"--why lists of names 
and yortsayts were used and not other lists.  For example, why not the
list of members in my shul?  Was an answer provided to this question?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 09:12:38 +0200
From: Avrum Goodblat <[email protected]>
Subject: Codes Research

Joshua responds to my suggestion of a conference by asking if I mean the
researchers or the enthusiasts (my term) and that all of the researchers
are one group of 6-8.
 I know of more I think - could Joshua share the list of known
researchers, and then I will be happy to dig up whomever else I find and
add it in.  Maybe that should be a list of its own ;-) I know that there
are at least 2 groups - maybe 5 or 6 independent ones, but I could be
wrong. Of course, a conference would have presentations by researchers,
but certainly anyone should be able to attend and listen and ask
questions.
 P.S. if such a conference was held, I would recommend presenting the
articles ahead of time over the internet, so that substantive discussion
can occur at the face-to-face part. This is a normal practice now in
scientific conferences.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 91 12:23:22 -0800
From: Francine Storfer <[email protected]>
Subject: Columbia, Missouri?

Does anyone have any information about the Jewish community in
Columbia, Missouri?

Thanks,
Fran Storfer
[email protected]			[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 21:44:49 EST
From: [email protected] (David Sherman)
Subject: Re: Good Tikkun

> If people know of other good tikkunim besides Ktav's Sharfstein Tikkun I
> would be most interested. I like to use as many tikkunim as possible to
> avoid unconsciously memorizing line breaks and page breaks that won't be
> there when the hour of reckoning rolls around.

Pick up a miniature printed Sefer Torah (the kind you sometimes see
young kids holding on Simchas Torah).  I don't know if there's more than
one "layout" around.  I find it useful as a backup tikkun.  Better, in
some ways, because there's no version with the nekudos and trup to skip
over when you're moving from one column to the next.

You need good eyesight for some of the smaller ones, though!

David Sherman - Toronto

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 0:50:09 EST
From: Seth Ness <[email protected]>
Subject: Macintosh Calendar

does anyone know of hebrew calendars for the macintosh
thanks, seth     [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 91 11:24:24 EST
From: sg04%[email protected] (Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund)
Subject: Originality

In Vol. 2 No. 41 Arnold Lustiger writes:

>  An observant professor recently told me that he follows Shulchan
> Aruch, except for one law: Kiddush Levana. He cannot bring himself to
> say Kiddush Levana because he knows, in detail, it's "pagan" origins.
> Another told me that he had found the thirteen midos of Rabbi Yishmael
> in a Roman text predating the Mishna.

Not to take away from the other points that Arnold makes in his article
about Discovery (many of which I find compelling), I would like to bring
up a seperate thread of discussion here on ORIGINALITY.

Where does it say that Torah must be original? Or that Jewish customs
are original? And that if the goyim do these things then it somehow
invalidates our minhagim and halachos?

To be a bit dramatic, I know for a fact that goyim have sexual
intercourse, but I don't think it takes away from our mitzvah of pru
v'urvu.

If we have borrowed some of their foods (bagels, kishke, etc), if some
of the tunes (nigunim) we use in our teffilot have goyish roots, if
clothing styles of Chassidim have Polish roots, does this invalidate
them?

Some scholars have discovered that keeping meat seperate from milk was a
custom of some people living pior to Sinai. Does this bother some
people?

What other minhagim can other mail.jewish scholars trace to non-Jews?

Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund		 		  [email protected]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA			    harvard!bunny!sgutfreund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 8:36:32 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: Re: Salt

I was never good in math!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, yes, the gematria of melach=78=3x(the gematria of the Tetragrammaton).
Sorry for the confusion!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 14:18 EDT
From: [email protected]
Subject: Tolerance of Non-Believers and Halakha

A while ago, there was a lot of discussion on whether one should attend
a wedding ceremony that was not conducted al pi halakhah, a homosexual
"wedding", etc; and also the extent to which one should associate
oneself with non-believers.  I just found the following piece in an
article in the latest Jewish Action in an article on "The Frankfurt
Controversy" by Judith Bleich:

.. (R. Shimshon Raphael) Hirsch argued that the admonition "Do not
associate with the wicked, even for purposes of Torah" (Avot de R.
Nathan 9:4) is not applicable to the heretics of the modern era and
ruled that heretics and apikorsim such as those with whom the Sages
forbade all forms of social contact no longer exist in our time.  The
religious views of the non-observant of modern times have been shaped by
parents, educational institutions and a climate of opinion over which
they have no control.  They are the products of their culture and are
not to be held responsible for what they are.  From a halakhic
perspective they are considered to be in a category identical to those
apikorsim and Karaites of whom Maimonides declared in Hilkhot Mamrim
3:3:
 "However, the children and grandchildren of these errants, whose
parents have misled them , those who have been born among the karaites
who have reared them in their views, are like a child who has been taken
captive among them, has been reared by them, and is not alacritous in
seizing the paths of the commandments, whose status is cimparable to
that of an individual who is coerced; and even thsough he later learns
that he is a Jew and becomes acquainted with Jews and their religion, he
is, nevertheless, to be regarded as a person who is coerced for he was
reared in their erroneous ways.  Thus it is those of whom we have spoken
who adhere to the practices of their Karaite parents who have erred.
Therefore it is proper to cause them to return in repentace and to draw
them nigh with words of peace until they return to the strength-giving
Torah."  (Cited from Hirsch, The Collected Writings of Rabbi Samson
Raphael Hirsch, vol. VI, Jewish Communal Life and Independent Orthodoxy,
New York and Jerusalem, 1990, p. 207.)



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 44


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Agunah
             [Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth]
        Macintosh Calendar
             [Todd Litwin]
        Rashi on gemara
             [Steve Prensky]
        Rashi's method
             [Eliot Shimoff]
        Sunset and Candle Lighting Time
             [Zev Kesselman]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 23:26:10 EST
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

Sorry about the double copies of #42 that some (all?) of you received,
I ended up sending it out a little prematurely first. The second copy
is the "official" copy. Thanks also to all who responded to musings in
#40. I have some more thoughts, which I hope will be ready to share
with you all in a week or two.

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 8:46:28 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: Re: Agunah

Will SHulman describes a tragic situation in which a man refused to give
his wife a get.  In Europe, they used to take such a person to the
cemetery, hand him a shovel and force him to dig.  As he dug, they would
say "Your wife can be free of you in one of two ways... the choice is
yours."  This form of "persuasion" usually worked.

New York State recently passed a law which basically says that any
couple married k'halachah was required to divorce k'halachah, i.e., it
gave secular legal status to a get, in the sense that the husband could
be compelled by State law to give the get.  I don't know if such a law
exists in any other state, but perhaps _some_ legal action could be
taken.

Obviously each case is different, but if the husband is frum certain
actions could be taken, depending on his sensitivities.  He is certainly
precluded from marrying by the Cherem of Rabbenu Gershom [prohibition on
polygamy].  He could also be ostracized from his community.  Admittedly,
these are relatively weak measures and point out the difficulty of this
situation.

I wish your friend siyata d'shmaya in her struggle.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 07:50:49 PST
From: [email protected] (Todd Litwin)
Subject: Macintosh Calendar

[email protected]:
> does anyone know of hebrew calendars for the macintosh

There is a program called CalendarMaker for the Macintosh which makes
Gregorian (secular) calendars. A third party makes another product --
Hebrew CalendarMaker -- which adds Hebrew Dates and Jewish calendar events
(yom tov, rosh chodesh, Torah portion, etc.) to CalendarMaker. My wife,
who is the Hillel director at Cal State Long Beach, uses these products
for her newsletter. I don't have the product information at my fingertips,
but if there is interest, I will dig it up. I seem to recall that they
were fairly inexpensive.

Todd Litwin - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 
(818) 354-5028 - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 10:18:00 -0700 (MST)
From: [email protected] (Steve Prensky)
Subject: Rashi on gemara

In Daf Hayomi for this weekend the Gemara states that the etrog tree is
like a tree in three respects and like a vegetable in one (Succah
39b-40a) in regards to being subject to laws of tithes and Shemittah.
Rashi makes a comment that regular trees use "ground water" and
vegetables use "water from heaven" (rain) but the Etrog tree uses "all
waters" (rain and ground water) [I hope I parapharased this
correctly!!].

I'm find this explanation of how certain plants make use of water
somewhat confusing.  Can someone who knows the etrog tree explain
Rashi's comment in terms of plant physiology (aborbing water through
roots versus leaves and bark, etc)?

Steve Prensky -  <[email protected]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 10:59:12 EST
From: [email protected] (Eliot Shimoff)
Subject: Rashi's method

I recently came across an interesting Rashi that sheds light on his
"methodology."

We normally assume that Rashi was, at his best, a faithful transmitter
of traditions.  Yet consider Rashi's comment on Sukkah 40a, s.v. Eitsim
d'hasaka tana'i hi.  (The gemara is dealing with a question of what
kinds of vegetable matter [fruit, branches, lulav] fall under the
limitations of the Sabbatical year, but the details are irrelevant for
the present discussion.)

Rashi does not understand the girsa (text version) he was working
with.  So he writes (translation mine, and somewhat liberal):

  ... And I heard from my teachers that their version was "whether Stam
  (unspecified) branches were for burning is a dispute among tanna'im."
  And that is the version in all the books [in my library], and I
  struggled with this all my life [lit., from my youth] to reconcile
  this with all the Talmud's discussions, but I was not able to do it.
  And I found this [i.e., the version Rashi adopts, without the word
  "Stam"] in a ktav yad [manuscript, or handwritten document] by R.
  Gershom b. Yehuda and in an uncorrected version of R. Isaac b.
  Menahem's Seder Yeshuot, and that seems reasonable.

In effect, Rashi seems to have rejected his own teacher's girsa
(version), even though that version seemed to be in general use.  And,
on the basis of his own logic, supported by only two sources, adopted a
distinctly minority viewpoint.

I assume that this is one of the very few cases in which Rashi is so
willing to break with tradition.  And, offhand, I could remember no
other instances in which Rashi describes his methodology so personally.

Curious!

Eliot

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 08:15 JST
From: ZEV%[email protected] (Zev Kesselman)
Subject: Sunset and Candle Lighting Time

	While browsing through some of the sunrise/sunset programs that
hizzona the moderator [actually I think it was Warren Burstien. Mod.]
so kindly offered to the reading public, I came across one formula that,
for all its simplicity, is not so obvious to me.  I do not refer to the
esoteric ephemeris, anomaly, or obliquity of the ecliptic.  My problem
is much simpler; paraphrased in Fortran, it goes something like this:

		candlelighting_time = sunset - 18

	I have only three questions about this formula.

1) Why 18?  Where did this universal constant come from?
2) Sunset: Why is this not a function of altitude as well as latitude and
	longitude?  Is altitude insignificant mathematically, halachically,
	or both?
3) Candlelighting time:  Everyone knows that Jerusalem uses a different
	constant (it's roughly 40 minutes, does anyone know exactly?).
	However, it appears from the Hechal Shlomo synagogue calendar, that
	the Tel Aviv constant is closer to 21 minutes.  Is this true?
	Can someone shed some light on this for me?

	One last question.  In the Hechal Shlomo shul calendar, there is
a table of sunsets (among other useful data).  The legend following the
table explains that (my translation): "The times recorded in the table
are according to the Jerusalem horizon.  In Tel Aviv, the sunset is
approximately a minute and a half earlier in the winter, and in the
summer a minute and a half later".  How can this be?
					Zev Kesselman


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 45


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Codes Research (2)
             [Norman Miller, Goldberg Moshe]
        International 'Higayon' Conferenc
             [Dr. Moshe Koppel]
        Kosher Food in Japan (2)
             [Seymour Shapiro, Howie Pielet]
        Nonjewish Customs
             [Eli Turkel]
        Tolerance of Non-Believers and Halakha
             [David Sherman]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 19:43:11 EST
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

Hello All,

The codes/discovery thread continues but is beginning to get close to
some personal flaming, rather than discussion of the issues
involved. We have at least one and hopefully two responses from one of
the Board of Directors members of Morasha (the organization in Lakewood
which has sponsored the Discovery seminars there, I think). I know some
of the people outside the codes research group are fustrated at not
being able to evaluate the material in a proper way. I only ask that we
all try and keep the postings flame-free. Try and read it over before
sending it to me. Watch this space for some further comments in the
days to come

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 14:00 EST
From: [email protected] (Norman Miller)
Subject: Codes Research

I'm of two minds about Arnold Lustiger's recent post in the matter of
Discovery.  On the one hand I think it's a superb statement and I agree
with every word.  On the other hand it's discouraging to realize that
the nature of science and the relations of scientific and religious
method should still be so badly misunderstood in some quarters that it's
necessary to post such a statement.

But necessary it is.

And as though that were not enough, I would like to add that based on my
experiences Discovery hovers between a strip-tease and a shell game.  I
have tried for several weeks, for instance, to get an exact statement of
what has to be done in order to replicate the codes research and I've
been told that the exact statement is not available because an article
is being refereed and that replication isn't important anyway!  This is
enough I think for any sophisticated reader to know whom one's dealing
with.  I hope we can move on to more interesting matters.

Norman Miller - Trinity College
[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 91 13:18:31 +0200
From: [email protected] (Goldberg Moshe)
Subject: Codes Research

It is interesting to note that coding of messages appears not only in
scriptures themselves but also in discussions about this issue.  The
following appeared in mail.jewish, vol 2, number 39, by jonathan:

In at least two places, the word "code" appears in this posting.  The first
time the letters appear but rearranged, with a skip of 10:

Without taking sides on this int<e>resting dis<c>ussion, a th<o>ught occure<d>
................................   1234567 891   1234567 8 91   1234 567891
					     0              0             0

The second time the letters appear in order, skip of 8:

My point is this. <C>ould the c<o>des be use<d> to resolv<e> the question
.................    1234 567 8   123 45 678    12 345678    ............

Note also that these two occurrences are 18 lines apart in the posting:

 1 # Without taking sides on this interesting discussion, a thought occured
 2 # to me.
 3 # 
 4 # The following point was raised in Volume 2 Isssue 33 :-
 5 # 
 6 #  > The intellectual endeavor in Judaism aims at the elucidation of Halacha,
 7 #  > nothing more.  This begins with the most basic question of the Gemara,
 8 #  > "Mai nafka mina?" [what is the difference or what practical implication
 9 #  > is there. Mod.] .............  So I ask of Discovery, "Mai nafka mina?"
10 # 
11 # In issue 35 another point was raised :-
12 # 
13 #  > Eli Turkel asks an excellent question in issue #31, concerning "melayos
14 #  > v'chaseros" [lit. full and incomplete; referring to words that can be
15 #  > spelled in two ways, differing by a letter] in the Torah, and how this
16 #  > affects the "codes" research.
17 # 
18 # My point is this. Could the codes be used to resolve the question

The two skips above add up to this same value of 18, which hints at the Hebrew
"chai" for life.  This is also the date of Jonathan's posting.

Could Jonathan have been inspired by "ruach hakodesh" when he wrote his note?
Or, is it even remotely conceivable that finding a code of this type doesn't
really prove much?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 10:54:16 +0200
From: [email protected] (Dr. Moshe Koppel)
Subject: International 'Higayon' Conferenc


                     FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT

        The first International 'Higayon' Conference is scheduled to
take place in Jerusalem, from 29 Tishrei to 1 Heshvan, 5753 (Monday
after Succot; October 26-28,1992), under the joint sponsorship of
Yeshiva University and Bar-Ilan University and with the cooperation of
Tzomet and AOJS.

	The topic of the conference is the use of modern concepts for
the understanding of Talmudic ideas.  Some examples of topics covered
by the conference are probabilistic aspects of Rabbinic decision
methods, logical analyses of Talmudic hermeneutics and formal
perspectives on Jewish economics.  Contributions from all fields of
natural and social sciences are welcome, as are a range of styles
ranging from "lomdish" to academic. We particularly encourage broad
interdisciplinary talks which are at once informative and entertaining.

	We wish to emphasize that the conference is not intended to
promote (or deny) anachronistic notions of the "chazal knew quantum
mechanics" variety, but rather to illustrate how modern concepts can
serve as formal analogues of less precisely defined ancient concepts.
Furthermore, the conference will not deal with any issues concerning
technology and its halachic ramifications.

	Those wishing to contribute talks to the conference should
submit 1-2 page abstracts (in English or Hebrew) to

	HIGAYON
	c/o Moshe Koppel
	Dept. of Mathematics
	Bar-Ilan University
	Ramat Gan, ISRAEL
	email:[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 
From: homxc!4372ss (Seymour Shapiro)
Subject: Kosher Food in Japan

My only advice is to use the Jewish Community Center in Tokyo as a base
camp. I know of no commercial foods in japan which are kosher by any
standard (except one's own), nor do I know of anyway of determining the
ingredients of any commercial items.

I wish you good luck - 6 weeks is a long time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed,  4 Dec 91 10:23:54 CST
From: [email protected] (Howie Pielet)
Subject: Kosher Food in Japan

My knowledge of Jewish Japan is about five years old.  At that time,
there was a Jewish Community Center in Tokyo.  The Rabbi was American
and Conservative.  Services were traditional, with his, hers and mixed
seating sections.  They had Friday night dinner and a light lunch-like
Shabbat kiddush.  The President Aoyama is a modestly-priced hotel within
walking distance.  Arisugawa Park is a delightful stop off on the walk
back.  The Okura is an expensive hotel about the same distance away.  I
urge you to contact the Jewish Community Center for details before you
go.  If you can't get their phone number from the Jewish Travel Guide or
from Tokyo information, I could probably look it up.

The best listing of fish (kosher and nonkosher) that I've seen is at the back
of the Art Scroll Guide to Kashrus.

A more complex issue is the International Date Line.  The observant
Jews that I met at the Jewish Community Center kept Shabbat on Japan's
Saturday.  There are, however, other opinions.

I'd be very interested in reading other replies.  Please share them with me.

Howie Pielet - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 14:14:53 EST
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Nonjewish Customs

     Gutfreund asks for other customs traceable to nonjewish sources.
One controversial custom is to hold weddings in synagogues. Chatam Sofer
does not allow it since he says that is the cistom of the goyim. Rabbi
Feinstein says that Chatam Sofer only said it because of the threat of
reform judaism in his day. However, it is an old jewish custom and we
don't have to give it up just because the gentile do the same thing.
Though not everyone agrees with Rav Feinstein it seems to me that the
most important element is motivation. If one does a custom to imitate the
goyim it is forbidden. However, doing the same thing because it is
sensible (ie certain types of clothings for professions) it is okay.

Eli Turkel - icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 12:09:22 EST
From: [email protected] (David Sherman)
Subject: Tolerance of Non-Believers and Halakha

> .. (R. Shimshon Raphael) Hirsch argued that the admonition "Do not
> associate with the wicked, even for purposes of Torah" (Avot de R.
> Nathan 9:4) is not applicable to the heretics of the modern era and
> ruled that heretics and apikorsim such as those with whom the Sages
> forbade all forms of social contact no longer exist in our time.  The
> religious views of the non-observant of modern times have been shaped by
> parents, educational institutions and a climate of opinion over which
> they have no control.  They are the products of their culture and are
> not to be held responsible for what they are...

What about someone who grew up in an Orthodox home, went to
Yeshivah and then "dropped out" and became non-religious?
Can we extend the same argument to them, claiming that they
have been influenced by the society despite their upbringing,
or does the quoted admonition apply to them?




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 46


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Agunah (3)
             [e.l.krischer, Green,David S., Dov Green]
        House in Jerusalem for Exchange
             [Bob Werman]
        Originality (2)
             [Susan Hornstein, Frank Silbermann]
        Rashi's Method (2)
             [Benjamin Svetitsky, Boruch Kogan]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed Dec 11 09:44:24 1991 
From: e.l.krischer <mtqua!elk> 
Subject: Agunah

There is an organization in New York that deals with just this sort
of problem.  It is called "GET" (which I believe stands for "Getting
Equitable Treatment" - or something like that.)

GET offers its services free of charge to both men and women who are
interested in obtaining a Get from (or giving a Get to) a recalcitrant
spouse.  They work within the Halachic (Jewish law) framework and no
beating up spouses in dark alleys or anything like that.

While their office is in Brooklyn, they handle cases nationwide, and
all information is kept strictly confidential.

Their phone number is  718-435-1310.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

Ellen Krischer

P.S.  BTW, they are always looking for volunteers.  No special training
is necessary.  Contact them at the above number for details or give me
a call at 908-957-1648.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 11 Dec 1991 7:46 EST
From: hlwpi!dsg (Green,David S.)
Subject: Re: Agunah

There is an organization in New York called GET (Get Equitable
Treatment) that is at least partially funded by UJA.  They have a
telephone listing in Brooklyn.  My fiance (only 11 days to go...)
thought that she might have a difficult time getting her get from her
first husband, and we called them first.  The first suggestion they made
was to directly contact and ask the party in question about their
intention to give a get.  Turns out that he was quite willing, with only
minor reluctance - it had to be geographically convenient, and at a
reasonable time of day.  The get was done by the Vaad of Flatbush.  We
asked the GET organization what they would or could do if her ex-husband
would refuse to cooperate.  They simply stated that they can apply
certain pressure to the party to cooperate and have a good success rate.
So, I would suggest that your friend contact the Beis Din/Vaad that is
near their town, and make certain inquiries about the get procedure, and
according to their advice, then proceed to contact the reluctant party.

David Seth Green att!hlwpi!dsg



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 17:34:33 IST
From: [email protected] (Dov Green)
Subject: Agunah

Professor N. Bronznik once told that the halachic machinations and
general hand wringing to be sure that the get was given voluntarily is
rooted in a linguistic misunderstanding. The expression "Kofin oto ad
sheomer rotzeh ani", means that we coerce the husband until he says "I
agree".  ( Rotze ani is usually interpreted/translated to mean "I want
to") It is not a question of will/desire/volition, simply what the
husband agrees to do. All the nice explanations that his yetzer hatov
really wants to do good, and the physical beating is getting him in
touch with his yetzer hatov, are unneccesary.  All we need is for him to
agree to do what bet din requires.  ( Of course, the moderator's father
wrote the book on this subject so he is eminently qualified to comment
on this point. )

[Is that he my father, in which case the answer is clearly yes, or is
that he supposed to be me, in which case I think I have to pass it up?
Of course if there is anyone at Bar Ilan who wants to help get my father
e-mail literate, we might get some interesting responses from him. Avi,
your friendly Moderator]

There are many stories about how women were able to force men to force a
recalcitrant husband to give his wife a get. For example, in one city,
the women allegedly banded together and decided that *none* of them
would go to the mikveh until the woman received the get.  ( It didn't
take too long either ! )

There is a salient discussion about the problem and solutions in Eliezer
Berkovitz's "Not in Heaven" ( Ktav 19?? ) or the Hebrew version ( Kocha
Shel Higayon Behalacha - or something like that published by Mossad
Harav Kook )


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue,  10 Dec 91 10:07 +0200
From: Bob Werman <[email protected]>
Subject: House in Jerusalem for Exchange



                WANTED !!!!!!!
                ^^^^^^
                       LARGE APARTMENT IN MANHATTAN
in exchange for
                       BEAUTIFUL HOUSE IN JERUSALEM
4 bedrooms, study and garden.  Kosher, 5 minutes walk
from city center.

Time: 31 days, or less, the month of March, 1992.
[March 20 to 29 an absolute must.  Does not include PesaH]

Contact:

__Bob Werman    [email protected]    [email protected]
Jerusalem

Phone: 972-2-234793
or
Aaron Werman, phone [212] 982-1862



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 10 Dec 91 11:27:08 U
From: Susan Hornstein <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Originality

Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund writes:
> Where does it say that Torah must be original? Or that Jewish customs
> are original? And that if the goyim do these things then it somehow
> invalidates our minhagim and halachos?

I'd like to suggest another way to look at this question.  Some Jewish
customs and halachot may indeed be the *source* for the customs of other
cultures.  I would not go so far as to make this claim for more modern
examples such as Polish dress, and blintzes.  However, it may be
possible to make this claim for halachot such as the prohibition against
milk & meat, and others.  We hold that the laws in the Torah were known
to our forefathers, even before the giving of the Torah on Mt. Sinai.
These laws may go back much earlier than we have record of, in "Jewish"
or "early Hashem-knowing" culture.  Therefore, it may be possible to
argue that they served as precedents for such laws in other cultures.
Similarly, if we believe that Hebrew is the language of the creation of
the world, the derivations ascribed to some Biblical words (that they
come from other languages, via trade, etc.) by some scholars may simply
be backwards.  Again, there are clear examples where this claim would be
spurious, particularly from post-Biblical times (cf. a lot of Greek
words in the Talmud) but, for Biblical words, this is worth considering.

And, Yechezkal quotes Arnie L. saying: 
>> Another told me that he had found the thirteen midos of Rabbi
>> Yishmael in a Roman text predating the Mishna.  

The principles by which the Torah may be interpreted into law are
believed by many to have been delivered in the "original release
package" with the Torah on Har Sinai.  The documentation, if you will.

So, my point is, consider your historical assumptions before deciding
what predates what.  I think it *is* important, in some issues, (not
blintzes) that we consider Judaism (or Hashem) to be the *original*
source of these laws/customs.

Susan Hornstein - bellcore!pyuxd!susanh


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 06:07:28 -0600
From: Frank Silbermann <[email protected]>
Subject: Re:  Originality


In Vol. 2 No. 41 Arnold Lustiger writes of a generally observant
professor who resists saying Kidduch Levana, claiming its pagan origins.
Another professor claims to have found the thirteen midos of Rabbi Yishmael
in a Roman text predating the Mishna.

In Volume 2 Number 43, Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund asks
why we must assume that every aspect of Torah and Jewish
customs must be original.

Indeed, such discoveries in no way threaten the principle of Torah's
divine origin, nor of its origin at mount Sinai.  Do we not have a
tradition that the Patriarchs knew and kept far more than the Noachide
laws?  And did not Abraham attempt to teach these laws to _all_ his
children, even those who became gentile nations?  Even though they did
not inherit Abraham's calling, must we assume they rejected
_everything_?  Perhaps such a nation remembered a few customs which
Israel forgot.  Perhaps this still happens, from time to time.  Might
this be the basis by which Rv. Shimshon R. Hirsch and Rv. Avraham I.
Kook permitted us the study of gentile culture?

Frank Silbermann	[email protected]
Tulane University	New Orleans, Louisiana  USA


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 10:14:57 +0200
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Rashi's Method

Rashi fixed the text of the Gemara in many instances, drawing upon
many manuscripts and using logic, and not necessarily the dominant text,
to choose among variants.  This is important to keep in mind when studying
differences between Rashi's rulings and those of, say, the Rambam.
It is often tempting to say, "Rashi is consistent with the text of the
Gemara, and the Rambam isn't, so Rashi is obviously in the right."
But the text is due to Rashi himself!

Ben Svetitsky    [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 11 December 1991 11:14:15 CST
From: Boruch Kogan <[email protected]>
Subject: Rashi's Method

Responding to a posting about RASHI accepting another girsa.

In general, we have many places in gemoro, where there is a discussion
between Rashi and Toisofos as to which girsa is true. Usually, however,
Rashi's girsa is TRADITIONAL, i.e. the one we have, and the Toisofos are
suggesting something new.

However, I heard from my Rebbe that the situation is exactly the
opposite.  The girsa (version) of Rashi just SEEMS to be traditional,
because it is the one WE have. The fact is that the girsa we have is the
one Rashi worked out and CHANGED in the original text, therefore it is
the Toisofos who are defending the original, traditional version.

The proof of that can be found in the Ran on the Rif, whose Rashi is
older than the one on the gemoro. There you can find Rashi explaining
the gemoro citing the original girsa.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 47


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Aravot - The  Rav's Minhag
             [Eliot Shimoff]
        Text of the Torah
             [Rabbi Meir Hertz ]
        Y'Shua-Salvation
             [Susan Slusky]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 8:52:41 EST
From: [email protected] (Eliot Shimoff)
Subject: Aravot - The  Rav's Minhag 

Here is yet another Daf Yomi question.  Sukkah 44a discusses the
mitzvah of aravah (the willow branches we now use on Hoshana Rabbah).
When the Bet HaMikdash was in existence, part of the mitzvah involved
leaning the aravot against the mizbe'ach (altar).

Apparently, R. Chaim Soloveitchik (R. J. B. Soloveitchik's grandfather)
had the minhag of leaning his aravot against the bima of his shul, as
a way of commemorating the Temple procedure.

This raises two questions.  First, do any of you know whether the
Rav himself (i.e., R. J. B. Soloveitchik) adopted this practice?
Second, do any of you know of shul's that follow the practice?

-- Eliot Shimoff

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 01:54 GMT
From: Rabbi Meir Hertz 
Subject: Text of the Torah

[Rabbi Hertz does not have net access.  Questions should be 
 directed to Joshua Proschan ([email protected]), who forwarded
 this article for Rabbi Hertz.  Mod.]

Response to Elie Rosenfeld (Middle of the Torah) and Eli Turkel (Text of
the Bible):

1.

The Israeli newspaper Yated Ne'eman recently published an excellent,
comprehensive, and near-exhaustive survey of the answers to the problems
mentioned by Elie Rosenfeld (that the Talmud states "gahon" is the
middle of the Torah while we find that it is not), as well as the
answers to the companion problem that our Torah contains 304,805
letters, but our sources (Zohar) teach that there are 600,000 letters.
This article ran about six pages of small Hebrew type, and will not be
translated for the net (at least, not by me).

The theory Elie Rosenfeld mentioned as a solution to the "gahon" problem
may indeed be very ingenious and fascinating.  Unfortunately it appears
to contradict the gemara itself.  The response "They were experts in
melayos v'chaseros, we are not" clearly refers to spelling, not letter
size; the response in turn elucidates the question.

Another vexing problem in this gemara is that Rav Yosef asked whether
the "vav" of "gahon" is in the first half or the last half of the Torah.
Why did Rav Yosef not consider the equally tenable possibility that it
is in neither, but rather in between the two halves?  In fact we have an
odd number of letters (304,805) in the Torah, and this would be the
case.  The answer may possibly be in the precise language of the mesores
that the "vav" is "chetzi" [half], implying an even number of letters --
not "emtzah" [middle].  This question merits more examination.  (My
subsequent search on this point shows that this was already mentioned in
Sefer HaMakneh on Kiddushin).

2.

There are at least two approaches to resolving Eli Turkel's question
whether "codes" research is nullified by the unavailability of an
accepted, reliable mesorah.

A.

The Ginas Verodim's approach described by Joshua Proschan in mail.jewish
II #35 is one.  It is not contradicted by Eli's statement that ". . .
according to the Shulchan Aruch a sefer Torah is not invalidated if it
is wrong in terms of extra or missing vav's because we are not sure
about melayos and chaseros."

There is no such Shulchan Aruch.  Turkel's quote is apparently based on
the Ramah, but it must be read in context.  Firstly, in the Shulchan
Aruch the Mechaber does not distinguish between errors in melayos
v'chaseros and the other, less common, errors (e.g. missing or extra
words, misspellings, reversing psuchos and stumos or kri and ksiv,
etc.).  [Psuchos are open inter-sectional spaces, stumos are closed
spaces.]  The Ramah does make such a distinction, apparently what Turkel
was referring to.  The Ramah says that when we find errors in melayos
v'chaseros while reading the Torah, we do not take out another sefer
Torah; for other errors we do.  He gives the reason, stating clearly
that it is because we cannot be confident that the next sefer will be
more "kosher" than the first.

In other words, we lack the *technical* proficiency, or quality control,
to produce a sefer Torah free from flaws in melayos v'chaseros; but have
the technical competence to produce seforim free from other kind of
errors.  Even so, this ruling is only bedi'eved [after the fact]; the
Ramah does not allow the intentional use of a sefer Torah known to have
errors in melayos v'chaseros, only its continued use if the error is
discovered after one starts reading.  He elaborates on this in his
Darkei Moshe on the Tur, writing that "Due to our sins, in our day and
age [note -- he states that this was prevalent in *his* times, not all
times] we cannot find a sefer Torah that does not have this error
[melayos v'chaseros] . . . but if we find a major mistake *which is not
common in other seforim*, then we would do as the Bais Yosef ruled [and
take out another sefer]."

Clearly there are two issues here, and they should not be confused.  The
first is *knowledge*.  Do we have today a mesorah on melayos v'chaseros;
in other words, do we posses a standard master text against which we can
test our sifrei Torah.  Another, entirely separate, issue is *quality
control*.  Can we reliably *reproduce* a sefer Torah from the master
text, free even from errors in melayos v'chaseros.  It is this second
issue which determined the Ramah's ruling on taking out another sefer
Torah when we encounter an error; the answer depends on the nature of
the error.  For melayos v'chaseros the Ramah states that we do not take
out another sefer, since we have no reason to assume that the next sefer
Torah will be any more correct than the first in overall accuracy of
melayos v'chaseros.

The Aruch HaShulchan makes this distinction even more explicit.  In
explaining the Ramah, he states (Orach Chaim 153, 6), that although the
other sefer Torah is correct *on this particular* moleh or chaser, and
although the defective sefer Torah must be corrected after Shabbos, we
do not take out another sefer because the overall deficiencies in each
sefer with respect to melayos v'chaseros render no sefer superior to
another, regardless of the specific local error.

Echoes of the poor quality control conditions which the Ramah took note
of can be heard in Rav Chaim Falagi's description of what happened when
a world- renowned magihah [expert at checking sifrei Torah for errors]
arrived in Izmir (Smyrna), then a bustling and vibrant Jewish metropolis
filled with scholars and scribes.  He writes in his "Lev Chaim", res. #
176, that this magihah was given all the sifrei Torah of the city, and
found not even one that did not contain *many* errors, even among
seforim that had been mugeh [checked] by expert magihim, and even among
the sifrei Torah that were examined annually in advance of being taken
out for the kol nidrei service.  (There is a minhag in some communities
to check anew each sefer Torah which will be taken out for kol nidrei.
Another device for assuring precision of hagoha employed in some circles
is for the community's rabbi to study the weekly Torah portion in the
sefer Torah itself, not in a chumash.  Reportedly, in such circles the
computer testing project discussed below found considerably fewer
errors).

The persistence of this quality control problem in our times is evident
from the Va'ad LeMishmeres Stam (VLS) computer testing project.  They
use OCR technology to scan the sefer Torah, and compare it to a
thoroughly-checked computer file.  Of the first 100 sifrei Torah tested,
only 18 were found free of errors serious enough to render the sefer
posul (unfit for use).  Not quite one chance in five of kashrus would
suffice to explain the Ramah's ruling against taking out another sefer.
Again, this is not the same issue as the validity of the master, i.e. of
our tikkun sofrim.  The errors detected in Izmir and by VLS were all
departures from a single, agreed text.

When read in this context, Turkel's closing statement that ". . . even
in recent times it was taken for granted that our Torahs are inaccurate
with respect to melayos and chaseros" is literally correct, yet in no
way depreciates the "codes" research, which is conducted using a
perfected text.

To further illustrate the distinction between the two issues, it may be
useful to offer a hypothetical nafka mina.  Suppose you daven in a shul
with two sifrei Torah, one of which was tested and corrected by VLS
computer error elimination, the other not.  Suppose further that the
sefer that was taken our for reading is the one not tested.  When you
encounter a melayos v'chaseros error, do you take out the other sefer?
If the problem is quality control, but we do have a correct master text
free of errors, we presumably should take out the other sefer.  If the
other view is correct, and we do not know right from wrong with respect
to melayos v'chaseros, there is no sense in taking out the other sefer.
This illustration is just that; one should not rely on this discussion
for a halacha psuka [confirmed ruling].

There are other considerations that come to mind (principally from the
Ramah's Darkei Moshe on Tur, where he rules that you do not take out
another sefer not only for errors in melayos v'chaseros, but also for
*similar* errors -- see Pri Megadim in Eshel Avrohom for a list of
similar errors), so that for halacha le'maaseh a rav must be consulted.

Note that there is an immediate nafka mina in what the Oruch HaShulchan
says, namely that after Shabbos you must correct the melayos-chaseros
error encountered.  Since there is an absolute prohibition (cherem of
the kadmonim) to make textual corrections without *absolute* knowledge
that it is in fact an error; how then, if we lack the knowledge
altogether, do we undertake to make this correction??

With respect to reconciling the mesorah with the Talmud's version in
cases of divergence, this issue has been dealt with authoritatively and
with specificity in Tshuvos HaRashba HaMeyuchasos LaRamban, res. 232, in
Tshuvos Radvaz, Part 4, res. No. 1172, and in the Meiri on Kiddushin
30b.  All agree on the same principle for reconciling the texts,
basically employing the method pre*scribe*d in Meseches Sofrim, of
following the majority.  Note that these authorities provide different
rules for reconciling the mesorah with aggados in the Talmud (e.g.
'pilagshim'-- where mesorah prevails) and halachic drashos (where
majority prevails).

The Rambam as well, in Hilchos Sefer Torah, 8, 4., describes a process
of textual perfection undertaken by the scholars of Tiberias, (ca. 4800,
948 years ago, the year Rabbeinu Gershom Me'or HaGola died and Rashi was
born), including the painstaking, primal work of Ben Asher which
produced the standard text.  It is quite likely that the Ginas Verodim
had this Rambam, and this work in mind when he spoke of the "early
sofrim" who perfected the text to produce what we have today, using the
process described in Meseches Sofrim of going by the majority.  For a
conclusive ruling on this issue you may wish to consult Oruch HaShulchan
Yoreh De'ah 275,(20).

Nor is there anything singular or remarkable about the work of ferreting
out errors using the conventions of majority.  Indeed this principle is
set forth in the Torah for resolving all kinds of s'feikos
[uncertainties] of fact or of opinion.  Its proper application to the
perfection of the Torah's text is quite a conventional extension of the
process prescribed in the Torah for resolving any other uncertainty.  It
is somewhat puzzling as to why its application here should cause more
consternation than anywhere else in halacha.  Rov tells us whether a
woman is an eishes ish or not, whether a certain piece of meat is
neveilah or not.  It can also tell us how to discern the correct
mesorah, i. e. whether a sefer Torah is correct or not.

B.

There is another, possibly keener, way to understand the gemara in
Kiddushin 30a inherent in the discussion above.  It may very well be
that Rav Yosef's statement regarding our lack of proficiency in melayos
v'chaseros is not that we lack the knowledge, but that we lack quality
control.  That is why Rav Yosef declined the offer to settle his
question by looking it up in a sefer Torah.  How do you know that the
sefer is correct?  There are those (including, it seems, the Gaon of
Vilna in the Beur HaGRA on Shulchan Aruch and the Magen Avrohom) who
understand the gemara in this way.  This would leave intact the mesorah;
the problem was production quality.  Incidentally, Rashi in Shabbos 49b
on this same gemara, which recounts that Chazal once actually did
undertake a precise count of the Torah, says that this may have been in
connection with proving "gahon" as the middle of the Torah.

C.

Finally, as Eli Turkel cites the Minchas Shai, I must point out that the
Minchas Shai offers several methods for reconciling the mesorah with the
Talmud, offering the foregoing approaches as well as some additional
ones.  For example, see his comments on Parshas Nasso, 7 (1) on the
words "kalos Moshe" and Parshas VaYikrah, 4 (34), on the word "karnos".
Worthy of further study and consideration is his fascinating commentary
in Parshas Balak, 23 (9) on the posuk "u'migvaos ashurenu", which seems
to hold yet another possible solution.

In short, based on the sources cited, the reliability of our mesorah is
not seriously challenged by the questions we've reviewed so far,
notwithstanding the opinion expressed by the Shaagas Aryeh, which is
unique.

Rabbi Meir Hertz
Board of Directors, Morasha


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon Dec 16 08:31 EST 1991
From: Susan Slusky <mhuxo!segs>
Subject: Y'Shua-Salvation

In the Havdala Service, all the verses we read deal with y'shua which my
dictionary defines as salvation. I am confused as to what this means.
What are we being saved from? Clearly this is not what the Christians
mean by salvation which as I understand it has to do with not going to
hell.  If the inclusion in the havdala service is a clue, then we must
be being saved from something we don't have to face on Shabbat but we do
have to face during the week. Or is salvation/saving a bad translation
altogether?  Thanks in advance for any enlightenment the collective you
can provide.

Susan Slusky
mhuxo!segs



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 48


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Anti-Orthodox Feeling (2)
             [Yitzchok Samet, Joshua Proschan]
        Etrog
             [Dov Green]
        Shabbat rolling
             [David Mitchell]
        Tefillin Hack
             [Robert A. Levene]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 11 Dec 1991
From: Yitzchok Samet
Subject: Anti-Orthodox Feeling

Sherri Chasin Calvo writes:

> It turned out that there was a neighborhood protest against the building
> of this synagogue, led by (you guessed it) the very woman who was our
> hostess, also a Jew.
> 
>    It seems that there was great resentment in the town against "the
> Orthodox", who were said to be "moving in and taking over." 
> ...
>     The usual stereotypes about pushy people thinking they can do
> whatever they want because they "own the town" were cranked out.  It
> sounded like a room full of anti-Semites! 

I live in the town you described and am familiar with the situation.
The orthodox presence is visible and growing and, inevitably, other
elements feel uneasy since "the neighborhood is changing".  But there is
more to it than that.

One would have to be extremely naive or willfully blind to miss the
uniquely anti-Jewish and anti-orthodox overtones in this controversy.
Recently, the "Jewish problem" was the basis of a vicious anti-semitic
election campaign, and was the theme of a church sermon which ignited a
spate of vandalism and attacks on Jews.

This betrays a general undercurrent of hatred which is ready to surface
whenever a suitable pretext arises. This happened when the shul issue
arose. Disinterested parties came out of the woodwork to lend a hand to
what became more of a war against orthodoxy than a zoning issue.

Although your friend may not have been particularly prejudiced before
this all began, she could understandably have been swayed by the deluge
of ugly portrayals and stereotypes.  Perhaps you sensed this when you
decided to leave the room.  If she is as "dug in" as you described, I
can't see what else you could have done at the time.

We have learned to expect pogroms, or more "civilized" expressions of
hatred from various "neighbors", but it's disturbing to see
HYPERcriticism and venom directed at orthodoxy by Jews.  Unfortunately,
however, the stereotyping which you witnessed is extremely common.  In
fact, Jews are uniquely vulnerable to anti-orthodox bias and prejudice.
Among the reasons:

        1 - The feeling that being Jewish, educated, and
        "liberal-minded" makes one immune to religious or cultural bias.

        2 - Improper behavior by people who are ostensibly Torah
        observant.

        3 - The accusation that the orthodox consider all other
		Jews to be goyim.

        4 - Other myths and slander (rampant in the Israeli press).

        5 - Unconscious and unrecognized feelings towards orthodox
        lifestyles or people (common among people with guilt conflicts.)

        6 - The orthodox had the chutzpa to defy predictions of
        extinction and become an increasingly viable political and
        economic group.

Witnessing your friend's extreme reaction gave you a stimulus for
introspection.  That's a way of making something good out of something
bad.

Yitzchok Samet


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 07:27 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: Anti-Orthodox Feeling

Reply to Sherri Calvo -- request for advice

I wish I knew the right response to this situation.  I live in Lakewood,
and your visit could easily have taken place less than a mile from my
house.  (Our newest shul was dedicated last week.)  I have friends in
Teaneck and Monsey who would think you were describing their
neighborhood.  It is probably a universal experience in any place with a
growing Orthodox community.

In our case, the shul was delayed over a year by a very bitter court
fight.  The organization that lost the court fight is continuing the
struggle by other means, and we have just finished the most vicious
political campaign I can remember.  One of the political parties had
only one issue; the destruction of the town's Orthodox community.  We
were told at one town meeting that it is un-American for Orthodox Jews
to be able to vote, that the town is run by "the rabbis", and so on.

The underlying problem is fear.  One fear is for the schools; while the
Orthodox pay full taxes for public schools, they do not send their
children there.  In many towns, if there is a large enough Orthodox
community the non- Orthodox Jews are left as almost the only whites in
the school system.  Another is the fear of anyone different.  One
classic line was "Fiddler on the Roof is fine on Broadway, but not in
Lakewood!"

Towns with large Orthodox populations tend to have Orthodox-owned
businesses that close on Shabbos and Yom Tov.  We, in Lakewood, are
constantly abused because so many merchants in town are closed on
Shabbos.  The people who complain do not remember that before the
Orthodox community developed, the stores in a blighted downtown were
closed seven days a week.  The same people complain that they cannot
enjoy the peace of their own homes because "they" [the black hats] keep
walking past on the street.  That they themselves can walk through those
heavily-Orthodox neighborhoods in the middle of the night in safety
means nothing to the complainants.

Another potent force is the unsettling of ones values.  Many
non-Orthodox Jewish clergy wax nostalgic--weren't things wonderful in
Europe, and isn't it too bad that no one can live that way any more.
When people move next door who are dedicated to living their lives
completely in accord with the Torah and its mitzvos, this comfortable
belief becomes hard to hold on to.  This fear is intensified if people
they know in the non-Orthodox community start becoming interested in
Yiddishkeit, or worse still become Orthodox.

There is another very volatile issue.  In a book titled "Remnants--The
Last Jews of Poland", a survivor says that before the war he strongly
disliked the Chassidim.  They made him nervous by standing out, and he
feared they would provoke anti-Semitism.  It took the Holocaust to lead
him to change his mind.  However, despite clear evidence to the
contrary, many people still have the mindset that it is the visibly
observant, identifiable Jew who causes anti- Semitism and endangers the
assimilated Jew.

When people are afraid--when they think that their way of life is
threatened-- they react in the ways you encountered.  There is no limit
to the accusations people will make under these circumstances.  We have
been falsely accused, as a community, of such absurdities as forcing
through laws to require all new housing to have two kitchens.  Attempts
have been made to prevent a housing facility for the elderly from
providing kosher food to Jewish residents at Chanukah parties.

There is no simple way to deal with frightened people.  You were right
to leave the room.  It was probably the only thing to do.

Joshua H. Proschan   Internet: [email protected] 



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 09:12:27 IST
From: dov%[email protected] (Dov Green)
Subject: Etrog

Steve Prensky asks about the terms Kol Mayim & Rov Mayim & how
they relate to the laws of etrog. Remeber, in Eretz Yisrael there is
no rain during the summer months. All the fruit trees mentioned in
Tanach ( olive, pomegranate, date, fig, etc. ) live off of the rain
water exclusively ( rov mayim ). Vegetables had to be irrigated
to supplement ( requiring 'kol' mayim ).

I checked with the eminent Professor Ari Shaffer of the Volcani Institute
( agricultural research ). He adds the following.

. All citrus require irrigation in the summer to supplement rain water.

. The *only* citrus which was grown in Eretz Yisrael during the time of
  the talmud was the etrog. So the halacha "etrog dome l'ilan . . . "
  was referring to fruit trees on one hand, vegetables on the other,
  and to the only hybrid/exception to the rule on the third hand.

. Since the etrog ( or all citrus ) are like vegetables, why don't we
  take maaser according to the laws of vegetables ( as of when picked) ?
  Indeed, the Chazon Ish has a shita like this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 12:46:08 CST
From: David Mitchell <H7HR1001%[email protected]>
Subject: Shabbat rolling


On Shabbat, carrying is not permitted without an eruv.  "Carrying"
includes riding a bicycle or pushing a stroller, but does anyone know
about wearing roller skates, or a "rollerblade," particularly when the
wheels are are a permanent part of the shoe?  In other words, would it
be considered carrying to wear rollerblades on Shabbat to facilitate
"walking" a long distance?

Thanks, David Mitchell

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 08:26:33 -0500
From: [email protected] (Robert A. Levene)
Subject: Tefillin Hack


Having spent many nights and several vacation days at the office working
on my two graduate electrical engineering classes I'd like to add a new
term to the frum part-time-students lexicon.

Always bring your tefillin when you go out to study, because your
session may last until dawn.  This is a "Tefillin Hack."  (:-)}

  Rob





----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 49


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Girsaot and Rashi
             [Aryeh Frimer]
        Mai Nafka Mina (Discovery)?
             [Joshua Proschan and R. Meir Hertz]
        Originality
             [Bob Werman]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 08:34 O
From: Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Girsaot and Rashi

     Both Ben Svetitsky and Boruch Kogan are correct in noting that
Rashi often suggests a correction for a "Girsa" (reading) of the Talmud.
Rashi never meant, however, for the printers to go ahead and actually
change the text inside. Otherwise, we would lose the original reading
and never understand what forced Rashi to make the correction, in the
first place.
     Unfortunately, already by Rabbenu Tam's time (one generation
later), those copying the Talmud texts (there was yet no printing press)
were inserting Rashi's corrections into the text proper. Rabbenu Tam
actually instituted a "Cherem" (edict of excommunication) on anyone
changing the text proper. It was of no avail. And the printing press
merely perpetuated this situation. (All this goes to show how
influential Rashi was even in his own generation. It is clear however
that the Tosafists felt that many of Rashi's corrections were uncalled
for or sometimes even in error).
     Nowadays, one can get the original Girsa by looking at Dikdukei
Sofrim (often referred to in the YU crowd as "The Duke"). Shteinzaltz
also made attempts to cite alternate readings in the margin. A very
complete job was done by Rav Kasher Zal in his Gemara Sheleima to
Pesachim, where he ties different readings to the various commentaries
and poskim.
                         Aryeh Frimer
                         F66235@BARILAN

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 07:24 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan and R. Meir Hertz <[email protected]>
Subject: Mai Nafka Mina (Discovery)?

Benjamin Svetitsky's posting echoes a classic stereotype.  His statement that
"The intellectual endeavor in Judaism aims at the elucidation of Halacha,
nothing more", is a misleading representation of the role of the intellect in
Judaism and of Judaism as a whole.  Haskala historians condescendingly use
this stereotype to characterize the Misnagdim, while claiming that this "cold"
attitude gave rise to Chassidus.

In our opinion, Svetitsky's posting displays a lack of familiarity with
authentic Jewish thought as expressed in the classic writings of our sages,
from Chazal down to our generation, regarding the role of the intellect and
regarding the inseparable interaction and interplay between intellect and
midos, attitudes and leiv [heart; sc. emotions, feeling, compassion, etc.].
(Can either emunah and emunas chachomim be relegated to strictly intellectual
or strictly emotional domains?)  As a general response, we refer Svetitsky to
Sefer Chovos HaLevovos (at the very least its Introduction) and to the
Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim Part III, Ch. 54.  These provide a broad overview of
what the intellectual endeavor of Judaism really is.

Torah She-b'al Peh [Oral Law] and Torah She-b'ksav [Written Law] are one
seamless entity.  We do not comprehend how anyone can make a distinction
between them.  There is only one Torah.  It is said of the Vilna Gaon that
once he mastered the full range of Torah knowledge, he devoted his life to
demonstrating that all of Torah appears in the Torah She-b'ksav.  Similarly,
the Gemorah says that leiv [emotions] and seichal [intellect] are the two
overlapping components of da'as [understanding, discernment, intelligence].

It is difficult to discuss this further when the lack of any distinctions is
so fundamentally clear, but there are several points in Svetitsky's article in
mail.jewish II #33 that we feel compelled to respond to specifically.  One is
his desire to restrict the learning of Torah to halacha only, and then only to
those halachos that can be gleaned from Torah She-b'al Peh.  Another is the
dichotomy he would create between intellect and emotion.  A related point is
his identification of intellectual activity with halacha, and the search for
patterns with mysticism.  Then, there is his assertion that there is no nafka
mina in Discovery.  Finally, there is his assumption that the attendance of
Lakewood's Yeshiva community at our Lakewood Conference with Arachim was bitul
Torah, and could not have had the approval of the Yeshiva administration.

Let us start with the last point.  Morasha was founded with the support of the
Roshei Yeshiva of Bais Medrash Govoha (the Lakewood Yeshiva), and the Arachim
Conference was put on with their approval and participation.  The opening
address was given by HaGaon HaRav Malkiel Kotler, Shlita.  There is no bitul
Torah.

Svetitsky asserts that the search for pattern is emotion and mysticism.  Not
so.  The search for pattern is the most fundamental tool of the intellect.  It
is impossible to learn anything without seeking out patterns.  This is
certainly true of Talmud.  The Thirteen Hermeneutic Principles (Yud Gimmel
Middos She'haTorah Nidreshes Bo'hein) are used to derive laws from the Torah
by identifying patterns in the psukim (e.g. klal u'prat u'klal).  In the
Talmud one constantly meets questions about patterns, such as "Which tanna is
this statement like?"  The Mishnah and Talmud are filled with case analyses--
more patterns--for example, "There are two cases of carrying [on Shabbos]
which are four . . .".

The supremacy of the search for pattern is equally true in, le'havdil,
science.  Poincare said, "Science must make patterns; a science is no more a
collection of facts than a castle is a pile of bricks."  Twentieth-century
epistemology and philosophy of science are built on the recognition that the
intellectual search for pattern shapes even the facts and observations of
science.  (For a nice discussion of this topic, with references, see Rav Zvi
Inbal's article "Science and Religion", translated in "Return to the Source",
Feldheim.  The Hebrew original appeared in El Hamekorot.)  You can play music
well without being able to read notes, but not without being able to recognize
and handle its patterns.  Much the same is true of literature, calligraphy,
pottery, painting, poetry, dance, karate, and almost any other art or science.
Is there any work of the intellect that does not include the search for
pattern?

Mysticism and emotion cannot be equated.  Jewish mysticism, or Kabbalah, is
extremely intellectual.  The founder of Bais Medrash Govoha, HaGaon HaRav
Aharon Kotler zt"l, used to say that the Zohar was more intellectually
challenging than the Talmud.  He based this on a statement by the "Father of
Yeshivos", HaGaon Rav Chaim Volozhin zt"l, who said that "The translation of
the words of kabbalah you can understand by yourself; the meaning you cannot
understand without a Rebbe."  (In contrast, to understand the Talmud requires
only a knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, and the commentaries.)  Even without
Rav Chaim's statement, it is clear that the reality is more complicated than
Svetitsky would allow.  There are halachos that are derived from Kabbalah; if
so, where is his dichotomy between intellect=halacha and emotion=mysticism?

Can emotion and intellect=halacha be neatly separated in the way Svetitsky
tries to?  We do not need "Brisker Torah" to see that this distinction is
fallacious and misleading; the Torah and the Mishnah clearly contradict that
view.  There is a halacha in the Torah: "Love your neighbor as yourself".  How
do you love your neighbor intellectually, with no emotion?  This halacha is
not a minor exception.  When asked to teach the entire Torah in one principle,
Hillel said that "'Love your neighbor as yourself' is the essence of Torah,
the rest is commentary!".  (Hillel is quoted in the Gemorah as using the
negative formulation, "What is distasteful to you do not do to your neighbor,"
which Chazal identify with "Love your neighbor as yourself."]  Further, Rabbi
Akivah stated "'Love your neighbor as yourself' is a great guiding principle
in the Torah."

The learning of Torah includes the written Torah as well as the oral Torah.
The purpose of the written Torah is elucidated in the first Rashi, which asks
why the Torah did not begin with "This month shall be for you . . .".  That
would be the logical place to start, with the first commandment we received as
a nation.  Rashi explains that the purpose of the Torah is not merely to teach
us halacha.  It does teach halacha: but it also teaches us middos [character
traits], hashkofos [outlook on life], mussar [ethics], and emunah [faith or
belief]; along with history, physics, mathematics, and the other disciplines
that the Vilna Gaon said are indispensable for a clear understanding of Torah.

There is the well-known Gemorah that "The chatter of the servants of the Avos
is more precious than the halachic deliberations of their descendents."  This
refers to the Torah's giving Eliezer's words to Rachel and Lavan in full, with
repetition, and leaving us to derive major groups of halachos from a single
letter.  This episode was recounted in such detail to show us the standard of
behavior that Avrohom Avinu had inculcated in his servant, so that we will
know how to behave.  A program of "study" that ignores mussar, hashkofos,
middos, and emunah would be sterile and pointless.  Mitzvos are predicated on
fulfilling the Rotzon Hashem [will of Hashem], absorbing their inherent mussar
haskil [lesson], and enhancing Kovod Shomaim [honor of Hashem].  All these
elements constitute Avodas Hashem [service of Hashem].  Reducing this to the
mechanics of halacha misses the essence.  Halacha is only the starting point.

There is another critical point here.  The Rosh Yeshiva, Shlita, in his
address to the Arachim Conference, quoted the Ramban's commentary on the
Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvos.  In listing the prohibitions omitted by the Rambam,
the Ramban writes (Negative commandments omitted, number 2):

  The second mitzvah [that was omitted] is to not forget the Ma'amad Har
  Sinai [the experience of the assembly at Mt. Sinai for the giving of the
  Torah], and not to remove it from our knowledge, but our eyes and our
  hearts should be there at all times, and that is what was said: "Guard
  yourself and guard your soul mightily lest you forget the things your
  eyes saw and lest you remove them from your heart all the days of your
  life; and you shall make them known to your children and to your
  children's children; the day you stood before Hashem your G-d at Horeb
  . . .".  And the purpose of this is very great, for if the words of the
  Torah came to us exclusively from the mouth of the prophet olov hasholom
  [viz., Moshe Rabbeinu], even though his prophethood is verified for us
  through his miraculous signs and supernatural wonders, then if there
  will arise among us a prophet or dreamer of dreams at some time who will
  command us in any matter contrarily to the Torah and give us a sign or
  wonder the Torah would be overthrown by the second [prophet], or doubts
  will enter our hearts because of this.  However, as we were brought to
  understand the Torah from the mouth of the A--mighty into our ears and
  our eyes that saw, without any intermediary; therefore we will give the
  lie to any contradictor or challenger, who will not be helped by
  miraculous signs and will not be saved from our hands by supernatural
  wonders.  For we are the ones who know and witness his falsehood and his
  chicanery; this is what was said in that Ma'amad [at Har Sinai]: "and
  they will believe in you forever" and it is this matter that appears in
  the parsha "If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams
  . . .".  And the Rav [Rambam] already explained this in the Book of
  Knowledge, and it is a major foundation of the Torah; and it is this
  prohibition which comes to us from the possuk "lest you forget the
  things that your eyes saw, and guard yourself lest it be removed from
  your heart, from making them known to your children and your children's
  children for all generations".  And do not err in this because of the
  derasha in the first chapter of Kiddushin (page Lamed) "to your children
  and your children's children"--teaching Torah to your children's
  children [i.e., the obligation to teach Torah to grandchildren is
  derived from this possuk], because teaching faith in the Torah *is* the
  lesson of the Torah.  So we must understand and take a proof from their
  words that it is a perpetual commandment, and said to all generations,
  that it shall not be forgotten that at that Ma'amad [at Har Sinai] the
  entire nation saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears; and
  this should be transmitted from generation to generation forever.  And
  this commandment was counted by the Ba'al Halochos Gedolos [BaHaG] also,
  but the Rav omitted it.

"Teaching faith in the Torah *is* the lesson of the Torah."  This cannot be
overemphasized.  To teach Torah, we must teach the Divine origin of Torah at
Ma'amad Har Sinai.  To teach the Divine origin of Torah at Har Sinai, we must
first understand it ourselves.  Yes, Discovery is for everyone; and yes, there
is a nafka mina.

Finally, let us assume that Svetitsky was speaking only about the "codes".
Are letter sequences, acronyms, and so on only for the emotions, with no
halachic nafka mina?  No; there are numerous counterexamples.  One is
recounted by the Or Zarua in his introduction to his book of that name, where
he explains his choice of title.  He had to determine (I believe in connection
with the writing of a get) the correct spelling of the name Akivah.  This name
was not common there, and no one was sure whether the last letter should be a
"heh" or an "aleph".  (The Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds disagree on the
spelling.)  One night he had a dream in which he saw the possuk "Or zarua la-
tzaddik, u'li-yishrei leiv simchah".  The last letters of each word spell R'
Akivah, with a final "heh".  He then ruled, as a matter of halacha, that this
is the spelling.  This is an undeniable nafka mina.

The Ramban tells us that the mitzvah of teaching and learning Torah includes
the mitzvah of teaching and learning that the Torah is MiSinai.  The "codes"
material attempts to provide cogent support for the fact that the Torah is
MiSinai.  What could be a greater nafka mina?


Joshua Proschan                         Rabbi Meir Hertz
[email protected]                  Board of Directors, Morasha

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue,  17 Dec 91 12:02 +0200
From: [email protected] (Bob Werman)
Subject: RE: Originality

A bit more on pagan origins.  I suspect that the pagan intent is part of
the problem. Ya'yin nesach is clearly a revulsion from pagan processes
with idolatrous intent.  But this is a lav.

More salient is tashlich which the gr"a [Vilna Go'an] and the
Soleveitchiks do not practice on the grounds of pagan origin of the
custom.  Presumably the idea of getting rid of sins without going
through the Rambam's complex formula for tshuva [repentance] is what
rubbed wrong here.

Some one else coming up with an ethical principle that is then co-opted
by Jews is hardly in that category [13 midot was given as an example].

__Bob Werman  hujivms   [email protected]
Jerusalem


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 50


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Sofer classes
             [Jerry B. Altzman]
        Sunset and Candlelighting
             [Joshua Proschan]
        Text of the Torah
             [Ezra L Tepper]
        Y'Shua-Salvation
             [Ezra Tannenbaum]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 19:52:34 EST
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

With 1991 drawing to a close, and 1992 rapidly approaching, I'd like to
take this opportunity to indulge in a few thoughts.

The mailing list has grown quite a bit during the last year, both in
terms of the number of people on the list and the amount of material and
frequency of mailings. I hope and expect some more changes to take place
during 1992. The most important one, from my perspective, is that the
home of mail.jewish will move from being a "guest" on my work machine to
having it's own legitimate home on Israel.nysernet.org. One thing that I
would like to do, once the move is completed, is to take a 6 month
"vacation" from moderating the (nearly) daily current mailings, and take
the time to put the past issues in some sort of order, build some
topical compilations, and in general try and understand how we can get
the best value from what we have. I would welcome your thoughts on what
you would like to see happen (or not happen).

The above means that I would need to have someone volunteer to be the
moderator for a six month period. If anyone is interested please send me
mail indicating so. A second matter is that I and possibly the new
moderator will need to be able to login to Israel.nysernet.org to do our
work there. What is needed is to be able to telnet or rlogin on the
Internet. My situation is that to do this through my work (AT&T)
facilities will result in charge-backs to me department. It may also be
true of the new moderator, if s/he is not at a University. There are
commercial services that offer Internet access, that I am currently
checking out. It apears that the cost would be about $35/month plus
phone bill charges.

This brings me to my comments in mail.jewish #40 about contributions. I
would like to thank all of you who sent me back comments. I have decided
to ask for voluntary contributions in 1992 from all who wish to give, to
help cover the projected costs of mail.jewish. As stated in #40, I would
guess that the range of $1-$10 would be an appropriate range. I would
like to emphasize again that this is voluntary, and that no-one will be
dropped if they decide not to contribute. If the contributions cover
more than the projected costs, the money will either be held for the
following year projected costs, or any costs associated with new
directions that we may want to take (which will be fully discussed
before anything is done).

I'm not sure what is the best approach for the non-US members of the
list. I'm not sure, but I think that these days many banks charge you to
convert currency (anybody out there know?). If yes, it may make more
sense for someone local to act as a central collection point, and then
just send one check to be converted here. There are three countries with
sizable numbers of list members, Israel, Canada, and the U.K. Any
suggestions on this is welcome.

For those in the US, my Postal address is:

Avi Feldblum
55 Cedar Ave
Highland Park, NJ 08904

Again, please send me any comments you have on any of the above matters
and on mail.jewish in general. I will let you know once
Israel.nysernet.org becomes available. 

-- 
Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 11:46:56 -0500
From: Jerry B. Altzman <[email protected]>
Subject: Sofer classes

Some time ago I ran into a fellow in my schul who had taken a "sofer
class" (i.e. learning to write sifrei torah, mezuzot, &c). I was
interested at the time but alas, his class was in Israel.

Does anyone know where such classes may be offered here? I've asked a
few people and no one knows for sure, and I haven't had a chance to call
YU [Yeshiva University] as I'm hip-dep in finals, so I thought I'd take
the lazy way out...

//jbaltz

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 18:11 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: Sunset and Candlelighting

Zev Kesselman raises some questions about sunset and candlelighting
times.  Here are some thoughts on the subject.  The numbers refer to his
posting.

1.  Why is candlelighting 18 minutes before sunset? 

There are several disagreements in the Talmud regarding when the day
ends, when the night begins, and how long the period of uncertainty
(bain hashmoshes) lasts.  The accepted opinion is that of Rav Yose; bain
hashmoshes lasts for the blink of an eye, and occurs when two medium
stars are visible.  Until one medium star is visible, it is day; when
three are visible it is night.  The main alternative opinion is that of
Rebbe Yehudah, who says that bain hashmoshes begins at sunset and lasts
the length of time required to walk 3/4 mil.  (This ends just before Rav
Yose's bain hashmoshes.)  From other statements in the Talmud we can
work out how long this is; the majority opinion there results in a value
of 18 minutes for 3/4 mil.  (This 18 minutes is a nominal value,
resulting from a simplified calculation, and applies only at the
equinox.  For other days, one must calculate the time at which the sun
is the same distance below the horizon, which results in the same degree
of darkness.)

Now for candle-lighting.  There is one opinion, that of the Yereim, that
bain hashmoshes lasts for a period of 3/4 mil *ending* at sunset.  For
Shabbos, we use the more stringent of Rav Yose's and Rebbi Yehudah's
opinions.  I once came across the statement that candlelighting is 18
minutes before sunset in deference to the opinion of the Yereim.
Strictly speaking it should be calculated in the same variable manner as
I described above, but people seem to have simplified this to 18 fixed
minutes on the clock.

2.  Does sunset depend on altitude, either mathematically or halachically? 

Sunset does depend on altitude.  The various tables are calclulated for
sea level; adjusting for the height of the deck or bridge is routine in
navigation.  Halachically, it is a question of when the sun is observed
to set at your location.  A town high on a hill would, strictly
speaking, have a later sunset than a town at the foot of the hill.
There are questions of what one should do in such a case, or if a
mountain range blocks the western horizon; these require a p'sak
halachah.  I am not at all sure how to allow for these factors
computationally.

3.  Candlelighting times in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. 

At a guess, this may simply be a question of local custom.  Many
locations have a custom of starting Shabbos early as a safeguard against
accidentally doing forbidden activities on Shabbos.  This may result in
candle-lighting being pushed back to 40 minutes in Jerusalem.  The 21
minutes for Tel Aviv may be a similar custom, or may simply be a more
stringent estimate of the Yereim's 18 minutes, to allow for seasonal
differences.

Last question, regarding differences in wintertime and summertime. 

Again a guess; sunsets and sunrises are very tricky to calculate, as
they are greatly affected by air temperature, barometric pressure, water
temperature (if the horizon is an ocean), thermal layering in the
atmosphere, etc.  A three-minute range over the year due to atmospheric
variations sounds reasonable.  I would expect the numbers to be the
result of years of observations.





----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 17:08:07 +0200
From: Ezra L Tepper <[email protected]>
Subject: Text of the Torah

In Rabbi Herz's discussion of the text of the Torah (2#47), he claims that
the mesora's accuracy was insured by the method of "ferreting out
errors using the conventions of majority."
    However, it is not at all clear that the Torah says that following
the majority is an indication of factual truth, it may merely say that
for purposes of Torah observance one follows the majority -- independent
of what the absolute truth is. Thus, if we take a Tannaic difference in
opinion in a Torah law (for example, whether recital of morning Shma can
be carried out after sunrise), we do not know which practice Moshe
Rabbeinu taught to the Bnei Yisro'el, only the practice which is
acceptable today. (Naturally, we have it on the authority of Moshe that
we do follow the majority.)
    With regard to codes, it is clear that the proponents claim that the
accepted Masorah text (letter for letter) is precisely that transmitted
at Sinai. A working out of the "perfect" text via majority approach will
not guarantee that. To make this clear, let us say that we have four
texts copied from one source and one text copied from a second. If
both the earlier texts also had their own errors, clearly (even on a
purely statistical basis), taking the majority rule will not
average out the errors. Thus the history of the master texts from
which the extant texts were copied is also important. Accepting the
majority of texts does not take this into consideration.
    There is an interesting halachic case that makes it clear that
following the majority and the statistical truth are not necessarily
related. Say, one has five stores selling meat in a shopping
center. Three are kosher and two are not. One finds a piece of
unmarked meat in the mall passageway. The majority rule says that we
can assume that the meat is kosher as the majority of shops in the mall
are kosher. This ruling applies even when each of the two non-kosher
shops does, say, three times as much business as do the kosher varieties.
(Sorry that I cannot quote chapter and verse, but remembered that from a
class I attended.)
    Clearly the Sages did their best to preserve both the written Torah
text, as well as the oral Torah. However, as experience has it, this is
very difficult business. I always like to point out to American English
speakers that the vast majority of them are pronouncing Hebrew
incorrectly. We have two traditions for pronouncing a resh, either a
guttural sound as in a Germanic (Yiddish) "r" or a rolling "r" involving
the tongue on the palate. The English lip-produced "r" has no tradition
supporting it. I see no attempt by American Jewish educators to
correct this departure from our heritage. (Of course, native Yiddish
speakers have no problem, at least regarding their resh.)

Ezra Tepper <[email protected]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 11:04:25 est
From: Ezra Tannenbaum <trumpet!bob>
Subject: Re: Y'Shua-Salvation


Susan Slusky asked about the meaning of "y'shua (salvation)" especially
as it appears in the Havdala Service. Specifically, what are we being
saved from? and why is this most relevant during havdala?

To start, let me freely translate the havdala service:

"Behold, G-d is my salvation, I will trust and not worry, because G-d
Hashem is my strength and exaltation and is my salvation. I joyfully
draw water from the springs of salvation. G-d possesses the salvation
for Your nation which blesses You, Sela. The G-d of Legions is with us,
our fortress, the G-d of Jacob, Sela. The G-d of Legions, one who trusts
you is fulfilled.  G-d saves, the King answers us when we call. The Jews
acquired light, happiness, joy, and worthiness; so be it for us. I lift
the cup of salvation and announce in G-d's Name. .... "

I personally view G-d's salvation as something direct and specific to my
life. G-d gives me the saving grace and support to live and do whatever
He requires of me. During Shabbat, my life is totally in G-d's hands;
everything I use was prepared from before. Starting with Havdala, I am
faced with the task of providing physical and spiritual nurturing to
myself and family. How can I trust that I will succeed? I am powerless
over even those things which are necessary for my existence. My mortal
limitations are obvious, and even my parents are limited and cannot
always be there.  I cannot put my trust in anyone else, my own powers
are inadequate, so my only trust can be in G-d. As King David wrote in
Psalm 27, "When my father and mother abandoned me, and G-d gathered me
in."

Reflecting on the Havdala service, I can interpret it as follows: G-d
saves me, I need not worry. G-d provides my strength and life energy.  I
can draw upon his saving energy, as I would draw water from a never
ending spring. G-d creates the national economic vitality for the Jewish
people.  G-d saves us from external threats. G-d saves us from internal
despair.

Put in the most simple terms, "I am powerless, but G-d is not, and I can
turn my life over to G-d's care." As the gemora says, "Everything is in
G-d's hands except our attitude toward G-d." The only thing I have any
power over is my attitude toward life. At the end of Shabbat, we
acknowledge that G-d saves us, and I can freely and joyfully rely on
G-d's power.  This is how I get through the week, until the next
Shabbat.

It is the challenge of living among Christians that much of our
spiritual language gets confused with their language, to the point that
we start believing that terms like faith and love and salvation and
grace and prayer are somehow not Jewish. Nothing is further from the
truth. To understand how wrong this is, all one needs to do is carefully
read the prayers to see that these terms are a part of daily Jewish
spiritual life.  In particular, the Psalms are a rich source for
understanding these terms the way the Jewish tradition understands them.

(As an aside, just look at the blessings before the Sh'ma in shachrit
and ma'ariv and one can see that saying, "G-d loves us without
limitation" is part and parcel of our daily recitation of the Sh'ma
Yisrael and not something which only Christians claim to believe.)

Ezra Tanenbaum -- (908)615-2899 -- att!trumpet!bob



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 51


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Dennis Prager - Micah Center
             [Alexander Herrera]
        Discovery
             [Joshua Proschan]
        Rav Soloveitchik
             [Meir Loewenberg]
        Small-town Judaism - does it exist?
             [Andy Cohen]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 91 13:18:30 PST
From: [email protected] (Alexander Herrera)
Subject: Dennis Prager - Micah Center

In Volume2 Number 5, [email protected] (Robert A. Levene)
writes:
[refering to Dennis Prager, author of the _Ultimate Issues_ journal]
> I'm also waiting to hear more about his new "Institute for Ethical 
> Monotheism" of which I can't make heads or tails.

He has changed the name to the Micah Center. I recently received a
letter from the Micah Center asking for donations. I'll reproduce a
portion of the letter ommiting appeals for money. The letter is from
Tom Rose, Executive Director of the Micah Center. 

Typos and misspellings are mine. I have no connection to Dennis Prager,
or his radio show, or his journal _Ultimate Issues_ or the Micah
Center. I am just a satisfied reader and listener.

Alex Herrera
uunet!mdcsc!ah

    ************** begin letter ****************

November 1991

Dear UI Reader,

[invitation to become a member of Micah Center deleted -ah]

The title of the accompanying _Ultimate Issues_ is "The case for
Ethical Monotheism." It is Dennis Prager's most comprehensive statement
of his -- and Judaism's -- belief that ethical monotheism is the only
antidote to evil.

In this essay, he shows how our society has lost its ethical moorings,
and how the Jewish focus on good and evil has been replaced by moral
equivalence, cults liberation movements, and other false gods.

Out of this belief in ethical montheism, and with the incredibly
generous personal gift of a quarter of a million dollars from James
Cayne, president of Bear Stearns, Dennis founded the Micah Center.
Jimmy Cayne's primary desire was to give Dennis an institutional base
from which to represent Jewish values to the world.

The center is an educational foundation whose goal is to impart the
teachings of ethical monotheism to those with the most power to change
America -- and eventually, other Western societies.

[invitation to become a member of Micah Center deleted -ah]

For well over a century there have been attempts on the right and the
left to undermine Western values. The left used Communism, the right
Facism. Both, thank G-d [edited -ah], have been destroyed in most parts
of the world.

But an attempt to undermine the leading Western society, the United
States, continues. Unable to do so through economics, politics, or
public persuasion, opponents of our values now teach that no cultures's
values are morally superior to any other's: The Western world's
democracy, humanism, and montheism are no better than any third world
culture, or for that matter, and ancient one.

Of course, the opponents of Western values are also anti-Jewish and
anti-Christian. For example, the antisemitic head of Afro-American
studies at the City College of New York, Leonard Jefferies, teaches
that the world is divided into the inferior "ice people" (whites) and
the superior "sun people" and that Jews financed the slave trade.

And with the west's breakdown in values, we are seeing a rise in
antisemitism -- from Crown Heights, New York, to universities, to
Louisiana to Eastern Europe.

Another major attack on Jewish and Western values is coming from the
radical animal rights movement. Judaism was first to introduce
protection of animals as a moral demand. But today, increasingly,
animals are *equated* [underlined -ah] with humans. As Dennis notes,
the head of the "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" has
compared killing six million Jews to the barbequing of six billion
chickens.

One of the first tasks of the Micah Center will be to combat this
attempt to undermine the religious and humanistic traditions of the
West, and to fight the attempt to break up America into competing
ethnicities.

Thus far, Dennis's work is known to you and your fellow _Ultimate
Issues_ subscribers, thousands of others around the United States, and
several hundred thousand Southern Californians. One of the goals of the
Micah Center is to make Dennis and his work much more widely known
through the media. This is our leading strategy for spreading the
message of ethical monotheism.

[description of how the media and educators can be reached deleted -ah]

[appeal for money deleted -ah]

[summing up of letter and a final appeal deleted -ah]

James Cayne's gift has made this letter possible. Your response to this
letter is what will make the Micah Center's work possible.

Sincerely,

Tom Rose
Executive Director

    ************** end letter ****************


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 07:13 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: Discovery

A recent posting speaks of the alleged insensitivity of Discovery
workers to the "anxiety" and "suffering" of the Seminar participants.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.  I have participated in several
seminars.  I have watched the presenters give up all their free time to
talk with people who are trying to work out conflicts.  (These are, in
nearly every case, conflicts that they brought to Discovery; in fact,
their conflicts *brought* them to Discovery.)  I have seen lecturers and
staff skip meals because there was still someone with a problem to
discuss, and they couldn't say "come back later".  I have seen them go
without sleep because there was always one more person, with one more
question; and I have seen them do this day after day.  I have watched
Kollel students in our training programs agonize over the awesome
responsibility that goes with attempting to change other peoples' lives.

Discovery works because the lecturers and staff are not the Haskala's
one-dimensional stereotype of ignorant, narrow-minded, unworldly
primitives, but intelligent professionals with a deep understanding of
reality; not the stereotype of people swelled with their sense of
superiority and self-importance, but warm, open people; not the
stereotype of cold, intellectual one-upsmen, but people who care deeply
about every Jew.

Discovery is not an ordeal.  It is fun--intellectual excitement, yes,
but also personal and emotional fun.  The Seminar is fueled by a mutual
respect for the truth and a shared love of fellow Jews.  This is the
driving force behind Discovery.  The proof is that over 90% of the
participants emerge with a true, positive feeling of accomplishment, a
deeper awareness of their Jewish heritage, and a genuine sense of
Discovery.

Joshua H. Proschan   Internet: [email protected]




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 91 09:55 O
From: Meir Loewenberg <F46022%[email protected]>
Subject: Rav Soloveitchik

Recently several correspondents have made references to or asked
questions about the Rav's practices.  From one of my students, a member
of his immediate family, I have received the following clarifications:

 TZITZIT DURING SHEMA (Vo.2,no.40): The Rav never gathered two tzizit
and looked at them during the recitation of the Shema.  Such conduct is
contrary to Minhag Brisk.

 ARAVOT ON HOSHANA RABAH (Vol.2, no.47): The Rav did follow the practice
of his grandfather, R. Chaim.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 10:17:26 PST
From: [email protected] (Andy Cohen)
Subject: Small-town Judaism - does it exist?

My wife and I are trying to decide where we want to bring up our children.
So far, we have two criteria, which seem mutually incompatible:

 1) We want to live in a place that has a "real" Jewish community.

    It's not easy to describe what we mean by "real", but we managed
    to boil it down to a simple litmus test: If the town has a kosher
    butcher and a Hebrew day school, it's real enough for us.

 2) We want to live in a small town, preferably a college town.

    Both of us grew up in a small college town, and even while I was
    still a kid, I realized what a great environment it was. There
    was lots of open space and forest to explore, and it was safe
    enough for kids to explore on their own. At the same time, the
    local college brought in people and ideas from all over the
    world. In addition, a college town is more likely to provide
    some employment for a computer programmer, like me.

So, can anyone help us? Does small-town Judaism exist anywhere in the
United States or Canada? If not, I'd be interested in hearing
recommendations of small towns in other countries. We've never been to
Israel: Please forgive the ignorance of my question, but does small-town
life exist there in the way I'm thinking of it? If so, what towns should
we be sure to check out when we do visit?

Thanks for any help,

	Andy





----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 2 Number 52


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        submission # 4
             [Joshua Proschan]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 91 23:40:18 EST
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

I would really like to bring this Discovery thread to an end. The
postings are getting more personal and flame-like than I want to see
here, even after I discuss them with the authors. I find myself in the
awkward position of possibly erring on the side of letting something in,
and now having to allow the rebuttal in. However, enough is enough. Any
future Discovery or codes related articles will undergo a higher degree
of editorial scrutiny, and nothing remotely flamelike will be allowed to
be posted. It appears to me that most substantive discussion will have
to await the publication of the paper now in the hands of the journal's
referees. Once it's been published, maybe there will be some more
objective discussions that can be held.

Stay tune next week to discover where small town Judaism can be found,
as several of our readers have taken up Andy's challenge.

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 07:32 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: Discovery

In mail.jewish II #45 our moderator writes:

>The codes/discovery thread continues but is beginning to get close to
>some personal flaming, rather than discussion of the issues
>involved.

I wish I could agree; in my opinion it has gone well over the line.  But then, 
I regard attacks on groups of people as personal attacks. 

A case in point is Norman Miller's article in the same issue.  I will not 
comment now on his first paragraph; that requires an extensive article, and 
will have to wait a week or so. 

In his second paragraph, Miller says:

>And as though that were not enough, I would like to add that based on my
>experiences Discovery hovers between a strip-tease and a shell game.  I
>have tried for several weeks, for instance, to get an exact statement of
>what has to be done in order to replicate the codes research and I've
>been told that the exact statement is not available because an article
>is being refereed and that replication isn't important anyway!  This is
>enough I think for any sophisticated reader to know whom one's dealing
>with.  I hope we can move on to more interesting matters.

The statement that Discovery "hovers between a strip-tease and a shell game" 
is unquestionably a flame.  It is also a personal attack; Discovery is a group 
of people, not a machine.  Such immoderate remarks could be acceptable in this 
forum only if Miller produced valid supporting evidence.  Does he?  The 
question of differing practices for pre-publication release has been discussed 
here at length, and I will not reopen it.  The bottom line is that the draft 
article is being refereed by a prominent journal; the authors do not want to 
jeopardize publication by releasing it during this process; and none of us 
has the right to over-ride their decision.  This does not justify Miller's 
flame. 

He then states that he has been told "that replication isn't important 
anyway!", and uses this to justify his closing character assassination of 
Discovery and of the unidentified person who allegedly said that "replication 
isn't important anyway!". 

Miller does not provide any details regarding this person, or his exact 
statements.  I will.  Miller appears to be misrepresenting an exchange of 
messages he had with me.  I normally do not disclose e-mail exchanges, but 
since Miller has published a distorted version of my e-mail I will make an 
exception for him: 

In his first e-mail message, dated November 11th, Miller said that he had 
downloaded an electronic version of the Torah and some ELS utilities, 
apparently from Simtel.  He requested that I tell him *exactly* how I have 
done my searches; give him a list of the name-date pairs; explain what a 
definition of distance is, and supply him with one; explain how to divide the 
text into 1K blocks; identify the statistical procedures used, with 
references; and provide him with the complete results of my tests  His 
justification was "And as you realize, trying it for oneself is meaningless 
unless one repeats the trials (plus new ones) _exactly_." 

I sent a reply, which bounced.  Miller sent a second request for the 
information.  I re-sent my reply, which I reproduce here in full: 

>Date:     Wed Nov 20, 1991 11:13 pm  EST
>From:     Joshua Proschan / MCI ID: 483-9378
>
>TO:       N. Miller                                (Ems)
>          EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
>          MBX: [email protected]
>Subject:  retry
>Message-Id: 22911121041322/0004839378NA4EM
>
>Norm--
>
>The message I sent bounced.  Here is another copy.
>
>I cannot provide details of the research beyond what has been discussed
>in the mailing group.  When I wrote of repeating the tests, I had in mind
>independent confirmations, not exact repetitions.  There are several
>reasons for this.
>
>First, what I have been discussing in the mail.jewish mailing list is
>what has been mentioned in lectures, not material from the research
>paper.  The paper is still in the process of being published.  To publish
>the contents, if I had them, would be unethical.  I hope the research
>paper will be released soon, but I have no information on this.
>
>Second, I was not thinking of an exact repetition of the original tests;
>that would prove nothing.  This is true of mearly all computer-assisted
>research.  For example, it took time for the proof of the four-color
>theorem to be accepted.  That proof depended on a computer search of a
>large number of cases, and there was considerable debate as to how the
>computer programs could be verified and the case analysis confirmed.  I
>know of a case where a traditional pen-and-paper mathematical proof was
>questioned on the grounds that it was too long (400 pages) to have been
>effectively refereed.  For any computer-assisted proof, independent
>repetitions are essential to demonstrate that the results are not an
>artifact of the programs.
>
>I should have been more explicit in the original posting.
>
>Joshua Proschan
>

On November 21st, Miller replied, and repeated his demand for information, 
saying that "if you invite me to try my hand at the research, you owe me more 
a good deal more than a statement that you 'can't provide details'", and 
telling me that while there is "nothing personal in this", I have "raised 
quite serious questions and they ought to be treated seriously". 

I thought I had treated his request quite seriously, and in detail, and had 
not gotten around to finishing a second response when Miller published his 
intemperate remarks to the net. 

Anyone with expertise in computer-assisted mathematical proofs, validation of 
software, or indeed any form of software development can confirm that running 
the identical program and data on a second machine proves nothing; any bugs or 
errors in the original will be present in the repetition.  This same problem 
occurs with the design of experiments; if there is a flaw in the design, an 
exact repetition will contain the same flaw.  The *only* thing that an exact 
repetition will eliminate are errors resulting from poor experimental 
technique, or from faulty equipment, or from fraud.  For complex experiments 
in physics or chemistry it is worth confirming that there were no failures of 
technique or equipment.  For computer-assisted research hardware failures are 
rarely a problem.  Software bugs are a real danger; exact duplication is of no 
help.  In statistical experiments, oversights in the design of the experiment 
are a real danger; exact duplication is of no help. 

What does help is an independent experimental design.  There is enough 
information out to permit this for the "codes" research.  However, it requires 
some knowledge.  There is nothing in the scientific method that requires 
experiments to be repeatable or understandable by amateurs; or even by 
professionals in other disciplines.  Designing a valid "codes" experiment 
requires a thorough understanding of statistics and good programming skills.  
If Miller possesses these, he should have no problems.  If he does not, I am 
under no obligation to him. 

Miller's assertion that I told him "that replication isn't important anyway!" 
has no basis in fact and is a serious distortion and complete 
misrepresentation of my position.  (If I am being overly vain in assuming that 
Miller was basing his flame on my e-mail, let him produce some evidence that 
someone else really told him that, and explain why he ignored my e-mail 
explanations.)  Miller is not justified in demanding that I "owe [him] more a 
good deal more than a statement that [I] 'can't provide details'"; he cannot 
expect me to do his work for him. 

Joshua H. Proschan   Internet: [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 1


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Small Town Judaism (9)
             [Lawton Cooper, Finley Shapiro, Yosef Branse, Benjamin
             Svetitsky, Steve Gale, Jay Shayevitz, Eli Turkel, Najman
             Kahana, Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 92 10:52:47 EST
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

Hello all, and welcome to 1992!

First of all, please ignore the previous blank message, I changed the
volume number, but was lazy in my programming, so that comes back and
bites you.

With this issue, mail.jewish moves to Volume 3. This one is a bit long,
with various responses on Small Town Judaism. I know two of the US
towns people have recommended, as I lived in Rochester for about a year
and a half, and my brother lives in Sharon. I'll add to the more
detailed descriptions below, that I found the community in Rochester to
be wonderfull, and I've enjoyed the time spent visiting in Sharon.

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 91  16:16:07 EST
From: Lawton_Cooper%[email protected] (Lawton Cooper)
Subject: Small Town Judaism

   Andy Cohen, in his quest for a community with both adequate
facilities for observant Jews and a healthy environment for raising
children, strikes a chord in my heart.  My wife and I grew up in the
Boston area, and were it not for my medical residency would probably
never have had an opportunity to see the advantages of "small- town"
Judiasm.
   Adjusting to life in Rochester, New York, Jewish and otherwise, was
quite difficult at first.  The Orthodox community consists of about 100
core families, most all of whom know one another, compared with the
Boston area's several hundred (probably over 1000) well-dispersed
Orthodox families.  Rochester has no full- fledged Jewish food store
(though kosher meat is readily available), no kosher restaurant, no
Jewish school for girls beyond the 8th grade, and a relative paucity of
Jewish educational and cultural activities compared with Boston (at
least from an Orthodox perspective).
   We fairly quickly realized, however, what we had been missing in
Boston: a cohesive caring Jewish community, where Jews of all
persuasions interact through the various institutions, where each person
who gets involved in the community truly feels that he or she makes a
difference.
   The city itself is uncrowded with spacious parks and woods, but has a
thriving secular cultural and intellectual climate, with high- quality
institutions of higher education and a strong "high-tech industry" (home
base for Kodak and Xerox).
   Regarding the Jewish community, the most critical facility for
observant Jews, a mikveh, is there.  There are two thriving Orthodox
shuls, close to one another, that attract between them (one is "left-
wing" and the other is "right-wing") the whole spectrum of observant
families from those with a traditional Conservative outlook to "black
hat" Orthodox.  The day school (The Hillel School), despite being funded
by the Jewish community at large, has always had an Orthodox principal,
and is dominated by Orthodox families.  There is a boy's yeshiva for
high school and a small kollel, and for those seeking a Jewish high
school for their daughters or alternatives for their sons, the prospect
of sending them to Toronto (3 hours away), New York, or elsewhere has
not offset the advantages of living in Rochester.
   We lived there for 5 years, and regrettably moved away for
professional reasons a year and a half ago to the Washington, D.C.
area.  Despite adjusting to life in the big city again, and appreciating
the Jewish resources available here, we feel that we will always have an
emotional attachment to the Rochester Jewish community and to our
friends there.
   I don't know what the current job situation is for people in
computers, but I'd be happy to provide the names of some individuals in
the Jewish community who could give you the scoop.  I wish you success
in your quest, and can assure you that what you're looking for exists,
not only in Rochester, I'm sure, but in several places in the U.S.,
Israel, and elsewhere.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 Dec 91 13:03:32
From: Finley Shapiro <[email protected]>
Subject: Small Town Judaism

The December 27, 1991 issue of the Jewish Exponent (Philadelphia's
principal Jewish newspaper) contained an article on p. 18 by Dinah
Wisenberg Brin titled "Keeping the faith in the outposts."  Here are a
few excerpts:

" . . . the more than 500 participants in the ninth annual Conference on
Judaism in Rural New England and Southern Quebec -- the event's largest
enrollment yet -- did not fit easily into any one category.  From Reform
to Orthodox, from the ideological left to the philosophical right, they
filled the spectrum of Jewish religious and political life."

"There were Holocaust survivors from Wilmington, Vt., and young
professionals whose families make up the entire Jewish community in
their towns."

"Conference-goers ranged in age from a few weeks to 90 years."

" . . . Rabbi Michael Paley, director of the Earl Hall Center on
Religion at Columbia University . . . helped found the conference and
was its religious leader."

"R.D. Eno, a Cabot, Vt., writer who runs an outreach program for rural
Jews -- the K'fari Center -- was a driving force behind the conference
in its early days and serves on its board of directors."

According to the article, the K'fari Center used to publish a magazine,
called Kfari, but it has now been discontinued.  The remainder of the
article would probably not be of much interest to most readers of
mail.jewish, but those who would like more information on the subject
might try to contact the people mentioned above.

Finley Shapiro
[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1991 10:35:54 +0200 (O)
From: [email protected] (Yosef Branse)
Subject: Small Town Judaism

In response to Andy Cohen's question about "small-town" Judaism in MJ51
I'd like to tell you about Kehillat Kiryat Nachliel in Migdal ha-Emek,
Israel - this may interest other people considering aliyah, as well as
those already living in Israel.

I suspect that what Andy had in mind by a "real" Jewish community is a
traditional, autonomous Kehilla, of the sort that constituted the basis
for Jewish society until the modern period. In such communities, there
was local control of education, the synagogue, shechita, and the various
other institutions essential to Jewish observance. I'm sure books have
been written analyzing the structure and eventual demise of the kehilla,
and even if I were qualified to speak about it, that would take us too
far afield.

In 1979, Rav Nachman Bulman, shlita, who was a prominent educator,
author, and communal Rav (e.g., in Danville Va. and Far Rockaway, New
York) before moving to Israel, established a community in the Galilee
development town of Migdal ha-Emek. I can't say for sure to what extent
Rav Bulman sought to create a replica of the traditional kehilla, but
the main thrust of our development as a community has been in just such
areas as education, Beis Midrash, synagogue, etc., that characterize a
kehilla.

Kiryat Nachliel has a distinctly American character, but there are also
members from England, South Africa, Israel and elsewhere. We are a small
community - some 40 families, mainly mature ba'alei teshuva and our FFB
children - but if you include people who participate informally in our
activities, the number is a bit larger. Religious orientation is hard to
pin down - as is, there's too much labeling of people in Israel in terms
of ideological or political commitment. Suffice it to say we are
basically an American haredi community where people of various outlooks
- Modern Orthodox, Hasidim, Zionists, etc. - feel comfortable. Nearly
everyone who is eligible does Army reserve duty (Just ask my wife about
that).

We have a shul and a small kollel (6-7 guys). Our boys go to a Talmud
Torah elsewhere in town that is part of the "El ha-Ma'ayan" network, and
I've been quite impressed by the quality of the education my kids are
getting (I wonder if there are other places in Israel where Ashkenazi
kids go to a predominantly Sephardi school?). The community maintains
its own girls school here in the neighborhood.

As for the "small town" requirement, Migdal ha-Emek certainly qualifies,
even by Israeli standards. Founded in 1953, the town still isn't much
past the 20,000 mark in population (if that) - although our current boom
of Russian immigrants will probably change the figures rather
impressively. For such a small place, Migdal ha-Emek is quite an ethnic
cholent, reflecting the various stages of aliya since 1948 - the
founding fathers were Jews who'd lived in China, followed over the years
by Romanians, Moroccans, Russians, Kavkazim (Jews from the Caucasus
region of the late great Soviet Union), Argentinians, Ethiopians and now
an endless flow of more Russians - besides us crazy Americans. Everybody
gets along pretty well.

In the 10-1/2 years I've lived in Kiryat Nachliel, our community has
experienced many vicissitudes, many highs and lows. Frankly, there has
been a problem of attracting and holding enough people to be fully
viable. We might be able to claim that we've done better as a Merkaz
Klita than as a community: many people who joined us moved on elsewhere
- or, sad to say, returned to the States - as a result of lack of
employment, family problems, lack of big-city services and lifestyle,
etc. But we say with justified pride that everyone has been touched
somehow by being here, in large part thanks to the influence of Rav
Bulman, shlita.

I don't believe in painting rosy pictures - life can be hard here, and
it's not for everybody. At the same time, there are enough of us for
whom it most certainly IS, and who want to make sure that our community
will endure.  The key is people. If anyone is interested in hearing more
about Kiryat Nachliel or visiting, for Shabbat or whenever, feel free to
contact me.

Yosef Branse 
Internet : [email protected] 
Phone: 06-546384 (home)
       04-240288 (work)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 91 20:09:54 +0200
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Small Town Judaism

Once we were driving around Sonoma County in northern California,
looking around and admiring the scenery and the houses.  Our friend
sighed and said, "Ahhh...  If you're a goy, you can live anywhere."
Several American addresses later, we came to the inevitable conclusion:
"If you're a Jew, you can live anywhere -- as long as it's in Israel."

Ben Svetitsky    [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1991 10:44:11 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected] (Steve Gale)
Subject: RE: Small Town Judaism

My wife and I lived in the town of Sharon, MA for almost 3 years (we
moved to Pittsburgh about 2 years ago).  Sharon is half-way between
Boston, MA and Providence, RI with a population of 15,000.  I wouldn't
describe it as suburban; it's more like ex-urban.  There is a lake for
swimming and boating, an Audubon wildlife sanctuary, and a farm
(pick-your-own berries).

About 50 years ago, Sharon was a summer resort town with a large
Jewish clientele.  It is the only city or town in Massachusetts were
the majority of the population is Jewish.

The Orthodox Jewish community is mostly made-up of young professionals
(professors, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc) raising families.  There
are about 125 Orthodox families, 2 Orthodox synagogues, 2 mikvot (for
women and men respectively), an Orthodox day school, 3 overlapping
eruvim (!), and a chevra kadisha (burial society).  Within a five minute
drive is a kosher-style grocery store (my wife and I had our meat
delivered from Boston) and a kosher snack bar at the Stoughton JCC.

If Andy or anybody else would like to know more about Sharon (or
Pittsburgh), don't hesitate to contact us.

Caryn & Steven Gale
5944 Phillips Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15217
(412) 421-2628
[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 91 16:02:54 EST
From: [email protected] (Jay Shayevitz)
Subject: Small Town Judaism

We (I, wife, 3 kids) live in Ann Arbor, MI, a college town with a
resident population of approximately 100,000. I am on the medical school
faculty at the University of Michigan. The Jewish community is decent
sized, numbering some 3-5000 people. There is a Jewish day school,
grades K-8, with 84 pupils, which is Solomon Schechter-affiliated, but
about 40% of the pupils are from Orthodox households. We have no Kosher
butchers or restaurants in town, but there are several of each in the
Detroit suburbs, about an hour's drive away. Plus fresh Empire chicken
is sold in one of the local supermarkets.  We have a Reform and a
Conservative synagogue, and TWO Orthodox minyanim, one of which is
sponsored by Chabad (50-60 "regulars"), the other more or less
independent (40-50 "regulars"), but which davens with the Orthodox
student minyan at the Hillel. Probably the most important aspect of
Jewish life in Ann Arbor for observant married couples is the fact that
we have our own Mikva in town. What a luxury!

Ann Arbor has real neighborhoods with single family houses, other kids,
parks, and woods; a real downtown with lots of stores and shopping and
movie theaters; and the cultural advantages of proximity to a major
university.  Disadvantages: relatively high taxes, Michigan weather.

If you would like further information, please get in touch with me by 
e-mail. Good luck in your search.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 91 08:15:07 EST
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Small Town Judaism

   small town: To some extent the question is how small of a shul can
you live with but there are many communities that I am aware of and it
depends on your definition of a small town. Some possiblities are
Providence RI (Brown University), In fact many of the IVY league schools
are in smaller towns with strong Jewish communities. If you want a
smaller town I am familiar with Norfolk and NewPort News Virginia which
have a day school in Virginia beach and a small daily minyan but not
much beyond.  For larger towns I am now visiting Cleveland (suburbs)
which has a very strong Jewish community and is much more "small town"
than NY though obviously not a real small town.

Eli Turkel

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 91 08:34 JST
From: Najman Kahana <NAJMAN%[email protected]>
Subject: Small Town Judaism

Having gone down this road, I'll try giving some answers.  For a start,
you did not specify your religious affiliation. And it does make a big
difference in Israel.  Please note that I am Orthodox, and I am
answering to "my" requirements.  I hope that it either matches yours, or
that you can extract that which is relevant to you.

> 1) We want to live in a place that has a "real" Jewish community.
>    It's not easy to describe what we mean by "real", but we managed
>    to boil it down to a simple litmus test: If the town has a kosher
>    butcher and a Hebrew day school, it's real enough for us.

--> How about a Mikva ?

>So, can anyone help us? Does small-town Judaism exist anywhere in the
>United States or Canada? If not, I'd be interested in hearing
>recommendations of small towns in other countries. We've never been to

--> the best we came to was Sharon Mass.
    It is a small town near Boston. It has a Young Israel, transportation
    to schools in Boston (20 minutes), has a butcher, etc.
    It is within range of many large software and computer hardware plants.
    It is very "rural". Has its own lake, woods and is in general very nice.

>Israel: Please forgive the ignorance of my question, but does small-town
>life exist there in the way I'm thinking of it? If so, what towns should
>we be sure to check out when we do visit?

-> Now this one is more complicated.

	"Small town". Please note that by American standards Jerusalem is a
small town!.
	I live in an area called Gush Etzion (Etzion bloc of settlements).
The largest town is Alon Shvut with 250 families, the smallest is ElDavid
with 25 families.
	In Israel there are "towns" with residency requirements. I live in
Elazar, which is orthodox. This means that all its residents are, to one degree
or another, orthodox. Our requirements are: keeping of Shabbat, Kashrut, and
Taharat haMishpachah.
	Our schools are 15 minutes away by foot, or 45 by school bus!  We are
20 minutes from Jerusalem, but also have local shopping facilities.

	If you are interested, I am willing to answer direct questions.

Bye
	Najman Kahana
[email protected]

ps: Out of 64 families in my town, there are 7 working programmers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 91 10:02:00 EST
From: sg04%[email protected] (Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund)
Subject: Small Town Judaism

There was real estate developer by the name of Rosenfeld who was trying
to create just this kind of rural Jewish community in the Catskills.
Large wooded lots, shuls, kosher butcher, schools, etc. I saw the
blue-prints a few years ago of the layout of the town. I think it has
since run into some problems. I have forwarded the phone number to Andy.
I suspect that some areas in the Monsey/Rockland County area might also
qualify.

Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund		 		  [email protected]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA			    harvard!bunny!sgutfreund



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 2


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        BRIJNET
             [Mark Katz]
        Bar Mitzvah in Yerushalayim Shaila
             [Arnold Lustiger]
        Jewish and Non-jewish customs
             [Joshua Proschan]
        Originality
             [Manuel Needleman]
        Politics, Geography and Kabbalat Shabbat
             [Michael Shimshoni]
        West Palm Beach, Florida
             [Robert Levy]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 92 18:10:18 EST
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

I'd like to thank all those who have already sent in mail.jewish
contributions, including a "chai" contributor. I'll include addresses
in Israel and the UK for points of contact there for the contributions
in the next m.j, in the US mail them to me at:

Avi Feldblum
55 Cedar Ave
Highland Park, N.J. 08904

Small Town Judaism has generated a intersting bunch of responses, and
I'll put together another issue on the ones that did not make it into
the previous issue.

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 91 9:23:06 EST
From: Mark Katz <[email protected]>
Subject: BRIJNET

As of last month, BRITISH Jewry has its own bulletin board - called BRIJNET.
It holds information on all sorts of things like shuls (times of davening),
Kosher hotels, mikvaoth, shiurim, courses and a host of academic info from
both inside and outside the UK.  Plans are to add hospitality, Kashrus news
and even business opportunities - Electronic Jewish Yellow Pages?

It has the support of the Board of deputies and most leading Jewish
organisation who, in addition to providing information also have
plans to use it to exchange internal mail/news.
 
A lot of credit is due to Avrum Goodblat for setting this up as part
of a linked Global Ghetto in which each major country has its own BBS

It currently runs under the control of RA and will be linked via FIDONET
in due course. We have added some rudimetary but very effective
free-text search features. I seem to be the main moderator and
seeing as I link into Jewish.Mail too, can act as a 'non-automatic' link

I'm keen to know of any other initiatives around the world and, in
particular if any standards can be introduced at this early stage to
ensure that this concept grows in a sensible way

Mark Katz

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 91 12:58:29 EST
From: Arnold Lustiger <ALUSTIG%[email protected]>
Subject: Bar Mitzvah in Yerushalayim Shaila

On Shabbat March 6,1993 we plan to hold my son's Bar-Mitzvah in
Jerusalem.Purim is the following day. We plan to have Israeli guests
from outside Jerusalem and we have a question about when these people
should hear the Megilla. Shushan Purim is not until Monday (i.e. when
Purim is celebrated in Yerushalayim). How and when should the
out-of-town guests hear the Megillah?  If they leave Yerushalayim
immediately after Shabbat to go home, they will certainly miss Megilla
reading. Can they stay in Yerushalayim and lain Megilla on Motzei
Shabbat (even though it is not Shushan Purim) and then go home and hear
Megilla the next morning as usual?  I doubt that any of them would stay
two extra days to celebrate Shushan Purim in Jerusalem.

Arnie Lustiger

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 18:08 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: Jewish and Non-jewish customs

The issue is more complicated than Eli Turkel's examples would indicate.  
There are several cases where Jewish customs were abandoned, because of 
"b'darkom bal teileich" [do not follow their customs], when the nations 
started following them.  

One example: In ancient times it was the Jewish custom to wear black for
mourning.  When the surrounding nations picked up that custom, Jews
abandoned it.

Another example: The custom of decorating the bimah and aron with
foliage for Shavuos was abandoned when others began decorating their
houses of worship that way.

I believe that there are other such occurences.

Clearly, there are customs we have held on to.  Where the dividing line
is between those customs we abandon and those we do not abandon I do not
know.

Joshua H. Proschan   Internet: [email protected] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1991 0:01:43 +1100 (EST)
From: [email protected] (Manuel Needleman)
Subject: Originality

Following on this thread, it may be of interest to note the following
quotes from the Penguin Classics " Herodotus " translated by A de
Selincourt. Note: Herodotus was born about 490- 480 BCE and the quotes 
come from his visit to Egypt.

p116 " They practise circumcision, while men from other nations- EXCEPT
THOSE THAT HAVE LEARNT FROM EGYPT- leave their private parts as nature
made them. "

p121 " Pigs are considered unclean  --- "

p127 " It was the Egyptians who first made it an offence against piety
to have intercourse with women in temples or to enter temples after
intercourse without having previously washed. "

p118 -- after description of testing bulls for 'cleanness' for sacrifice
--- " This is the reason why no Egyption ------ , OR USE A GREEK KNIFE,
SPIT, OR CAULDRON, or even eat the flesh of a bull known to be clean, IF
IT HAS BEEN CUT WITH A GREEK KNIFE ."

These practices parallel our social and religious purity practices and
it is possible that they had been adapted by the Israelites during the
sojourn in Egypt ( pre 1200 BCE ?? ), before being incorporated in the
Torah.

I have been intrigued by these quotes for some time and wonder if anyone
can inform me when these practices commenced in Egypt. Herodotus,
unfortunately, did not seem to do the " Grand Tour " of the Fertile
Crescent so I wonder if his statement regarding the uniqueness of the
practice of circumcision, at his time, was correct ( obviously it had
been practised in Israel for centuries before Herodotus' time! )


Manuel Needleman  from Melbourne ( Australia ).***********

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 11:47:12 +0200
From: Michael Shimshoni <[email protected]>
Subject: Politics, Geography and Kabbalat Shabbat

[to be read with a sense of humor. Mod.]

I  was frequently  "puzzled" how  two  Israelis, faced  with the  same
geopolitical  facts come  to  such opposing  political conclusions  as
Yisrael Medad  and I.  I think  that I have  now a clue how  this came
about.  Recently on the topic Minhag  Makom he wrote inter alia on the
custom of his place Shiloh with respect to L'cha Dodi:

>Here in Shiloh, when we rise for the chanting of the last verse
>in the Shabbat Eve hymn {L'cha Dodi}, we do a 90-degree turn to
>the right thus mixing up any guests who are present.  They, like
>most, normally turn completely around to the rear.
>
>Our Rav, Rabbi Elchanan Bin-Nun, has paskined in accordance with
>the Gemara in Baba Bathra that "the Shechina is in the West" (which
>is the way the Bet Mikdash was set up whereby the Holy of Holies was
>closest to the Western Wall) and Kabbalistic commentaries.  Thus,
>when the bow is made at the end of {L'cha Dodi}, it is done in Shiloh
>facing West - being North of Jerusalem, we davin facing South so to
               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>face West we turn to the right.
>
    ........    much material left out   .........

>In Askenaz (that territory from the banks of the Don stretching on
                                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>until California's sunny beaches), since everyone was facing East
                                                       ~~~~~~~~~~~
>towards Jerusalem, to face West one simply turned around to the rear.

Now  I understand  it,  Yisrael Medad  and I  simply  use a  different
geography! On my globe I always saw that Moscow, as an example, who is
not too far from  the "Banks of the Don" is  in the NORTHERN direction
from Jerusalem not less than Shiloh is.

So I am coming to the  conclusion that politics is also
a matter of (knowing) geography.  :-)

Michael Shimshoni

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 13:56:52 EST
From: [email protected] (Robert Levy)
Subject: West Palm Beach, Florida

Shalom.  I have a question for the group.  I will be traveling to the
West Palm Beach Flor. for a pharmacology meeting on 1/28/92 and I will
have to stay there over Shabbos.  Can anyone suggest an Orthodox Shul
and a nearby hotel in this area?  

Thanks, Robert Levy.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 3


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Anti-Orthodox Feeling (5)
             [Alexander Herrera, Robert A. Levene, Will Shulman, Seth Magot,
             Warren Burstein]
        Judaism and the Environment
             [Eli Turkel]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 13:14:22 PST
From: [email protected] (Alexander Herrera)
Subject: Anti-Orthodox Feeling

In Volume 2 Number 43, [email protected] <Sherri Chasin Calvo>
writes about the protests of certain non-observant Jews to an Orthodox
synagogue opening in their neighborhood. To summerize: the protests
seemed illogical, like an emotional reaction rather than a rational
one.

>    I should say that I could by no means speak to these people as any
> kind of expert on halacha; nor is my own observance unfortunately up to
> Orthodox standards. But enough is enough, already. Can anyone tell me
> what would have been an appropriate thing to do or say under these
> circumstances? I was reduced to spluttering and leaving the room.

I have had similar reactions from many Reform Jews as well as
non-observant ones (meaning those who observe nothing at all) to the
Orthodox. Take for instance, a Hanuka party my wife and I had for the
first night. We invited friends over (mostly Jews) to celebrate. It was
fun. Everyone there knows that I have a great deal of respect for the
Orthodox and that I attend an Orthodox minyon. Someone brought up the
subject of the Lubuvicher (sp?) Rebbe who was televised on PBS. There
was some criticism, and frankly, I felt uncomfortable myself. To see
him staring down at the crowd silhouetted by a gleeming white
background was a little too much for me.

My point is that the criticism was not respectful. I may disagree with
someone, but I can still respect them. I do not see this happening when
Reform Jews, and non-observant Jews discuss the Orthodox. It is as if
they think that the Orthodox represent what is holy and right. Like
children who laugh at their parent's "outdated" ideas, Reform Jews seem
to be uncomfortable around the Orthodox. It is as if they are reminded
that they are doing something wrong. My question is not if the
Orthodox think that Reform Jews are doing something wrong. I am
wondering if Reform Jews themselves think it.

If Reform thinks that the Orthodox are wrong and that 
Reform is an authentic form of Judasim, then they should say that, and
be happy with it. I just don't see it happening in the rank and file.
Reform's authority lies in its ability to convince, and reason with
others that certain rituals should be observed in a particular way
(Dr. Ellis Rivken calls it "intelligent guidence"). I think that the
rank and file are unconvinced. I also think that the unobservant are
disturbed by what the Orthodox represent. They seem to know that
Orthodoxy is not what they want or can tolerate, yet they cannot come
to terms with what it is that they do want. That is my guess.


Alex Herrera
uunet!mdcsc!ah


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 10:17:26 -0500
From: [email protected] (Robert A. Levene)
Subject: Re: Anti-Orthodox Feeling

If the mail.jewish "Anti-orthodox feeling" thread continues, [it has, at
least a little. Mod.] you might want to note that the December 1988
_Jewish Observer_ discusses this issue in depth, especially the myths
and slander. [Now noted. Mod.]
  
Rob


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 8:29:07 EST
From: Will Shulman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Anti-Orthodox Feeling

     There was recently a hearing before the zoning board of Baltimore
County, MD about the Chabad Chasidim that want to build a Shul on
Pimlico Rd. near Smith Ave. I have lived in the neighborhood some 30
years. (I might add parenthetically that I may be the oldest reader of
mail.jewish.) When we first moved in, we built a succoh. One of the
neighbors looked out of his door and commented in the loudest voice
and the strogest foreign accent you could imagine, "They are bringing
their Eastern European customs here". Margie's comment was that he
could not refer to her because she was born in Germany. He absolutely,
absolutely could not refer to me because I was born in Baltimore.

     All kidding aside, we will have this problem as long as we must
live in communities. There will be the not frum who resent us.
Let us face it, we have our own problems; but the problems that we
have are not narcotics, alcohalism, crime, and intermarrage. These
problems drive the non-frum community up a wall. We are not dirty,
sloppy, unruly, etc. The very things the non-frum community says
about us. They resent us because we can accomplishe the transition of
Judaism from one generation to an other; whereas they, who are
over-indulgent in the hedonistic pleasures of the world, are unable to
transmit Judaism from one generation to an other.
                             Will Shulman <[email protected]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 16:08 EST
From: Seth Magot <MAGOT%[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Anti-Orthodox Feeling

        Joshua notes in v.2 n.48, "Another potent force is the unsettling of
ones values.  Many non-Orthodox Jewish clergy wax nostalgic...".  I
tend to agree fully.  I write a column in my local Synagogue paper called
Torah Works.  A year ago our Congregational Rabbi wrote in his column
who wounderful he remembered his grandfather's sukkah in Brooklyn.  In that
same issue in my column I wrote about the joys of building one's own
sukkah, and the mitzvah of using it.

Seth Magot (BITNET:  MAGOT@LIUVAX)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 09:15:27 +0200
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Anti-Orthodox Feeling

I agree with the views expressed in issue V2#48, I just would like
to add that we should be very careful how we respond.  My advice would
be the exact opposite of the former problem discussed, that of the
husband who will not give a Get.  In that case, one should worry about
getting the job done, no matter who it upsets.  Here, one should be as
delicate as possible (without giving up, of course) as one would like
to remain on good terms with the other Jews so that maybe they will
drop in to the shul once in a while.

One important point: find some longstanding residents of the
community, both Jewish and not, to discuss tactics with, so that you
don't accidentally step on anyone's toes (or so that if you decide
that stepping on toes is appropriate that you don't deliver a kick to
the head).  Don't assume you understand the dynamics of the community
- how many times have all of us gotten inappropriate greetings this
time of year?  We of course manage to be calm about it, don't assume
everyone else is reasonable.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 91 08:53:00 EST
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Judaism and the Environment

[The request mentioned below came from me, when I heard that one of our
regular contributers had a article in the Journal of Halacha and
Contemporary Society. I find that journal quite interesting, and would
be interested in trying to arrange regular summeries of articles
appearing there in the future. We'll see what can be arranged. Mod.]

      On request I am giving a summary of an article that I wrote about
Judaism and the Environment that appeared in the Journal of Halacha and
Contemporary Society, Vol 22. I apologize in advance of the need to
transilterate the Hebrew phrases into English which makes for
difficult reading.

      There are 3 main areas of halacha that affect our behavior to the
environment. 
1. Bal Taschit
2. Hilchot Shechanim:  torts between neighbors
3: Lo Tasim Damim Bevetecha: ownership of materials that can cause harm.


1.             Bal Taschit
    As an aside there are a number of authors who claim that the
present troubles with the environment are caused by the Torah commandment
"vekivshua" in the beginning of Bereshit. I try and show that this is
certainly not the viewpoint of Halacha. According to Judaism "vekivshua"
does mean that man should improve on the world and not simply leave it
in the state that he found it. However, this is balanced by the commandment
of "Bal Taschit" which prevents the unnecessary destruction of any
materials.

    The bible prohibits the cutting down of fruit trees even during a
seige. The Talmud extends this prohibition to any unnecessary 
dectruction of materials. One important example is that the Gemara says
that one is not allowed to burn oil that is not needed. It follows from
this that all modern forms of energy conservation are subsumed under
"Bal Taschit" e.g. turning off lights when not in use, turning off a
car motor when not in use, using a thermostat etc. According to many
authorities, this prohibition applies even to ownerless property and
so would affect oil spills that kill wildlife. Rabbi Landau does not
see any prohibition against hunting wild animals but feels philisophically
that it is not something a Jew should do. Hunters in the bible are always
evil people, e.g. Esau and Nimrod.      

     There is a basic disagreement among authorities whether these other
prohibitions are also biblical or only rabbibic extensions. Also in
interperting the verse of not destroying trees there is a disagreement
between Rashi and Even Ezra whether the prohibition is based on what
is good for nature or what is good for man, i.e. one should not destroy
trees because it is inherently bad or else because man needs trees and
it is not good for mankind to destroy trees.

     There is a discussion in the article whether one can cut down a
tree in the back yard to expand one's house or for some other use.

     In summary one can use nature when there is some benefit to it.
Thus one may construct a dam even though some animals will be killed,
however, the damage should be as limited as is possible. Though not directly
related, there is a similar principal with regard to animal experimentation.
One can use animals to test drugs that will help humans. However, one
should be extremely careful not to cause any unnecessary pain.
Similarly one should not throw out eatable food because of laziness. This
especially applies to caterers and to farmers who destroy food in order
to raise prices. I have heard a psak that the definition of eatable food
means a plate of food that has not been touched. There is no need to
keep food from a plate that has been partially used.

2.   Torts Bewteen Neighbors

           As in any system of laws one is not allowed to harm ones
neighbor's property or person. However, according to many authorities
in Judaism there is an additional level in that this involves "issur"
categories and not just monetary matters. This has many ramifications
because according  to halacha there are differences bewteen monetary
manners and "issur matters" when questions of doubt exist. In particular
in many cases one can prevent a priori the establishment of certain
practices that might cause damage and one need not wait for the damage to
occur and then sue.

      The Gemara in Baba Batra mentions several zoning laws. Thus, one
is not allowed to set up certain businesses near town that create smoke
or that smell. One cannot operate a threshing facility in one's own
home if the kernels of wheat can reach the neighbor's property. The
Gemara considers smoke and odors as particularly noxious damages so 
that one can always prevent the production of the smoke. Based
on this principle Rabbi Feinstein does not allow smoking in a public
place where the smoke can harm other people. This ruling would seem to
prevent setting up businesses that would produce air pollution at least
those that directly affect other people. There is a similar prohibtion of
water pollution. Thus the tosefta states that one may not wash muddy feet
in a public water way if the resultant mud will affect other people. One
is certainly prohibited from dumping chemicals in public waterways that
prevent people from using the water. 
     There are further discussions of noise pollution and privacy
regulations in Halacha.
     One difficulty with these laws is that one cannot claim damages for
indirect damages (grama). Hence, the use of aeresol cans that causes
indirect harm to the ozone layer which can harm people would not be
prohibited. Similarly the use of an automobile which causes smog in
the air could not be prohibited.
     A particularly difficult area is when there is a conflict bewteen
one person's livelihood and any resultant damage that might occur.
Chatam Sofer seems to indicate that one is not required to give up one's
livelihood in order to prevent possible damage to others. However this
point needs further clarification.

3.  Avoidance of Dangerous Objects

    According to the Torah one is obligated to build a fence on one's
roof to prevent people from falling off the roof. This prohibition is
extended by the Talmud to other objects that might cause harm. Thus
one is not allowed to keep a ladder in one's home that has brokem rungs.
Similarly one should not keep a vicious dog in one's home. Rav Huna
would survey the town after a storm and order the destruction of all
unsafe buildings.
      Rabbi Abramsky interprets this prohibition more broadly and would
not allow one to keep a bee hive in a location where the bees might go and
sting people. This raises the interesting question of the construction
of chemical  or nuclear plants in locations where they might cause
harm to the neighborhood.


      In summary the attitude of Halacha is that the environment was
given to mankind both to use and to watch over. There is a tension between
these two goals and hence one must do one's best to limit damage to
other people and to nature as a whole. However, this cannot be done at
the expense of "progress". In individual cases a decision would have to
made in terms of the cost and benefit of any individual practice.


Eli Turkel
[email protected]




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

    
    
    Re: .305
    
    >On Shabbat March 6,1993 we plan to hold my son's Bar-Mitzvah in
    >Jerusalem.Purim is the following day. We plan to have Israeli guests
    >from outside Jerusalem and we have a question about when these people
    >should hear the Megilla. Shushan Purim is not until Monday (i.e. when
    >Purim is celebrated in Yerushalayim). How and when should the
    >out-of-town guests hear the Megillah?  If they leave Yerushalayim
    >immediately after Shabbat to go home, they will certainly miss Megilla
    >reading. Can they stay in Yerushalayim and lain Megilla on Motzei
    >Shabbat (even though it is not Shushan Purim) and then go home and hear
    >Megilla the next morning as usual?  I doubt that any of them would stay
    >two extra days to celebrate Shushan Purim in Jerusalem.
    
    This problem can be attacked from two aspects; the practical and the
    pure Halachik.
    
    Pure Halacha:
    
    The Halacha states that the physical presence of the person at day break
    (Alot Hashachar) determines which day of Purim he must observe. The
    Halacha also stresses that the reading of the Megilah during the day is
    the prominant reading. 
    
    In this case, if the guests return to their respective homes on
    Saturday night and are there by day break, then they are obligated to
    observe Purim on the 14th, irregardless of whether they read it the
    evening before. If they decide to stay overnight in Jerusalem, then
    they SHOULD remain in Jerusalem until at least Monday morning, or else
    they will actually have no Purim whatsoever (since at day break for the
    14th Purim they are in Jerusalem, and at the day break for Shushan
    Purim they are back in a place which celebrates Purim on the 14th).
    
    Practical:
    
    Even within the city of (Greater) Jerusalem, there are neighborhoods
    (Ramot and Neve Yaakov are the most prominant) that celebrate Purim on
    the 14th (some do both). This is based on the fact that these
    neighborhoods are not physically connected to the main center city via
    continuam habitation (I don't remember the exact minimum required to
    constitute a contiuam, but it is considerabely less than that required
    for Tchum Shabbas). There is even a small neighborhood, Eitz Chaim,
    which is located near the central bus station near the entrance to
    Jerusalem in which Purim is celebrated on the 14th.
    
    At any rate, the guests could arrange to read the Megilah at night in
    one of these neighborhoods, and then continue on to their respective
    homes.
    
    Cb.

	Just one remark from the previous reply:
    
    
>    Even within the city of (Greater) Jerusalem, there are neighborhoods
>    (Ramot and Neve Yaakov are the most prominant) that celebrate Purim on
>    the 14th (some do both). This is based on the fact that these
>    neighborhoods are not physically connected to the main center city via
>    continuam habitation (I don't remember the exact minimum required to
>    constitute a contiuam, but it is considerabely less than that required
>    for Tchum Shabbas). There is even a small neighborhood, Eitz Chaim,
>    which is located near the central bus station near the entrance to
>    Jerusalem in which Purim is celebrated on the 14th.
    
    Part of them are only celebrating Purim as in the other parts of
    Jerusalem on the 15th. As usual, the difference in the opinions is also
    influenced by the position of the decision maker regarding the Chief
    Rabbinate of Jerusalem and Israel. The ones which are not recognizing
    the authority of the Chief Rabbinate will celebrate it on the 14th.
    Some will celebrate both to be on the safe side. Every year, the
    problem is raised up again.
    
    Haim

A reminder, notes posted here will not be forwarded back to the list
distribution, unless you send them (or ask me to).

Gav

This issue never arrived.  Despite several requests for a copy, it hasn't
been sent.  So, I give up.  I'll continue with Number 5.  If someone has Number
4, mail it to me and I'll post it.

Gav

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 5


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Anti-Orthodox Feeling (5)
             [David Kaiman, Dan Faigin, Elie Rosenfeld, Frank Silbermann,
             Hillel E. Markowitz]
        Minhag Yerushalayim:
             [Prof. Aryeh Frimer]
        Request for Information
             [Sherri Chasin Calvo]
        Writings of Rav Kasher
             [Prof. Aryeh Frimer]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 23:55:14 EST
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

A quick note on some of the submissions for this mailing. Several of
the posters note the intolerance of the Orthodox toward the
non-Orthodox or Reform. While from a halachic perspective I would
suspect that we may not grant our "tolerance" to Reform as a movement
[from Websters dictionary: toleration: recognition of the right of
private judgement in religion], on a private/personal level it seems to
me that we must both be tolerant of a fellow Jew's choice in how they
relate to Hashem, and in many, if not all cases, the mitza of loving
one's fellow Jew still applies. So while we discuss the nature of and
response to Anti-Orthodox feelings, let us try and not generate
anti-non-Orthodox responses that just fuel the problems.

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 15:43 GMT
From: David Kaiman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Anti-Orthodox Feeling

Will Shulman wrote in v.3,n.3:
>...we can accomplishe the transition of Judaism from one
>generation to an other; whereas they, who are over-indulgent in
>the hedonistic pleasures of the world, are uanble to...

Now, until this statement, I could not understand the "anti- orthodox
feeling" that was being discussed within this forum.  Mr. Shulman's
statement, however, shows the intolerance from which prejudice is born.
Mr. Shulman's reaction, which seems overly hostile to me, does nothing
to further the cause of "Shalom Bayit".

Our world is composed of peoples of all sizes, shapes, beliefs,
traditions, and values.  It is important that we understand and feel
strongly about the things that are important to us personally.  It is
important that we are able to express our views and feelings without
restraint, however, when we are seeking to understand the bias of
certain individuals this "bashing" only serves to stir up the resentment
and bad feelings that were unecessary to begin with.

Mr. Shulman may feel the non-orthodox way of life leaves much to be
desired, but if he cannot acknowlege a semblence of value to that life
(the non-orthodox) then he cannot expect tolerance in return.

David Kaiman - MCI Mail 410-9374

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 07:34:45 PST
From: [email protected] (Dan Faigin)
Subject: Re: Anti-Orthodox Feeling

Its interesting, in many ways, how the discussions in the Liberal
Judaism mailing list (which I moderate) are paralleling the discussions
on mail.jewish. We are currently having a discussions about "Small Town
Judaism", and also have an ongoing discussion similar to your
"Anti-Orthodox Feeling" thread.

Now, in M.J v3n3, Alex Herrera wrote:

> My point is that the criticism was not respectful. I may disagree with
> someone, but I can still respect them. I do not see this happening when
> Reform Jews, and non-observant Jews discuss the Orthodox. It is as if
> they think that the Orthodox represent what is holy and right. Like
> children who laugh at their parent's "outdated" ideas, Reform Jews seem
> to be uncomfortable around the Orthodox. 

I think all sides are guilty at times of this disrespect, and we all
have to be more understanding. We have discussed this on the Liberal
Judaism list, asking ourselves why the uncomfortable feeling exists (in
fact, it was Alex that started the discussion). I feel that a lot of it
results from people not having a deep understanding of what they
believe, and why they are in the movement they are in. I also think it
goes both ways; I have seen Orthodox who are uncomfortable, to an almost
paranoid extent, around Reform.

Daniel

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 92 10:04:13 -0500
From: [email protected] (Elie Rosenfeld)
Subject: Anti-Orthodox Feeling

In Vol 3 No 3, Alexander Herrera writes, concerning non-observant Jews:

>It is as if
>they think that the Orthodox represent what is holy and right. Like
>children who laugh at their parent's "outdated" ideas, Reform Jews seem
>to be uncomfortable around the Orthodox. It is as if they are reminded
>that they are doing something wrong. My question is not if the
>Orthodox think that Reform Jews are doing something wrong. I am
>wondering if Reform Jews themselves think it.

I have often pondered this question - why is it so commonly the case
that non-observant Jews are vehemently opposed to things Orthodox do,
much more so than many non-Jews are about the same things?  The above
theory, which boils down to guilt feelings, is probably true in some
cases.  However, it seems to me that most non-observant don't have the
slightest twinge of guilt, any more than, say, a kippa sruga wearing Jew
feels guilt over not having payot and wearing a black hat.  In both
cases, I don't think there's any feeling at all that one is "doing
something wrong", that the more "right wing" way is somehow, deep down,
the "right" way.  Rather, in both cases, the individual feels he's doing
things the right way already.

Then why the vehemence?  To me, it seems that it stems from the fear
that if they didn't protest so loudly, someone may think that *they* do
these "nutty" things.  I always compare it to kiddie TV shows.  Up to a
certain age, kids may enjoy a certain show.  But above that age, a kid
wouldn't be caught dead watching such "baby stuff"!  He would go out of
his way to make fun of younger kids who still watch the show, to make
sure his friends know that *he'd* never watch it!  Finally, when the kid
becomes an adult, he can safely watch the show again, say with his own
kids, without fear of peer pressure.

Similarly, I think many assimilated Jews are terrified, whenever
Orthodox practices are under discussion, that their non-Jewish friends
will think they do them too.  So they make sure to attack the practices
in the loudest voices.  Non-Jews, who are not threatened in the same
way, can afford to be more open.

Please note that this is not meant to defend the non-observant
intolerance, just to shed some new light on its possible root causes.

Elie Rosenfeld

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 11:15:23 CST
From: Frank Silbermann <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Anti-Orthodox Feeling

In Volume 2 #43, [email protected] <Sherri Chasin Calvo>
asks what to say when overhearing a nonorthodox Jew complain
about Orthodox Jews moving into the neighborhood.  In Volume 3 #3,
[email protected] (Warren Burstein) reminds us that we
would like to remain on good terms with the nonobservant Jews
so that maybe they will drop in to the shul once in a while,
and therefore should be as delicate as possible (without giving up).

Fine, but what exactly might one say?  I would try as follows:

Nonobservant Jew:
	"Those %^&*%&$ Orthodox Jews are moving in.
	 This will ruin the neighborhood."

Me:	"How so."

NJ:	"They blah-blah and blah-blah-blah.  I can't stand them."

Me:	"Would you like to keep them out of the neighborhood, if you could?"

NJ:	"You bet!"

Me:	"Then what do you think of the approach of Czar Nicholas II?
	 He wouldn't let the Orthodox Jews live anywhere in Russia
	 except for within a few overcroweded cities in the Pale of Settlement."

NJ:	"Wait a minute.  The Czar persecuted _all_ the Jews!"

Me:	"Well, back in those days, most all the Jews in Russia _were_ Orthodox.
	 There were a few Jews, called Karaites, who believed in the Bible
	 but not in Rabbinic tradition.  The Czar pretty much left them alone.
	 Do you think the Czar was right?"

NJ:	"Well ...."

Me:	"What about Antiochus, in the time of the Maccabees?
	 He tried to force the Orthodox Jews of his day to replace
	 their old fashioned customs with the culture of Greece.
	 Many Jews agreed with him, and educated their sons like
	 Greek gentlemen.  Some whole communities did this,
	 and eventually they intermarried and became absorbed
	 by other nations of the Greek empire.  The Maccabees,
	 however, would not tolerate Greek culture, except
	 to the extent it was compatible with a traditionally
	 Jewish way of life.  Who was right in that argument?"

Note that in the above dialogue I neither condemn nor criticize.
All I do is ask questions.  Most Reform Jews are taught that
the Antiochus and Czar Nicholas II were wicked persecutors,
so this dialogue might influence them reconsider their opinions.

Frank Silbermann	[email protected]
Tulane University	New Orleans, Louisiana  USA

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 09:50:13 est
From: bertha!hem (Hillel E. Markowitz)
Subject: Re: Anti-Orthodox Feeling

A number of years ago, in Baltimore, the Talmudical Academy, (boys day
school), wanted to buy property just inside the city line in an area
which is now a major Jewish area.  The neighbors (then mainly non-frum)
objected strongly and forced the school to drop the plans.  The school
bought property further out.  However, that property became a public
high school with all of the problems that entails.  middah keneget
middah.

Unfortunately it is now a major frum area and the children would have
been able to walk to school.  I would suggest using examples like this
and the stabilization of the Baltimore Eruv neighborhood to show the
long term gain of frum people moving in.

Hillel Markowitz  -  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 08:05 O
From: Prof. Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Minhag Yerushalayim:

          A year or so ago, Rav Ovadia Yosef came out with a "Shocking"
statement that there was no such thing as minhag yerushalayim and that
Sefardim (and anyone else for that matter) could light like the rest of
Israel 19-21 minutes before sunset. You can be sure the Badatz was not
too happy with that!

Aryeh Frimer  -  [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 10:38:18 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected] (Sherri Chasin Calvo)
Subject: Request for Information

I am looking for information on two 19th-century rabbis who are
ancestors of mine, and wondered if anyone on mail.jewish had access
to the right references. I would greatly appreciate any info or
leads, and will pay copying and mailing costs, etc.

1) Moishe Laib (or Moshe Lev) Lechowitzsky of Pinsk, treasurer of
the Talmud Torah there. Author of "Words of Wisdom", published in
Kiev and Warsaw about 1870. Emigrated to Eretz Israel (maybe about
the turn of the century) and died there, probably in or near
Jerusalem.
2) Mikhel Mas (not sure how to spell that name in English) of Minsk,
said to have been a member of the Bet Din there, mid-to-late 19th C.

Thanks in advance for any help,
Sherri

Sherri Chasin Calvo
[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 08:05 O
From: Prof. Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Writings of Rav Kasher

         Rav Kasher authored, inter alia, Hagaddah Sheleima; Hatekufah
Hagedola (a voluminous refutation of the Satmar Rebbi's position and an
exposition of the view of the Gaon of Vilna); Torah Sheleima and Gemarah
Sheleima on Pesachim.  I think that volumes of the Torah Sheleima are
still available from "Machon Torah Sheleimah" in Jerusalem, but I don't
have their exact address.  Several volumes have appeared even after Rav
Kasher Zal's passing.

Aryeh Frimer  -  [email protected]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 6


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Anti-Orthodox Feeling
             [Robert A. Levene]
        Guilt: Non-orthodox vs non-observant
             [Eliot Shimoff]
        Lekha Dodi
             [Abraham E Green]
        Minhag Yerushalayim (2)
             [Shlomo H. Pick, Meir Loewenberg]
        Rav Kasher & The Halachik Date Line
             [Louis Rayman]
        Small Town Jewry
             [Brave Raven]
        Tu B'Shevat Seder
             [Elie Rosenfeld]
        nightengale
             [Elihu Schimmel]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 08:24:07 -0500
From: [email protected] (Robert A. Levene)
Subject: Re: Anti-Orthodox Feeling

I think we're discussing two types of discomfort.

We feel external discomfort when walking past a cult rally or a pig
roast.  Such things are naturally abhorrent to us, and don't challenge
our way of life.  But a person uncomfortable with his own practices
feels internally uncomfortable around those whose practices he feels he
should emulate.

This leads to an interesting question: In each movement, what percentage
of the adherents are comfortable within the movement, and what
percentage feel that they *should* affiliate with a different movement?
While anecdotal evidence abounds, I don't recall serious surveys on this
question.

Rob

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 10:29:35 EST
From: [email protected] (Eliot Shimoff)
Subject: Guilt: Non-orthodox vs non-observant

The discussion of the sources of orthodox-bashing and the apparent
guilty feelings of some of some non-orthodox Jews suggests to me the
importance of distinguishing between non-orthodox and non-observant.

A truly convinced and committed Reform of Conservative Jew would not
(and should not) feel guilty about his/her practices, any more than
an orthodox kipah-srugah-nik should feel guilty about not wearing a
black hat.  The _observant_ Conservative Jews observes shabbat,
kashrut, etc, and the _observant_ Reform Jew also serves G-d (although
not by orthodox halakhic standards).

The main problem of the Conservative and Reform movements is that
most of their adherents are _not_ observant C or R Jews; they are
simply non-observant.  And often they realize that their religious
practices are a product of convenience rather than belief.  These
_non-observant_ Jews feel guilty because deep down they know (or
at least suspect) that their behavior is inappropriate.  A common
experience is to have Jewish friends discussing a non-kosher 
restaurant, and suddenly (with embarrassment) noting my presence.
My response has always been "If you really believe that kashrut is
an irrelevant ancient and meaningless ritual, why feel guilty?  You
should pity _me_, not be embarrassed."

Thus, I suggest that guilt is more likely to be associated with
non-observance than with non-orthodoxy.

Orthodox-bashing sometimes is a product of guilt.  More often --
especially when at zoning board meetings -- it reflects a desire
for the non-observant to underscore their non-observance.  And
even more  often, it reflects pure, unenlightened  self-interest.
If there is a shul next door, you'll have a hard time finding a
parking space when you come home late Friday night.

What should be the Orthodox communal response?  Setting good personal
examples, along with lots  of "hasbara" (explanations) ought to help
at least a little.  Recognize the legitimate complaints of non-observant
Jews (e.g., street-parking, kids running around Shabbat morning outside
of shul), and try to address them equitably.  Work outside the orthodox
community in civic affairs (as  in Baltimore's Northwest Citizen's
Patrol).  And generally try for increased "ahavat hinam" (supererogatory
love) instead of "sin'at hinam" (undeserved hatred).


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 17:15:14 EST
From: Abraham E Green <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Lekha Dodi


Regarding Michael Shimshoni's <[email protected]> article
about the "Lekha Dodi," I wish to note for the record that there is
another common custom, namely that of turning to the door.  The origin
of this practice lies in the fact that the final stanza of the poem is
being addressed to the Shabbat Queen, who is understood as entering
the synagogue not only in the temporal sense but in the physical.
Thus one is directed to visualize a queen actually entering the room,
through the doors; and as she enters the congregation bows to her.
Most synagogues having their exits in the rear, however, the custom
was misunderstood to be one of turning (and bowing) to the back of the
room. 

Abraham E. Green

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 92 11:15 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Minhag Yerushalayim

Shalom!
In reference to Prof. Aryeh Frimer's note, I would like to make the
following comment:

Why only the BADATZ [Beit Din Tzedek of the Ashkenazic Chareidi
community of Jerusalem]?  Why should the Chief-Rabbinate be happy with
the responsum of R. Ovadya Yosef?  You also know that 40 min. is the
minhag of Petach-Tikva, based upon Jerusalem.  In all due resepect to R.
Ovadya Yoseph's erudition, let us not get carried away.  By the way the
"medakdikim" in Gush Dan light 22 minutes before sunset - after
establishing when the real sunset is - usually unlike the printed
calendars.  - Shlomo.

The following is the response I got from Aryeh: "You are correct, but
it was the BADATZ that came out with strong advertisements against R.
Yosef. I believe that the Rabbanut is willing to accept the existence of
different minhagim, but not the BADATZ who "own" the monopoly of Minhag
Yerusahlayim".

Just a reaction to Aryeh's remarks - A source for Minhag Yerushalayim
is Tikochinsky's Luach and I do not think that anyone could really say
that Rav Tikochinsky was a zealot for the BADATZ.

Shlomo

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 11:51 O
From: Meir Loewenberg <F46022%[email protected]>
Subject: Minhag Yerushalayim

Notwithstanding Frimer's submission in MJ 3/5 that "there is no such
thing as minhag yerushalayim" accoring to the former Rishon L'zion's
p'sak, it should be made quite clear that, at best, this p'sak applies
only to Jews of the edot hamizrah.  In my neighborhood the siren
announcing candlelighting time goes off 40 minutes before sunset!
 It should also be remembered that minhag yerushalayim is not limited to
candlelighting time.  It includes many items, including weddings
(signing the k'tuva under the huppah and not before), burial, etc.
Essentially minhag yerushalayim follows the decisions of the Wilna Gaon
which his disciples brought to Yerushalayim when they renewed the
Ashkenasi settlement there in the 1830s.  Minhag yerushalayim is also
observed in Petah Tikva.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 08:41:28 EST
From: [email protected] (Louis Rayman)
Subject: Rav Kasher & The Halachik Date Line

Rav Kasher wrote many letters on his views about the Halachik
International Date Line.  Most poskim hold the date line in halacha
falls pretty close to the recognized I.D.L.  Various reasons are given,
but most revolve around the notion that the time that Shabbat starts in
Jerusalem is the key.

Rav Kasher disputed the very notion of a Halachik Date Line.  Citing a
passage in the Rambam explaining the difference between the days of the
month, which are determined by a decree of Bait Din, and the days of the
week, which are not, Rav Kasher held that Shabbat simply starts seven
days after the last Shabbat.  A person would count seven days from the
last Shabbat, and the seventh day is Shabbat again.  This, he
acknowledged, could result in two people who circumnavigated the globe
in opposite directions observing different days as Shabbat.

Rav Kasher's main practical objection to the notion of a date line was
that two communites (or two houses or two sides of the same room
possibly) could end up observing Shabbat on different days, and that in
some parts of the world, Shabbat would come out on Sunday (or is it
Friday?).  His way, the first person to arrive in a new place would
establish the proper day for Shabbat (seven days after he last observed
Shabbat), and the late arrivers would follow the established minhag
thereafter.

I believe many of Rav Kasher's letters on this topic have been collected
and published.  I can search for more details for the curious.

Lou Rayman
[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1992 14:14:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Brave Raven <[email protected]>
Subject: Small Town Jewry

	Does anyone know of any observant Jewish communities between
Boston, MA, and Bangor, Maine?  I know that there is a community in
Lowell, but is there anything North of there?
	Ideally it would be a significant commmunity, with a school, a
mikva and a bakery, but even someplace with a shomer shabbos minyan would
be worth knowing.

Refael Hileman

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 09:47:29 -0500
From: [email protected] (Elie Rosenfeld)
Subject: Tu B'Shevat Seder

A little Inyana D'Yoma [subject appropos of today's holiday]:

I'm curious as to just what the status of a "Tu B'Shevat Seder" is.  I
never even heard of such before it was mentioned in soc.culture.jewish
(netnews) last week.  Is there a halachic source for this?  Is it
Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform in origin and in observance?  Who is
credited with originating it, and when did that occur?  Is it primarily
an American or an Israeli custom?

Any authoritative information would be appreciated.

Elie Rosenfeld


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 09:45 EDT
From: Elihu Schimmel <[email protected]>
Subject: nightengale

It has not escaped the attention of R. Mozeson that SOLOVEITCHIK means
(little) NIGHTENGALE in Russian (or is it Polish?) and that Rov took it
as an irony since musical talent and singing ability were not part of the
BRISK heritage.

Elihu Schimmel

REF: Shlomo Pick in Vol 3 No 4


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest
**************************

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 7


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Columbia, West Palm Beach, and rural Yiddishkeit
             [Neil Parks]
        Correction (III #4)
             [Joshua Proschan]
        Misplaced geography/misplaced politics
             [Yisrael Medad]
        Originality
             [Joshua Proschan]
        Small Town Judaism (4)
             [Bob Tannenbaum, David Kaiman, Benjamin Svetitsky, Rick Turkel]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 17:09:19 -0500
From: [email protected] (Neil Parks)
Subject: Columbia, West Palm Beach, and rural Yiddishkeit

My long-lost copy of "Traveling Jewish In America" has finally turned
up.  I hope this info will come in time to help those who posted
inquiries recently:

Columbia, MO

B'nai Brith Hillel
1107 University Ave.
314-443-7460

West Palm Beach, FL

Cong. Aitz Chaim
North Haberhill Road/Century Village Clubhouse
305-689-4675

Holiday Inn, 6255 Okeechobee Blvd--in walking distance to Cong. Aitz
Chaim
305-686-6000

Groceries:  Albertson's at 4481 Lake Worth and Publix at 4895 Okeechobee
Blvd have "kosher sections".

For those interested in Jewish living in a small town or rural area,
here's an interesting entry from Eugene, Oregon:

"Shiftay Shalom is a Jewish rural community located 8 miles south of
Eugene.  Rooms with cooking facilities are available.  The cost is $8.00
per night.  For further information, call Judith Hankin, 503-946-1609."

The book was published in 1986.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 02:02 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: re: Correction (III #4)

When I showed my correction to a friend, he pointed out that my computer 
is blameless.  Obviously it is Lavan up to his old tricks again.  
(Substituting one woman for another . . . :-)

Joshua H. Proschan     Internet: [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 08:17 IST
From: MEDAD%[email protected] (Yisrael Medad)
Subject: Misplaced geography/misplaced politics

Re: Misplacing "the banks of the Don" to the West of Jerusalem

I apologize for the wrong-headed compass direction.  Actually, I was
taking literary license although as most peaople know, the Ashkenaz
communities always faced what they thought was East ("Kotel Mizrach").

In any case, that is no reason for anyone to be wrong-headed about
whether or not Jews should be living in Eretz-Yisrael, on either side of
the Green Line.

Yisrael Medad

P.S.  My responses from now on may be delayed as I am back in the
Knesset after my boss, Geula Cohen, resigned as Deputy-Minister.  I
still have my account so once a week I get to see the e-mail


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 02:01 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: re: Originality

The questions Manuel Needleman asks in III #2 are easy.  
What puzzles me is the question itself.  That appears to 
assume that the documentary hypothesis is true.  Why? 

Josh.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 09:44:07 est
From: Bob Tannenbaum <trumpet!bob>
Subject: Small Town Judaism

Dear Andy,

I grew up in Erie, Pennsylvania and lived 2 years in Oberlin, Ohio
and then became Orthodox, so I know what you mean. To my knowledge,
there is no such thing as an Oberlin, Ohio which also has a vibrant
Jewish community.

You will find the "bare minimum" of a butcher and Hebrew day school in a
place like Dayton, Ohio or Scranton, Pa. or Pittsburgh or Ottawa Canada.
But surely, if you plan to raise a Jewish family you will also want a
Jewish high school and a congregation which sponsors adult education.
This requires a certain critical mass of involved Jewish families.

There are many cities which are quite liveable and might have what you
want: Atlanta Georgia, Calgary Alberta, Vancouver British Columbia,
Seatle Washington, San Diego California, Cleveland Ohio. I'm assuming
that Boston, Denver, Baltimore, LA, Chicago, and Brooklyn are not what
you want.

May I suggest Highland Park, New Jersey. It's where I live and I find it
has a lot of the small-town flavor even though it is part of a larger
urban area. It is only a mile and a half square. It sits along the
Raritan River and there are parks all along the river which you could
walk to or follow the bike paths. Rutgers University is located there
and Rutgers maintains an environmental preserve. It is a very walkable
town with stores lining the main street that people walk around all the
time.  Because of the proximity of Rutgers there are many cultural
activities like theater and music presentations going on all the time.
There are good sources of natural foods and college book stores.  There
are 5 orthodox congregations, a Hebrew day school through 8th grade, a
boys yeshiva high school with kollel, a mikveh, a number of high schools
within busing distance, 2 kosher butchers, 2 kosher meat restaurants, 1
kosher pizza store, 2 Judaica book stores, 1 kosher bakery, 1 certified
kosher ice-cream parlor, 1 kosher Dunkin' Donuts, an active YM/WHA, and
a very large active conservative congregation.  It's in the middle of an
area where there are lots of opportunities for computer professionals.
Transplants from the midwest do very well here (much better than
transplants from Brooklyn).

You might also look into Spring Valley, New York or Lakewood, New Jersey.

I invite you to call me and talk about it or to arrange a visit.

       EZRA TANENBAUM
       222 NORTH 4TH AVENUE - 2ND FLOOR
       HIGHLAND PARK, NJ 08904-2724
       Work - (908)615-2899
       Home - (908)246-2896

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 19:03 GMT
From: David Kaiman <[email protected]>
Subject: Small Town Judaism

     There were some great suggestions for Mr. Cohen in his quest to
find a small town to settle in.  I just couldn't resist however sending
in a comment from a "real" small town.

     Often, when I meet families who are considering a move "down south"
and I field their questions on life in our town (Pensacola, FL), I try
to let them know that life in a small town can really be special.
('specially hard, 'specially good or somewhere in between!)

     What makes the difference is not the facilities, the institutions
or the lack thereof (our forefathers managed to keep their traditions in
many lands and under circumstances much more difficult than any of us
are likely to encounter), but the involvement, the effort, the
commitment that you make to see that your needs are met.

     I recall my brother-in-law's comment that although he had grown up
in Miami Beach, he never really felt part of a Jewish Community until he
worked in Cleveland, Missippi and was made to feel welcome and involved
with the few Jewish families that lived in that tiny town.

     Good Luck, Andy!

David Kaiman
MCI Mail 410-9374

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 92 15:04:46 +0200
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Small Town Judaism

My previous posting on this subject was a bit flippant, and I'd like
another chance.  I've noticed that the various descriptions of American
small towns begin with (a) so-an-so is undeniably a small town, and
continue to (b) believe it or not, it's possible to be Jewish here.  If
we talk about Israel, however, the order is perforce reversed.  There is
a kosher butcher everywhere, as well as a wide choice of (free!) Jewish
day schools and even of mikvaot.  The question is, then, is so-and-so a
small town?

After living in Berkeley, Santa Barbara, Ithaca, and Princeton, along
with several truly big cities, I can list a few points that make a town
small and desirable.  Can you walk down the street at 11 PM?  Can small
children play in the park without supervision, and can your 7-year-old
walk across town to visit a friend, alone?  Can the kids see sheep and
goats, and orange groves, a block away?  Can you do your shopping in
small stores where people know your name?  Does the guy in the hardware
store offer patient advice about how to fix things?  Does he give
refunds?  Is there a Main Street, and is there a farm supply store on
it?  Do you say hello to your neighbors, even the ones who live 3 houses
away?  Can you ask a neighbor for help, even one you barely know?  Will
the greengrocer offer you his brother's extra refrigerator if he hears
that yours died the day before Pesach?  (Will he bring it over in his
truck?)

Does your child's second grade teacher call her at home during the war,
to ask if she's getting along all right?

And for a Jewish small town: Does traffic practically disappear on
Shabbat, so that the day feels special?  (And I'm NOT talking about
closing off the streets.)  Is the town compact enough so you can walk to
any number of shiurim, either on a weeknight or on Shabbat?

I've just described Rehovot, a town of 80,000.  Israel is full of such
places, and if that's too big, Israel is full of smaller ones, too.

Ben Svetitsky    [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 10:26:17 EST
From: rmt51%[email protected] (Rick Turkel)
Subject: Re: Small Town Judaism

        I'd like to reply to Andy Cohen's request in m.j 2#51 for
information on "small-town" Judaism.  I have lived in Columbus, Ohio for
the past 21+ years, and find that it has most of the advantages of
small-town life with few of the disadvantages of the big city.  It's not
really a small town in anything but attitude, the general population
(suburbs included) being close to one million.  However, it's quite easy
to get around in (by car, that is), and it has all of the expected
Jewish services -- mikveh, eruv, butcher, bakery, two Orthodox (nusach
sfard) and one "traditional" ("his", "hers", and "theirs" seating,
nusach ashkenaz) shuls, an orthodox day school (K-9 and working up
through 12th grade), a large JCC with extensive programming (including
excellent day-care and pre-school), one of the best old-age homes in the
country.  The total Jewish population is about 15,000, most of whom live
in the area included in the eruv.

        Columbus is the home of Ohio State University (a small town on
its own, with about 50,000 students, about 4000 Jewish), along with
several small colleges in the surrounding suburbs and towns.  Also
located here are OCLC, Compuserve, Battelle Memorial Institute, and
Chemical Abstracts Service, all employers of large numbers of computer
types.

   Andy, please email me for further particulars if you're interested.

                Rick Turkel                     ([email protected])


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 8


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Anti-Orthodox Feeling
             [Mark B. Novick]
        Buenos Aires
             [Ada-Rivka Stein]
        Direction of Davening
             [Eli Turkel]
        Jewish guide to travel in US and Canada
             [Steve Prensky]
        Observant / Not Yet Observant
             [Susannah Danishefsky]
        Short Notes
             [Eli Turkel]
        Tu B'shvat Seder (3)
             ["NAOMI G. COHEN", "David S. Ariel", Rabbi Charles Arian]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 08:28:06 -0500
From: [email protected] (Mark B. Novick)
Subject: Anti-Orthodox Feeling

There was an article in the January 23 issue of the Jerusalem Report
about anti-Orthodox opposition in Airmont, NY, a village near Monsey.
Many of the Orthodox claim that Airmont was incorporated so that it
would exclude Orthodox Jews by making it illegal to build shuls in
people's homes.  Many of the non-Jews and non-Orthodox oppose letting
Airmont become like Monsey.  They want to have zoning laws which will
help ensure that property values remain high.  Some other concerns were
also mentioned in the article.  The article said that some of the modern
Orthodox were not in favor of some of the changes that have been taking
place in the community, so that it is not just an Orthodox-non-Orthodox
argument.

The article also mentioned that tensions exist in other places.  In the
Five Towns suburbs of New York there has been opposition to extending
the eruv.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 21:10:42 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected] (Ada-Rivka Stein)
Subject: Buenos Aires

I am seeking Jewish contacts in Buenos Aires for friends staying there
for some time.

Although they have made some contacts, more would surely be better!
Especially someone with e-mail connection.

My friends find themselves experiencing golus, such as we in the US
rarely experience it! A strange language, culture etc.

If any mail.jewish readers know of some friendly folks (preferably
English speaking, but they can communicate in Hebrew as well) who might
help them out please e-mail me.

They are looking for a kosher apartment to sub-let/borrow by the end of
this month.  Legal/bureacratic contacts would also be very useful.

Thanks for any suggestions.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 08:25:30 EST
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Direction of Davening

    In a recent issue there was a discussion of the direction of Moscow
from Jerusalem. This reminds me of a question I have. Does anyone know
the direction that the shuls in Moscow face, South or East? My
impression is that in Vilna they prayed to the east even though
Jerusalem is more south than east.

Eli Turkel

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 9:21:14 -0700 (MST)
From: [email protected] (Steve Prensky)
Subject: Jewish guide to travel in US and Canada

In response to Neil Paks entry in MJ7.  I bring to the attention of the
MJ readers that there is a new 1991 edition of "Traveling Jewish in
America."  This volume now includes Canada and now includes days schools
in the listing of synagogues, restaurants, and groceries.

Steve Prensky <[email protected]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 09:36:02 EST
From: [email protected] (Susannah Danishefsky)
Subject: Observant / Not Yet Observant

Rabbi Yitzhak Kirzner on a Torah Tape makes a point which is quite
relevant to the discussion of bad feelings between the not yet observant
and the already observant.  He quotes from the Rambam (I don't have the
source with me), the halacha of a recalcitrant husband being "convinced"
to give a divorce using a range of means up to and including extreme
physical force.  But, we know that divorces are supposed to be B'ratzon
(willed).  Both parties have to agree to them.  The Rambam has a deep
psychological insight when he says that deep down every Jew wants to do
what is right. Thus the divorce really is B'ratzon.  The essence of a
Jew is his Neshoma and it can never be squashed into non-existence.
Thus, we can say that all Jews, in a very deep way, know what is right,
want to do the right thing, and feel badly when they don't do it.


				Susannah Danishefsky


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 10:01:38 EST
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Short Notes


    Some short notes. An article appeared in the spring 1991 volume
of the Journal of halacha and Contemporary Society summarizing some
of the opinions about the international date line. I do not think he 
mentions Rav Kasher's opinion. To the best of my knowledge communities
in japan, Australia, Hawaii etc. all observe Shabbat according to the
local Saturday and not according to Chazon Ish and other opinions in
keeping with Rav Kasher's opinion.

    There was an article in the Januray 17th issue of the Jewish Press
(no I do not usually read the Jewish Press) about putting salt on bread
versus dipping the bread into salt. His conclusion is that dipping the
bread into salt is based on kabbala but there are many reasons to pour the
salt on the bread, see the article for more details.

Eli Turkel

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 20:44:04 IST
From: "NAOMI G. COHEN" <RVOLF01%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Tu B'shvat Seder

On the Tu-biShevat Seder: I don't know very much, but I do know that it
has cabbalistic roots (or at least fruits -- yes that was meant to be a
pun).  THere is an entire order complete with symbolism attached -- at
least with Mekubalim in Eretz Yisra'el (Tsfat).

On a different but related subject, many years ago my dentist in
Jerusalem, who was a fairly new immmigrant from France, asked me why one
eats DRIED FRUITS (SIC!) on Tu bi-Shevat, and I explained to her that
the idea was fruits of the Land of Israel -- which in Jan./Feb. survive
dried. Which all goes to show how careful one must be about drawing
conclusions.

Naomi Cohen/Haifa



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 22 Jan 92 21:18:36 EST
From: "David S. Ariel" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Tu B'shvat Seder

The Seder Tu Bshvat has its origins in the Sefer Hemdat Yamim, a
kabbalistic work of the late seventeenth century. It is often published
as a separate chapter called Peri Etz Hadar. Although scholars are
contentious about this, there is strong evidence that the author of
Hemdat Yamim was a halakhically observant Sabbatean who introduced the
seder as a redemptive theurgic ritual. The underlying purpose of the Tu
Bshvat seder is to reunite the fruit of the Sefirot (Shekhinah/ Malkhut)
with the Tree (of the other Sefirot) to repair Adam's act of separation
of the fruit of the original tree which was the original act of perud/
separation and galut/exile. While there is nothing antinomian per se in
this kabbalistic ritual, one must still consider the source.

David S. Ariel
Cleveland College of Jewish Studies




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 03:50:42 EST
From: Rabbi Charles Arian <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Tu B'shvat Seder

The practice of a Tu B'sh'vat seder was started by the kabbalists in
Ts'fat. There is a ritual still extant from this period called P'ri
Etz Hadar and some of the rituals in use today draw from it.

I believe the custom is more prominently observed in Israel than in
North America, but in Israel it is most prominently associated with
the kibbutzim. I had never attended one prior to spending two years on a
kibbutz.

The practice seems to be growing in the States, I would guess more among
the non-Orthodox community, perhaps due to the rising concern over
environmentalism. The Reform movement published a Seder Tu B'sh'vat ritual
a couple of years ago.

As an aside, we had about 40 students in attendance for our seder at the
American University Hillel. This is a goodly number for us, especially
for a program with such unabashedly Jewish content.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest
**************************

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 9


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Not-quite-small-town Judaism (3)
             [Ada-Rivka Stein, David Sherman, Richard Schultz]
        Small Town Judaism (3)
             [Aryeh Blaut, Prof. Aryeh Frimer, Daniel Siegel]
        Small Town Judaism - Israel
             [Shlomo H. Pick]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 2:28:52 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected] (Ada-Rivka Stein)
Subject: RE: Not-quite-small-town Judaism

I don't know if I should let an incorrect implication pass uncommented...

Ezra Tannenbaum lists several small towns with the "bare minimum" for
Jewish living and I'd like to point out the Scranton Pa definitely has
more than the bare minimum described.

We have a boys' high school, Yeshiva and Kollel, a girls' high school,
and several shiurim for adults every week.  A new mikveh was recently
built with the cooperation of all segments of the community.

The community itself is very close and caring and chesed (doing good
deeds for one another) abounds.

Oh, yes, a well equipped JCC which even offers male-only and female-only
swimming hours.  All the amenities for Jewish life....

Our kids go to friends alone, and we even walk to shiurim on Friday
nights...  I had e-mailed a more detailed response to the original
poster, but I did not want to let any get the false impression that
Scranton PA's Jewish community should be described as having the bare
minimum!

New families moving into the community are viewed as a major asset.
Although I think the job opportunities in the area are pretty limited
due to a generally depressed economic state, it is worth a try.

Oh yes, out-of-town guests always welcome.  Anyone traveling in the area
please e-mail for accomodations!


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 21:47:00 EST
From: [email protected] (David Sherman)
Subject: Re: Not-quite-small-town Judaism

> You will find the "bare minimum" of a butcher and Hebrew day school in a
> place like Dayton, Ohio or Scranton, Pa. or Pittsburgh or Ottawa Canada.

Ottawa has quite a nice community, much more than the bare minimum.  We
spent about five weeks there when my wife, who works for the federal
government, was sent there for training.  They gave her a suite in an
apartment hotel that was large enough for all of us (we only had 2 kids
at the time), and my work location is flexible, so we moved there for 2
periods of 2-3 weeks each.

Ottawa is basically a government town; rush hour starts at 3 and is over
by about 4:30!  It has a mikveh, eruv, and about 4-6 Orthodox shuls.
The frum community isn't really centralized; there are several pockets
spread in different areas.  Ottawa has 2 day schools (very high
percentage enrolment of the community's kids in day school), and a
high-school yeshivah.  They also have a sort-of "restaurant" in the
Young Israel shul on Sundays, or at least they did a few years ago.
They also have a butcher and a kosher bakery.  It's also only an hour
and a half from Montreal, which has much more.

I would seriously consider moving to Ottawa someday, if we get tired of
Toronto.  (We're in the suburbs in Thornhill now, and I work at home, so
the big-city stuff doesn't bother me at all at the moment.)

David Sherman, [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 08:13:57 -0800
From: [email protected] (Richard Schultz)
Subject: Not-quite-small-town Judaism

In the latest mail.jewish, Bob Tannenbaum writes:

> You will find the "bare minimum" of a butcher and Hebrew day school in a
> place like Dayton, Ohio or Scranton, Pa. or Pittsburgh or Ottawa Canada.

I just want to write to correct the above misstatements about
Pittsburgh.  I grew up in the Pittsburgh area, and while the city itself
hardly qualifies as a "small town", neither does it have only the "bare
minimum" necessary for an Orthodox Jewish life.  It does have at least
one Jewish high school, and at least three Orthodox congregations that
sponsor adult education, along with several Conservative and Reform
ones.  There is an eruv around the Jewish section of town (Squirrel
Hill), two kosher restaurants with a third due to open shortly, and even
a Jewish mayor.  It's at least as liveable as any of the cities listed
above, and no larger either.

Just wanted to set the record straight.  Not that I'm biased or anything :-).

					Richard Schultz
					[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 21:42:04 -0500
From: uunet!uunet!ajop!ablaut (Aryeh Blaut)
Subject: Re: Small Town Judaism

Regarding Andy Cohen's request for "small town" Judaism -- My wife (who
is from Atlanta) informs me that Savana, GA may be the type of town that
you are looking for.  Unfortunatly, neither she nor I have any names or
addresses there.  She thinks that Rabbi Feldman of Atlanta would be
willing and able to help you get in touch with the right person/people.

My wife also informs me of South Bend, Indiana.  I have no other
details

Kol Tuv,

Aryeh Blaut

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 10:34
From: Prof. Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Small Town Judaism

  To all those who would like Torah-true Judaism, with a small town
flavor------Why not try some of yishuvim or cities in ISRAEL!

                   Happy Tu-bishvat
                            Aryeh Frimer  -  F66235@BARILAN


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 Jan 92 12:34:56 EST
From: [email protected] (Daniel Siegel)
Subject: Re: Small Town Judaism

 Shivtei Shalom, mentioned as a community near Eugene, Oregon, no longer
exists.
 Ottawa has more than just a bare minimum and is planning to start a
Jewish High School next year.
 Since New England was also mentioned in an earlier edition, people
should know that the Conference on Judaism in Rural New England is very
eclectic.  While the "Jewish" content of recent conferences has
increased dramatically, it is not a "religious" event.  Nevertheless,
the kitchen at Lyndon State College is kashered, all food is
milchig/parve and everything has a hechsher.  There is an eruv, but
usually no Orthodox service (though there was one last year for the
first time) and meals are very informal.
 There is a mikvah in Burlington, VT and some kosher meat can be
purchased there.  They also have a chevra kadisha.  Hanover, NH, where I
live, has a few, frozen, kosher meat products in local food stores.
Dartmouth College dining now provides a modest kosher deli (cold
sandwiches only).  We go to Burlington for a mikvah and Boston for books
and meat.
 I believe that Bethlehem, New Hampshire has made a comeback during the
summers and once again has shuls and kosher hotels.

Daniel Siegel
[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 92 14:11 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Small Town Judaism - Israel

I fully agree with Ben's comments about small town judaism in Israel,
after having myself lived in Chadera and now in Bnei Brak and having
dozens of friends all over the country.  I would like to add two other
points.  Since most modern orthodox are zionist, I have found it always
a little hypocritcal being a zionist in the Diaspora.  True ideological
zionism means making aliya - in my humble opinion anything else is just
lip-service (that should be provocative enough) - so if you want to be
true to your ideals - should you claim to be zionist I would urge aliya.
The second point is religious and this would apply even if you are not
zionist.  Every second you live in Eretz Yisrael you are fulfilling a
positive commandment according to many if not most posekim.  Every
shovelfull of dirt you move in your garden, every stone you build your
house with is a real mitzva.  Can you beat that in the Diaspora - whom
our sages have already commented that it is as if he has worshipped
idolatry.  Le'hitra'ot Be-Eretz Ha-Kodesh, Shlomo


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 10


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Anti-Orthodox Feeling
             [Yaakov Kayman]
        Daas Yochid
             [Boruch Kogan]
        Environmentalism and Progress
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Observant / Not Yet Observant (2)
             [a.s.kamlet, Frank Silbermann]
        Originality
             [Manuel Needleman]
        Shuls in Moscow (2)
             [Boruch Kogan, Prof. Aryeh Frimer]
        Temple Choirs
             [Mark Bell]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 92 09:14:38 EST
From: Yaakov Kayman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Anti-Orthodox Feeling

On Wed, 22 Jan 92 08:28:06 -0500 Mark B. Novick <[email protected]>
said:

>There was an article in the January 23 issue of the Jerusalem Report
>about anti-Orthodox opposition in Airmont, NY, a village near Monsey.
>Many of the Orthodox claim that Airmont was incorporated so that it
>would exclude Orthodox Jews by making it illegal to build shuls in
>people's homes.  Many of the non-Jews and non-Orthodox oppose letting
>Airmont become like Monsey.  They want to have zoning laws which will
>help ensure that property values remain high.  Some other concerns were
>also mentioned in the article.  The article said that some of the modern
>Orthodox were not in favor of some of the changes that have been taking
>place in the community, so that it is not just an Orthodox-non-Orthodox
>argument.

Sorry to quote just about the entire article, but as I live in one of
the area villages formed for the same reason, I must comment on it.

Airmont, like the villages of Wesley Hills (in which I live, though
most people I know still call it Monsey) and New Hempstead, and possibly
some others, were formed with the intent of keeping Jews out (if one is
non-Jewish), or keeping the Orthodox out (if one is a non-Orthodox Jew).
In attending some town meetings associated with village formation, and
later with getting variances to create neighborhood shuls (the Nazis,
yimach shemam vezikhram, couldn't have more vigorously expressed their
hatred than those opposed to these shuls, and sadly, not all of them were
non-Jews), this intent became quite clearly expressed.

I recall that about two years ago, when someone smashed most of the
windows of my shul, and spray-painted a swastika and the words "Die
Jews!" on an outside wall, the only outrage expressed outside the Ortho-
dox community was that of a Black policeman who had been called (among
others) to investigate the incident. We heard NOT ONE PEEP from anyone
else!

As to the allegation that these matters have more to them than a
non-Orthodox vs. Orthodox conflict, it is almost totally nonsense.
While people, Orthodox included, do wish to preserve a certain lifestyle
which was the main reason, after all, for their moving to the Monsey
area in the first place, there are other-than-modern Orthodox Jews living
in peace and friendship among the moderns, and observing the local zoning
ordinances.

By the way, as in most other areas, of the New York Metropolitan Area at
least, property values are HIGHEST in the ORTHODOX areas!

Yaakov Kayman      (212) 903-3666       City University of New York
BITNET:   YZKCU@CUNYVM        "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky his flock
Internet: [email protected]     about whom the wolves complain"

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 January 1992 12:43:59 CST
From: Boruch Kogan <[email protected]> 
Subject: Daas Yochid

A question recently popped up: if a person is convinced that electricity
is allowed on Shabbos, and uses it all the time, only because he thinks
there is no basis for the prohibition, is he considered a posul eidus
(cannot be chosen to witness marriages, divorces, etc), or not.

Since nowadays there is no authority that provides the whole Klal Isroel
with precise halocho on every question, as it was the case at the time
Bais Din Hagodol (the Sanhedrin), that really was the ultimate
authority, the rule to go after majority does not apply.

And indeed, there is one particularly illustrative case, when the
majority of Jews, at least those in diaspora rely on minority of poskim.

And therefore, a person (maybe a very smart physisist who studied
electricity all his life) could decide for himself and click switches on
Shabbos, would not be considered a sinner?!

However, studying with my havrusa, we came across a very interesting
RO'O.  In a nutshell, he says that it is permissible to eat a whole bug,
when it is in it natural condition (!!!). This is a "daas yochid", the
opinion of only one.

We asked Rabbi Eliyehu Soloveichik, whether this oppinion can be used in
a situation, when there is a threat of a large monetary loss. His answer
was negative. When asked about the case where most people do rely on a
daas yochid he said that in that case there are ways to be linient, if
you want to, that come from differrent aspects in both the mtziyus (the
way it exists) and halocho.
                                     Boruch Kogan,
                                     [email protected]

After further inquiry the following was found out:
 - we can only rely on Daas Yochid by a prohibition of the sages, not by
the Torah one
 - the rule of going after majority applies nowadays as well, however a
Chochom (learned Rabbi) does not have to succumb to the opinion of
majority, and can rely on his heter (permission), he will not be a posul
eidus
 - an "am hooretz" who relies on a Daas Yochid is a posul eidus
                                   Boruch Kogan

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 92 22:54:19 +0200
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Environmentalism and Progress

Reading Eli Turkel's fine article reminded me of studying Bava Metzia
some years ago, specifically the section dealing with "Bar Meitzara."
The rule of bar meitzara states that when one sells land, first refusal
should be given to the owner of the adjacent field so that he can take
advantage of the convenience of having a larger field in one place,
rather than two smaller, well separated fields.  There are numerous
exceptions, however, which supersede the neighbor's preferential status.
For instance, it is important to help a poor man become a landowner;
also, a talmid chacham has preference, since he cannot devote much time
to searching for real estate.

An important factor in awarding preference arises when considering the
purpose to which the land is to be put by the purchaser.  In ascending
order of preference, the uses listed are (1) letting the land lie fallow,
(2) planting a crop, (3) planting trees, (4) building a house.  Clearly,
the tendency is toward permanent settlement, along the lines of "Work the
land and subdue it."

What does this say about land use policy in the present day?  Nothing but
apartment buildings, from Hadera to Gedera?

Ben Svetitsky   [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 Jan 1992  10:41 EST
From: cblph!ask (a.s.kamlet)
Subject: Observant / Not Yet Observant

An article was posted in soc.religion.jewish a few weeks ago about a
New York yeshiva whose leaders wished to expand into an apartment
building next door, which they owned.  They made life miserable
for the tenants, in an attempt to force them to move out.

In M.J. v3-8:

   From: [email protected] (Susannah Danishefsky)

   Rabbi Yitzhak Kirzner on a Torah Tape makes a point which is quite
   relevant to the discussion of bad feelings between the not yet observant
   and the already observant.  He quotes from the Rambam (I don't have the
   source with me), the halacha of a recalcitrant husband being "convinced"
   to give a divorce using a range of means up to and including extreme
   physical force.  But, we know that divorces are supposed to be B'ratzon
   (willed).  Both parties have to agree to them.  The Rambam has a deep
   psychological insight when he says that deep down every Jew wants to do
   what is right. Thus the divorce really is B'ratzon.  The essence of a
   Jew is his Neshoma and it can never be squashed into non-existence.
   Thus, we can say that all Jews, in a very deep way, know what is right,
   want to do the right thing, and feel badly when they don't do it.

It seems to me that the rabbis at this yeshiva "knew" it was right
to expand the yeshiva, and their tenants really wanted to do right,
so turning off the heat, the water, the electricity, in an attempt
to get the tenants to move out and do the right thing of expanding
the yeshiva, was justified in the same was that beating an unwilling
husband into signing a get is justified?

But no one in s.r.j -- a very flame-filled newsgroup -- took this
position.  And I don't take this position either.

Yet, once one accepts that it is OK to force the evil out of
uncooperative husbands, isn't it a simple step to say it's a mitzvah
to force the evil out of uncooperative tenants?

Art Kamlet [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 92 14:33:29 CST
From: Frank Silbermann <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Observant / Not Yet Observant

I am extremely uncomfortable with anyone saying to another, "I know what
you are feeling better than you yourself."  Though the speaker might be
correct, the disregard of another's right to his own feelings strikes me
as a terrible arrogance.  I can only justify the Rambam on this point by
appealing to the overriding concern that _some_ way must be found to
justify granting the get.  Nevertheless, I would appeal to this kind of
reasoning only as a bitter last resort.

Happily, in the case of gets there is another approach.  In Volume 2
Number 46, Dov Green quotes Professor N. Bronznik saying that the
concern that the get was given voluntarily is rooted in a linguistic
misunderstanding.  All we need is for him to agree to do what bet din
requires.

Nevertheless, Susannah Danishefsky hints that the Rambam's solution is
quite relevant to the discussion of bad feelings between the not yet
observant and the already observant.  I hope nobody interprets this as a
call to beat-up hostile non-Observant Jews until they admit that
_actually_ they really like our moving into the neighborhood.	:-)

Frank Silbermann	[email protected] 
Tulane University	New Orleans, Louisiana USA

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1992 0:04:04 +1100 (EST)
From: [email protected] (Manuel Needleman)
Subject: Originality

J. Proschan writes:-

> The questions Manuel Needleman asks in III #2 are easy.  
> What puzzles me is the question itself.  That appears to 
> assume that the documentary hypothesis is true.  Why? 

 In reply to my " contribution ", the relevant parts of
which are:-
> Subj:	mail.jewish Vol. 3 #2

> Following on this thread, it may be of interest to note the following
> quotes from the Penguin Classics " Herodotus " translated by A de
> Selincourt. Note: Herodotus was born about 490- 480 BCE and the quotes 
> come from his visit to Egypt.

> p116 " They practise circumcision, while men from other nations- EXCEPT
> THOSE THAT HAVE LEARNT FROM EGYPT- leave their private parts as nature
> made them. "

> p121 " Pigs are considered unclean  --- "
******* Other quotes mentioning practices [ paralleling 
(with a bit of imagination!! ) ours ]    are omitted here ** 

> I have been intrigued by these quotes for some time and wonder if anyone
> can inform me when these practices commenced in Egypt. Herodotus,
> unfortunately, did not seem to do the " Grand Tour " of the Fertile
> Crescent so I wonder if his statement regarding the uniqueness of the
> practice of circumcision, at his time, was correct ( obviously it had
> been practised in Israel for centuries before Herodotus' time! ) 

It is reasonable to assume that Herodotus, a reasonably accurate
historian, considering his lack of on- line computerised data bases!,
was reporting what he saw or was told at first hand. If Josh knows of
any refutations I would be interested to know of them.  Some
correspondents have commented on Herodotus' assertion that only those
people who had learned from Egypt practised circumcision. Of course one
can reverse it and hold that it could have been the other way round and
that the Egyptians learned from e.g. the Jews. Not being an Egyptologist
I was simply asking if anyone knew when, or ( apropos Josh ) if, the
Egyptians started doing this. supplementary to this was the question
what other people, if any ( other than Jews ), practised circumcision in
the region.  The questions were simply to add to my knowledge- no
ulterior purpose!!!!!!  Manuel.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 January 1992 12:09:24 CST
From: Boruch Kogan <[email protected]> 
Subject: re: Shuls in Moscow

Unless my memory betrays me, shuls in Moscow, as well as mynianim in
people's houses faced south. When I once had a mynian in my appartement
it did face south.

                                       Boruch Kogan

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 92 15:48 O
From: Prof. Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Shuls in Moscow

Regarding Eli Turkel's query as to which way Shuls in Russia Face:
        I visited Russia (Moscow, Leningrad and Odessa) about 5 years
and to the best of my recollection all the Shul's face Mizrach (East)
not south.
               Aryeh Frimer    F66235@BARILAN


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 92 12:35:12 PST
From: [email protected] (Mark Bell)
Subject: Temple Choirs

Hello!  I have a question about Temple choirs.  I'm a member of our
Temple board and may be asked to vote soon on whether to disallow non
Jews from being inthe choir.  Apparently there are one or two (perhaps
even paid?)  non Jews in the choir.  Some say that there is a halachic
problem with this, especially during the High Holidays.

Any opinions/insight/suggestions?

Mark Bell





----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest
**************************

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 11


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Direction of Prayer
             [Michael Shimshoni]
        Herodotus, and environmentalism
             [Joshua W. Burton]
        U. of Michigan Shabbaton
             [[email protected]]
        United Jewish Appeal Mailing List
             [Alan M. Gallatin]
        Use of Force
             [Eli Turkel]
        Works of Rav Kasher
             [Prof. Aryeh Frimer]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 92 14:54:59 +0200
From: Michael Shimshoni <[email protected]>
Subject: Direction of Prayer

As I was  somewhat instrumental in getting the  discussion going about
the direction  of prayer  in Moscow,  may I  bring up  another related
problem.  Los  Angeles is  almost on the  same latitude  as Jerusalem,
thus it should  be "obvious" that in LA one  should pray towards east.
On the other hand, the shortest route on the surface of the Earth from
LA to Jerusalem  is ALMOST due north, along the  great circle line, as
everyone who  has ever flown from  LA to Israel or  London knows.  Has
there ever been any address to this  problem in any of the more modern
Responsa?

Michael Shimshoni

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 92 09:39:59 +0200
From: Joshua W. Burton <[email protected]>
Subject: Herodotus, and environmentalism

I have two cents to get in here, one per thread:

Manuel Needleman describes Herodotus as a reliable reporter; this
assertion needs some qualification.  In general, the `Father of Lies'
did fairly well in reporting what he had actually seen, but passed along
some astonishing stories as straight news from far away and long ago.
Example: he tells us that the people of the Indus are blacker than
Africans, which tells us that the Dravidic peoples of southern India
lived a lot farther north 2500 years ago---a wonderful demographic
tidbit available nowhere else.  He also tells us that they hunt
dog-sized ants in the Thar Desert, to recover the piles of gold they
hoard in their nests!  Sometimes even his math is a bit feeble: if his
claim that the lioness gives birth by having her cub rip its way from
the womb (killing her) were true, we'd run out of lions in a few
generations.  Anyway, the point of all this is that Herodotus was not a
historian in the sense of Gibbon, or even of Josephus---he was a travel
correspondent trying to put the Persian wars in context for a Greek
audience by reporting some of the flavor of the East.  In that light, I
think all we can conclude on the circumcision issue is that he provides
independent corroboration that _someone_ in what he called Aigyptos
(which may well have included Eretz Yisrael as well as Mitzrayim) was
practicing it in the early Second Temple period.  I wouldn't be
surprised if he means us!

With respect to Ben Svetitsky's posting on land tenancy and
environmentalism, I want to skirt as widely as possible the issue of
whether the Biblical mandate to be fruitful and multiply has already
been overfulfilled: I am not qualified to have an opinion.  But I will
remark that the hierarchy he describes (trees better than farmland;
houses better than trees) is consistent with sound ecological
conservancy, for any _given_ population density.  We pile our apartments
four high here in Rehovot so that we (and the wildlife) can enjoy orange
groves within walking distance, and a bit of real wilderness up on the
Carmel.  With the population density of Long Island, we still have more
trees than Kansas, if you count the one I planted this Tu B'Shvat.
Would tract homes and huge monoculture farms be better?

Joshua W. Burton <[email protected]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 92 21:04:02 EST
From: [email protected]
Subject: U. of Michigan Shabbaton

The students associated with the Orothodox Minyan that meets at Hillel,
here at the University of Michigan are planning a Shabbaton in
mid-February, to which they are inviting interested college students
from the Midwest.  If anyone is interested in more information, they can
respond to me, and I shall see that the request gets to the appropriate
party.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 92 16:12:54 EST
From: [email protected] (Alan M. Gallatin)
Subject: United Jewish Appeal Mailing List

         N E W   M A I L I N G   L I S T   A N N O U N C E M E N T

I am pleased to announce the establishment of the United Jewish Appeal
(UJA) mailing list for discussion of UJA University Programs Campaigns.

The scope of the discussion on the list will be centered about UJA in
general, campaign programming, solicitation technique, UJA-UDP programs
(e.g. Winter Leadership Mission to Israel and the upcoming Leadership
Conference in Washington), etc.

The list will not be a forum for political and/or religious discussions
except to the extent that those topics affect UJA and its programming.

Subscription requests should be mailed to:
   Bitnet:   LISTSERV@GWUVM
   Internet: [email protected]

The first line of the message should be:
   sub uja Your Full Name
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ = replace this with your first and last names

Submissions to the list should be mailed to:
   Bitnet:   UJA@GWUVM
   Internet: [email protected]

Questions?  Send e-mail to:  [email protected]

Alan M. Gallatin

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 92 08:43:22 EST
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Use of Force

    In response to Kamlet's comparison of a forceful get to evicting
tenants.  I don't find the comparison at all valid. First a recalcitrant
husband can be forced to give a divorce only in unusual circumstances
and by a court after every other attempt has failed. We are talking
about a case where the husband refuses to give a get based on
vindictiveness without any basis.  In the state of Israel the courts can
jail a husband who refuses to give a divorce. According to articles I
have read this procedure has been used less than 10 times since 1948.
    With regard to the yeshiva one is under no obligation to leave one's
apartment so that the yeshiva can expand. Had the yeshiva gone to a "bet
din" to evict the tenants they would have lost. In any case no group can
take it on themselves to "force the evil out of others"

Eli Turkel    [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 92 10:22 O
From: Prof. Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Works of Rav Kasher

Regarding the works of Rav Kasher Zatsal:
        In a previous posting, I mentioned Rav Kasher's Torah Sheleimah,
Gemarah Sheleima on Pesachim, Haggadah Sheleimah and Hatekufah hagedolah
(on religious zionism). I should note that a supplementary volume to the
latter was published by Rav Kasher about 4 or 5 years ago. Both are MUST
reading for anyone concerned in a refutation of the Satmar Approach and
for a defense and presentation of the roots of religious zionism.
          Rav Kasher published extensively in the annual Torah Journal
"Noam" which he edited and which was an extremely respected and widely
read Torah Journal.(It has ceased to appear since his passing and has de
facto been replaced by "Techumin"). The discussion on the international
Dateline (mentioned previously) appeared in Noam and has been
republished in his responsa (see below).
          He also worked extensively on elucidating the writings of the
"Rogachover" (Rabbi Rosen). He published several volumes on the
Chidushim (commentary) of Rabbi Rosen to the Talmud called "Tzofnat
Pa'aneach"; organized material as a commentary to the Torah in volumes
called "Tzofnat Pa'aneach al ha-Torah"; outlined and explained Rabbi
Rosen's conceptual approach to the Talmud in a volume called
"Mefa'aneach Tzfunot".  (Ironically, Rabbi Kasher was a "Farbrente
Tsiyoini" - a strong religious zionist - while Rabbi Rosen was against
the establishment of the Jewish Stae).
          The Responsa of Rav Kasher (I believe 4 volumes have appeared)
are called "She'eilot U-Teshuvot Meishiv Menachem"

              Aryeh Frimer
              F66235@BARILAN


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 12


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Anti-Orthodox Feeling
             [Najman Kahana]
        Ecology and the Torah
             [Josh Klein]
        Non-conventional tunes for Zmirot
             [merilee]
        Observant / Not Yet Observant (3)
             [Najman Kahana, Ada-Rivka Stein, Joshua Proschan]
        Purim Kotton
             [Victor S. Miller]
        Which way is Jerusalem?
             [Josh Klein]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 92 11:47 JST
From: Najman Kahana <NAJMAN%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Anti-Orthodox Feeling

>Airmont, like the villages of Wesley Hills (in which I live, though
>most people I know still call it Monsey) and New Hempstead, and possibly
>some others, were formed with the intent of keeping Jews out (if one is

Being an Israeli, I do not see "neighborhood" problems with the same eye
as those experiencing them.  But (isn't there always a but ..) I would
like to express two aspects.  I mention them as facts, not as an implied
criticism nor as justification.

In Israel we have a large number of restricted communities. They range
from the kibbutz, the moshav, and through the yeshuv-kehilati. All these
types of "co-op" towns have in common that they have entrance
requirements. These requirements differ from one place to the next, but
they all have the common purpose of keeping the "nature" of the town.

I live in Yeshuv Elazar, Gush Etzion. Our (and every nearby Yeshuv's)
requirements include Shmirat-Shabbat, Kashrut, taharat-ha-mishpacha.
This implies that we discriminate against people "less observant" than
us. Also, a "much-more-observant" would never make it past the
acceptance committee.  Needless to say, I would never be accepted in a
non-religious Yeshuv.  So, after we sugar-coat it - In the Israeli
settlements, protected by law, we practice discrimination of the type we
abhor when the goyim apply it to us.  Please note. I like the
discriminatory laws of my settlement. They give me a nice Jewish life,
as I want it.

On the second topic: Non tolerance between different levels of religion.
I have lived in the States, and now live in Gush Etzion.  Here, I am my
Yeshuv's delegate to the District Council. The reaction of, say, a
less-observant (please, I am trying not to give offence) to the presence
of a more observant is not just an irrational reflex. Each person gives
added weight to his requirements. I would like to give two real-life
examples.  Our district school separates boys-girls from fourth grade
up. Three Yeshuvim demand that it should be from grade one; four, five
don't care, and the kibbutzim want no separation.  In our communal
swimming pool there are no mixed-swimming hours. There are yeshuvim who
would like to change that.  Needless to say, since these issues are
settled by vote, numbers do tell.

Najman Kahana
[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 92 15:35 N
From: Josh Klein <VTFRST%[email protected]>
Subject: Ecology and the Torah

In light of recent postings on land use or abuse from a religious
perspective, I bring to your attention an article in the Israel Journal
of Botany vol. 40 pp. 183-195 (1991) on "The ecological message of the
Torah: A biologist's interpretation of the Mosaic law". The author
(Aloys Hutterman) is not Jewish, so his perspective on authorship (or
Authorship) of the Torah does not exactly coincide with that of the
Rabbis, but his conclusions regarding the mitzvot of kashrut, land use,
and use of water for cleaning in the light of maintaining natural
resources are quite interesting. I quote from the end of the abstract:
"Thus, 'ecological' sins had the same rank as 'moral' ones. (The) subtle
knowledge of the ecological basis of the survival of mankind was
gradually forgotten after the Second Temple had been destroyed and the
Jews had lost their connection to the biblical land."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 92 18:38:55 +0200
From: merilee <[email protected]>
Subject: Non-conventional tunes for Zmirot

I have a question involving tunes to various zmirot.  Is it permissible
to sing a zmira to a tune associated with a xian hymnal?  If you don't
have the association than is it OK?  My example is that Dror Yikra
sounds really nice to the tune of Amazing Grace, and most people don't
even realize that is a xian hymnal (I think it is, actually, I'm not
even sure - I never investigated it).  Just because the xians have some
nice tunes should that spoil it for us if we can use it?

I've also heard of the tune to M*A*S*H being used as a Shabbas nigun,
which is pretty weird considering it's a song about suicide.

Thanks,

Merilee

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 92 11:47 JST
From: Najman Kahana <NAJMAN%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Observant / Not Yet Observant

I think that the Rambam's opinion is being, somewhat twisted out of
range.  The Rambam was addressing the issue of how to force a divorce
when a COURT decided that the divorce is required.  This issue can be
found as early as the Mishna where it is left as "we force him to
divorce her". The Rambam accepted the Mishna, but had to answer the
question of husband "willing".  The Rambam took a de facto act (forcing
the divorce) and worked his way around the legal problems.  I do not
think that we can expand this into other acts.

Perhaps more in line with the case at hand is Gmara (Baba-Batra) on the
issue of "Talyuu ve zabin". The issue there (which is brought to
halacha) relates to a case where a person is dangled by his feet until
he agrees to sell somthing.  The gmara debates whether he can, after
being un-dangled (de-dangled?) refuse to honor his agreement. The Gmara
concludes that the since the person wanted to be taken down, he really
meant it.

Najman Kahana
[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1992 8:37:34 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected] (Ada-Rivka Stein)
Subject: Re: Observant / Not Yet Observant

In regard to the alleged forcing out of tenants:

First, this story was carried by a notoriously anti-religious
publication, from which we may assume some bias in the narrative.  I
have seen no other corroboration of the story.

I wonder if any attempt has been make to contact the alleged
perpetrators to get their side of it.

My husband once asked someone, "how can it be that when one hears Loshon
Harah, once is not allowed to accept it as true?"

His friend replied that if you investigated, 99% of the time you would
find that the story really isn't true - it's only once person's view,
it's not the whole story, there is some distortion of the facts, etc.

Certainly, I don't see how we can accept an account likely to be slanted
without further research.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 92 19:01 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: re: Observant / Not Yet Observant

In mail.jewish III-10 several people question Susannah Danishefsky's
reference to the Rambam and gittin.  It seems to me that they have
completely missed the point.  She cited that Rambam for its psychological
insight that every Jew wants to do what is right:

    . . .  The essence of a Jew is his Neshoma and it can never be
    squashed into non-existence.  Thus, we can say that all Jews, in
    a very deep way, know what is right, want to do the right thing,
    and feel badly when they don't do it.

The point here is the innate desire to do what is right; the use of force
to produce a get is irrelevant to her article.

In any case, does the use of force lead, in one simple step, to saying
that "it's a mitzvah to force the evil out of uncooperative tenants"?
This is nonsense.  Force can only be used for a get under the authority
of a Bais Din; and a Bais Din has the right to use force.  They can
impose fines, give lashes, and execute convicted felons.  Most of these
powers are in abeyance now, but they do exist; and it is a mitzvah for
the Bais Din to exercise them.  An individual has no such rights.

Kamlet's case, if true--which it probably is not--apparently involves
actions by individuals.  There is no path leading from a Bais Din's right
to use compulsion to any "right" of an individual to use compulsion, any
more than there is a path leading from a Bais Din's right to give lashes
to an individual's "right" to beat up someone who parks in his space.
Kamlet's suggestion that the school was motivated by the "knowledge" that
the tenants really wanted to do the "right" thing is ludicrous.

However, Kamlet's example is unlikely to be true.  New York papers have
long made a practice of "Orthodox-bashing", especially if there are some
"rabbis" in view.  (When Jackie Mason got into hot water for political
comments he made during the last mayoral campaign, the headlines suddenly
referred to him as "Rabbi Jackie Mason".)  They also like to bash
landlords.  (More tenants buy newspapers than landlords.)

I have worked with tenant's organizations for over 15 years, and have no
undue sympathy for landlords.  However, I have found that tenants do at
times make false or exaggerated claims.  The press usually prints
tenant's complaints without checking any of their statements, and almost
never prints the landlord's rebuttal.  I have seen articles where a
reporter fabricated interviews to stir up trouble, because things were
too quiet and he needed some headlines.  The only way to know what is
really happening is to go to the building and talk with both tenants and
landlords; and to also talk with the tenants not quoted in the paper. If
you have not done that, and instead rely on the newspaper article, you
may be basing your discussion on false propaganda.  People who are more
interested in expressing their own biases than in arriving at the truth
will not be bothered by this.

As for the assertion "But no one in s.r.j -- a very flame-filled
newsgroup -- took this position"; may I nominate it for non sequitur of
the year?

Joshua H. Proschan   Internet: [email protected]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 92 11:04:57 -0500
From: Victor S. Miller <[email protected]>
Subject: Purim Kotton

Since this year is a leap year, the subject of Purim Kotton (14-15 Adar
I) comes up.  I assume that Purim Kotton is "celebrated" (by omitting
Tachanun and Lamnatzeiach Mizmor l'Dovid) in recognition of the fact
that it would have been Purim if this year had not been declared a leap
year.  Is it the fact that in the days when the Sanhedrin proclaimed a
leap year, that it would not be proclaimed until AFTER Purim had been
celebrated?  If not, then why have a Purim Kotton?  In any case, since
Hillel II proclaimed all Roshei Hadashim until the year 6000, and all
leap years, why have Purim Kotton anymore since there is no doubt (of
course this might be like Yom Tov Sheini in the galut)?

In looking through the Art Scroll siddur, I was a little puzzled by
the following:

[ Discussion on Page 125 of days when Tachanun is omitted ]

...

(d) ... (In a leap year this applies also to 14-15 Adar I) ...

(f) In some congregations it is omitted on Pesach Sheni (14 Iyar)

Since Purim (let alone Purim Kotton) is d'Rabbanan but Pesach Sheni is
d'Oreita, I would think that the "some congregations" should apply to
Purim Kotton.

				Victor


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 92 15:46 N
From: Josh Klein <VTFRST%[email protected]>
Subject: Which way is Jerusalem?

Regarding the direction of prayer: in the shul in Auckland, New Zealand,
the Aron Kodesh in the main shul faces east (as it did in London,
England, 'spiritual home' of many of the original congregants). The Aron
in the chapel faces north-northeast (dictated by architecture, mostly).
In Wellington New Zealand, though, the Aron faces north-northwest
(Wellington Jewry was regarded as more concerned with religious
observance than other communities in NZ). I'm sure various other
correspondents from 'Downunder'can describe which way they face in
Melbourne, Sydney, Johannesburg, or Buenos Aries. The gemara in Brachot
makes it quite clear, though, that ultimately it's more important which
way you point your heart, rather than your feet.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 13


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Arachim Weekend in New Jersey
             [Joshua Proschan]
        Chafetz Chaim on the Siddur
             [Chaim Schild]
        Discovery Weekend in Lakewood
             [Joshua Proschan]
        Discrimination
             [Jeremy Newmark]
        Hebrew Ascii
             [Seth Ness]
        Hesder
             [Asher Samuels]
        Looking for apartment in Israel.
             [Mike Block]
        Which way to Jerusalem
             [Harold A. Miller]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 23:24:51 EST
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

Sorry for the delay in getting out an issue, these last few days, but
work has snowed me under. I'm trying to surface this evening, and I hope
to get at least two issues out tonight and tomorrow morning, and I hope
to catch up with most of the backlog before the weekend.

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 92 18:12 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: Arachim Weekend in New Jersey

                MORIAH INSTITUTE (of Priority-1)

                             ARACHIM

                               and

                      J.E.P. of Westchester


                             present

                   THE ARACHIM SEMINAR WEEKEND

On President's Weekend you can either celebrate the birthdays of
the Father of our Country and the Author of the Emancipation
Proclamation . . .

                    or

Discover the Blueprint of Creation and the Author of the Ten
Commandments.

Arachim, whose Israeli seminars were the inspiration for the
Discovery Seminar, cordially invite you to attend the highly
acclaimed, enlightening, and uplifting ARACHIM SEMINAR WEEKEND.
A seminar opening vistas of Jewish awareness.  A golden
opportunity to rest and relax, ponder and probe, experience and
enjoy the depth and excitement of your rich Jewish heritage
together with friends and a dynamic, professional staff.

Come join us as we introduce you to your fascinating Jewish
Heritage and discover your own hidden strengths, at the Somerset
Ramada Inn, February 13th to 17th.

FEATURING: entertaining, informative, and inspiring lectures and
     workshops on:

       *  Modern scientific wisdom found in the Torah

       *  Coping with stress: the Jewish family

       *  The wisdom of the Sages

       *  Timeless answers to timeless questions

       *  Hidden codes in the Torah

       *  The unbroken chain of transmission

       *  The startling accuracy of Torah prophecy

Registration:   6:00 pm Thursday, February 13th
Conclusion:     Monday evening, February 17th

Place:          Ramada Inn, Weston Canal Road and Cottontail
                Lane, Somerset, New Jersey (908)560-9880

Cost:           $250 per person double occupancy
                $125 per child, 3-12
                $ 50 per child under 3

                Includes baby-sitting

For reservations and information please call:

          Priority-1           (800)33-FOREVER
                               (516)295-5700
                               (718)471-3661

          ARACHIM              (718)438-0914

          J.E.P.of Westchester (914)381-0464

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1992 16:02 EST
From: SCHILD%[email protected] (Chaim Schild)
Subject: Chafetz Chaim on the Siddur

does anyone know where I can get a copy (preferably English but otherwise
Hebrew) of the Chafetz Chaim on the Siddur ? (publisher, bookstore?)

Thanx - HGS



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 92 18:12 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: Discovery Weekend in Lakewood

                    Morasha/Heritage presents

                      The Discovery Seminar

     Torah:                   Reality or Myth?

     The "Chosen" People:     Stigma or Distinction?

     Science and Torah:       Conflict or Harmony?

     Jews in History:         Focus or Footnote?

     Judaism:                 Knowledge or Faith?

     Jewish Law:              Obsolete or Relevant?

     Judaism is:

          (a)  a nationality
          (b)  a religion
          (c)  a race
          (d)  a culture
          (e)  all of the above
          (f)  none of the above
          (g)  tell me more

     If you want to know more . . .

               join us --- for DISCOVERY!


Registration:   Friday afternoon, March 20th, starting at 2 p.m.
                The Seminar starts at 4 p.m.

Conclusion:     Sunday afternoon, March 22nd.

Place:          The Ramada Inn, Lakewood, New Jersey

Cost:           Seminar, including meals, is

                    $225 per person single occupancy
                    $175 per person double occupancy.
                    $125 third person in a room

                Inquire about our special Family and Student
                rates.

For reservations or information please call Morasha/Heritage at
(908)905-6770.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 11:11:53 GMT
From: [email protected] (Jeremy Newmark)
Subject: Discrimination

Regardless of Israeli law, and the fact that Najman Kahana likes 
   "The discriminatory laws of my settlement. They give me a nice Jewish
    life as I want it"
Is there any sound halachic basis for discriminating against fellow Jews
who have not yet reached one's own level of observance. If this
isolationist attitude was taken by all 'observant' Jews who would the
others by able to learn from ?  The command to love one's neighbour
carries no proviso that one's neighbour must be as observant as oneself.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 92 0:13:39 EST
From: Seth Ness <[email protected]>
Subject: Hebrew Ascii

help, i'm looking for a way to read hebrew ascii on a mac. mainly to be
able to use the tanach files on the l'chaim bbs. they have online hebrew
stuff and hebrew text files for ibm's. does anyone know how i can access
these things? 

seth [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 92 13:46:47 EST
From: Asher Samuels <[email protected]>
Subject: Hesder

	I am a 22-year old American who is considering doing hesder.
Unfortunately, as I am in the States at the moment, and will not have a
chance to visit any of the yeshivot before I go on aliya in June/July, I
am forced to get some information second-hand. I have contacted a number
of the yeshivot, asking for information, but I would also like to hear
from various people who have studied at the different Yeshivot. In
addition to general reactions, I have a few specific questions:

1) To what extent are the time in Yeshiva and the time in the Army
discrete components?

2) How much of a role does ideology play in the Yeshiva? (Are there
Shi'urim on Rav Kook in addition to the regular learning, etc.)

3)How many americans are at the Yeshiva?

4) What is the setting? Is it in a city, in a small town, or off on its own?

Please e-mail your answers. If there is interest, I'll post a summary of
any answers.

Thanks in advance.

Asher B. Samuels - [email protected] - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 
From: [email protected] (Mike Block)
Subject: Looking for apartment in Israel.

My family and I are currently plaining a trip to Israel for Pesach and 
will need a place to stay 4/14 -- 4/26.   Does any one know of a house
or apartment that could be rented for all or some of those days in the
city of Efrat?  In case that does not work, Jerusalem?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 92 14:41:04 EST
From: Harold A. Miller <[email protected]>
Subject: Which way to Jerusalem

As to directional aspect of shuls down under, my experience is somewhat
limited, but things seem a little confused.  I'm in Melbourne.  The
three places I frequent have one facing west, and two facing more or
less north!  Just for grins, I have seen the two Reform/Liberal shuls.
One faces south, the other east.

But don't let this minimal sample give anyone any wrong ideas.

|Hal Miller, DIT, CSIRO, | Networking Environments Project               |
|723 Swanston St. Carlton| (TEL) +61 3 282 2628   (FAX) +61 3 282 2600   |
|VIC 3053, Australia     | Internet:[email protected]                 |


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                       Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 14


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Non-conventional tunes for Zmirot (6)
             [Robert Aaron Book, Elie Rosenfeld, Immanuel Burton, Harold A.
             Miller, Morris Podolak, David Sherman]
        Toothbrushes
             [Amir Davidov]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 92 21:27:41 CST
From: Robert Aaron Book <[email protected]>
Subject: Non-conventional tunes for Zmirot

I can't give a definitive halachic answer to this, except to suggest
that if you don't have the association, then you are not really
recognizing the validity of the other religion, so it ought to be OK.
Aside from definitive answers, though, I can add some information I
think is interesting.

First, the tune most of us use for "Ma'o Tzur" ("Rock of Ages") was
actually written by Martin Luther (of the Protestant Reformation).  I
believe he may even have intended it as a tune for the German (?)
version of "Rock of Ages", but I'm not sure.

Second, the tune I know to "Amazing Grace" is also the tune for
"Greensleeves," a completely secular medieval English song.  Actually,
this is the context in which I first heard it, and I believe this was
what the tune was originally written for.  So in this specific case, you
could decide you're using "Greensleeves" instead.

Third, I've always really enjoyed the music to "Battle Hymn of the
Republic" even though the words are blatantly Xian.  I sure hope there's
nothing wrong with just listening to the music.

Also, I have heard "Adon Olam" sung in shuls to all sorts of things,
including "Amazing Grace."  I can also be sung to "Battle Hymn of the
Republic" (and just about anything else).

--Robert Book
  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 92 09:02:58 -0500
From: [email protected] (Elie Rosenfeld)
Subject: Non-conventional tunes for Zmirot

Relating to this topic, I discovered years ago that the tune of "Deck
the Halls" makes a terrific harmony for "Ma'oz Tsur"!  With the
well-publicized proximity of the respective holidays, this is almost too
good to be a coincidence.  Makes you wonder if the tunes have a common
origin.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 92 20:54:07 GMT
From: Immanuel Burton <[email protected]>
Subject: Non-conventional tunes for Zmirot

I'm not sure about whether using 'non-Jewish' tunes for Zmirot is
permissable or not, but I vividly remember an occasion when I spent a
Shabbat in Shalvim Yeshiva in Israel.  On the Friday night, the tune
used for Tzur Mi'Sheloh Ochalnu was that of the song for The Muppet
Show.  I assume that since the authorities didn't object that it was
okay - but don't accept this as a final Psak.

Using such tunes in Shul is another matter.  I am told that Le'chah Dodi
can be sung to the tune of the Imperial March from Star Wars and that
Adone Olam fits the tune of When The Saints Come Marchin In.  Most
people I've spoken to about using such tunes in Shul were horrified at
the very idea, even though they were the ones who told me about it!

On a different slant, if buying a church or chapel and converting it to
a Shul is okay, then why shouldn't use of a 'non-Jewish' tune be okay
too?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 92 14:41:04 EST
From: Harold A. Miller <[email protected]>
Subject: Non-conventional tunes for Zmirot

My son's Yeshiva Kinder (pre-school) taught him to bentsch to "When the
Saints Go Marchin' In".  Awfully hard to keep a straight face around the
little guy!  The Yeshiva is strictly observant.

|Hal Miller, DIT, CSIRO, | Networking Environments Project               |
|723 Swanston St. Carlton| (TEL) +61 3 282 2628   (FAX) +61 3 282 2600   |
|VIC 3053, Australia     | Internet:[email protected]                 |

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon,  10 Feb 92 11:10:08 +0200
From: Morris Podolak <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Non-conventional tunes for Zmirot

With regard to the use of non-Jewish melodies for prayer in general,
there have been a number of discussions of the issue in the rabbinic
literature.  One is by Rabbi Chayyim David Halevi, the Sephardi chief
rabbi of Tel Aviv.  Before giving you his views, I just want to point
out that in addition to being very well versed in Torah literature, he
is also a "modern" person, in the sense that his works contain quotes
from Sartre and Rousseau as well as Rashi and Rambam.  My point is that
his strict attitude should not be attributed to his being "old
fashioned".  In a responsum written in 1978 (Aseh Lecha Rav vol.3, no.5)
he states that it is obvious to him that church music is forbidden.

To be fair, he quotes from a work called Krach Shel Romi by Rabbi Moshe
Chazzan, who served as chief rabbi of Rome. The argument there is that
if the music enters the heart and awakens the proper emotions, that is
what is important. If that particular piece of music is also used as
church music, that should not bother us.  We use it for the service of
Hashem, and we should not be concerned how other people use it.  He adds
that when he (Rabbi Chazzan) visited Smyrna, he saw well known sages
stand outside the church in order to hear the melodies that were used
and apply them to their own prayers.  I think, from the wording, that
they did not actually use the melody as it was, but rather adapted the
musical themes, but I am not sure.

Rabbi Halevi, in discussing the question, points out that the opinion of
Rabbi Chazzan is unique, and he has found no other authority who agrees
with him, and that the general opinion is that all gentile melodies are
forbidden.  Among the authorities he cites are Rabbi Chayyim Azulai
(Birchei Yosef, A.H.  560:6) and Rabbi Chayyim Palachi (Kaf Hachayyim,
13:6), both of whom strongly condemned using gentile tunes.  The problem
is particularly acute if one uses church tunes, since many authorities
consider those services to be actual idolatry.

Rabbi Halevi admits that many Sephardi cantors include elements of
Arabic music in their renditions, and that there has been no great
objection to this.  In a later volume (9, p.189), however, he states
"and certainly church music is forbidden because of idolatry".  I
suppose the difference is that Islam is not considered idolatry, so that
Arabic music is not forbidden on that account.

Another recent responsum is from Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the former chief
rabbi of Israel (Yechaveh Da'at vol. 2, no. 5).  He starts by quoting
from the Sefer Chasidim, written at the end of the 12th century, who
says that someone who has a good voice should be especially careful not
to sing gentile songs for it is a sin (par. 768).  Rabbi Yosef argues
that the intent here is to forbid the words of the song, but not the
melody itself, and brings vaious sources to back this opinion.  He cites
the works of those who prohibit even the melodies (Birchei Yosef, Kaf
Hachayyim, Ma'aseh Rokeach) and those who permit them (Krach Shel Romi,
Maharam di Lonzano, Ta'alumot Lev, Zechor Leavraham), and concludes that
it is permitted to use the tunes, especially since we see that prominent
scholars did so in the past.

I might just add that some of the sources are problematic.  The Maharam
di Lonzano, for example, is cited by Rabbi Yosef as permitting gentile
music.  Indeed this is the case.  In his work Shtei Yadot, he states
that he adapted Moslem tunes to the prayers.  Rabbi Halevi, however,
points out that the Maharam di Lonzano, in the same work, cites the
Sefer Chasidim to the effect that it is a sin to use gentile melodies.
There is no contradiction, says Rabbi Halevi.  It is simply that Moslem
melodies are permitted because Islam is not idolatry.  The same cannot
be said of church music.  Rabbi Yosef doesn't seem to differentiate
between the two cases.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein ztz'l, who was considered by many to be the
leading authority for Ashkenazi Jewry ruled that listening to music
intended for idolatry (and this specifically includes church music) is
strictly forbidden.  Listening to the same tune from people who are
merely singing (the melody without the words) with no intention of
idolatry is, strictly speaking, permitted, but very improper (mechuar)
(Igrot Moshe YD II p.77, p.184).  He did not discuss using church tunes
for Jewish songs, but since he forbid even listening to them I suspect
he would not have approved.

We see then, that there are non-Jewish music can be divided into two
categories: secular and religious.  Secular music is the easiest to
permit, although I am sure you can find authorities who would forbid
even this.  Religious music too can be divided into two parts:
idolatrous and non-idolatrous.  Many authorities forbid any religious
music, Some are willing to permit, or at least overlook non-idolatrous
music.  Very few will permit idolatrous music.  Finally, is church music
idolatrous?  That is a separate and complicated issue.  What's the
bottom line?  I'm not a moreh hora'a, so I am not authorized to make
that decision.  I just wanted to present some of the issues involved.

Morris Podolak






----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 92 22:26:49 EST
From: [email protected] (David Sherman)
Subject: Non-conventional tunes for Zmirot

I suppose it depends on what associations the people who hear you will
make.  I've heard that the tune to Maoz Tzur that everyone uses is
actually a 13th century church tune.  Yet it's not a problem today.

Several years ago I was asked one Shabbos to daven for the amud in a
large Toronto shul.  For Musaf Kedusha, I used the tune to "Sunrise
Sunset", which actually fits very nicely.  (Imagine na-a-ritz-cha
ve-nak-dish-cha taking the same notes as "Is this the little girl I
carried...).  I thought the tune, as a nigun, was quite appropriate, and
I asked the rabbi and he said it was OK.  However, some people didn't
like it (and told me so), because of the association with Hollywood, and
it being written by a non-Jew.  (I'd always associated the tune, and
Fiddler on the Roof in general, with Yiddishkeit, but I can certainly
see their point.)

If that tune could shed its associations with Hollywood etc.,
it would be fine.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 92 09:01:29 GMT
From: Amir Davidov <[email protected]>
Subject: Toothbrushes

Please could some one answer a simple question?
Why don't we need to use 2 toothbrushs?

Several people have suggusted reasons including, since the food is in
your mouth it stops being either milky or meaty. This isn't really a
satisfing answer since, you could then argue that after taking a
mouthfull of a beefburger you can take a nice sip of milk. This
arguement is refuted still further by the fact that many people say that
after milk you can wash your mouth out (some say brush your teeth as
well!) and then proceed to have meat!
		Thank you!



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 15


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Direction during Prayer
             [Morris Podolak]
        Mexico Trip Info Needed
             [Uri Feldman]
        Originality (Manuel Needleman)
             [Joshua Proschan]
        Rarest shmoneh esreh
             [[email protected]]
        Tachanun on Purim Katan and/or Pesach Sheni
             [Morris Podolak]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon,  10 Feb 92 11:10:08 +0200
From: Morris Podolak <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Direction during Prayer

Finally, with regard to the direction to face when praying, there is an
interesting responsum by Rabbi Benzion Firrer published in Noam (vol. 2,
p. 171).  If I understood his point correctly, he says that one should
choose the shortest great circle route to Jerusalem, and face in that
direction.  He then goes ahead and tries to find a reason for the custom
so many places have of facing East.  In particular he is concerned with
the U.S., where one should face north.  He points out that there is an
additional consideration that may be relevant.  The Gemara (Bava Bathra,
25) says "the Shechina is in the west", and that is the direction one
should face when praying.  What exactly that means on a sphere is not
clear, but Rabbi Firrer suggests that one can connect it with the
question of where to place the (Jewish) international dateline.  The
reasoning is too involved to present here (and in any case not
completely convincing), but he argues that the Gemara may be interpreted
to mean that the Shechina is on the eastern border of Israel.  In such a
case, someone in the U.S. could face north, which would bring him along
the shortest path to Jerusalem, or one could face east, which would be
longer, but would have him facing the Shechina.  Since this may be
desirable, we can perhaps justify the custom of Americans to pray facing
east.

Morris Podolak


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 11:03:49 -0500
From: Uri Feldman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Mexico Trip Info Needed

Hi. Some friends of mine are travelling to Mexico and need
information on Kosher restaurants, Synagogues, and any Jewish sights
in town. Please let us know of any information you have, they are
travelling on the 16th of February.  Thanks for your attention,

				Uri Feldman


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 92 19:03 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: re: Originality (Manuel Needleman)

I was not suggesting an ulterior purpose; simply trying to clarify the
question.  It was not clear whether the wording derived from an
acceptance of the documentary hypothesis or was coincidental.  (The
statements that our mitzvos are not miSinai, but rather reflect the
influence of the nations we lived among; and were eventually codified in
a written document; and that secular historians such as Herodotus are
more to be relied on for historical information than the Torah [I use
Torah here to refer to both the Written and Oral Torahs]; these are
hallmarks of the documentary hypothesis.)  Different answers would be
needed for these two possibilities, and I did not want to waste time
preparing an answer to a question that no one was asking.

In one sense, the answers to (some of) Needleman's questions are simple.
The Egyptians began to practice circumcision at Joseph's decree, early
in his reign as prime minister (before his father and brothers came to
Egypt).  At that time, the Egyptians regarded cattle as sacred and did
not eat them.  Their practices regarding beef must have been acquired at
a later date.  There was a large Jewish community in Egypt in those
times, if memory serves me; their example may have influenced the
Egyptians.  Decorous behavior in temples does not sound either like the
Egyptians of the Exodus or the later Greek-influenced Egyptians; perhaps
someone else can explain that passage in Herodotus.

In another sense, his questions are more complex.  The "practices" he
mentions are not matters of custom, such as tailoring or recipes.  They
are not mere folkways and human legislation deriving from the practices
of surrounding nations.  Their origin is described in the Torah, where
we are repeatedly enjoined to avoid the practices and customs of Egypt
and of the nations of Canaan.  To argue that "it is possible that [our
social and religious purity practices] had been adapted by the
Israelites during the sojourn in Egypt ( pre 1200 BCE ?? ), before being
incorporated in the Torah" is to question the truth of the Torah.

Now, it is true that the Torah requires us to examine the evidence for
its truth.  This is a complex issue; let us assume for the moment,
without further discussion [in this article], that we properly should
examine historical and archaeological evidence to see whether it
supports the Torah or contradicts it; and should therefore ask whether
there is evidence that our mitzvos derived from the practices and
customs of other nations.  Is Herodotus usable for this purpose?  I
think not.  Herodotus collected legends and tales.  Anyone wanting to
investigate the reliability of what he was told should ask any
school-child about Washington and the cherry tree (200 years ago), or
about Columbus and the egg (500 years ago); and then compare their tales
with reality.

    [Historical digression:  The usual story is that everyone present but
    Columbus thought the earth was flat, and Columbus stood an egg on end
    to illustrate his argument that the earth is round; thus convincing
    Isabella.  In reality, everyone there (with the possible exception of
    Ferdinand and Isabella) knew that the earth was round.  The dispute
    was over how large it is; the others had the correct figure, while
    Columbus claimed a much smaller one that would make it just possible
    for a sailing ship to reach China before running out of supplies.
    Either he believed, from maritime legends, that there was a continent
    within reach, or he was a lucky crackpot.]

What the Egyptians told Herodotus may give us an accurate view of what
the Egyptians *thought* should have happened.  It does not give us an
historically accurate picture of what *did* happen, a thousand or more
years earlier.  It certainly provides nothing substantive with which to
question the substantial body of evidence for the historicity of Torah
and the reality of Ma'amad Har Sinai.  (For details read the Kuzari
etc., or attend a Discovery Seminar.)

Granted, the benefits of some mitzvos (such as the prohibition against
murder) can be discerned with the unaided intellect.  Many societies
have adopted such insights as laws or practices, which may superficially
resemble our mitzvos.  The practice of refraining from certain foods has
appeared in many cultures, either because the food in question was
sacred or because the food was injurious.  A classic example is the
prohibition of beans among the Pythagoreans.  Since there are a small
number of food animals in comparison to the number of cultures in
history, resemblance of these cultural practices to some of our mitzvos
should not be surprising.  Similarly adventitious resemblances of other
practices to our mitzvos should not be surprising.  These resemblances
do not support the assertion that we derived our mitzvos from other
nations' cultural or religious practices.

Especially the Egyptians.  Let us--for the sake of argument--look at it
as a matter of normal historical development and human psychology.  The
Egyptian exile is called "the Iron Furnace".  Male Jewish babies were
condemned to drowning.  Jews were enslaved and treated harshly.  The
surrounding society was the zenith of depravity and cruelty.  Is it
conceivable that we would have taken on *their* practices, for anything
of importance?  My grandparents fled the pogroms in Poland.  When they
crossed the border, they stopped speaking Polish: I never heard any
mention from them of anything Polish; not customs, not foods, not the
landscape; nothing.  I met no one of that generation who did keep alive
anything identifiable with their persecutors.  Is it conceivable that
parents who watched the Egyptians drown their sons would keep to
Egyptian practices in *anything*?  In circumcision of those same sons?

No nation has ever, to my knowledge, done such a thing while remaining
recognizable as a nation.  To give just two examples: we use "Arabic"
(really Hindu) numerals not because they are superior to the Greek
numerals--astronomers used Greek numerals until Copernicus's day--but
because the Arabs had such hatred for their former Greek rulers that
they purged everything Greek and imported replacement numerals from
India.  It is only this last month that an Israeli orchestra dared defy
the feelings of holocaust survivors and program Wagner's music.  They
were prevented by the public outcry, fifty years after the war.  Yet we
are to believe that parents who watched the Egyptians drown their sons
continued to circumcise their later sons because that was what the
Egyptians did?!

In summary, there does not seem to be anything in Herodotus solid enough
to investigate; and there seems to be overwhelming psychological and
historical evidence against the assertion that our mitzvos derive from
the practices of other nations.

Joshua H. Proschan
Internet: [email protected] or [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 00:53 EST
From: [email protected]
Subject: Rarest shmoneh esreh

An unusual event occurred this past Chanukah. Rosh Chodesh Tevet fell on
Shabbat, and it was also a leap year (shanat ha-ibur), which means that 
Musaf Shabbat Rosh Chodesh included both the phrase "ul'kaparat pasha"
and "Al ha-nissim." I estimate that this occurs on the average about once
every 12 or 13 years; the last time before 1991 was in 1977. This is the
rarest musaf, but is not, I think, the rarest shmoneh esreh. That honor
would go to Maariv on Motzei Shabbat, which falls on Rosh Chodesh Tevet,
before December 4, so that you would say "ten bracha" instead of "ten tal
umatar l'vracha". I am pretty sure that this is much rarer than Rosh
Chodesh Tevet falling on Shabbat on a leap year, but that it can happen.
I don't remember it ever happening, and am curious to know how often it
happens, when it happened last, and when it will next happen. Another 
question is when it first happened. At the time of Hillel Sheni, when the
calendar was fixed, such a combination may have been impossible, since the
date when you start saying "ten tal umatar" depends on the solar calendar,
which creeps up relative to the lunar calendar over the centuries. It may
have first occurred only some centuries after the calendar was fixed, and
then gradually become more common. I could calculate all this if I wanted 
to go to the trouble, but I am hoping that someone out there has a program
that can easily calculate all of the years that this occurred and will 
occur up to the Hebrew year 6000, say, and will let me know the results.
I would be most grateful.
                                    Mike Gerver ([email protected])

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon,  10 Feb 92 11:10:08 +0200
From: Morris Podolak <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Tachanun on Purim Katan and/or Pesach Sheni

With respect to not saying tachanun on Purim Katan and/or Pesach Sheni.
I don't think the issue is which of the two is more holy.  Rather, it is
a question of simcha (joy).  Any person or community, can celebrate a
miracle that happened to them, by declaring the anniversary of that day
to be a private Purim.  On such a day tachanun is not said in that
community.  The Encyclopedia Judaica has a list of such Purims for
anyone interested.  If a bridegroom is present in the beit knesset or
those directly involved in a circumscision, then tachanun is not said in
that beit knesset because of the personal simcha that is present there.
Now Purim Katan is mentioned in the Gemara (Megilla, 6b), where it is
specifically stated that fasting and funeral eulogies are prohibited.
As a result, tachanun is not said as well.  This is also the ruling of
the Shulchan Aruch (697:1).

Pesach Sheni is mentioned in the Torah, and so is clearly of greater
importance, but for some reason it is not mentioned in the Shulchan
Aruch as a time when you omit tachanun.  I did a bit of research on the
matter, and I found that all the Sepharadi commentators on the Shulchan
Aruch that I sampled, include Pesach Sheni as a time to omit tachanun,
while Ashkenazi commentators somethimes leave it out.  Indeed the Aruch
Hashulchan, written at the turn of the century, mentions that Pesach
Sheni is not included, and calls this "amazing" (davar peleh).  Even he
had no good reason for it.  My suggestion (based on something I saw in
the Encyclopedia Judaica) is that Pesach Sheni comes out during the
counting of the omer, which has become a time of mourning for Jews
everywhere. As a result the simcha which may have once been present is
gone, and so people may have felt it was appropriate to say tachanun.
This is just a guess, however.

Morris Podolak



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 16


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Non-Jewish tunes for Zmirot
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Non-conventional tunes for Zmirot (2)
             [Andrew Tannenbaum, Rabbi Charles Arian]
        Origin of Choson and Kallah not seeing each other
             [Susannah Danishefsky]
        Shabbat in Germany
             [Robert Levy]
        Shatnez
             [Chaim Schild]
        Toothbrushes (3)
             [Zev Kesselman, Aryeh Frimer, David Chasman]
        Which way to Jerusalem
             [Alexander Herrera]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 92 23:00:34 EST
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

Hello all,

One of the desires way back when Dave Chechik started this mailing list
was to have an environment that was pleasant to discuss things in, where
we could avoid the ever present danger (in electronic media
communications) of starting flame wars. I believe I may have made an
unwise decision in including the adds for the Discovery Seminar series
in a recent mailing. As there appear to be strong feelings on both sides
of the topic, and it does not appear that there is much light to shed,
just heat, I am making the editorial decision to not include any
Discovery related material, untill there is a substantial change in the
situation. I am aware that each "side" has at least one "rebuttal" that
it would like to see included, so let's just assume they cancel each
other out. 

For the future, PLEASE read and re-read any posting that you think may
be inflammatory. I don't want to make this list dull and boring, but I
would like to try and keep it friendly.

Thanks in advance to all!

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 19:28:50 +0200
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Non-Jewish tunes for Zmirot

It's a tricky business assigning religious identity to a tune.  Any tune
appealing enough to stick around for a while is inevitably going to be used
for many different sets of words, and human nature being what it is some of
those words will be religious, some will be romantic, and some will be obscene.
Does that affect the tune? Examples abound: if someone objects to your use of
"Battle Hymn of the Republic" tell them you're singing the tune of "John
Brown's Body" or "We're gonna hang Abe Lincoln to a Sour Apple Tree" or "Oh
Brother Will We Meet Again Upon the Other Side".  Our family often bentsches
to a tune which is either "the second theme in Appalachian Spring" or the
Shaker song "Simple Gifts".  And what about Hatikvah, which is based on a
Moldavian folk song (and which appears in Smetana's "Ma Vlast")? I don't know
Moldavia but I know folk music and I will bet the rent money that the tune
has been sung, in Moldavia, to religious words, to romantic words, and most
likely as a jingle to sell fish.

All the above applies to folk music (by my two favorite songwriters,
Traditional and Anon).Something like the Bach B-Minor Mass, which has
one and only one identity, clearly presents different problems.

There is a well-known story about one of the early chassidic tzadikkim
(not well-enough known for me to be sure of the name and I am away from my
books at present, I'm sorry) who would collect tunes he heard the peasants
singing and use them for niggunim.  When reproached for this he explained
that tunes fall into sin and have to be redeemed along with the rest of the
holy sparks; that such-and-such a tune a gentile boy had been singing was
actually a tune of King David's and that he was lifting it up again by singing
it in kedusha.  No, it's not halacha, but it's a nice story.
---Sara Svetitsky

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 17:54:06 -0500
From: [email protected] (Andrew Tannenbaum)
Subject: Re:  Non-conventional tunes for Zmirot

Perhaps this is silly or obvious, but after four cups of wine on those
nights unlike the others, I get silly and sing "echod mi yodeah" to the
tune from "the twelve days of xmas," since they both have the same
for(i=1;i<=12;i++) format.  As for whether it's permissible, well, I
recall that it's a no-no to read from the Torah using comtemporary
tunes.  I'm less clear on brachot, but I think "echod mi yodeah" is a
folk song rather than a brachah, so I don't think this transgression
weighs too heavily in the light of my other faults.

	chamishaaahhh chumsheeeiii toraaahhh,
	Andrew Tannenbaum   Interactive   Cambridge, MA   +1 617 661 7474

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 08:37:06 EST
From: Rabbi Charles Arian <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Non-conventional tunes for Zmirot

I was mildly surprised to hear Musaf in a N.J. Orthodox shul davened to
the tune of the "Theme from Exodus" (this land is mine, G-d gave this
land to me . . .) It was quite beautiful, and of course the original
words reflect a Jewish theme.

The problem in my mind was that this very pro-Zionist tune was written
by Pat Boone, a fervent born-again Xian. Pat Boone is pro-Israel, but he
also had a significant role in the conversion of at last one of our
brethren (Robby Zimmerman, aka Bob Dylan) to Xianity.

Does this make "Theme from Exodus" Xian music or not? I surely don't know.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 92 09:03:50 EST
From: [email protected] (Susannah Danishefsky)
Subject: Origin of Choson and Kallah not seeing each other

Does anyone know  the origin and source of  the custom of  a Choson and Kallah
(bride and  groom)  not seeing  one   another  during  the week  before  their
marraige?  Thanks in advance.

 Susannah Danishefsky - Bell Communications Research 
 email - [email protected]
 Phone: (908) 699-5623               Fax: (908) 562-0104 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 92 14:46:10 EST
From: [email protected] (Robert Levy)
Subject: Shabbat in Germany

I will be traveling to Berlin on the Sunday after Pesach, and I will have to 
be in that part of Europe for the following Shabbat.  Any suggestions about
places for Shabbat in Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich--or Amsterdam,Rotterdam,
Paris, if I can leave Germany.  Robert Levy

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1992 15:44 EST
From: SCHILD%[email protected] (Chaim Schild)
Subject: Shatnez


I was wondering whether anyone has seen any explanations on the origin
of the prohibition of shatnez and why it is overridden for the curtains
on the mishkan and the Cohen's clothes ?

Chaim

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 92 10:02 JST
From: ZEV%[email protected] (Zev Kesselman)
Subject: Toothbrushes

	The related issue of milchig and fleishig dentures (and pesachdig!)
is treated by a responsum in Tzitz Eliezer Vol 9 # 25.  Makes for fascinating
reading.
					Zev Kesselman
					Zev@Hadassah

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 92 09:11 O
From: Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Toothbrushes

Regarding the two toothbrushes issue:
    One does not need two toothbrushes for the following reasons:
         1) The toothbrush itself never becomes Milchig or Fleishig
because it is always used cold. The laws of (bli'ah) absorption or
desorption only apply when substances are hot (as a general rule, there
are some exceptions.)
         2) A toothbrush is almost always used with toothpaste which as
a soap converts the food to unedible ("Ne'echal me'achilat kelev").
         3) People wash out their toothbrush after use and don't stick
dirty toothbrushes in their mouths.
         Considering all the above, their should be no halachic problem.
                        frimer@barilan

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 92 14:04:12 -0500
From: [email protected] (David Chasman)
Subject: Toothbrushes

First, the actual prohibition in on cooking meat and milk together -
nothing more.  In addition, the food which you are trying to remove is
clearly rather disgusting and something you wouldn't consider food.

It would seem that this line of reason could bring you to R' Feinstein's
rationale for allowing the use of a dishwasher (with soap. without soap
is another story) for milk and meat (w/separate) racks.  Basically, he
feels that the soap destroys the edible nature of the food - and even
though they might be cooked together (clearly not the case in your
mouth) there's no problem , since the disgusting stuff isn't food
anyway.  So in the case of your mouth where there's no chance of
cooking, it would seem to be a simple kal v'chomer.

David Chasman

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 13:54:54 PST
From: [email protected] (Alexander Herrera)
Subject: Re: Which way to Jerusalem

In Vol 3, #13, Harold A. Miller <[email protected]> writes:

> As to directional aspect of shuls down under, my experience is somewhat
> limited, but things seem a little confused.  I'm in Melbourne.  The
> three places I frequent have one facing west, and two facing more or
> less north!  Just for grins, I have seen the two Reform/Liberal shuls.
> One faces south, the other east.

At first I was a little mifted at your "just for grins" comment, but I
assume you meant it in the best way, i.e., as an interesting aside. I
am not a Reform Jew, but I think they have interesting things to say.

Here is a quote from American Reform Responsa: Collected Responsa of
the Central Conference of American Rabbis: 1889-1983, edited by Walter
Jacob, 1983, page 62.

	Occasional efforts were made in various sections of Europe to
	orient the synagogue more precisely toward Jerusalem, and
	therefore a number of these synagogues face south rather than
	eastward. This led to considerable controversy about the
	orientation of the synagogue, whether it should be changed and
	in which direction the worshiper should actually face (Judah
	Altman, Mei Yehuda, #17; Naftali Zvi Berlin, Meshiv Davar 1.10;
	Sede Chemed, Ma-arechet Beit Hakeneset, #42; Ba-er Heitev to
	Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, #94). The last source cites two
	responsa which came to totally opposing conclusions.

The responsa also cited two cases where modern synagogues went to great
lengths to establish an eastward orientation. They finally came to the
conclusion that Reform synagogues should face south or east in
accordance with tradition whenever possible. If it is not possible,
then the worshiper should orient his heart toward Jerusalem according
to Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 94.2.

I don't know if Reform Jews in Melbourne read American Reform Responsa,
and the question may not have come up in Australia. It seems to me that
Reform Judaism and its rabbinate cannot impose its decisions upon the
whole of their movement. Their only authority is their ablility to
persuade everyone to conform. As you might guess, this produces a
patchwork quilt of observance. I don't know how much better Orthodoxy
is in imposing its decisions upon its members, but I assume they have
less of an authority problem than Reform.

Alex Herrera
uunet!mdcsc!ah




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 17


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Direction of Shuls
             [Aryeh A. Frimer]
        Discrimination
             [Najman Kahana]
        Rosh Chodesh Musaf
             [Steve Gale]
        Shaatnez
             [Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth]
        Tikkun article
             [a.s.kamlet]
        jewish music
             [Dvorah Art]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 09:16 O
From: Aryeh A. Frimer <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Direction of Shuls

          An intersting offshoot to the question of the direction one
faces during Davening has to do with the positioning of the Aron Kodesh
(the Torah Ark). In the old Sefardi tradition one always faced
Jerusalem, but the Aron kodesh could be on any wall. Sometimes it was
even in a different room.
         The Ashkenazim have the custom of putting the Aron Kodesh on
the wall one faces praying toward Jerusalem. Rav Henkin, in Eidot
le-Yisrael discusses what to do if the Aron is not on the "Proper" wall.
He says that if it is only slightly off (South East instead of East) one
should face the Aron, but if it is way off one should disregard the Aron
and pray in the proper direction. He notes, however, that the minhag
nevertheless seems to be that one always faces the Aron; in such a case
one shouldn't raise a ruckus (because of "al Tifrosh min ha-tzibbur" -
not separating oneself from the community) and should direct his heart
toward Jerusalem.
                         FRIMER@BARILAN

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 16:11 JST
From: Najman Kahana <NAJMAN%[email protected]>
Subject: Discrimination

>Regardless of Israeli law, and the fact that Najman Kahana likes
>   "The discriminatory laws of my settlement. They give me a nice Jewish
>    life as I want it"

Sorry it bothers you. Put it down to a different culture. In my defence,
I would like to think that about 10% of the Israeli population are not
wrong.

>Is there any sound halachic basis for discriminating against fellow Jews who
>have not yet reached one's own level of observance.

Sorry again. Yes (conditionally).
	Not all Jews are trying to "improve" their spiritual level.
	Again, from a different culture, in Israel it is common to have to
	 defend oneself from the anti-religious.

[Anyone have halachik sources one way or the other? Mod.]

	Najman Kahana  -  [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 08:43:40 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected] (Steve Gale)
Subject: Rosh Chodesh Musaf

In volume 3 number 15, Mike Gerver ([email protected]) mentions
that we (Ashkenazim only?) say the phrase "ul'chaparat pasha" (and
atonement for willful sin) during the Rosh Chodesh Musaf only on leap
years.

The obvious question came to my mind.  Why do we _not_ ask for this
atonement on non-leap years?  Do we only commit sins on leap years or
do we not want atonement on non-leap years?  I think not.  There must
be something I don't understand, so I asked some people (including a
Rabbi) the same question and I got two unacceptable answers along
these lines:

(a) "It's not our sins, but rather G-d's sins"
    I think this is a theologic contradiction.  How can something
    which is all good and all knowing sin?

(b) "It's not our sins, but rather the moon's sins"
    This also presents a problem since the moon cannot commit a
    _willful_ sin (pasha).

Anybody in mail.jewish land have any other ideas?

Steve Gale ([email protected])

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1992 9:48:53 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: Re: Shaatnez

Shaatnez is a good example of a chok.  Its origins, of course are
explicit in the Torah, and there is no rational reason for the
prohibition.  Al pi sod [according to the hidden/mystical tradition -
Mod], one could say that tzemer (wool) represents 
Hevel, who brought his sacrifice from sheep, and pishton (linen)
represents Kayin, who brought his sacrifice from flax, and never the
twain shall meet.

[Interesting, Sheldon. Do you have a source/reference for the above?
Thanks, Avi/Mod.]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 16 Feb 1992  15:29 EST
From: cblph!ask (a.s.kamlet)
Subject: Tikkun article

I recently described a discussion in s.c.j concerning a yeshiva which
took many actions against tenants of an apartment building near their
yeshiva -- shutting off electricity, shutting off heat, etc, -- so that
they could evict the tenants and use the building for the yeshiva.  I
speculated that perhaps the yeshiva rabbis found a halachik basis for
their actions, and added perhaps they used reasoning similar to that
used to force a man to grant his wife a get.

Several writers condemned this position, some stating the article
must have been biased, or simly lies, and some who knew the magazine
said, in effect, you can't believe anything they would write.

The magazine in question is TIKKUM Magazine, March, April, 1991, and the
article in question was written by Susan Hamovitch "Redeveloping the
Shtetl: The Buyout of Borough Park".  In it, she describes how Pupa
Yeshiva, which happens to own rental property near its schools, has
intimidated and threatened its tenants, (who happen to be religious
elderly jews), in an attempt to force them to move out because it (the
yeshiva) wants their apartments to use as classrooms and offices for
their expanding schools.

The original summary was posted to s.c.j by Peter Mark who supplied
the specifics.

I am posting now so those who have not read this article can have
the opportunity so to do.  Those who claim that TIKKUN is
anti-religious or is biased against Yeshivas, or some such other
criticism, is it because TIKKUN allows non-orthoodox viewpoints to
appear?   The author may or may not have a position, but the facts
she presents she claims can be verified, and I expect the Magazine
asked for some verification before publication.

I am not trying to get into any sort of war or flame.  I am supplying
the information on this article so anyone interested in facts can begin
to persue them.  Since when do Jews refuse to read potential sources of
information because they don't like something about it?  If they don't
believe the facts to be correct, they can investigate for themselves.

But outright condemnation of the facts of an article because of its
author's name or because of the Magazine it appears in, is what other
religions --- not Judaism -- are known for.  As Jews we do not have
to take any statements at face value, and we are taught to seek the
truth and Justice.  That flies in the face of the vehement
condemnations I received by people who either did not know the
yeshiva involved, the Magazine the article was in, the author, or
all three.  The majority of the mail I received was from Jews who
immediately took the "pro yeshiva" position while admiting they had
no knowledge of the particular incidents.

Now that you see the citation, I suggest that those interested read
the article in TIKKUN.  And if they then wish to persue additional
information, to do so.  But to pre-judge facts based only on the
words "yeshiva"  and "rabbis" seems to me out of place.

[Please read this carefully before responding, if you feel the desire to
flame. Art is not attacking the Yeshiva, rather giving the source of the
original information. In addition he is calling into question the
attacking of the information based either on no information or on just
the magazine that reported the information. Responses that have factual
information as to the reliability of factual information published in
Tikkun, would be highly relevant. I think it is clear that the
philosophic/idealogical stance of Tikkun is quite opposed to Torah
Judaism (corrections to that would be welcome to me).  Mod]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue,  18 Feb 92 10:26 +0200
From: Dvorah Art <DVORAH%[email protected]>
Subject: Jewish Music

The discussion of non-jewish music used in jewish liturgical contexts
brought the following to mind:

The Zamir chorale (in N.Y) performs many pieces by the Renaissance
Italian Jewish composer, Solomoni Rossi, from his HaShirim Asher
LeShlomo. These are pieces that were written expressly for Jewish use,
in Jewish ritual. They're very nice, & in the style of their time.

Some years ago, several choir members were at the same schul on a
Shabbat morning, and stayed for lunch. One of the choir members was
davening from the amud and used Rossi's Kedushah (the others filled in
the other parts) and later, at benching, also used a Rossi setting.

The congregation was very unhappy, and very vocal in its protests
against the use of "church music" in their schul.  They could not be
convinced that Rossi's music was as Jewish (or more!)  than much other
music that they heard in schul.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 18


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Bob Dylan
             [Joel Goldberg]
        Milk and Meat
             [Brave Raven]
        Non-Jewish Music (2)
             [Morris Podolak, Shlomo H. Pick]
        Room in Jerusalem needed
             [BURG J P]
        Shechina in the West
             [Shlomo H. Pick]
        Tachanun on Pesach Sheni
             [Susan Hornstein]
        Toothbrushes
             [Morris Podolak]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 08:46:24 EST
From: Joel Goldberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Bob Dylan

>      Pat Boone is pro-Israel, but he also had a significant role in
>the conversion of at last one of our brethren (Robby Zimmerman, aka Bob
>Dylan) to Xianity. 

   Not to worry. When last seen, Bob Dylan was eating in the Succah of
   Aish L.A.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1992 08:16:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Brave Raven <[email protected]>
Subject: Milk and Meat

	A correction on a recent posting regarding the applicability of
the laws concerning separation of meat and milk to toothbrushes...  I'm
sure that others will also notice this, but I just can't ignore this
one.  The statement was made:

"First, the prohibition is on cooking milk and meat together-nothing more."

	That is simply not correct.  The exact posuk is repeated three
times and prohibitions are derived from all three appearances.  The
three prohibitions are:
	 1- cooking kosher meat with kosher milk.
	 2- eating such a combination 
	 3- benefiting from this combination  (primarily but not
            exclusively monetary benefit). 

If you only wanted to take the posuk literally (which is not necessarily
implied in the post), then *only* the cooking of a male kid (i.e.goat)
in its own mother's milk would be prohibited.

Refael Hileman

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed,  19 Feb 92 10:39:33 +0200
From: Morris Podolak <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Non-Jewish Music

With regard to non-Jewish music, a couple of people wrote in that Martin
Luther wrote the tune to Maoz Tzur.  In the first place, that may be
acceptible, since the strongest prohibition is on idolatrous music, and
Protestantism, is almost certainly not idolatry in the halachic sense.
Catholicism, with its belief in the trinity, is much more problematic.
Still, I was bothered by the fact for another reason.  I have often had
the experience that what is taken for common knowledge is often with
little or no basis in fact.  A modern mythology, so to speak.  I find
this especially rankling where Judaism is concerned.  It seemed to me
that this business with Martin Luther might be a case in point, so I
looked it up.  The following is a quote from the Encyclopedia Judaica's
article on Maoz Tzur:

     "The most commonly sung melody of Ma'oz Zur is of West European
     origin and may be dated from around the early 15th century.  E.
     Birnbaum and A. Z. Idelsohn, on the basis of the similarity of
     isolated motives, related it to a group of early Protestant
     chorales and a German soldier's song.  There is a much closer
     correspondance in the entire melodic line to the church melody
     Patrem omnipotentem which appears in several Bohemian-Silesian
     mauscripts, the earliest of which is dated 1474."

My points are that

     1. There is no mention of Martin Luther.  Indeed if there is any
     connection with him at all it is through a "similarity of certain
     isolated motives" to Protestant music.  
     2. More that this, no one REALLY knows who authored the tune, it is
     all speculation based on similarity of musical ideas.
     3. The tune we use today is not identical to any of those mentioned
     in the above quote, although it may well have evolved from one of
     them. 

I don't know what the source is for the Martin Luther story.  It may
even be true, but it should not be presented as fact.

All of this is just an appetizer to what follows.  Another "fact" that
was mentioned by a couple of people is that one may convert a church to
a synagogue.  I think one person even said it is a mitzvah to do so.
Again, no sources were presented, so I went and looked it up.  In fact,
(and I mean "fact") it is not a mitzvah, and it is not completely clear
that it is even permitted!  The Shulchan Aruch (OH, 154:11) talks about
candles that were donated for idolatry, and were lit, but then
extinguished.  If these were later sold to Jews, they may not be used in
a synagogue.  The Magen Avraham (note 17) adds that this applies to
using the candle for any other mitzvah as well.  The reason given is
that once it has been used for idolatry it becomes repulsive to G-d and
may no longer be used for a mitzvah (see Machtzit Hashekel).  He then
cites the RAM (Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi) who says that it is permitted to
pray in a house that has been used regularly for idolatrous purposes.
Note he does not say it can be turned into a synagogue, only that you
may pray therein.  The Eliyahu Rabbah takes this distinction as
significant, and rules that although one may pray there one time, one
may not turn it into a synagogue even according to the RAM.  A similar
ruling is given by the Binyan Zion.  Surprisingly, the Mishnah Brurah
(45) does not make this distinction, and understands the RAM as
permitting even the conversion to a synagogue.  He admits that the
custom is to do so.  Even he, however, will not permit it in the case
where the gentiles brought their idols into the house.  In such a case,
if the idols were removed and the house sold to a Jew, he may live
there, but it may not be used as a synagogue.  Other strict opinions are
given by the Chatam Sofer (OH,42), the MAHARAM Shick (YD,154), and the
Sha'arei Zedek (12).  Rabbi Moshe Feinstein ztz"l (Igrot Moshe OH I, 49)
says that although many people in the United States base themselves on
the Magen Avraham and do convert churches into synagogues, and he does
not want to render invalid those synagogues which have been built this
way, he himself does not permit it. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef puts it most
succinctly: "It is generally agreed among the later authorities that one
should not convert a house that was used for idol worship (like a Xian
church) [his parenthesis, not mine] that was regularly used for idol
worship into a permanent synagogue (Yalkut Yosef II 154:22.  See also
Yabia Omer II YD 11:4; VI OH 7:1).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 14:24 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Non-Jewish Music

Tunes from churches and sephardi posekim: The general opinion as i
understand it from Sephardic Rabbis is that all Ashkenazic cantorial
pieces are church influenced.  It appears to me that there is a bias
against Ashkenazic chazzanut and non-Jewish influences.  As far as
Moslem influences, to me the issue is not clear, for vis-a-vis a Jew,
Islam is idolatry, and so I am not sure why it should be permitted in a
Jewish service.  At any rate, to my Western ear, it is not pleasing -
just as chazzanut is not pleasing to the eastern ear.

re: secular tunes.  I would like to recall the talmudic passage in which
it is recounted that "ACHER" left the true faith because he entered the
Beit ha-Midrash singing [the latest of] Greek tunes!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 18:14:42 GMT
From: BURG J P <[email protected]>
Subject: Room in Jerusalem needed

Female researcher requires quiet room with Shomer Shabbat academic
or working family in Jerusalem from 10th to 24th March 1992 as paying guest.
Some meals by arrangement. Out most of the time on weekdays. Non-smoking
household please!

Reply to [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 14:24 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Shechina in the West

Shechina in the West:  This referrence was stated in Babylonina in
reference to Eretz Yisrael.  From NYC, the shechina would be in the east
a. because it is the shortest route and b. there would be no problem of
the international dateline.  Why, in NYC, doesn't one face a little to
the south, like east-south-east? Shlomo


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Feb 92 13:19:56 U
From: Susan Hornstein <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Tachanun on Pesach Sheni

Morris Podolak's guess (below) on saying Tachanun on Pesach Sheni sounds
reasonable, especially when we remember that on Shabbat Mevarchim (the
Shabbat preceding Rosh Chodesh) during Sefirat Ha'Omer we *do* say Av
Harachamim, despite the fact that we omit it on Shabbat Mevarchim the
rest of the year.  So, Sefira can add mourning-like prayers on unlikely
occasions...

>My suggestion (based on something I saw in the Encyclopedia Judaica) is
>that Pesach Sheni comes out during the counting of the omer, which has
>become a time of mourning for Jews everywhere. As a result the simcha
>which may have once been present is gone, and so people may have felt
>it was appropriate to say tachanun.  This is just a guess, however.

Susan Hornstein - bellcore!pyuxd!susanh

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed,  19 Feb 92 10:39:33 +0200
From: Morris Podolak <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Toothbrushes

With respect to the question of why we don't use separate tooth brushes
after meat and dairy, I couldn't find a source for that one.  Actually
the question is even stronger for a person who has false teeth (the
removable kind).  Does he need two sets?  What about extra sets that are
kosher for Pesach?  What about fillings and crowns that are not
removable?  These questions have been discussed in the literature (a
good summary is in Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's Yechave Da'at vol. I, 8).  As I
said, I was not able to find a source that deals specifically with
toothbrushes, but I would make the following educated guess.  I stress,
it is only a guess.

Basically, you have to worry about the toothbrush absorbing the tastes
of both meat and milk.  This can only be done at a temperature of "yad
soledet" (hot enough that your hand jerks back when you touch it).  The
actual temperature is often given as 45 degrees Celsius, but there is no
question in my mind that it is actually significantly higher.  In any
case, the taste of a food is absorbed (by halachic definition) when the
temperature is greater than or equal to yad soledet (there are other
ways, but I don't want to digress too much here). Since you usually
brush your teeth with cold water, there is no absorption of tastes, and
the same toothbrush may be used.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 19


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        New Jersey Minyan Map
             [Larry Haber]
        Rosh Chodesh Musaf (6)
             [Prof. Aryeh Frimer, Bob Goldrich, Bob Tannenbaum, Joshua
             Proschan, Jeremy Schiff, Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Sha'atnez
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 20:03:55 EST
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

Sorry for the confusion with #18 and #19. I sent out #18, and then meant
to type something else, but instead hit the command to send out
<another> mail.jewish, when there was nothing new, so the blank file
overwrote #18 for many of you. If you got two copies of #18, they are
basically identical. This is the correct #19. 

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 11:58:17 EST
From: [email protected] (Larry Haber)
Subject: New Jersey Minyan Map

The Orthodox Shul in Livingston, NJ (Synagogue of the Suburban Torah
Center) has put together a Minyan Map for the state of New Jersey.  We
have solicited all Orthodox Shuls of which we had knowledge and also
found many private Mincha Minyanim.  This is for weekday services only.
Anyone wishing a copy, please post to me here.  Additionally, anyone who
wants to make an addition, please post to me as well indicating:
Name, address, City, Zip, Phone, Contact. Time of Schacharit, Mincha and
Maariv.  If Schacharit begins earlier on Torah reading days, please
indicate.  If Mincha is linked to Shkia, please indicate and if Maariv
follows Mincha please indicate that as well.  Any additional comments
will also be included if possible.

Thank you

Larry Haber for Suburban Torah Center

 Larry Haber - Internet: [email protected]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 10:11 O
From: Prof. Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Rosh Chodesh Musaf

        The question of why we add "U-le-haparat Pasha" should be broken
into two parts. Why we add anything at all and why we add this verse. As
to why we add anything at all: If you count the elements requested you
will find that they are 12 in number equal to the number of months in a
regular year. In a leap year we add a 13th element.

	[Same or similar answer from:

	[email protected] (Lorne Schachter)
	Asher Samuels - [email protected]
	Joshua H. Proschan -  [email protected]
	[email protected] (Neil Parks)
	[email protected] (Daniel Lerner)]
	Sean Philip Engelson <[email protected]>

        Regarding the second question, as to why we add "U-lechaparat
Pasha", Rosh Chodesh has always been considered as a monthly Yom HaDin
(Day of Judgment). Hence the custom of fasting Erev Rosh Chodesh called
Yom Kippur Katan (A mini Day Of Atonement). Since in a leap year we have
13 not just 12 of these Days of Atonement, a leap year has an added
element of Repentance which is reflected in the "U-le-chaparat Pasaha"
(and for the atonement of sins).
                 Aryeh Frimer (FRIMER@BARILAN)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 13:19:09 EST
From: [email protected] (Bob Goldrich)
Subject: Rosh Chodesh Musaf

I can't remember the source this, but the reason I heard was in
deferance to the fact that during leap years there is more of a gap
between Yom Kippur of this year and Yom Kippur of next year.  We add the
words since we don't want Hashem to wait the extra time (1 month) to be
"michapare" our sins.

  Robert N. Golrich, Rochester, NY -- [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 09:26:53 est
From: Bob Tannenbaum <trumpet!bob>
Subject: Re: Rosh Chodesh Musaf

The question was raised: Why do we say "ul'chaparat pasha" in
Musaf of Rosh Chodesh only on leap years?

Note also that it is said only from Rosh Hashana until Adar 1.

I would suggest the following. The leap year is an especially painful
reminder that we no longer have a Sanhedrin to declare the leap year.
We no longer have a Bais HaMikdosh to go bring our sacrifices.
We no longer have the opportunity to go to Jerusalem to bring the Pesach
sacrifice and no longer get to endure the difficult muddy journey
if Pesach occurs in the rainy season and no longer need the Sanhedrin
to independently determine if a leap year is necessary to keep Pesach
as the Spring Renewal Holiday.

This is a great spiritual loss caused "because of our great and numerous
sins we were exiled from our land and became distant from the divine
service" as we say in the Yom Tov davening. When we encounter the leap
year, we are reminded of our sins and ask G-d to remove them so that
we can again participate in the spiritual opportunity of adjusting
our calendar to accomodate our religious obligations.

Bob Tanenbaum -- 615-2899 -- HR 1L-225 -- trumpet!bob


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 04:59 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: re: Rosh Chodesh Musaf

The reason given in the siddurs is that if there is an error in 
proclaiming the leap year, we will be celebrating Purim and eating 
chometz when we should be celebrating Pesach and avoiding matzoh.  
First, we would be committing one of the most serious sins in the Torah.  
Second, the Pesach sacrifice was the sign of membership in the Jewish 
people.  That is why those who were unable to bring the Pesach sacrifice 
at its proper time asked Moshe for an alternative, and were given Pesach 
Sheni.  Even though they were performing another mitzvah that prevented 
them from bringing the sacrifice, they feared that by not bringing the 
Pesach sacrifice they might lose their status as part of Klal Yisroel. 

For these reasons, we add a prayer for forgiveness during those times 
when we are at risk of erroneously intercalating an extra month. 

Joshua H. Proschan   Internet: [email protected]
                                [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 11:58:09 EST
From: [email protected] (Jeremy Schiff)
Subject: Rosh Chodesh Musaf

In answer to Steve Gale's question (mail.jewish 3.17) about the reason
we insert "ulchaparat pasha" into the rosh chodesh musaf shmoneh esrei
from Tishrei to Adar Sheni during a shannah meuberet, I believe the
author of the tefila was using the words "chet", "avon" and "pesha" in
their precise meaning, i.e. "chet" is a sin (for want of a better word)
done "bishgaga" (unwittingly), "avon" is a sin done "letayavon" (with
knowledge that it is wrong, but to satisfy our human desires) and
"pesha" is a sin that is done "lehachis" (with the sole intention of
defying, or denying, HKBH). These are the meanings of these three words
in most of their uses in the Yom Kippur tefilot; they are sometimes
interchanged, however.  (I might mention in passing, that the meanings
of the three expressions "selicha", "mechila", "capparah" are much more
difficult to pin down; I recall one Shabbat Shuva hearing two Drashot
presenting contradictory hypothesis on just this question!)

Assuming these usages for the "chet", "avon" and "pesha", it is human to
commit chataim and even the occaisional avon, and we therefore ask
forgiveness (for want of a better word) for these every Rosh Chodesh.  A
pesha is a different matter altogether; hopefully we are completely free
of them, and if chas veshalom we are not, we should not be expecting an
easy atonement. (I am assuming, by the way, that the use of the word
"pashanu" in the daily shmoneh esrai is not precise, and means "avinu".)
This is why we do not ask for "caparat pasha" every rosh chodesh.

The exception is in a "leap year". The pushing off of the Yom Tov of
Pesach, and its accompanying mitzvot, is considered in some sense a
peshiah.  This is the usual reason given for the "taaniot shovevim tat"
(the minhag of fasting the Thursdays of parshiot Shemot Vaera Bo
Beshalach Yitro Mishpatim Terumah Tetsaveh in a leap year). I suspect
the insertion of "ulchaparat pasha" is precisely for this reason; I
would love to have a source for this, but I have to admit that I made it
up. I think it seems plausible though.

Jeremy Schiff ([email protected])

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 19:24:33 +0200
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Rosh Chodesh Musaf

Note that the phrase "ul'chaparat pesha", added only during leap years,
raises the number of terms in the list from 12 to 13, so that there is
one for each month of the year, even in a leap year.  Also note that it
is only added from Tishrei to Nissan, since the period from Nissan to
Tishrei might belong either to the previous or to the next year,
depending on when you start the year.  The period from Tishrei to Nissan
definitely includes Adar Bet, so it is definitely part of a leap year.
Safek b'rachot le-kula.

This whole business is absent in Nusach ha-Gra, used in Israel.

Ben Svetitsky     [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 20:42:40 +0200
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Sha'atnez

Chaim Schild asked why the prohibition on sha'atnez is overriden for the
clothes of the Kohen Gadol and for the curtains of the Mishkan.  The
first is deep, the second, less so.  The halacha of sha'atnez appears
twice in the Torah, Lev. 19:19 and Deut. 22:11.  The apparent redundancy
of the latter makes it useful in Yevamot 4b ff.  There the Talmud
constructs an archetype (binyan av) for the rule that "'Aseh docheh lo
ta'aseh," a positive commandment ovverules a negative one.  The pasuk
about sha'atnez is followed (22:12) by a pasuk about tzitzit, and this
placement proves that tzitzit overrules sha'atnez: The t'chelet of
tzitzit must be made of wool, even for a linen garment (but not today,
when the t'chelet dye is unavailable).

Thus we have the general rule.  But the case of the Kohen Gadol is
easier, since there is an explicit instruction to make his clothes of
linen and wool.  Similarly, we are instructed to offer up korbanot on
Shabbat.  Would you say this explicit command should be ignored, because
of Shabbat?  This, in fact, is a harder question, since Shabbat carries
the death penalty, and such prohibitions are _not_ generally overriden
by positive mitzvot.  But the answer is easy.

As for the curtains, the same gemara in Yevamot proves from "Lo
tilbash," you shall not wear, that it is only garments of sha'atnez that
are forbidden.  You can use it for curtains, you can buy and sell it,
you can carry a bolt of it on your shoulder.

Ben Svetitsky  [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 20


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Christianity and idolatry
             [Arnold Lustiger]
        Islam and idolatry
             [Johnatan Ben Avraham]
        Protestantism, idolatry or not? (6)
             [Richard Schultz, Frank Silbermann, Stanley Beitsch, "Dave
             Novak", Rabbi Charles Arian, Shlomo H. Pick]
        Sefirat Ha'Omer
             [Eric Fauman]
        Shabbat in Monterey?
             [D.M.Wildman]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 08:49:26 EST
From: Arnold Lustiger <ALUSTIG%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Christianity and idolatry

At the end of Morris Podolak's rigorously researched conribution on
converting churches to synagogues he quotes R' Ovadia Yosef who says:
"It is generally agreed among the later authorities that one should not
convert a house that was used for idol worship (like a Xian church) -his
parenthesis, not mine- that was regularly used for idol worship into a
permanent synagogue (Yalkut Yosef II 154:22.  See also Yabia Omer II YD
11:4; VI OH 7:1).

Does R' Ovadiah imply that Christians are engaged in avoda zara? Doesn't
this have halacha lema'aseh (practical) implications regarding how we
relate to Christians?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 11:55:54 IST
From: [email protected] (Johnatan Ben Avraham)
Subject: Islam and idolatry

The RAMBAM made clear in a responsum to a Jewish convert from Islam that
Islam is not avodah zarah. I don't have the exact source for the text
of the responsum, can someone help us on this?

 - Jonathan Ben-Avraham (Avinu)
 - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 08:20:51 -0800
From: [email protected] (Richard Schultz)
Subject: Protestantism, idolatry or not?

With the kind permission of our moderator, I would like to correct an error
that is on the fringes of the topics discussed here.

In mail.jewish 3/18, Morris Podolak wrote that

>. . .with regard to non-Jewish music, a couple of people wrote in that Martin
>Luther wrote the tune to Maoz Tzur.  In the first place, that may be
>acceptible, since the strongest prohibition is on idolatrous music, and
>Protestantism, is almost certainly not idolatry in the halachic sense.
>Catholicism, with its belief in the trinity, is much more problematic.

I realize that minutiae of Christian belief are not normally discussed
here, and I would guess that our beloved moderator is relatively
uninterested in reviving the "is Christianity avodah zarah" debate.
Nonetheless, I feel that it is necessary to point out that Protestant
faiths are in fact trinitarian.  In fact, it's mostly Protestants who
are most loud in insisting that non-trinitarian groups such as the
Unitarians, the Mormons, the Seventh-Day Adventists, etc., are not even
Christian.  Of course some of them (e.g.  Jimmy Swaggart) say that about
Roman Catholics, but for different reasons.

					Richard Schultz
					[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 10:49:33 CST
From: Frank Silbermann <[email protected]>
Subject: Protestantism, idolatry or not?

I think most Askenazim accept the view that Christianity
(of which Catholocism is the dominant branch) is _not_ idolatry.

All mainstream Protestant groups also teach the trinitarian doctrine.
However, my rabbi does distinguish between Catholic and Protestant
houses of worship.  He will not enter a Catholic church because of the
statues of their saints, before which many Catholics pray.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 11:46:34 EDT
From: [email protected] (Stanley Beitsch)
Subject: Protestantism, idolatry or not?

I believe that his reference to "Protestantism" vs Catholicism on a
belief in the trinity is incorrect.  The reformation did not eliminate a
belief in a trinity, but used the separation from Rome as a major theme.
Today, I believe that most Protestant sects do maintain a belief in a
trinity.  The Unitarian (now, Unitarian-Universalist) movement did,
however, adopt the position not to require a belief in the trinity.  The
Catholic Church's heavy emphasis on icons/statues/etc., I believe, has
been the basis for viewing the Catholic Church as fostering idolatry in
most of our minds.  However, the deification of a mortal, I would
think, is still very problematic in all sects of xianity.

						Stan Beitsch

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 09:29:26 EST
From: "Dave Novak" <novak%[email protected]>
Subject: Protestantism, idolatry or not?

Actually, nearly every Protestant denomination asserts a belief in the
trinity.  A prominent exception is Unitarianism; it is called
Unitarianism because they are not trinitarians.  I have heard Christians
of other denominations assert that Unitarians are not really Christaians
*because* they do not assert belief in the trinity.

Surely, any halachic distinctions between different Christian
denominations are based partly on their religious behavior; as, for
example, their use of three-dimensional representations of human forms
in their churches.  Generally, Protestants do not use such
representations, and I have heard Protestants refer to Catholic use of
these representations as idolatry.

David Novak -  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 02:46:46 EST
From: Rabbi Charles Arian <[email protected]>
Subject: Protestantism, idolatry or not?

I know this is mail.jewish and not mail.protestant but Protestants
certainly believe in the trinity exactly in the same way that Catholics
do.

Their beliefs about the Mass, and the significance of the bread and wine
used in it differ ffrom group to group, with none of the Protestant
sects having exactly the same beliefs as the Catholics do on this point.
This may be what Morris means.

But the trinity is a basic doctrine of all Christians, referring to the
one G-d being made up of three "persons" -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
This is valid in Protestantism (with the exception of the Unitarians) as
well as Catholicism.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 14:19 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Protestantism, idolatry or not?

This statement cannot be said about all Prot. sects.  concerning
unitareans, i agree.  However, Lutherins believe in the trinity. Their
disagreement with the Church (Catholic) is in the name of the Mass with
the wafer & wine becomes the body of Jesus (CAth.) or just symbolizes it
(Luther).  Otherwise in terms of the trinity, they are both pure
idolatry!

  Shlomo


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 23:09:34 PDT
From: Eric Fauman <[email protected]>
Subject: Sefirat Ha'Omer

I am looking for information on observance of mourning during the
counting of the omer.  Specifically, when are weddings permitted in this
period?  I have seen sources which say only Lag B'omer is acceptable,
yet others say any time following Lag B'omer is acceptable.  Elsewhere I
have heard that weddings on the new moons are permitted.  Is there a
difference between Sephardic and Askenazic customs in this regard?

Eric Fauman - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Feb 1992  15:10 EST
From: [email protected] (D.M.Wildman)
Subject: Shabbat in Monterey?

In order to attend a conference in Monterey, CA on Sunday, May 3, it
looks as though I'll have to spend Shabbat May 1-2 somewhere in or
between San Fransisco and Monterey. San Jose may be an alternative.  Can
anyone provide information on food/lodging/minyanim for Shabbat in that
part of the country?

Since the conference lasts all week, information about kosher food
stores and restaurants would also be welcomed. Is there anywhere in
Monterey or nearby to buy kosher food?

Finally, there's at least one other observant Jew from my company going
to this conference, and we'd be interested in meeting any of same who
might be there. Any other readers going to CHI '92?

You may send responses directly to me at 

       [email protected]

or respond to mail.jewish and let Avi do all the work.

Thanks!
Danny Wildman


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 21


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        13th bracha in leap year
             [Hillel Markowitz]
        Chatan and Kallah not seeing each other
             [Morris Podolak]
        Discrimination (2)
             [Bob Tannenbaum, Prof. Aryeh Frimer]
        Non-Jewish Music
             [Morris Podolak]
        Non-conventional tunes for Zmirot
             [Neil Parks]
        Rosh Chodesh Mussaf (2)
             [Shlomo H. Pick, Warren Burstein]
        Zemun and Women
             [Daniel Lerner]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 
From: Hillel Markowitz <[email protected]>
Subject: 13th bracha in leap year

I have been told that the reason for adding ulechapparat pesha is
because one must not go for a full year without asking mechilah (both
from hashem and man).  Similarly, the hataras nedarim must be done
within a year in order for the person not to be over.  In a leap year of
13 months, the yom kippur is too far away from the previous yom kippur
so we add a request for cappara.

Hillel Markowitz    [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed,  26 Feb 92 10:45:47 +0200
From: Morris Podolak <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Chatan and Kallah not seeing each other

With regard to Susannah Danishefsy's question about the custom of the
Chatan and Kallah not seeing each other during the week before the
wedding: I suspect that the custom has its origin in the talmudic
concept of "dam chimud" (Niddah 61a). As most of the readers know,
marital relations are forbidden when a woman is menstruating, and for at
least seven days thereafter (just how much more than seven days depends
on several things.  The laws are involved, and I'm just giving the bare
outline here for background).  The Gemara says that when a woman agrees
to a marriage we assume that the desire generated will cause her to have
some flow of menstrual blood.  This is called "dam chimud" (blood
brought on through desire).  As a result, whether she actually saw blood
or not, the woman is assumed to be like a niddah and must wait at least
seven days before she can go to mikveh.  The practical effect of this is
that a woman must wait at least seven days between accepting the
proposal and going through the marriage ceremony.  This is brought down
as the law in the Shulchan Aruch (YD 192:1).  This forms the basis for
the custom.  We are afraid that if the kallah sees the chatan before the
wedding, her desire might be aroused and cause "dam chimud".  This could
delay the wedding, so there is a custom that she not see him for seven
days prior to the wedding.  Someone is bound to ask what happens at the
chupah itself where they see each other? This has been discussed in the
responsa literature at length, and this is not the place for a detailed
discussion.  Suffice it to say the major effect is the decision to
marry, and not so much the actual seeing of the chatan.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 09:50:26 est
From: Bob Tannenbaum <trumpet!bob>
Subject: Discrimination

The question was raised: Is there a halachic source for establishing
isolated communities of observant Jews separate from non-observant Jews?

Someone may want to check the exact source, but I remember that when
Maimonides (Rambam) discusses the prohibition against separating oneself
from the community (al tiphrosh min hatzibor), he says that applies only
to a community of basically righteous people. He goes on to say, that it
is an obligation to leave any place where the people behave improperly
and move to a community where the people do behave properly. He even
goes so far as to say that a person has the obligation to live in total
isolation if one cannot find a community of righteous people.

It would take careful analysis of this halacha by a person of great
Torah perception to decide what category different communities fall under.

Nevertheless, I think it would be safe to say that a person has the
right to create a community comprised solely of observant Jews and to
establish criteria for membership which include measures of observance.
The formal Kehillot in Europe had the Bais Din and Chief Rabbi to set
community standards of behavior, and they had the authority of exiling
individuals who did not meet those standards.

I would like to raise the opposite question: What is the halachic source
that allows us to live in communities which happen to be antagonistic to
Torah values?

Ezra Bob Tanenbaum -- 615-2899 -- HR 1L-225 -- trumpet!bob


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 08:59 O
From: Prof. Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Discrimination

    A year or two ago, "Tradition" published a translation of an article
written by HaRav Amital (Co-Rosh Yeshiva of The Gush) regarding how one
is to relate to the non-observant. Essentially it boils down to the fact
that nowadays the Mitzvah of "Ve-Ahavta le-re'acha kamocha" (Love thy
neighbor as thyself") extends to all Jews whether observant ornot.  The
latter mitzva, hence, requires us to treat all Jews equally in our
personal and professional lives while realizing that they may still be
"sinners". Rav Amitals analysis removes the Halachically relevant
element of "Le-Hachis" (Sinning spitefully or as an act of rebellion).
In part, Rav Amitals argument is based on the Hazon Ish who states that
the commandment of "Ve-ahavta" is applicable unless one received proper
criticism (Tochacha) for his misdeeds. Today, this is not possible since
no one is above reproach himself and hence no one can give tochacha
(this is based on the Hagahot Maimoniyot). He also discusses social
pressure and societal/educational influences in shaping decisions and
ones weltanschaung (world view) as well as the traumatic effect of the
Holocaust - all of which convert most "non-observant" individuals into
"tinok She-Nishba" (One who doesn't know better).
  Since the Rav Amitals arguments are clearly presented and documented,
I suggest that all be required to read the "Tradition" article before
responding to his position.
                  Aryeh Frimer (FRIMER@BARILAN)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed,  26 Feb 92 10:45:47 +0200
From: Morris Podolak <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Non-Jewish Music

With regard to defining exactly what non-Jewish music is, I agree with
Sara Svetitsky and others that "it's a tricky business".  I just want to
bring to the attention of the readers a point made by Rabbi Ovadiah
Yosef in a footnote to his responsum in Yechave Da'at (vol. 2, no. 5).
He says that although it is permitted to use even melodies that were
used in gentile religious services, one should be careful because it is
liable to start the people thinking of the original words to the song,
and that is a problem.  If, however, the melody has, through the passage
of time, lost its connection with the original words, then there is no
problem.  A melody that has long been used in Jewish prayer, even if it
originally came from an unacceptable source, has gained a measure of
holiness, and may be used without any qualms (how such a melody came to
be used in Jewish services in the first place is a question he does not
address).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 01:09:32 -0500
From: [email protected] (Neil Parks)
Subject: Re: Non-conventional tunes for Zmirot

There is a new niggun (melody) that has become very popular lately for
"Eitz Chaim Hee"  ("It is a tree of life..."--sung when putting away the
Torah after the reading).

Is it my imagination, or was it cribbed from the Engelbert Humperdinck
song, "Les Bicyclettes de Belsize"?

Anyway, taking our melodies from non-Jewish--even anti-Jewish--sources
is nothing new.  The best-known (at least here in the USA) niggun for
"Ein Kelokeinu" ("There is none like our G-d") is an old Prussian
marching song.

At Taylor Road Synagogue here in Cleveland, the standard melody for
"Tzur Mishelo Ochalnu" (a Shabbos table song) is actually an old sailing
tune.

And I know that the Purim song "Oh once there was a wicked, wicked man"
has a melody that is of non-Jewish origin, though I don't recall at the
moment what it was taken from.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 13:25 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Rosh Chodesh Mussaf

The German rite (or just Frankfort) add the kaparat pesha only on Adar
Sheni!  I would like to recall the midrash that G-D requires kaparra for
making the moon smaller (quoted in Tosophot Rosh Hashana 8B S.V.
shehachodesh) - perhaps a special mention should be made where this
"sin" is done one more time than in the usual year and hence according
to the above-mentioned rite the term is only mentioned once a year
during the leap year 

Yours - Shlomo

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 22:16:01 +0200
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Rosh Chodesh Mussaf

> I would suggest the following. The leap year is an especially painful
> reminder that we no longer have a Sanhedrin to declare the leap year.

This would be applicable if it could be shown that "ul'chaparat pasha"
was added after the Sanhedrin stopped declaring leap years.  Is this the
case?  I have no idea.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 21:29:54 PST
From: [email protected] (Daniel Lerner)
Subject: Zemun and Women

One shabbat I had a meal with 1 other male and three females.
The three females called for a m'zumin (recited the invitation to
grace after meals: rabotai n'varech, etc.) of women.  I know
that women are obligated to invite each other to bensch in
the mishnah, but I'm not sure what the shulchan aruch says.

Three possibilities come to mind in this situation.
1) The women have a mzumin and the men stay and say amen.
2) The women have a mzumin and the men leave the room
3) The women don't have a mzumin.

I once asked a Rav in the LaBrea area of Los Angeles about this.
He said that there technically exists a mzumin for women, but that
in his commmunity, this is not done.  

Are there any tshuvot on this?

Dan Lerner
Berkeley, CA




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                       Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 22


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Bnei-Noach Organization
             [Eli Turkel]
        Catholicism, idolatry or not?
             [Alexander Herrera]
        Islam and Idolatry
             [Maurice M. Roumani]
        Non-Jewish Music
             [Maurice M. Roumani]
        Torah Shleima or other Seforim of Rav Kasher
             [Dov Green]
        Trinitarianism, is it Shituf?
             [[email protected]]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 92 22:37:21 EST
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

Hello all,

Mail.jewish will be moving this week to it's new home on
israel.nysernet.org. We will be transfering into listserv type list, so
in the future you will be able to drop or join the list directly.
Everyone currently on the list will be carried over to the new list, so
"you" don't need to join directly, but if you have friends who want to
join, you no longer need mail the request to me. If you find that you've
suddenly stopped getting mail.jewish in the next week or so, please let
me know. I expect that there will be several more editions coming out
this week, so a stop of the mail would be due to some problem in the
changeover. The mailing list will remain a moderated one, with
contributions to be sent to either [email protected] or
[email protected]

Along with this move, the full mail.jewish archives will be made
available on israel.nysernet.org. As the changeover progresses, I will
keep you all informed.

Avi Feldblum - [email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 09:32:58 EST
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Bnei-Noach Organization

    With regard to the recent discussion of Christianity I have a
question. I have heard various stories of groups that have accepted on
themselves the seven mitzvot of Bnei-Noach. Does anyone have more
information about any such groups?

Eli Turkel - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 09:01:59 PST
From: [email protected] (Alexander Herrera)
Subject: Catholicism, idolatry or not?

Frank Silbermann <[email protected]> writes in Vol 3, #20:
> All mainstream Protestant groups also teach the trinitarian doctrine.
> However, my rabbi does distinguish between Catholic and Protestant
> houses of worship.  He will not enter a Catholic church because of the
> statues of their saints, before which many Catholics pray.

As a former Catholic, I know that Catholics do sometimes pray before
statues, but they do not consider this idol worship. They look at it as
an aid to focusing their thoughts.  Protestants often raise the charge
of idol worship against the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church
disagrees. Although I am sure that the clergy and knowledgable Catholics
do not worship these statues, I am not sure the all layity make such a
distinction.

Now a personal story: When my son was very ill, we placed him in the
Children's Hospital. It is run by the Sisters of Saint Joseph
(Catholics), and it is a very good hospital. While my son was there, I
spent all my non-working hours by his side. When it was time for my
evening prayers, I went to the chapel in the hospital to see if it was
an acceptable place for me to pray. It was not. They had a cross on the
north wall, but I was interested in the east wall. Every 6 feet or so
they had a small statue-like scene depicting some biblical event. If I
were to pray toward the east, it would have given the appearance of me
worshiping a statue. I decided that it was not proper even though no one
was in the chapel at the time. I ended up praying in the rose garden.
BTW, my son is all better now.

Alex Herrera - uunet!mdcsc!ah

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 10:15:28 IST
From: Maurice M. Roumani <ROUMANI%[email protected]>
Subject: Islam and Idolatry

With regard to "Islam is not avodah zara" according to RAMBAM, the
source is "Treatise on Martyrdom" (Iggeret Shmad).

Maurice M. Roumani
Director, Elyachar Center
Ben-Gurion University

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 10:15:28 IST
From: Maurice M. Roumani <ROUMANI%[email protected]>
Subject: Non-Jewish Music

I have not heard of Sephardi bias against Ashkenazi chazzanut and
non-Jewish in fluences.  Judging of how many Sephardim attend Ashkenazi
shuls here in Israel and elsewhere, the bias, if it exists at all, is
the other way.  There is an overhwhelming number of Sephardim praying
in Ashkenazi shuls than Ashkenazim praying with Sephardim.

There is no doubt that Ashkenazi liturgy is influenced by Church music.
It is to be expected because these Jews lived among Christians and hence
influenced by them in Music, food, attire etc.. Sephardimn likewise
were influenced by their environment.  However, the Jewish people, qua
people and civilization, emanated from the East and influenced by the
East, to be precise the Middle East which for the past 1400 years was
ruled predominantly by Islamic culture and civilization.  The mutual
influences or symbiosis as it has been called by Goitein between Jews
and Arabs reached its zenith in the "Golden Age of Spain".

Islam is much closer to Judaism than Christianity is for obvious
theological reasons. When RAMBAM was faced with the question about
"Yehareg Ve-al Yaavor" he ruled categorically that this is to be the
case vis-a-vis Christianity but not so vis-a-vis Islam.  So, Sephardi
hazzanut and that of 'Edot Mizrah' find it more palatable to accept
Arab(Muslim) music than Christian for historical and theological
reasons.

Finally, I heard years ago that Ovadia Yosef approved the use of Arabic
music in Synagogues on the following basis.  He argued that some Arabic
music has a particularly desirable appeal.  Since it came down to the
Arabs and descended to Shaare Tuma, it is acceptable to redeem it
through its inclusion in Synagogues and the Sephardi repertoire.  In
addition, Islamic theology is akin to Judaism.  The same cannot be said
for Christianity and therefor any borrowing is frowned upon because it
goes beyond the music itself.

Maurice M. Roumani, <Roumani at BGUVM>
Elyachar Center for Sephardi Studies
BGU

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 17:28:31 IST
From: [email protected] (Dov Green)
Subject: Torah Shleima or other Seforim of Rav Kasher

The following piece was prepared more than a month ago.  I was unable to
reach att.pruxk due to some routing problem in Princeton. Most of the
material was covered by the eminent Prof. Frimer of Bar-Ilan. I submit
it because it contains the practical info ( addresses & phone numbers )
and for a few interesting details not covered by him.

Bruce Krulwich asked about " Torah Shleima or other Seforim of Rav Kasher"

>>> I would appreciate any infomation that anyone
>>> has on these seforim, either about what seforim he completed or about
>>> where they're available, or about Rav Kasher himself.

Torah Shleima itself is some 40-50 volumes is available from

	Bet Torah Shleima
        19 Malachi St.
        Jerusalem
	( tel 02-292651, evenings - 373853 )
	OR TRY 02-382651


All the other volumes by Rav Kasher are:

. Gemaram Shleima - all extant variants based on Rishonim, manuscripts,
		    etc.

. Hatekufa Hagedola & Kol Hator - published after the Six Day War.
		    First part is a refutation of the pseudo-halachic
		    diatribes against the State of Israel by
		    non-Zionists and anti-Zionists. Second half is
		    publication of a manuscript by R. Hillel of Shklov
		    ( student of Vila Gaon ) about the redemption
                    ( slightly to the right of Gush Emunim ).


. Hagadah Shleima - Novell explanations of the laws of Peasch
		    ( reason for chametz bemashehu & sheavar
                      alav hapesach ) & his radical shita on the
                    fifth cup

. Tzafnat Paneach - this is the exciting story of how the marginal
		    notes on the pages of the
                    Ragechover Gaon's gemora were photographed
                    before the Nazi's entered Poland. They were
                    smuggled to the U.S. It took twenty years
                    before the technology enabled them to
		    read/process the films. Then it took another
		    gaon to understand the cryptic novellae.
		    The second gaon was R. Kasher. There are about
		    8 volumes. The Torah Shleima Inst. is cooperating
		    with the Jerusalem Inst. of Tecnol. to try to
                    render readable those films which hitherto could
                    not be read.

There are a whole bunch of other stuff by Rav Kasher:

Halachic monograph entitled "Man on the Moon" published after the Apollo
landing. Discusses all halachic & philosophic implications.  For
example: how would one observe commandments on the moon; halachic status
of vessels made of moon rock; does space travel violate the dictum, "The
heavens are the L-rd's, and the earth He have to man."; and the shame of
the moon referred to by Isaih.

R. Kasher was the editor of Noam for many years. This was a forum for
many of his articles. He also edited Festshcrifts ( e.g. for Leo Jung ).
Some of the more famous articles are on Tchelet ( the blue thread ), the
halachic international dateline, and the Manhattan eruv.

For a picture of R. Kasher, I remember reading an appreciation of him by
Prof. Emanuel Rackman published shortly after R. Kasher passed away. I
tried to get in touch with Prof. Rackman to get a reference or copy of
the appreciation, but was told that he is not in the country (Israel)
for the next few weeks.

If anyone on bitnet or in Bar-Ilan has access to Prof. Rackman and can
get me a copy of the hesped, I'd be gratefull.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 09:35 EDT
From: [email protected]
Subject: Trinitarianism, is it Shituf?

Trinitarianism would seem to fall under the rubric of shituf.  Isn't
there a makhloykes rishonim (with Rabeynu Tam on the side of the
mathirim; I don't remember who's on the other side, but I think it's
somebody from a Muslim country) regarding whether shituf is permitted
for goyim or not?

Meylekh.





----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]
New ftp archive site (very soon): israel.nysernet.org


End of mail.jewish Digest

Re: -1

......

>With regard to "Islam is not avodah zara" according to RAMBAM, the
>source is "Treatise on Martyrdom" (Iggeret Shmad)....
>
.....

and

.....

>Islam is much closer to Judaism than Christianity is for obvious
>theological reasons. When RAMBAM was faced with the question about
>"Yehareg Ve-al Yaavor" he ruled categorically that this is to be the
>case vis-a-vis Christianity but not so vis-a-vis Islam....
>

    This seems interesting. Could someone elaborate on this? What does 
    it mean that "Islam is not avodah zara"? And "Islam is much closer to
    Judaism ... for obvious theological reasons"

    Does it mean that from the most strict (Jewish) point of view, could 
    the two religions co-exist? Co-worship?

    Thanks,

    Juan-Carlos

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 23


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Accomodations in Berlin and Seattle
             [Sasha Englard]
        B'nei Noach (2)
             [Elise G. Jacobs, Ezra L Tepper]
        Discrimination (2)
             [Dov Green, Najman Kahana]
        Minyan Map
             [Larry Haber]
        Sefirat Haomer and Mourning Periods
             [Gavriel Newman]
        Source for Bilvavi Mikdash Evneh
             [Rita Lifton]
        Tochacha
             [Aryeh Frimer]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 15:49:03 EST
From: [email protected] (Sasha Englard)
Subject: Accomodations in Berlin and Seattle

Accomodations in Berlin: I recall an inquiry a number of issues ago
about a stay in Berlin over shabbat. On my way back from visiting my
children in Israel over Pesach, I also have to stay over in Berlin over a
weekend before returning to New York. I wonder whether anyone can provide
me with the name of a hotel in walking distance from a synagogue. Does
anyone know with whom to communicate regarding these problems in Berlin
proper?

Accomodations in Seattle: Our close Israeli friends will be touring the
Canadian Rockies this summer and will have to stay over in Seattle over
shabbat. He tells me that the Hebrew Encyclopedia indicates that there
are six synagogues in that city and among them are several orthodox
shuls. They want to stay in walking distance of an orthodox
synagogue. Their tour leaves from the Westcoast Camlin Hotel,1619 Ninth
Avenue. Is this close to shul? If not, can anyone suggest an alternative
hotel (or motel) within walking distance from shul. Also, they will have to
stay over shabbat in Kamploops and wonder whether a Jewish community
exists there. Any information that will help our friends in these
matters would be appreciated.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 92 11:03:25 -0500
From: [email protected] (Elise G. Jacobs)
Subject: B'nei Noach

I know of one such group in Tennessee (Chatanooga, I believe).  Once a 
Christian group, they left Christianity on their own, and presently
receive guidance and teaching from Rabbi Katz of Marietta, Georgia.
They are written about every once in a while in the Atlanta Journal/Cons
Constitution, the local paper of Atlanta.

Elise Jacobs


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 92 08:13:14 +0200
From: Ezra L Tepper <[email protected]>
Subject: B'nei Noach

Eli Turkel inquires about the B'nei Noach movement (3#22) There
are a number of congregations operating in the United States. One of
groups, headed by J. David Davis, publishes a newsletter, THE GAP.
You can contact them at Echoes of Emmanuel, P.O. Box 442, Athens,
TN 37303.

Ezra Tepper <[email protected]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 17:28:31 IST
From: [email protected] (Dov Green)
Subject: Discrimination

The moderator asks for halachic sources against "discriminating against
fellow Jews who have not yet reached one's own level of observance."

Rashi ( Genesis 32:23 ) states that Yakov was punished by having Deena
raped because he prevented Esav from having access to her, on the chance
that she might have a positive affect on Esav. ( Obviously, Rashi &
Chazal were unaware of the distinction that perhaps Esav was not trying
to improve his spiritual level. )

Medieval responsa are replete with examples of how the Jewish community
felt obligated to provide a Jewish education & Kosher food for the
everyone, even the son of a Jewish woman who was a mistress of a
non-Jewish member of the court.

In discussing this matter with Dr. Neal Marder he noted two other
sources:

. The explanation of the mitzvah of 4 species, where we must bind the
  willow ( symbolizing a jew with no learning & no mitzvot ) with all
  other Jews, otherwise the mitzvah is not fulfilled.

. The ktoret (incense) consisted of 11 spices. The eleventh, chelbona,
  had an unpleasant odor. This is odd when considering that the number
  ten usually represents shleimut ( wholeness/unity).  Nonetheless, we
  read that if any of the ingredients was missing the person who
  concocted it was guilty of a capital offense.  The Sfat Emet explains
  that the chelbona symbolized the Jewish sinners who had read
  themselves out of the congregation, but still had to be included if it
  was to be considered " a sweet-smelling offering to G-d". This is why
  the ktoret was associated with Aharon who loved peace & pursued peace.
  This is also why the ktoret had the ability to stop the plague.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 92 15:57 JST
From: Najman Kahana <NAJMAN%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Discrimination

>    A year or two ago, "Tradition" published a translation of an article
>written by HaRav Amital (Co-Rosh Yeshiva of The Gush) regarding how one
....
>is to relate to the non-observant. Essentially it boils down to the fact
>that nowadays the Mitzvah of "Ve-Ahavta le-re'acha kamocha" (Love thy
>neighbor as thyself") extends to all Jews whether observant or not.  The
...
>latter mitzva, hence, requires us to treat all Jews equally in our
>personal and professional lives while realizing that they may still be
>                  Aryeh Frimer (FRIMER@BARILAN)

	Please note that there is no such Yeshiva as "The Gush". Rav
Amital is co-Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion, which is located in
Alon Shvut, which in turn is part of Gush Etzion. There are two other
Yeshivot in Gush Etzion. (There are many other Gushim).
	I would like to separate philosophy from day-to-day life.
	Like Rav Amital, whom I respect, I too am willing to love my
neighbour, but, like him, I am rather choosy who my neighbour is.
	Like him, I live in a closed settlement. It is not easier
getting into Alon Shvut than it is to Yeshuv Elazar. The EXACT same
restrictions apply to both settlements, which are a mile apart.
	I guess I fully accept Rav Amital's opinions. In our philosophy
and ideals "all Jews are equal", but in our practice, we choose who our
friends are, we select with care our community and our schools.
	Yes, I would like to treat all Jews in my professional life
equally. As an army medic, when a Shomer-Ha-Tzair doctor (who is
anti-religious) tells a patient in my care he must eat on Tisha-B'av,
should I "respect" his opinion ?  (the halacha does only if there is no
other competent doctor). The restaurants on the Kinneret always have
their Teudat Hechsher "in the mail"; should I trust them out of respect
?
	And finally, may I respectfully point out that when the word
"neighbour" is used in the translation of "Ve-Ahavta le-re'acha kamocha"
it refers to one's fellow man, not the-person-who-lives-next-door. I
think there is a world of difference.

	Najman Kahana - [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 16:47:57 EST
From: [email protected] (Larry Haber)
Subject: Minyan Map

I appreciate all the requests for the Minyan Map, unfortunately, I
cannot send it via E-mail.  Please post your address and I will send you
a copy and put you on our regular mailing list.

Thank you.

 Larry Haber - Internet: [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 15:49 CST
From: [email protected] (Gavriel Newman)
Subject: Re: Sefirat Haomer and Mourning Periods

	Although the majority of the Ashkenaz and even sefard world keep
from Pesach to Lag Baomer, there is still a vestige of those observing
from Rosh Chodesh Iyar to Shavuot, except for the last three days before
Shavuot (shloshet yemei hagbalah), Lag Baomer, and, possibly, Yom
Haatzmaut (5 Iyar) and Yom Yerushalayim (28 Iyar). The latter two days
will depend, in legal application, on the religious nature with which
you view their events. In actual fact, there is less dispute concerning
the nature of Yom Yerushalayim than concerning Yom Haatzmaut, since it
is indisputable that holy places were freed. On each of the days that
'break' the mourning observance, there are actually two days potential
for weddings, etc: with sundown leading into the actual day, and all of
the morrow into the next night (eg., many marry on the afternoon of Yom
Haatzmaut, then celebrate into the eve of 6 Iyar).

 Gavriel Newman.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon,  2 Mar 92 07:48:18 PST
From: Rita Lifton <BM.JTC%[email protected]>
Subject: Source for Bilvavi Mikdash Evneh

Can anyone tell me the source, author of the words for the song "Bilvavi
Mikdash Evneh Le-hadar Kevodo..."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 92 10:15 O
From: Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Tochacha

   I have been asked by several people to clarify my posting (That of
the Chazon Ish and Rav Amital) a bit better. Namely is one allowed to
give Tochacha(Rebuke/sharp criticism) nowadays.
   First, get your hands on the Rav Amital Article I cited. It's must
reading! 

[    Several people have asked me for the exact citation of the Tradition
article of Rav Amital I cited. It is: Tradition, vol. 23 (#4), summer
1988, page 1 - 13; it is entitled: A Torah Perspective on the Status of
of Secular Jews Today. The Original Hebrew article was distributed by
The Israeli Branch of the Y.U. Alumni Organization.]

Regarding Tochacha, all I said was that since the tochacha
cannot be properly given nowadays, the sinner is considered as before
rebuke and hence not a RASHA. So says the Chazon Ish. It doesn't mean
that we cease to have the obligation to educate our fellow Jew; but we
must do it bedarchei Noam (peacefully and pleasantly). The harsh
rebuke/ostracism reserved for the RASHA (Wicked) is no longer
applicable. A bit more ahavat Yisrael is required.
   This does not mean that we are bidden to be pluralistic - if that
means "Your OK, I'm OK". It means to respect other individuals for being
religious and sincere - even if they're dead wrong! Rabbi Norman Lamm
has written several masterful pieces on the subject.
                          Kol Tuv
                                Aryeh



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 24


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Converting a Church to Shul
             [rabinowitz,miriam]
        Hatmono
             [Isaac Balbin]
        Purim Torah
             [Aryeh Frimer]
        Research Grant Request
             [Amir Davidov]
        Yeshivas in Israel
             [Seth Ness]
        Zimmun for Women (3)
             [Prof. Aryeh Frimer, Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth, Hillel Markowitz]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 4 Mar 1992   9:13 EST
From: rruxc!miriam (rabinowitz,miriam)
Subject: Converting a Church to Shul

In his posting that appeared in mail.jewish Vol. 3 #18, Morris Podolak
gave a somewhat comprehensive disscussion on the permissability of
converting a church to a synagogue, or more specifically, the conversion
of a house used for idolatrous worship into a synagogue.  The bottom line
of it all was that there appears to be no poskim who outright permitt
such a conversion save the Mishnah Berurah which allows it only
marginally:

      Even he, however, will not permit it in the case where 
      the gentiles brought their idols into the house.  In such 
      a case, if the idols were removed and the house sold to a 
      Jew, he may live there, but it may not be used as a synagogue.

I have one question.  What if the building was originally a synagogue
that was converted into a house of idolatrous worship?  Could we convert
such a building, which once had Kedusha (holiness) but was polluted and
contaminated with idolotry, back into a house of Kedusha?

Before you answer, keep in mind that the Chashmonaim did just that on
the 25 day of Kislev, which is why we celebrate Chanukah every year.
Was this conversion, or rather, restoration permitted only because this
was the Beit Hamikdash, located on Har Habayit - the epicenter of
Kedushah on Earth and the place from which the Shechinah (G-d's presence
on Earth) had never departed, or would this apply to any Beit Mikdash
Me'ot (small holy temply), i.e. any synogogue?

Miriam Rabinowitz


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 92 11:24:48 +1000
From: [email protected] (Isaac Balbin)
Subject: Hatmono

[Disclaimer: nothing I say here should be construed as Halacha Lemaaseh
[practical law] ---ask your Rabbi]

Hatmono [hiding] on Shabbos is a complicated issue.  When you have a pot
on a blech [covered source of heat], and the food is cooked completely,
do we say that putting a lid on the pot on Shabbos is Hatmono? If we do
not, is the reason because there is a "gap" of air between the food in
the pot and the lid, or do we say that it is because the pot (as opposed
to the food) is not immersed in another medium (as was seemingly the
parameters of the Gezerah [decree]).

There is a din [law] of Keli al Gabei Keli [one pot on another].  That
is, you have one pot, say on a Blech, or even an electric steel urn with
an overturned lid. Then on Shabbos itself, there are opinions that state
that you can place another Keli on top of this Keli.  If the food in the
top-most Keli is dry (such as Kigel or chicken) and has been previously
cooked then it is, according to some opinions, permitted to put that
top-most keli on the bottom one (even if the top-most food was cold) on
Shabbos.  This is provided that the top-most (dry) food cannot be
roasted (or change form) as a result. If the top-most food is moist
(mostly) then the proviso is that the top-most food should not get to
43C IF it was left there all shabbos.  The question is, are you
permitted to cover the top most keli with silver foil? What if the foil
touches the foil?  The assumption is that the foil has been cut before
shabbos, and that it is not wrapped around the walls of the top-most
Keli. Do we say that foil is there to protect against dirt/insects as
well as to seal in the heat?  There are opinions that state that putting
a baked potato, wrapped in silver foil on top of a Keli IS hatmono.

Comments?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 92 10:20 O
From: Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Purim Torah


     "Me-she-Nichnas Adar, Marbim Be-simcha"
             Be Happy It's Adar

    In The Spirit of Adar and Purim which is Almost Upon us:

      Why G-d Never Received Tenure at Hebrew University
1) Because He had only one Major publication
2) And it was in Hebrew
3) And it had no references
4) And it wasn't published in a refereed journal
5) And some even doubt He wrote it!
6) It may be true that He created the world but what has He done since?
7) His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8) The scientific community has had a very rough time trying to repeat
     His results.
9) His politics are all wrong: he believes in "two sides of the Jordan"
     (SHTEI GADOT LA-YARDEN).
10) Besides , if He were true to his beliefs - He would have applied to
    Bar Ilan!

I'd be HAPPY to recieve additional reasons. (My apologies to the Hebrew
University Faculty.)
                    Aryeh Frimer (F66235@BARILAN)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 92 17:19:00 GMT
From: Amir Davidov <[email protected]>
Subject: Research Grant Request

Does anyone know if/where I can obtain a grant to do a research analysis
in Israel during the Summer, concerning the opportunities of property
investors?

Please reply to : [email protected]
Please mark your responses C/o Baz Ackerman.
		Thanking you in anticipation
				Barry

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 92 0:08:29 EST
From: Seth Ness <[email protected]>
Subject: Yeshivas in Israel

A friend of mine who is interested in learning in israel next year asked me
to ask for general comments about the following three places:
brovenders
shappels
machon shlomo

he is a M.D.-Ph.D. student and would like to discuss them with people who have
learned there.
thanks, seth ness
[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 92 08:30 O
From: Prof. Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Zimmun for Women

Regarding zimmun when three women and one man have eaten together:
        This particular problem is discussed by Rav David Auerbach in
his outstanding text "Halichot Beitah". (Unfortunately this text has not
been translated into English and it is really Chaval (A shame)).
The halacha is that 3 men or three women may independently make a zimmun
but may not count together. (For a discussion of the rationale, the
reader is invited to see my article on "Women and Minyan" piblished in
Tradition, Summer 1988, vol. 23, no. 4, pages 54-77 - see especially
64-66.
        When three men establish a zimmun by themselves, the women can
then join in. According to the Rama they are obligated to join in;
though the Shulchan Aruch Harav maintains that if the women are three or
more in number they may break off to establish their own zimmun. (The
view of the Shulchan Aruch Harav is quoted in the Mishna Berura).
        Rav Dovid Auerbach quotes his uncle, Harav Shlome Zalman
Auerbach, the noted posek and Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Kol Torah, to the
effect that when three women establish a zimmun, the men present (two or
one) answer to the mezamenet.
        I should note that for men zimmun is a chiyuv [obligation -
Mod.] hence if there are three men and three women, the men have
priority in leading the zimmun.  The women, as I noted above do have the
option of breaking off to make their own zimmun, according to the
Shulchan Aruch Harav, should they so desire. However, three men cannot
fulfil their obligation of zimmun with a women's non-obligatory zimmun.
This lack of obligation for women is also the also the reason why 10 men
say Elokeinu but not 10 women (see the above article pages 59-60).
       Because a woman's zimmun was optional, many women were not wont
to do it. However, it is quite common now in all the Ulpanot Bnai Akiva
and I understand that it is now becoming more prevalent in "Righter"
circles. If a posek of the caliber of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach says
its perfectly OK, one should absolutely have no qualms about it.
                         Kol Tuv    Aryeh
                             Frimer@barilan



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 9:00:51 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: RE: Zimmun for Women

I believe that if three or more women eat a meal together and no males
are present for the meal, they have the _option_ to have a zimun.  If
there is even one male present, they are prohibited from making a zimun
no matter how many women are present.  They may not ask the male(s) to
leave.

This sugya, of course, is discussed in Masechet Brachot, seventh perek.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 21:29:54 PST
From: Hillel Markowitz <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Zimmun for Women

When my daughter became Bas Mitzvah I checked into this and was told
that the answer is possibility 2 [ The women have a mzumin and the men
leave the room].  I believe that this is due to several different
factors.

a) tzniyut
b) so it doesn't look like a "mixed" zimun
c) so it doesn't insult the men who can't be part of the zimun.

For c, since the women can be part of the men's zimun, they do
not have to leave.

Hillel Markowitz    [email protected]




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 25


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Christianity, Islam and Avoda Zara (4)
             [Najman Kahana, Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth, Gavriel Newman, Shlomo H.
             Pick]
        Rosh Chodesh Musaf (2)
             [Josh Rapps, Dov Green]
        Sefiras Ha'Omer
             [Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth]
        Shatnez, Rav Kook and Vegetinarianism
             [Dov Green]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 92 14:20 JST
From: Najman Kahana <NAJMAN%[email protected]>
Subject: Christianity, Islam and Avoda Zara

 It seems to me that the opinion of each Chacham is measured by the
inverse square of the distance to the sword wielder.  The Rambam, who
lived among Moslems holds that they are ok, but Xians are Ovdey Avoda
Zara.  The Tosafot, who lived in Christian territory, hold the inverse.
The Meiri who seems to have lived on the border (within reach of both
?), holds that none of "our" (in his day) Goyim are idolators.

	Najman Kahana - 	[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 13:19:59 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: RE: Christianity, Islam and Avoda Zara

With regards to the "comparative religion" discussion, if one checks the
rishonim and acharonim, one will find a correlation between the
background of the posek (i.e. Ashkenazi or Sefaradi) and his p'sak on
the religion indiginous to his location (i.e. Xtianity and Islam,
respectively).  Most of them pasken that his indiginous religion is
_not_ avodah zara, while the other is.  I would also suspect that "aiva"
(antagonizing the goyim) might have played a role too.

In any case, since we are always machmer in diney avoda zara, we should
probably treat both religions as such.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 15:40 CST
From: [email protected] (Gavriel Newman)
Subject: Re: Christianity, Islam and Avoda Zara

	What happened to the gemerah Hullin, 13b, of "Haidna", which
establishes all avodah zarah (A.Z.) of today as amateurish simulation,
'minhag avoteihem biydeihem'? Or the Rambam, Hilchot Avodat Kokhavim,
perek 7, halacha 6, which establishes avodah zarah as being relevant
only on that which has actually been worshipped? Even 'lanoy', which is
decoration of the idols, thus very close to A.Z. itself, is not
forbidden for hanaah, according to his psak, unless they actually
worshipped it?  And what is actual worship? He states it clearly in the
same perek: mishtachavim umodim (bowing and giving prayers of thanks)
Further, the Tur, 145 Yo"D, "ein issur...bedavar sheyesh bo tfisat yad"
establishes that you cannot term A.Z. anything that is not a tangible,
definable object THAT CAN BE GRASPED BY MAN. The action, too, must be a
specific one of A.Z., not a vague one. See Tur, 139, Yo"D, where he
requires that specific acts of 'waving' before an idol must be performed
in order for the idol to become A.Z. forbidden for hanaah.
	The above establishes that on thought alone, you cannot
establish a case of A.Z. in progress- that is, if it can be established
today, at all. The reason for viewing Catholicism differently from other
New Testament faiths (I maintain that both the words Chri-tianity and
X-whatever have religious assertion in them, thus we're better off using
New Testament faiths, or Jesus-faith) is that they do have specific
objects (crucifix & Mary) to which THEY BOW AND PRAY.

  Gavriel Newman - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 92 14:32 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Christianity, Islam and Avoda Zara

Melekh's point is true, but not pertinent to the case.  Shittuf is
permitted to the gentile in taking an oath - that is the simple
explanation in R. Tam - see Albeck, R. Tam and his Times, Zion. 1953 (I
think) and J. Katz from Exclusiveness To Tolerance who discusses this.
But even if extended to all laws of gentile (which i think is the wrong
interpretation of R. Tam) still this does not mean that vis-a-vis a jew
it is not idolatry - for the gentile it is permitted; for the jew know &
hence, yehareg ve-al yavor.

The same holds true for islam - for the jew it is idolatry,
notwithstanding Maimonides's view which I also believe is misrepresented
- see H. Soloveitchic, Law and Retoric, in Lookstein Memorial Volume.

Shlomo


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 92 14:32 O
From: [email protected] (Josh Rapps)
Subject: Rosh Chodesh Musaf

The inclusion of ulechaparat pasha in the Musaf Rosh Chodesh of a shenas
iybur (leap year) is brought down in the Pri Megadim, the Mishnah Brurah
mentions it as well as other halachic authorities/commentators. A source
is the Masechet Sofrim (19:10), one prayer/praise to Hashem per month.
It mentions 12 praises for the 12 months, which are include in the end
of the fourth blessing of Musaf for Rosh Chodesh. So perhaps it is
assumed that in a year with 13 months we add and extra prayer/praise.
This extra one is ulechaparat pasha.  It continues the theme that Rosh
Chodesh is a mini Yom Kippur for the Tziybur (Kneses Yisrael, "the
jewish nation" as a halachic and religious entity), zeman chaparah
lechol toldosam, a time of atonement for all their actions. Hence, it
fits in after lemechilas chayt uleslichas avon forgiveness for other
degrees of transgression.

Several acharonim (more recent authorities) bring down the reason we say
chapter 150 of tehilim (hallelukah) as part of Kidush Hachodesh
(sanctifying the new moon) is the fact that it contains 12 times the
phrase hallelu (praise Hashem).  In a leap year we repeat the last line
of kol haneshama twice (those who are interested, should look in the Pri
Megadim, Orach Chayim 423, to see his question on this!). This may be
based on the above mentioned Masechet Sofrim.

An additional note of interest relates to the term Kaparah (atonement).
The gemara in Masechet Sanhedrin , daf 12, has a very fascinating
discussion about when King Chizkiyahu was made a leap year due to the
fact that the people were tomay, and spiritually unfit to bring the
korban pesach, pascal sacrifice, in its proper time, from Divrei Hayamim
2, chapter 30. The conclusion of the pasuk is 'yechaper ad'. Chizkiyahu
felt that Kaparah was required because he incorrectly made a leap year
which would have caused the people to eat chametz on passover. As Rashi
says that he was made a leap year 'shelo kedas', inappropriately. So to,
when we add an extra month of Adar, if we are doing so incorrectly, we
will cause Bnay Yisrael to eat chometz on pesach. We ask Hashem to
accept what we have done and to forgive Kneses Yisrael (Tziybur) before
we have actually created the problem, Kaparah kodem hachet, forgiveness
even before the sin. What Kneses Yisrael has done to make a leap year
should be accepted and as a result the problem of eating chometz on
pesach is avoided. (The Bais Halevi has a wonderful discussion of the
idea of teshuvah (repentance before the sin in relation to Reuven and
vayashav reuven el habor, how reuven did teshuvah for a sin that never
occurred. A topic for another day...)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 17:28:31 IST
From: [email protected] (Dov Green)
Subject: Rosh Chodesh Musaf

Steve Gale asks about Rosh Chodesh Musaf,
 Why do we _not_ ask for this atonement on non-leap years?

The relvant sources are:

Baer's Avodath Yisrael pg 240
Epstein's Barch Sheamar pg 335
Jacobson's Netiv Binah pg 334

The twelve phrases are for the 12 months of the year. During a leap year
there are 13 months so we add an additional phrase.  In very accurate
siddurim, it states that the minhag is that the term 'kaparat pesha' is
only added during the winter season (i.e. from Tishrei to Adar ) because
these were the only months during which the decision could be make to
extend the year.

The Baruch Sheamar adds The atonement that we ask for is for
Possible snafus which could occur by fiddling with the calender


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 13:19:59 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: RE: Sefiras Ha'Omer

With regards to sefiras ha'omer, there are a variety of customs, not
necessarily correlated with Ashkenaz or Sefarad.  The most prevelant are
from the second day of Pesach through Lag B'Omer and from Rosh Chodesh
Iyar to the Sheloshes Y'Mei Hagboloh.  There are many variations,
including shaving every Friday for all seven weeks.  I have heard say
that one may select a different minhag every year according to his needs
(e.g. if one needs to attend a wedding before Rosh Chodesh Iyar, he may
select the second minhag, etc.).


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 17:28:31 IST
From: [email protected] (Dov Green)
Subject: Shatnez, Rav Kook and Vegetinarianism

Chaim Schild asks:

>>> I was wondering whether anyone has seen any explanations on the origin
>>> of the prohibition of shatnez and why it is overridden for the curtains
>>> on the mishkan and the Cohen's clothes ?

Rabbi A.I. Kook Zt"l, in his Hazon Hatzimchonut Vehashalom ( Vision of
Vegetinarianism and Peace ) develops a philosophy of man's relationship
with the animal kingdom. How is it possible that G-d, of whom we say
that "His mercies extend over all his creations", allow one species to
exploit another: by stealing the milk intended for its young, by
stealing the wool intended to warm and protect it, and ultimately by
taking its life. He explains why after the flood as a "temporary
measure" using animals was permitted.  ( Both before the flood & after
the apocalypse this is forbidden )

 From this point of departure he explains all of the details of all of
Mitvot regulating man's interactions with the animal world.  Each detail
is intended to sensitize us to another aspect of this relationship.

Why the prohibition fo mixing meat and milk ?
Why does covering the blood for animal's slaughtered pertain only to
non-domesticated animals?
Why the prohibition of linsey-woolsey ( Shatnez ) ?

Regarding the latter, the Rav states that the Torah wanted to
distinguish between the use of plant by-products, which is basically
unlimited as it is the result of man's toil, and the use of animal
by-products which is the result of a temporary measure.

However, in the temple the focus is service to G-d, and not exploitation
of one species by another. In service to G-d all creatures are equal.
They should join in harmony in serving the creator. Therefore, in the
curtains and in the priest's clothes the prohibition is not applicable.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 26


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Purim Skit/Play ideas
             [Stiebel Jonathan]
        Separation before marriage (2)
             [Brave Raven, Dov Green]
        Setting Rosh Chodesh
             [Amir Davidov]
        Shituf
             [[email protected]]
        Source for Bilvavi Mishkan Evneh (2)
             [Shlomo H. Pick, Bob Tannenbaum]
        Why we have no practical cases of Hatmanah these days
             [Mike Kramer]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 92 14:27:26 +0200
From: [email protected] (Stiebel Jonathan)
Subject: Purim Skit/Play ideas

Now that I am in Israel, I thought I was finished organizing
social-religious events.  But, a student council member at the Weizmann
Institute asked me to plan the "party" for purim.  I checked with a Rav.
(Areyeh Frimer) on what I can and can not do.

What I would like are scripts for Purim plays/spiels and other
entertainment ideas for a largely secular audience of graduate students
including many Russian immigrants.

Please send mail to me directly.

			-- Jonathan Stiebel

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 22:19:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Brave Raven <[email protected]>
Subject: Separation before marriage

	Now that you've brought up the subject, it would be appreciated
if you were to resolve it to some degree.  Is this a real halacha
(established law), or is it merely a minhag (a custom), of some sort.
	Is this a habit or is it a hidur mitzvah (a better performance
of a mitzvah that is a direct extension of said mitzvah)?  Is this just
a tradition that was formed and passed down for unknown reasons, or did
it originate in order to better observe a specific mitzvah?
	By no means would it be a fault were it "only" a minhag, but in
order for our observance of the mitzvos to be bettered we need to be
clear about what we're doing.  That's what learning Torah is all about.
	Were this a minhag, it could have been established out of
convenience, it could have been halachically necessary at one time and
was thus carried over or it could have been seen as a more scrupulous
observance of a particular halacha.
	In reference to this last possibility, this "custom" could be
seen as being more machmir (defining the laws with tighter boundaries),
but thus would still be a part of the mitzvah itself according to that
person's observance.

	By no means should you be expected to paskun (give a legal
opinion), but it would be appreciated if you were to determine the matter
a bit more clearly.

		Refael Hileman

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 17:28:31 IST
From: [email protected] (Dov Green)
Subject: Separation before marriage

Susannah Danishefsky asks

>>> Does anyone know  the origin and source of  the custom of
>>> a Choson and Kallah (bride and  groom)  not seeing  one another
>>> during  the week  before  their marraige?

The source is Yoreh Deah Chapter 192. The problem is regarding dam
chimud. Briefly, after a woman agrees to be married, she must wait seven
days before she can go to the mikveh.  The assumption is that seeing the
Chatan will set off an emotional reaction => hormonal imbalance => the
fancy mustard seed blood spot. ( Is this due to Bnot Yisrael or the
elders of Dijon ? )

The question the poskim ask is whether this is one shot or can occur
incrementally as the emotional tension/anxiety heighten ?  ( see para 3)

The assumption is that the bride has not been 'hanging around' with her
basherter and sees him only because 'asur leadam lekadesh ishah ad
sheyirenah '.  The situation today where the couples see each other very
frequently during courtship and then abstain from seeing each other for
the week before the wedding, could possibly have undesirable affects
under the chupah.  Unless of course, dam chimud serves the same
teleological purpose as dam betulim.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 92 17:08:27 GMT
From: Amir Davidov <[email protected]>
Subject: Setting Rosh Chodesh

In Vol3 Num19 Joshuaa Proschan states that the reason given in most siddurim
for the addition of "ule chaparat Pasha" is because 
> if there is an error in proclaiming the leap year, we will be celebrating
> Purim and eating chometz when we should be celebrating Pesach and avoiding
> chometz.

	I seem to remember that I learn't a mishnah in Masect Rosh
HaShanah that dealt with this kind of topic. If my memory serves me
correctly, as I don't have the text in front of me, a similar problem
arose over the proclaiming of the new moon of Tishri.
        The Bait Din of the time fixed the day, however one Gadol HaDor
disagreed. He claimed that people would be fasting on the day after Yom
Kippur. He then stated that he would fast on the 'proper' day.
	The Bait Din of the time did not like this, and so the the Gadol
HaDor was invited to tea, on the proper day. He had to go and keep Yom
Kippur with everyone else.
	If this is true, which I think the basic facts are, then surely
since man has to fix the time for festivals anyway, there is no real
pasha to ask forgiveness for.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 92 18:12:08 GMT
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Shituf

Rav. Hertz mentions in the UK 'Hertz Chumash' that the trinity concept
is not necessarily such a problem for B`nei Noach as 'B'nei No'ach Lo
Nizharu Al ha-shituf'. Is this a correct opinion?
					Jonathan Burg


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 92 08:40 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Source for Bilvavi Mishkan Evneh

[Author and work from which the song Bilvavi was taken: Mod]

bilvavi - sefer charedim by ascari 

Shlomo

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 09:31:04 est
From: Bob Tannenbaum <trumpet!bob>
Subject: Re: Source for Bilvavi Mishkan Evneh

The question was: "Can anyone tell me the source, author of the words
for the song "Bilvavi Mishkan Evneh Le-Hadar Kevodo.. "

I cannot recall the the author's name, but I will tell you what I do know.

The composer of the tune, is Rav Shmuel Brazil of Yeshiva Sh'or Yashuv
1626 Central Ave., Far Rockaway, New York.  He composed the tune in the
late 60's or early 70's and it appeared with the full text and
attribution on either the 2'nd or 3'rd "Ohr Chodosh" album from that
period. Rav Brazil, at that time, was going by the name of "Shmelke
Brazil" and is the composer of the famous "Shmelke's Nigun" which
appeared on the first "Ohr Chodosh" album.


Ezra Bob Tanenbaum -- (908)615-2899 -- HR 1L-225 -- trumpet!bob



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 92 11:09:45 EST
From: [email protected] (Mike Kramer)
Subject: Why we have no practical cases of Hatmanah these days

The halchot of food preparation on Shabbat with regard to "bishul"
(cooking), "shehiya" (leaving food on a flame), and "hachzara"
(returning food to a flame) are complex and multi-faceted. Thus
practical questions on heating up food on Shabbat are difficult to
answer academically.  However, the question as it relates to hatmana is
easy to deal with.  The precise definition of the prohibited "hatmana"
seems to be pretty clear from the sugya and poskim: The prohibited
Hatmana is not defined as "covering" or "insulating", but as "adding
heat- mosif hevel". One can only add heat by covering a pot with
something that is in itself "mosif hevel".  An example of what is *not*
hatmana: When the pot is already on the blech, (lets assume that the pot
is allowed to be there for whatever reason so as not to get involved in
the other isues I alluded to) the heat is coming from the flame beneath.
Covering the pot with a lid does not "add heat" - it only allows the pot
to retain the heat better. Thus, this is not hatmana.  Even a thermos is
permitted.

An example of what would constitute prohibited hatmana: If one has a pot
of hot food, and in order to keep it hot one takes it into the backyard
"composte pile" of decaying leaves "digs" down to the center and finds a
hot spot due the the exothermic chemical reaction going on there and
sticks the pot in there. (could also be a pile of still-hot radiating
coals) That is hatmana b'davar hamosif hevel.  [Rashi on the mishna in
Shabbat 36b tends to confuse things a little and it is a good academic
excersize to try and figure out why Rashi wants to involve (or less
charitably - to confuse) the halachot of hatmana with shehiya] 

Mike Kramer [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 27


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Cholov Akum outside of America
             [Bruce Krulwich]
        Rosh Chodesh and Leap Year
             [Joshua Proschan]
        Russian requesting family info
             [H. Wyzansky]
        Sfiras haOmer
             [Bruce Krulwich]
        Title Page Art
             [Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund]
        Zimun for Women
             [Jeremy Schiff]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 11:24:41 CST
From: [email protected] (Bruce Krulwich)
Subject: Cholov Akum outside of America

Does anyone have any information about the halachic basis for using
cholov akum [milk that's not under strict Jewish supervision] in
European products?

In America we have Rav Moshe's psak which puts milk produced under
government auspices into the category of cholov stam [ordinary milk,
without the restrictions of cholov akum].  (Actually, I think Rav Moshe
said "cholov ha'companies," but cholov stam seems to be what people
say.)  As I understand it, this is the psak relied upon my all the major
kashrus organizations for dairy products made by secular companies.

However, this psak only applies in America.  How is it that we have
cholov akum/stam products from Europe certified by major reliable
kashrus organizations?

I suppose I should call the kashrus organizations themselves to find
out, but I wanted to first see if anyone on the net could shed some
light on the issue.

Dov (Bruce) Krulwich - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 05:56 GMT
From: Joshua Proschan <[email protected]>
Subject: re: Rosh Chodesh and Leap Year

In III # 19 I wrote that an explanation I had seen in siddurs with
English translation (not "most siddurs"; but that introductory remark
was omitted in the mailing) was that an error in adding a second Adar
for a leap year would lead to eating chometz on Pesach, in the mistaken
belief that it was Purim.

In III #26 Amir Davidov refers to an incident described in the Mishnah
(Rosh Hashanah, Perek 2, Mishnas 7-8) and says:

       If this is true, which I think the basic facts are, then
     surely since man has to fix the time for festivals anyway,
     there is no real pasha to ask forgiveness for.

The situations are not analogous.  In the Mishnah, one of the Sages was
defying the decision of the Sanhedrin.  In the explanation I described,
we are not disagreeing with the Bais Din; according to some authorities
we *are* the Bais Din for sanctifying the month.  (That is why we say,
just before declaring the new month, "chaverim kol Yisroel" [all Israel
are "chaverim", which can mean comrades but can also mean qualified
judges].)  We are therefore expressing a concern for the correctness of
our own actions, and praying that our action in declaring a leap year
will be proper and not a "pesha".

Joshua H. Proschan   Internet: [email protected]
                                [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 13:51:42 EST
From: [email protected] (H. Wyzansky)
Subject: Russian requesting family info

This was posted to the Roots list.  I am cross-posting it to
Jewish oriented lists for interest.  Please reply to the original
poster.

>From: "Gail M. Pietrzyk" <[email protected]>
Subject:      SALAVAN family

     I am posting this message on behalf of a Russian fellow at the
University of Alabama at Burmingham who is trying to locate members of
his wife's family who probably arrived in the U.S. in the 1930s.

     He is looking for members of the SALAVAN family from Odessa.  The
family is Jewish and left Russia in 1917-1919 going first to Tel Aviv,
and later coming here to the U.S.  According to his information, JOSEPH
SALAVAN was a professor of Yiddish and Russian Literature and Language.
Joseph married an American woman (name unknown) and had a son AMOS
SALAVAN.  Joseph's father, YANKEL LIEBOVICH SALAVAN also emigrated to
join his son in America.

     If anyone has any information on the SALAVAN family, or suggestions
for these researchers, I am sure he would be very glad to hear from you.
You can contact him at:

           Peter Kirchikov
           2004 Hickory Road
           Birmingham, AL 35216
           (205) 979-5924
           or (205) 934-8012

If you want more information, you can also send me a
message.  Thanks to everyone for your help.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 10:31:22 CST
From: [email protected] (Bruce Krulwich)
Subject: Sfiras haOmer


Sheldon Meth says in MJv3n25:

    I have heard say that one may select a different minhag every year
    according to his needs (e.g. if one needs to attend a wedding before Rosh
    Chodesh Iyar, he may select the second minhag, etc.).

This came up last year when my wife and I got married between Lag baOmer
and Shavuos, which was not within the time of miktzas aveilus [partial
laws of mourning] for us, as we hold the restrictions from Pesach to Lag
baOmer, but was within the restrictions for many of our guests
(including our mesader Kiddushin [Rabbi]).

When I discussed it with my Rav, I learned the following:

(1) There is no prohibition of holding weddings during the time period that
    you hold is permitted to shave and get haircuts, even if according to
    other minhagim it is the time of restrictions
    (SA OC siman tof tzadi gimel (Ramoh), MB hei)

(2) Nowadays noone is bound as to which minhag to hold, so it is permissible
    to change from year to year for whatever reason
    (Igros Moshe OC chelek aleph siman kuf nun tes)

(3) It is permissible to attend a wedding during your time of restrictions as
    long as the wedding is not within the time of restrictions of the people
    getting married
    (Igros Moshe OC chelek bais siman tzadi hei)

This is all how I remember it (and from my notes as to the references).  I'd
appreciate any corrections if I've made a mistake.

Dov (Bruce) Krulwich  -  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 10:05:56 EST
From: sg04%[email protected] (Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund)
Subject: Title Page Art

I'd like to expand the disussion on "borrowing" from non-Jews to the
subject of visual Art-forms. (I think we have covered music fairly
well).

In particular, I am interested in the various patterns and designs one
sees on the title page of seforim.  For example, in many copies of the
Vilna Shas one sees a 3D representation of a floor surrounded by four
gothic pillars. There are usually a lot of vases in these scenes. There
are also some hangings, but since the floor is empty, I don't think it
is meant to represent an Aron. What does it mean?

Also, I have sometimes a seen an snake encircling the entire Shar-Blatt.
The geometric patters (fine detail line art) also seems pretty common.

Does anyone have something to share about these designs?

Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund		 		  [email protected]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA			    harvard!bunny!sgutfreund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 11:11:03 EST
From: [email protected] (Jeremy Schiff)
Subject: Zimun for Women

I was keenly awaiting responses on the subject of zimmun for women. I
was woefully ignorant on this subject until about five years ago; I had
"heard" somewhere in my rather pitted Halachic education, that if women
wish to make a zimmun (when less than three men are present) that the
men must leave the room. I attempted to do just this, having eaten
dinner with a large group of friends, only one other of whom was male.
One of the women told me in no uncertain terms that I was wrong; of
course, I didn't listen (because of certain biases that same education
had instilled in me), but after I checked up I found out that I owed an
apology.

I can not profess to have a complete knowledge of all that has been
written on the subject, but I do not know where this idea that "men have
to leave the room" originates. As anyone who reads the Mishnah Brura
(MB) will find out, despite the apparent explicit contradiction of
mishna and gemara, in the past it was not the minhag for women to make a
zimmun at all; one reason the MB suggests is that women were ignorant of
the nusach [text of the bentching - Mod.]  (which is presumably
something we can now overcome), and the other reason is connected to
bentching over a cos, [cup of wine - Mod.]  which most people are not
makpid [careful - Mod.] on today anyway (this is another issue in
itself). Rav Elinson, in his books "HaIsha VeHaMitzvot" has a chapter
devoted to the issue of zimmun and minyan, which is excellent. He notes
that girls are now, in many schools both in Israel and chutz laaretz,
taught to bentch with zimmun. But he says the minhag is still that if
any men are present, women do not bentch with a zimmun. He sensibly does
not try to justify this minhag, and it emerges from the rest of what he
writes that it has little foundation. He does not suggest anywhere that
the men have to leave if women do make a zimmun.

When there are three or more women and less than three men eating at our
house, I encourage the women to exercise their option and make a zimmun.
I try to respect the feelings of those who are not used to this idea,
i.e.  have the minhag of Rav Elinson, even though I consider it
unfounded. I fail to respect the feelings of the occaisional male who
suggests we should leave the room; I ask for a source for this behavior,
and when one isn't produced I suggest that in the absence of such,
walking out would be insulting.

Can anyone produce a source for the widely-known idea that "the men have
to leave"? Or should we terminate this rumor forever?

Jeremy Schiff
[email protected]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 28


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Purim Torah (2)
             [Dov Green, Sam Saal & Avi Y Feldblum]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 09:04:52 IST
From: [email protected] (Dov Green)
Subject: Purim Torah


I just unpacked an archived diskette. Looks like an
old Jewish Bitnet . . .

----------------------------------------------

I am going to be spending some time in Shushan. Any
information about Kosher foods and synagogues would be 
appreciated.

			[email protected]

---------------------------------------------

I just witnessed a sickening sight. The Jews in Shushan, 
who are obviously not trying to improve their spiritual level,
were at the Triennial Royal Bar-b-que. These Jews have 
obviously lost their identification with their people, and
should not be considered fit to live in the Jewish neighborhood
east of the green line. 

		Hillel@just_about_right_of_anything

"love all beings and bring them close to Torah"

-----------------------------------------------

I have recently located to Shushan and was wondering about
the origins of the laws of Yichud.

			Esther  [email protected]

------------------------------------------------

In response to the question as to whether informing on
goverment bureaucrats guilty of malfesance involves
Lashon Harah, see R. Ovadiah Yosef in his latest volume
of responsa, "Ein Omer Ve'en Devarim" which is a 
collection of his answers to questions posed to him 
by the leaders of the Shas party. R. Yosef makes it
clear that while those Jews who follow the Ramo hold
that confession is good for the soul, those following 
R. Yosef Karo ( no relation ) are bidden not to let
anything be known because of "Kvod Hashem Haster Davar" 
and "Devash Vechalav Tachat Leshoneich"

			Professor Aryeh Frimer_that_thou

--------------------------------------------------

I am submitting this for Rabbi Mordecai who does not
have access to Bitnet. He requests that all Jews on
the 127 networks supported by . . ., log off and fast 
and pray for 3 days beginning with the 13th of Nissan..

			[email protected]

----------------------------------------------

This must be one of the perks of power - the Bet Midrash
just got hooked into Bitnet.

The question has been floating around as to whether
you can use logical priciples to *prove* tennents
of our faith. We have just formulated a 32 step proof
conclusively showing, that saintly Haman of blessed
memory was indeed worthy of being the Messiah, 
but the generation did not merit it.

By the way, did you know that Choumus appears 46 times in the 
megillah, hidden in various patterns. Can't find any hidden 
pita though, must be because it was on Pesach.

			Mordecai [email protected]

--------------------------------------------------

Is there any explicit prohibition against singing Shoshanat
Yaakov to the tune of "How Much is that Aggogi in the Window ?"

			[email protected]

--------------------------------------------------

First announcement:

I request that all Jews observe these days for all enternity.
Kitvuny Ledorot.

			[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon,  9 Mar 92 23:03:55 EST
From: [email protected] (Sam Saal & Avi Y Feldblum)
Subject: Purim Torah

Last year, the great Hamentasch corner dbate raged for a while, making
SCJ the true rec.humor.funny, at least for Adar.  As a plagerize -er-
writer, I saw potential in all this.  I saved all the articles on the
topic and with the help of people far more learned than I put together
the following Purim Spiel.  This is the ASCII text version.  In a
separate post, I will present a PostScript file that you should be able
to simply dump to your favorite PostScript printer.  One hint. the
PostScript file has some extra "goodies" - some of which I will post as
separate Purim Torah over the next week or so.  There is also a sidebar
commentary by the RaShMoff (Rabbi Shimoff) that those reading the ASCII
will not get.  Think of it as the difference between Hertz and Mikraot
Gedolot Chumashim. [ I will put the postscript version on the nysernet
archive site; israel.nysernet.org in [ftp]/archive/MAIL-JEWISH - Avi]

Enjoy

			Purim Torah
		A Purim Spiel for Three Characters

The following is presented in the hope that it will serve to enrich
your Purim Seudah and give deeper meaning to your enjoyment of this
joyous event.

Sam:    There is a well known question raised by the RaShMoff, Rabbi
	Shimoff.  The question is, of course, why hamentaschen have four
	corners.  The answer is based, curiously enough, on halachic issues.

	The original sources report a disagreement over whether
	hamentaschen should have four corners or three.  But here is
	the core of the issue.  If the hamentasch has four corners, it
	requires tzizis.

	So far so good, but if the four-cornered hamentasch requires
	tzizis, which do we do first-put on the tzizis or recite the
	blessing on the hamentasch.  The answer is obvious, and derives
	from the halachic principle of tadir v'sh'eno tadir, tadir
	kodem-when there is a frequent mitzvah and an infrequent
	mitzvah, the frequent mitzvah takes priority.  In the present
	case, the mitzvah of the m'zonot blessing on the hamentasch is
	clearly more frequent, so one obviously first recites the
	m'zonot blessing.

	Having recited the blessing, however, a second halachic
	principle comes into play: a bracha must be over l'asiyato-that
	is, the act and the bracha must come at the same time.  So as
	soon as I say the m'zonot bracha, I am obligated to eat the
	hamentasch.

	But now, having taken a bite (at least a k'zayit) from the
	hamentasch, I have almost certainly taken off one of the
	corners, so it no longer has four corners, and is thus no
	longer suitable for tzizis!

	To avoid the entire issue, the tradition has been handed down
	from father to son, and from mother to daughter to make
	hamentaschen with three corners l'hat'hila (to start with).

Avi:    Oy! Now we are really in trouble, because after we take the
	first bite, eating one of the corners, we are left with a four
	cornered hamentasch. As we have already made the bracha of
	m'zonot, there is no problem with tadir v'sheano tadir (again,
	frequent versus infrequent), and we must stop the seudah and
	put tzizis on the hamentasch.

	What is clearly required is that one is strictly forbidden from
	eating a hamentasch by eating off one corner. One must be
	strict (yizaher me'od) always to bite a full side, so two
	corners are eaten, and the remaining piece still has three
	corners.

Chevrusa: What happens when you reach the part of the seudah when you
	have fulfilled ad lo yadah, when you are no longer able to
	clearly count the number of corners.

Avi:    This would seem to depend if the chiyuv (requirement) is a
	chiyuv gavrah (requirement on the individual) or chiyuv cheftza
	(requirement on the object).  If the logic is that a four sided
	object must have tzizis, then you may no longer eat
	hamentaschen if you can't count the number of sides. If however
	the logic is that you must put tzizis on something that has
	four corners, well you don't know if it has four corners, so
	you are not obligated.

Sam:    Hmmmmmm.... This is only the case if there is a hefsek
	(interruption) in the eating. If, on the other hand, the entire
	hamentasch is eaten within k'dei achilat pras (about seven
	minutes), then the entire eating is considered one ma'aseh
	(action), and thus the chiyuv tzizis is never chal (the
	requirement for tzizis never starts), since there is no
	4-cornered entity bif'nei atz'muta (by itself) at any time.  A
	question arises, however, if one breaks the hamentasch; in such
	a case it is unclear whether or not the breaking is considered
	tafel (secondary) to the eating, and thus part of the ma'aseh
	achilah (act of eating), or if it is a separate ma'aseh
	(action), in which case the hamentasch would be chayav in
	tzizis.

Avi:    Actually, we should worry about what is the oaffee (nature) of
	the chiyuv of putting tzizis on the four cornered hamentash.
	Does the chiyuv exist such that when you eat the four cornered
	hamentash there should be tzizis on it; or is the chiyuv such
	that when you are about to eat the four cornered hamentash
	there should be tzizis on it? According to the first way, maybe
	we put tzizis on the three cornered hamentash so when you bite
	it, the chiyuv is chal and there are already tzizis on it-so
	you fulfill the mitzvah.  Actually we now run into problems of
	Ta'aseh mean ha'assooy (making something versus the object
	already having been made).  This remains a tzorech iyun
	(question).

	Yesh Omrim (some say) that even if it is a chiyuv cheftzah, it
	is still a s'fek sfekah (doubt on a doubt), the first safek
	(doubt) coming from not being sure how many sides there are,
	and the second safek coming from not being sure if you're not
	sure how many sides there are (ad lo yadah applies to itself,
	after all!).  Thus, even though it is a d'oraita (Torah
	requirement), since it is a sfek s'feka, and there certainly is
	a chiyuv d'rabbanan (Rabbinic requirement) to eat hamentaschen,
	the only safek on that being on whether they actually are
	hamentaschen, it is incumbent upon us to eat them.

Chevrusa:Avi, your suggestion that one might still be permitted to put
	tzizis on hamentaschen creates yet another absurdity.  First,
	given the tzizis, one would probably not be permitted to eat
	the hamentasch-a major busha (embarrassment) for material used
	in fulfilling the Biblical commandment of tzizis.  But then,
	what could one do with the tzizis-ized hamentaschen?  Not to
	eat them puts you in violation of ba'al tashchit (one is not
	permitted to waste food).  What is apparently the only
	acceptable action given (heaven-forfend) a four-cornered
	hamentasch would be to save them until Pesach, and burn them
	with the hametz.  (This bizarre possibility may explain the
	etymology of the term ``hamentasch''-originally it was
	hametz-tasch-that is, a pocket of hametz.)

Sam:    Avi raised questions about my concerns about the best way to
	eat hamenstasch.  After presenting Rabbi Shimoff's reply to his
	suggestions of halachic difficulties, I realized there was a
	RaShMoff with a simple and even more elegant, halachically
	acceptable, solution that will avoid all problems: Eat TWO
	hamentaschen at a time!

Chevrusa:Rabbi Yosie bar Rubin has two solutions for having four
	cornered hamentaschen on Purim that won't require tzizis.

           *  Make them at night and eat them the same night.

	Nighttime is not z'man tzizis, so you never have a chiyuv
	(requirement) to put tzizis on them.  In a similar vein...

           *  Make them out of mohn (poppy).

	What does that have to do with the price of tzizis in China, I
	already hear people asking.  Remember that the mohn that fell
	in the midbar was covered on bottom and on top (by dew, I
	think).  Now, if you cover your four-cornered, mohn filled,
	hamentasch on top and bottom (by dough, I presume) it will
	become dark inside. Nighttime is not z'man tzizis, so you don't
	need tzizis on them.

Avi:    Actually this is not really a problem. The reason for the
	chiyuv of tzizis is that you are wearing the hamentasch. If so,
	the simple solution is to eat it from the inside, i.e., the
	hole through which you put your head.  Eventually you will eat
	so much that it no longer covers the required portion of your
	body and it becomes patur (exempt) from tzizis.  At this point,
	eating the corner would no longer make any difference. 

	The question is, what does one do if the corner is bitten off
	by mistake while there is still the required shiur (required
	minimum size), e.g. if one doesn't know the law, either out of
	ignorance, or because he has reached the stage of lo yada?  In
	this case, the apparent remedy would be to take it off and give
	it to someone else, and then put it back on, having in mind not
	to make a kinyan (a transfer of ownership). This solution,
	however, entails three hitches:

	   *  How can one transfer ownership to another person if the
	      giver has already reached the stage of lo yada?  Remember,
	      the kinyan requires the da'at of the makneh (the intention
	      of the one transferring ownership).

	   *  The kinyan would be also be questionable because a
	      haramah (legal fiction) is involved, since the donor intends
	      to eat the hamentasch.

	   *  If the person receiving the hamentasch has in mind that
	      the giver will be allowed to eat it, then he is, in effect,
	      giving it back when the donor puts it on again, and since,
	      even though the donor has no da'at, he is ``koneh m'din
	      sadeh,'' with ``da'at acheret makneh.''

	However, I think there is a way out of this.  We must stop and
	consider the traumatic impact this problem would have on the
	Jewish people. We all know that the halacha has to be
	reinterpreted and redefined to meet the needs of the people ...
	The only solution is, yes, conversion!

Sam:    But there is no such thing as converting out of Judaism! We can
	make anything Jewish, but not the other way around.

Avi:    Chas v'sholem! But actually, that's not what I'm talking
	about.  Look.  What is the ikkur (fundamental aspect) of the
	hamentasch? Flour... That's why we make a m'zonot. Now all we
	have to do is think.  The flour was most probably sold to a
	non-Jew last Pesach.  So all we have to do is retroactively
	convert that non-Jew, and the crust becomes hametz sh'over alav
	ha Pesach (hametz which was owned by a Jew during Pesach),
	which is assur be'hana'ah (forbidden to derive benefit
	therefrom). This makes the hamentasch forbidden to wear, and
	thereby exempt from tzizis.

Chevrusa: Isn't there also a side problem, namely that the beged
	(article of clothing) cannot be worn or eaten?

Avi:    Not a problem at all....

Chevrusa: And the more difficult question, how do we convert that
	person? We don't necessarily know who he is, and he doesn't
	necessarily want to convert.  Also, who ever heard of a
	retroactive conversion and how can we be sure he'll observe the
	Torah when we convert him? And what about mikveh, and milah,
	and beit din?

Avi:    These problems can be addressed via a simple but sweeping
	question.  How do we know he is really a non-Jew?  What right
	do we have to take it upon ourselves to decide who is Jewish
	and who is not? Who the heck do I think I am anyway?
	Furthermore, it says in Pirkei Avot: heve dan kol adam lekav
	z'chut.  (judge every person favorably. Give him the benefit of
	the doubt). It doesn't say ``every Jew'' rather adam,
	``person.'' If so, why do we have to presume that any person is
	not one of ours?  Now you'll ask, ``But historically halacha
	always presumed that a non-Jew was not Jewish!'' The answer is,
	that's when Jews were downtrodden.  Judging someone favorably
	meant presuming that he was not downtrodden.  Now that we are
	allowed to join country clubs, he may be married to a Jew.  If
	your cousin introduced him as her husband, the favorable
	presumption would be that he's Jewish. So we convert him by
	converting the presumption!

Sam:    Now the only remaining question is how one can wear or eat the
	hamentasch if it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, which,
	as you recall, is the basis of the exemption from tzizis.

Avi:    The answer is that it says somewhere in the Bible ve'chai bahem
	(and thou shalt LIVE in them).  If someone goes through all of
	this trouble to convert a person in order to eat and wear the
	hamentasch, and then is unable to do so, he might die of
	embarrassment.  Therefore, it is a mitzvah of ya'avor v'al
	ye'horeg (transgress and avoid death) to wear and eat it.

Chevrusa: Now a question for you out there: Why don't we make a
	she'he'cheyanu the first time we wear a hamentasch?

All:    Happy Purim, Chag Kasher V'sameach, and have a Freilicher Purim,

The original Shaylah and T'shuvah by Dr. Eliot Shimoff.  Further
elucidation by Avi Feldblum, Yitzchok Samet, Joseph Rubin.

Sam Saal      homxb!saal OR [email protected]
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 29


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Purim (4)
             [Yosef Branse, Eli Turkel, Goldberg Moshe,
             [email protected]]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 15:56:35 +0200 (O)
>From: [email protected] (Yosef Branse)
Subject: Purim

[Feel free to use any all or none of the following material. It is also 
 suitable for mishloach manos, but only if you send a bottle of good strong
 drink as the second portion. A freiliche Purim!]

Q: What do Syrian housewives use to remove difficult stains?
A: Hafez el-Acid.

Q: Why did Adam ha-Rishon refuse to run for the Presidency of the U.S.?
A: He said, "Why bother? I'm ALREADY married to the First Lady."

The American Army assigned a Jewish chaplain to train soldiers who were
to be sent to guard the island chain stretching from Alaska to Russia.
He gave them a shiur in "Shmiras Aleutian."

Q: Why is it forbidden for Afrikaner soldiers to lie down in public places?
A: That would be a Boer b'reshus ha-rabim.

For this Shabbes, I've ordered dessert from the bakery on the lunar
colony - everyone knows that the best poppy-seed cake comes from the mon
in the moon. It's out of this world!

When the prominent Chazzan of the shul passed away, no ordinary prelate 
would do for officiating at the funeral. 
They called in the Archbishop of Cantor-bury himself.

The parish priest was commiserating with his friend, a Lubavitcher
Hasid. "I have no end of troubles!" he complained. "Thefts from the
charity box - no one comes to Mass anymore - the Cardinal is breathing
down my neck - I have no money for repairs..."  "You know," said his
friend soothingly, "when we have problems, we check our mezuzos.  Why
don't you have someone look at the crucifixes in your church?"  But the
priest refused to submit to cross-examination.

It's amazing that so many Jews in the time of the Egyptian bondage were
able to maintain themselves as florists - yet the Torah testifies that
they were involved in "Avodas perach."

The manager of the banquet hall began showing delusions of grandeur -
probably as a result of always being addressed as "Ribono shel ulam."

Q: What do you call a burnt sacrifice that is offered with dried fruit, honey, 
   nuts and cinammon?
A: Gran-olah.

Legend has it that Hawaii was settled by Jews. One of the Island's
greatest leaders was a king who was renowned as being the equivalent of
10,000 men - that's why they called him "K'meah-meah".

King Hussein was once asked how he could justify Jordan's continuing
involvement in the West Bank, despite Israel's longtime hold over the
area.  He replied: "Amman's reach should exceed its grasp - or what's a
Hevron for?"

The Mossad planted an agent in Germany to ferret out state secrets. He
succeeded in winning the friendship of the Chancellor's daughter, and
through her gained access to an enormous amount of valuable information.
His supervisor, delighted but somewhat incredulous, asked, "Where did
you learn all this information? Are you perhaps a Navi?"  "Not a navi,
nor the son of a navi," the agent replied. "I heard it from a Bas Kohl."

We learned in Masechet Yoma that the priestly uniform that became tum'ah
when their wearer officiated at the red-heifer ceremony had to be washed
by a priest dressed in his official garments - this was history's first
Cohen-operated laundry.

I was asked to track down an Israeli who'd abandoned his family and run off 
to South America. I finally located him high in the Andes, leading a pair of 
the local pack animals.
As soon as I saw my man, I chastised him: "Llama, llama??"

Q: How much does it cost to start a new minyan?
A: Ten shuckles.

Q: What is the difference between Pesach Rishon and Pesach Shani?
A: One month.

Q: Why are poets so unproductive during the period of the High Holidays?
A: Because these days are known as "Yamim No-Rhyme."

I happened to be in Rome during the High Holidays. So, being polite, I
dropped in to the Vatican to say "Good Yontiff" to the Pontiff.

The Jerusalem Academy for the Recognition of Pretty Good Writing has
announced the winner of its annual prize for Topical Fiction.  The 1991
prize is awarded to Japanese-Israeli novelist Nashakiya Tanakama for his
novel, "A Match Made in Heaven."  This is the picaresque tale of Tilly
Skudd, a new immigrant in Israel who has arrived from Russia by way of
Iraq. She is desperate to be absorbed into Israeli society, but her
efforts frequently fall short of the mark.  Romantic counterpoint is
provided by Pat Ryatt, a brash American volunteer, whose lightning
advances force Tilly to change her plans.  Their relationship -
touch-and-go, frequently explosive - is the basis for much of the
novel's action.

The people of Jordan should count themselves fortunate - in a region
where many national leaders seem to be close to madness, they have a
king who's sane.

The Rebbe and his Hasidim almost always gathered in the ground floor Beis 
Midrash. One day a year, however, they went to the attic. 
That was on Tisch Above.

My chevrusah and I were reviewing the Mishnayos of Seder Kodshim. We had
made pretty good progress, but I was getting tired. My chevrusah still
had plenty of pep, and suggested going on. I protested that I needed to
rest, and that we should leave the next masechta for later ; "Temurah is
another day," I told him.

Queen Esther was disappointed with her PC - she discovered it was hopelessly 
infected by an Achashvirus.

* Yosef (Jody) Branse             University of Haifa Library              *
* Israeli U. DECNET: HAIFAL::JODY                                          *
* Internet/ILAN:     [email protected]                                  *
*                  "Ve'taher libenu le'ovdecha, VMS"                       *

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 08:28:07 EST
>From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Purim

    I was a little confused by the discussion whether hamentaschen need
tzizit. The halacha is that a garment needs tzizit only if it is big
enough to cover the majority of ones head and body. Since, hamentasch
are that big there should be no question that it is exempt.
     Furthermore there was discussion of the question from the woman's
side of the story.

[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 11:57:59 +0200
>From: [email protected] (Goldberg Moshe)
Subject: Purim

> Sam:    Now the only remaining question is how one can wear or eat the
> 	hamentasch if it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, which,
> 	as you recall, is the basis of the exemption from tzizis.
> 
> Avi:    The answer is that it says somewhere in the Bible ve'chai bahem
> 	(and thou shalt LIVE in them)...it is a mitzvah of ya'avor v'al
> 	ye'horeg (transgress and avoid death) to wear and eat it.

Avi, Avi, how can you be so close and yet miss the point?  The passage 
     ve'chai bahem is to be interpreted in light of the precept:  ain
     lehotzee pasuk miday pshuto (a passage retains its straightforward
     interpretation).  Ve'chai bahem means to live INSIDE the mitzvah.
     Thus, we have a gzerat hakatuv (strict injunction directly from
     the pasuk) to get into the hamentasch, that is, to wear it.

    Moshe Goldberg     [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 16:03 CST
>From: [email protected]
Subject: Purim

RE: Adaric stories in connection with Hashem's tenure at
  Hebrew University.

I cannot comment on the authenticity of the rumors concerning Hashem's
tenure rejection at HU, but I hear tell that following His academic
stint He decided to try His mighty hand at politics.  The transpirations
were as follows:

First, H. approached Likud, where Fierce remonstrations ensued from the
office of Yiztchak, wanting to know whether the newcomer understood
"Who's boss". Arik Sharon demanded to let H. in, because of His noted
reputation in fast building, but things got stuck when Levy intervened,
fearful that the interloper may have designs on the Prime Minister's
office after Shamirean eras.

Next, He made approach to Maarach, where He was greeted with stony
silence. Shimon got excited, though, thinking that this may finally be
the way to get rid of HIS Yitzchak, and he promised all kinds of
important positions to the budding politician. Yitzchak managed to
squelch it all, however, on the basis of the claim that most politicians
hanging around Israeli parties had at least 100 years of experience
before being given any power, and then....then there was no way to take
it back from them, EVER, so it would be dangerous to give anything to
this unheard of indi- vidual.

Techiya and their ilk would have no part of working with Him, they were
afraid He would be dovish, and willing to concede land. "Let's
remember," Cohen was quoted as saying, "that He was in favour of various
'peace covenants' between Averaham and Avimelech, out of which- what did
we get? Nothing. Furthermore, He advised Jacob to go down to Egypt
rather than stay and defend the land till death."

Sefardic parties were sitting on the fence, waiting to determine exactly
which country H. came from, whether He favoured Houmous and techina or
gefilte fish, and whether He said "Shubbiss", or "Shabbath".

CHAPTER TWO; HASHEM TRIES THE U.S. OF A.

It was after this period that the A-mighty decided to see if it would be
possible to run for president of the USA. First, He approached the
Republican party, thinking of Himself as a conservative. Buchanan just
loved this, it gave him more ammunition. "This is what it's all about",
he shouted to an enthralled group of supporters as they waved 3-cornered
hats in the air.
 "Outsiders coming in, wanting to run American politics.
Besides, we know who He has befriended all these years, don't we?
America first!"

  Bush was burning. "Another contender? What nerve! Who is this Hashem
that we should let him run, and let the people decide? NO!"  Quayle
tried to calm Bush down, saying "Bush, it's alright to feel burned about
this, but don't let it consume you."

 Duke hastily sent some klan material to H.'s office address, hoping to
win an ally in the new politician. Funnily enough, Duke could not
understand at the same time, why he was doing so badly, his finances
faltering hopelessly, no TV cameras chasing him, no pesky Jews screaming
"Nazi" in his face. Little did he know that at the receiving end of his
klan materials, a chuckle could be heard, and the refrain: "Why do this
to you? Because du binst a nudg."

A last effort. An approach to the Democrats. Clinton was overjoyed, and
using it to his advantage. "What chance does a single guy have?  How can
anyone elect someone who never even had a chance to cheat on anyone?
Nah, someone unique, infinite, indivisible, unlikened to any other... He
doesn't stand a chance."  Tsongas was interested, but wary.
 "If this Hashem looks just a tiny bit nerdier than myself,
it has to be to my advantage," he was overheard saying. When he heard
that Hashem has no likeness or image, he impulsively responded:
"So will they vote for a nobody like me, or a no body like Him?"

Last I heard, Hashem was withdrawing from the realm of politics, taking
His whole host of advisors and angelic supporters with Him.  

Gavriel Newman, Happy Purim to all.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]
ftp archive site:  arthur.wustl.edu [host id (128.252.125.83)]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 31


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        BALTUVA, New list
             [Claire Austin]
        Cholov Akum outside of America (2)
             [Stephen Phillips, Isaac Balbin]
        Minhag
             [Sam Saal]
        Rosh Chodesh and Leap Year
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Shomer Negiah (touching)
             [Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund]
        Why we have no practical cases of Hatmanah these days
             [Isaac Balbin]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 09:27:22 EST
>From: Claire Austin <CZCA%[email protected]>
Subject: BALTUVA, New list


BALTUVA is a new list focusing on issues and questions of concern to
observant Jews. The name of the list is derived from "baal t'shuva"
which is often used to refer to "newly religious" Jews. The list is not
restricted to this group however - please feel free to post to the list ther
whether or not you consider yourself to be a "baal t'shuva."

To subscribe send the following E-mail message to [email protected]

SUBSCRIBE BALTUVA Your Name


To receive more information concerning the list, send the following
E-mail message to [email protected]

REVIEW BALTUVA


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 92 13:47 GMT
>From: Stephen Phillips <[email protected]>
Subject: Cholov Akum outside of America

> Does anyone have any information about the halachic basis for using
> cholov akum [milk that's not under strict Jewish supervision] in
> European products?

Here in London, England, the Beth Din publish a Kashrus Guide covering
all manner of foods that don't have a Hechsher but which are Kosher.
Advice is given that milky products should preferably be from Cholov
Yisroel, but those made from Cholov Akum are not prohibited.

I believe the reason is that here also we have strict government
regulations regarding the purity of milk and therefore one may rely on
these. Many people, however, are machmir to have only Cholov Yisroel.

Stephen Phillips - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 11:00:37 +1000
>From: [email protected] (Isaac Balbin)
Subject: Cholov Akum outside of America

Frankly, I think the onus is on you to tell us why Rav Moshe's Psak
*doesn't* apply in Europe. I wasn't aware that there were countries in
the Western World that didn't have regulations to the effect that a
farmer who substitutes, say milk from a pig/camel/horse, and calls it
diary milk is free from the law.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 
>From: Sam Saal
Subject: Minhag

In m.j 3.27, Dov (Bruce) Krulwich writes about minhag:

>(2) Nowadays noone is bound as to which minhag to hold, so it is permissible
>    to change from year to year for whatever reason
>    (Igros Moshe OC chelek aleph siman kuf nun tes)

Could someone expand on this? How far can it be generalized? Does it
extend beyond family custom? What about things like the time we wait
between eating milk and meat? Does it extend beyond "geographic" custom?
I'm from a variety of different, Ashkenaz stock. Can I eat rice this
Pesach? (I'll be careful to check there's no wheat mixed in my rice :-).

Or would this only apply to someone who doesn't have a custom - say a 3rd
generation secular Jew who recently became a Ba'al T'Shuvah?

Note: although worded tongue-in-cheek, I understand Bruce is _not_
advocating _abandoning_ minhag.  It is a question of _which_ minhag to
follow and I'm interested in seeing how this gets applied to more general
cases.

[I think the particular Psak of R' Moshe is only on this minhag of which
days to keep for the mourning period of the Omer. The question then
would be what is special about this minhag, and to what other cases can
it be extended. Mod.]

Sam Saal



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 21:35:44 +0200
>From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Rosh Chodesh and Leap Year

I join in taking issue with the notion that a mistake in fixing the
calendar causes us to eat chametz on Pesach, and thus there is a
"pesha" -- either in missing Pesach, or in the original fixing of
the leap year.  Reference has been made to the Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah
24b - 25a, where Rabbi Yehoshua resists Rabban Gamliel's fixing of
the new moon and is forced to acknowledge the Court's authority by
appearing with staff and purse on his would-be Yom Kippur.  Let us
note the justification for Rabban Gamliel's exercise of authority:
(1) In the Mishnah, Rabbi Akivah consoles Rabbi Yehoshua by quoting
a verse in Lev. 23, with the upshot: "Whether timely or not, I have
no holidays other than these [which are fixed for good or ill by the
Court]."  A Baraita quoted in the Gemara has a different version.
Here Rabbi Akiva finds Rabbi Yehoshua upset at his treatment, and he
uses three verses in Lev. 23 to derive: "Even if mistaken [shogeg],
even if wilfully wrong [mezid], even if misled [mut'in]."  Rabbi
Yehoshua replies, "Akiva, you have comforted me, you have comforted
me."

Why is R. Yehoshua comforted?  Because he is convinced that there is no
pesha, that the holidays are when they are BY DEFINITION, and that
it is meaningless to ask whether this year's Purim is "really" Pesach.

Benjamin Svetitsky   [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 16:29:33 EST
>From: sg04%[email protected] (Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund)
Subject: Shomer Negiah (touching)

One thing I do not see often discussed in mail.jewish is practical
techniques that people use to function in the non-Frum world. I expect a
lot of mail.jewish readers do have to work in the external world, and
have over time developed a lot of practical experience.

So let me try and start a discussion on Shomer Negiah.  What tricks do
people use to avoid shaking hands with members of the opposite sex
(business & personal situations)?

I will suggest two, and hopefully others can add in:

1. When they stick out their hand, act stupid and stick your business
   card in their hand instead of your hand (a pretty underhanded trick
   no? :-)

2. If you are meeting people together with your spouse, then have your
   spouse reach over shake the hand of the person who is greeting you.
   (I learned this trick from my ex-fiancee)

Obviously one should not only have "tricks" to try, but also be able to
quickly explain and elucidate why we (Jews) do not touch members of the
opposite sex. So, if anyone has any good (short) explainations (I have
tried the sexual harrasment issue, but this could be a bit heavy) then I
would appreciate it.

Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund		 		  [email protected]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA			    harvard!bunny!sgutfreund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 92 19:45:13 EST
>From: Isaac Balbin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Why we have no practical cases of Hatmanah these days

  | easy to deal with.  The precise definition of the prohibited "hatmana"
  | seems to be pretty clear from the sugya and poskim: The prohibited
  | Hatmana is not defined as "covering" or "insulating", but as "adding
  | heat- mosif hevel". One can only add heat by covering a pot with
  | something that is in itself "mosif hevel".  An example of what is *not*
  | hatmana: When the pot is already on the blech, (lets assume that the pot
  | is allowed to be there for whatever reason so as not to get involved in
  | the other isues I alluded to) the heat is coming from the flame beneath.
  | Covering the pot with a lid does not "add heat" - it only allows the pot
  | to retain the heat better. Thus, this is not hatmana.  Even a thermos is
  | permitted.  

Hatmono is not just a question of determining whether it is moisif hevel
or not. Even if it were just this, when you cover an uncovered pot,
surely that *is* moisif hevel. The hevel that could escape no longer
does and is now building up internally.  As for thermos bottles being
permitted, I should point out to you that although the Shmiras Shabbos
Kehilchoso rules like the Chazon Ish that it is permitted, others such
as Rav Wosner in Shevet Halevi forbid thermos flasks.  The plot is
thicker than you make out.

Further to your analysis, if you place a cold hard boiled egg into the
midst of a cholent (removed from the Blech, and then returned) is that
Hatmana?  What if you have the egg wrapped in silver foil, and then do
this.  I *think* you might find that the first isn't considered Hatmono
whereas the second case is. If I am right (I must check), then your
definitions don't fit.

  | An example of what would constitute prohibited hatmana: If one has a pot
  | of hot food, and in order to keep it hot one takes it into the backyard
  | "composte pile" of decaying leaves "digs" down to the center and finds a
  | hot spot due the the exothermic chemical reaction going on there and
  | sticks the pot in there. 

Where do you get a source for there having to be an exothermic chemical 
reaction?

  | (could also be a pile of still-hot radiating coals) 

If they were hot coals the issur would be more than hatmana.
It would be Havoro and an issur Dorayso without any doubt.

  | That is hatmana b'davar hamosif hevel.  [Rashi on the mishna in
  | Shabbat 36b tends to confuse things a little and it is a good academic
  | excersize to try and figure out why Rashi wants to involve (or less
  | charitably - to confuse) the halachot of hatmana with shehiya] 

Well I will look at Rashi and get back on this one. I doubt whether
Rashi was confused.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 32


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Panim El Panim
             [Alexander Herrera]
        Pesach in London
             [Michael B. Meiner]
        Seminar On Jewish Rhetoric
             [Sam Edelman]
        Walking out for a women's zimun
             [Brave Raven]
        Zimmun for Women
             [Isaac Balbin]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 12:51:41 EST
>From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

Hello all!

I hope you all have had a good Purim! It appears (to me at least) that
the cutover to the nysernet host for mail.jewish is going relatively
smoothly. You may still get a few test messages, and the headers may
vary a bit as I work my way around. If there are any significant changes
or problems that you see, please let me know. There seems to have been a
problem with #30 arriving truncated at some locations. I've resent
copies to those who had sent me mail letting me know that their copy
arrived damaged. If the problem is more widespread, please let me know.

I have transfered most of the archive material to israel.nysernet.org.
To access the archives, ftp to israel.nysernet.org, login as anonymous,
give your email id as password, then cd to archive/mail-jewish. In this
directory are single files that contain the previous years of
mail.jewish. The files are:

m.j86
m.j87
m.j88
m.j89
m.j90
m.j_91  (first half of 1991)
mj_v2   (second half, when we went to volume numbers, so this is volume 2)

There is also a directory called volume3, which will contain the
individual mailings in the current volume 3.

I will try and get some Index files up there during the coming week, as
well.

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 11:11:09 EST
>From: [email protected] (Alexander Herrera)
Subject: Panim El Panim

My daughter is almost 16 and has participated in a wonderful program
call Panim El Panim through the Washington Institute for Jewish
Leadership and Values. Through the program, Jewish high school students
are made aware of the leadership possibilities available to them in a
democracy. The program is non-partisan and is open to all Jews.

I was excited when she first broached the idea to us. It sounded great.
She would get to meet some senators, and committee members. She would
tour the various buildings and monuments in Washington D.C. and get to
listen to lectures on a variety of political subjects. I was dead solid
for it.

But there was something included in the program that wasn't in any of
the pamphlets. The first day was to be spent celebrating Shabbat with
an Orthodox family.

A shudder went through the room when the kids finally found out. The
kids from our area were primarily Reform Jews. They didn't know
anything about Orthodoxy. All the kids figured that the first day was
going to be a dud. Doubtless they would spend countless drab hours
stuck in a dark synagogue, or remain as prisoners in a home with so
many restrictions that they should probably be tied up lest they
violate some rule. Three of the kids positively refused to do it.

My daughter had some reservations. She finally decided that it was just
one day out of her life and it was a new experience. She was resigned
to it all.

Finally the day came. My daughter left for Washington D.C.. That
Saturday night my wife received a phone call from our daughter. My
daughter was all excited. As they began talking, my wife screamed and
handed the phone to me. I got on the phone not knowing what had
happened. 

I said, "Did you scare your mother?"

"Yes."

"What did you say?"

"I told her I want to be Orthodox."

I laughed. I've been trying to talk my wife into Orthodoxy for months.
I never ever expected such a statement to come from my daughter though.
She had been refusing to eat meat lately, but I thought she was on a
diet or something. I found out it was because most of it wasn't
kosher. I was proud.

Later in the week, my wife talked to our Rebitsin (a Reform Jew). She
had been encouraging her to take baby steps and told her some of the
things she needed to do to become kosher. When our Rebitsin heard that
my daughter wanted to be Orthodox, she laughed as I had. Her own
children had done the same thing and were now Orthodox. My wife was
sunk. My wife had a good long talk with the Rebitsin of the local
Orthodox synagogue. She liked what she heard. Who knows? It could
happen. :-).

BTW, you've got a great community over there in Wheaton, Maryland. All
the kids loved staying there for Shabbat. Everyone came away with a
very good impression of Orthodoxy. You scored a big hit over here in
Orange County, California.

Alex Herrera
uunet!mdcsc!ah


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 92 15:52:46 -0500
>From: [email protected] (Michael B. Meiner)
Subject: Pesach in London


I am posting this mail as a favor to someone who will be going to London
on business for a period of about 6 months, starting around Pesach time.
Would anyone be able to assist him in terms of places to stay for
Shabbos, food, etc.? You can contact him directly -

His info. is:

Jonathan Stein 212-902-0918

Mr. Stein would greatly appreciate any assistance you could offer.

Michael B. Meiner                           email: [email protected]
Bellcore                                    Phone: (908) 699-3876

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 10:50:07 EST
>From: Sam Edelman <[email protected]>
Subject: Seminar On Jewish Rhetoric

The Speech Communication Association issues a call for
the 1992 Seminar Series in Chicago, ILL, Wednesday, October 23, 1992

SEMINAR ON JEWISH RHETORIC: FROM RHETORICAL PRACTICE TO RHETORICAL
THEORY--IS THERE A JEWISH RHETORICAL THEORY AND HOW MIGHT WE UNCOVER IT?

	This seminar will explore the following issues: Is there a Jewish
rhetorical theory? Is it separate and distinct from Greco/Roman theory,
or is Greco/Roman theory integrated into Jewish rhetorical traditions?
How do we discover Jewish rhetorical theories from the corpus of Jewish
sacred and secular literture?  The initial half of the seminar will
featured selected scholars noted for their study of Jewish rhetoric; the
second half of the seminar will be devoted to papers submitted by those
selected from among the self-nominations.

	LEADERS:  Samuel Edelman, California State University, Chico
		    Yehoshua Gitay, Rhodes College

	Please send Self-nominations to: Prof. Samuel Edelman, Dept. of
Human Communication Studies, California State University, Chico, Chico,
CA 95929-0502, Phone (916) 898-4336; FAX (916) 898-4345; INTERNET:
[email protected].
	Send letter of self nomination which should include a one to two
page position statement on the topic of Jewish Rhetoric and an academic
vita no later than July 1, 1992 (postmarked).


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 22:50:09 -0800 (PST)
>From: Brave Raven <[email protected]>
Subject: Walking out for a women's zimun


	You should not be so judgemental !  :) Walking out if women are
doing their own zimun is not in itself a statement denigrating the
women's actions.  If someone walks out it does not have to be because
they feel that what is occuring is wrong, rather, that he feels that it
is improper for him to remain for reasons of propriety.

	You may not agree with this person who feels that it is
necessary to leave the room (I don't know enough of the Halacha to have
an opinion, and the only time this came up I was politely informed by
the women that I was supposed to leave), but if he is holding by his
level of observance you should respect that.

	You still are more than free, as you have been doing, to ask for
a halachic basis for such an action.


Refael Hileman

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 10:53:08 +1000
>From: [email protected] (Isaac Balbin)
Subject: Re: Zimmun for Women

A more interesting question (from my point of view) is why is it that
women don't seem to engage in Mayim Acharonim even in those houses that
use it.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on israel.nysernet.org in the directory
archive/mail-jewish


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 33


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Apartment for Rent
             [M. Schimmel]
        Christianity, Islam and Avoda Zara
             [Frank Silbermann]
        Chumra
             [Robert Gordon]
        Lip-Service Zionism
             [Lazar Trachtenberg]
        Requirements for lists of ingredients on processed foods
             [[email protected]]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 00:32:56 IST
>From: M. Schimmel <F42188%[email protected]>
Subject: Apartment for Rent

Friends of mine would like to rent out their apartment in the Baq'a
neighborhood of Jerusalem for any or all of the period from March 27 to
May 3.  If you are interested or would like more information, please
contact me,

Mindy Schimmel (f42188@barilvm or [email protected])


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 92 11:54:22 CST
>From: Frank Silbermann <[email protected]>
Subject: Christianity, Islam and Avoda Zara

In Vol.3 #25, Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth suggested that we should probably
treat both (Christianity and Islam) as idolatry (because we are always
machmer in diney avoda zara).  Yet, Meth notes that the rishonim and
acharonim did _not_ take this strict view (though they certainly must
have been aware of this principle).  Most of them (e.g. Rambam vs.
Tosofot) pasken that the gentile religion of their local area is _not_
avodah zara, and the converse wrt the other religion.  Najman Kahana
adds that The Meiri, who seems to have lived on the border between the
Christian and Muslim world, held that none of the Goyim in his day were
idolators.

Though it is certainly acceptable on this question for Ashkenazim to
continue following the Tosofot, and for Sephardim to continue following
the Rambam, today's context seems most consistent with that of the
Meiri.  Highspeed transportation has made the world smaller, and one can
truly say that, for all practical purposes, almost every Jew in the
world today lives in close proximity to both Christians and Muslims.  In
any case, there seems to be little support for the view that _both_ are
Avodah Zara.

There is yet another consideration.  For almost as long as Christianity
has existed, it has been hostile to Judaism.  Nevertheless, many
post-Holocaust Christian theologians have been revising their views on
this issue.  Some have even expressed regret for the antisemitism of
their fathers.  If we now declare that Christians really are idolaters
(despite our earlier protests to the contrary), we would cause these
penitants great embarassment and humiliation before their fellow
Christians.

Both Meth and Kahana suggest that our sages distorted the Torah from
fear of antagonizing gentiles.  A more respectful interpretation would
assume that each posek was generally cautious, but those with
opportunity to observe Christians or Muslims closely saw fit to make
exceptions.  To be fair, there is at least one good argument for viewing
Christianity and Islam as idolatry.  Because of America's historically
low levels of antisemitism, its Jewry has been plagued with rampant
assimilation and reluctance to make aliyah.  Therefore, anything we can
say or do to promote antisemitism may be appropriate.  But I hesitate in
recommending this tactic, as I fear there may be other considerations
which would necessitate against this approach.

Frank Silbermann	[email protected] 
Tulane University	New Orleans, Louisiana USA





----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 11 March 1992 08:32:07 CST
>From: Robert Gordon <[email protected]>
Subject: Chumra

I am wondering if anyone can clarify for me the concept of chumrot.
What categories of behavior are subject to chumrot and what are not?
Let me cite the specific example which prompts this question.  My
community recently established an eruv which was authorized by an
eminent posek.  There are people who have taken it upon themselves not
to use the eruv because of a personal chumra.  How am I to understand
this concept?  Can a chumra apply to any kind of behavior, as for
example not eating carrots?  In other words, is it a form of neder?  Or
does it apply only to those situations where there is an inherent doubt
about the permissability of the behavior, in which case not eating
carrots would not constitute a chumra while not using the eruv does
because of the continuing doubt about the validity of the eruv?  How
then does one choose which chumrot to adopt and which not to?

Robert Gordon,  U08383@UICVM

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 12 Mar 92 10:55:30
>From: Lazar Trachtenberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Lip-Service Zionism

In reply to Shlomo Pick (Jewish mail Vol. 3, #9): He basically says that
a Zionist must make aliya (anything else is just lip-service) and a
religious Jew, even if he is not a Zionist, ought to live in Israel to
fulfill a positive commandment.

I have been a Zionist since I was 17 and today I am 46.  I am a
religious Jew as well.  I agree with Shlomo on both counts, yet I have
lived 14 years outside of Israel. Hence my reply will deal not with the
religious commandment nor with the Zionist obligation since I have no
argument with either, but rather with the simple observation: there are
too many Jews that call themselves Zionist and religious (and sincerely
believe it), that reside outside of Eretz Israel.  In other words, I
shall deal with the LIP-SERVICE aspects of being a religious Zionist in
the comfortable Diaspora.  Let us take a snapshot of the world today and
assume for reason of this argument that the state of affairs in which
the Jews all over the world find themselves is a given.  It is a given
that the Western World is founded on the belief in supremacy of
individual human rights.  It is a given that Judaism was severely
wounded by the Parisian Sanhedrin in 1806 when its substantial communal
part was abolished in exchange for the individual rights in the goyish
world including the right to believe in the amputated parody on Judaism
that some apostates call universalist prophetic tradition while other
apostates refer to Judaism adopted to the needs of the modern world. The
only difference between the two is in the kind of measurements on their
respective Procrustean beds. I am not questioning here what the Jewish
rights are worth in the goyish world, etc. I am simply stating the fact
that we genetic Jews in the West do not know for the last 200 years what
our collective inheritance of Judaism means.  Acknowledged Jewish
thinkers Geiger, Kaplan, Buber, Hecshel, etc., did not operate from
within authentic Judaism.  Their response to the hedonistic challenging
enlightenment of the West was muted and predicated on primacy of
individual rights over communal rights.  Individualism was that what
they all inherited with their mother's milk.  It does not come even
close to the thunderous authentic response of our sages, who operated
from Eretz Israel populated by Jews to the challenges of Hellenic-Roman
civilization some 2,000 years ago.  True authentic Jewish responses to
the Enlightenment ideas, like those of Frankfurt's Rav S.R. Hirsh,
went unnoticed for more than 150 years.

Those wishing to preserve authentic Judaism, and to develop from within
it, were in a constant flight to the East.  Hence Hasidic Jews represent
a much more authentic Jewish development than the reform Jews.  As human
rights increased to the West (just look how many bankers and
industrialists are within the reform movement), Jewish communal
authenticity increased to the east (compare the corresponding numbers of
rabbis, philosophers, writers).

We are now in the process of synthesis which is taking place in Eretz
Israel.  It is a very painful but inevitable Tshuva of both the Eastern
and the Western Jewry.  Not everyone had the luck to grow up today in
isolation within an uninterrupted natural Jewish development either
Hasidic or Misnogid or Yemenite.  Also, that may be not so much luck
because you cannot run away from knowledge which you can confront with
knowledge only.  As Mr. Dershowitz's mother pointed out to her secular
son in Borough Park: I was right in exposing you to the goyish world but
you were wrong in embracing it instead of rejecting it.  Maybe it is
not so much his fault-not everybody had the brains of a Maimonides.
There were too many wars, seductions, dislocations, persecutions to
permit a clear choice.

The ingathering which we all witness is such that most Western Jews must
be their own Rabbi.  Everything must be decided individually, on a
voluntary basis,.  Our great Rabbis like Rav Soloveitchick or Rabbi
Shneerson do not issue halachot stating all the Jews must now go to
Israel.  Our national home in Eretz Israel is being erected on a
voluntary basis: every Jew who wants to participate is free to join in.
On the other hand, every Jew that for some reason feels fed up with the
construction work can go out to the Diaspora for any amount of time.
That is wrong.  All that is as much non-Jewish as it is inevitable.  An
individual Jew is put in a situation where he must solve a
multiobjective optimization problem.  He may have insufficient brain
and/or insufficient training to deal with such problems.  The net result
is confusion.  A trained rebbe knows how to resolve conflicting
commandments.  But even for them there are not always ready formal
methods and great art may be required.  How much more difficult is the
situation of a Jew who has to reconciliate personal beliefs,
professional ambitions, the inherited 2000 years old desire of the
wandering Jew to see for himself whether the sky is as blue elsewhere as
it is at his present place of residence, shlom bait, etc., in a single
decision?  By definition, he must do it alone (Tshuva!)  without
resorting to any authority, but completely voluntarily.  A Jew engaged
in such deliberations on the road to Israel is doing, in my opinion,
more than lip service to Zionism.  He is involved in aliyah which may be
a lifelong process rather than a simple non-repeatable act.  And I would
advise all of us not ot forget that even the life in Israel must be
viewed as part of the same aliyah process.  Because there were too many
certified Zionists who shed their blood for Israel that ended up back in
the Diaspora.  But that is a subject of another study abd another
discussion.  I hope I've made the case for broadening the concept of
zionist and extending the study of aliyah which I treated superficially.

Lazar Trachtenberg
[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 10:06:13 -0500
>From: [email protected]
Subject:  Requirements for lists of ingredients on processed foods

	Recently I heard (not for the first time) that you can't judge
kashrut by reading the list of ingredients on a package, because there
were often ingredients that simply weren't listed.  I wonder whether
this is really true or whether it is more of an urban legend.  As a
veteran reader of such lists, I can't imagine why some of the trace
ingredients are always listed, even if they are more part of the
packaging than of the product.

	Can someone provide a reference for the rules on lists of
ingredients, who makes the rules, and what kind of ingredients (if any)
are not covered?

	I realize that kashrut depends on more than just ingredients,
since process, as well as the specific source of some ingredients, must
also be considered.

		David



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on israel.nysernet.org in the directory
archive/mail-jewish


End of mail.jewish Digest

[This mailing got truncated to many or all locations, so I am resending it.
It had a line consisting of a single . which may have been the culprit. Mod.]


                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Bilvovi
             [Joe Abeles]
        Hatmana
             [David Chasman]
        Russian Aliya
             [Dov Green]
        Separation before Marriage (2)
             [Warren Burstein, Ezra L Tepper]
        Shaatnez
             [Ezra L Tepper]
        Yiddishkeit in Nice
             [Sean Philip Engelson]
        Zimmun for Women
             [Susannah Danishefsky]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 10 Mar 92 10:05:06 U
>From: Joe Abeles <[email protected]>
Subject: Bilvovi

I am responding to what may be an oversimplified response on the source
of the tune to "Bilvovi Mishkan Evneh, Le-Hadar Kevodo..."  (the words
to which, I believe, are in every Siddur as part of the night-time
prayer to be said before going to sleep -- which also includes the
Shema):

Lacking the musical notes (which could be sent over e-mail to m.j.), I
can't say for sure to what tune Mr. Tanenbaum was referring.  He says it
was composed by R. Shmuel Brazil; I am not familiar with the "Ohr
Chodosh" recording he mentions.

However, all the nigunim/melodies I've heard to Bilvovi are variations
on the composition for Bilvovi of the late-medieval Jewish composer,
Solomon Rossi.  I've heard the same nigun/melody used as part of Shabbos
davening by several s'hlichim tziborim, typically in Musaf K'dushah.

Digression:

I was exposed to this work in ca. 1979, as part of an informal but
well-run Jewish singing group at Princeton University led by Ellen
Holdowsky (unmarried name), at that time a master's student at
Westminster Choir College (located in Princeton, NJ).  Princeton
University, though it's not widely recognized, has been quite a nice
little center of Yiddishkeit since the late sixties.  It (at least then)
was one of only three Universities in the U.S. with University-run
kosher dining services.  (The others are Yeshiva University and Brandeis
-- there are other schools like NYU that have kosher kitchens which are
not run directly by the University dining services.)  The earlier
reputation of Princeton was tinged with antisemitic admissions policies
but that was decisively changed by the administrations of (Princeton
University) Presidents Goheen and Bowen.  The current president of
Princeton is Harold T. Shapiro, a Jew.  Princeton University's kosher
dining hall, named for Adlai Stevenson (not a Jew) is located at 83
Prospect Ave in Princeton, New Jersey.  Though not widely known, it
still is essentially open to the public (pay by check when you go there,
they don't accept cash).  As a matter of fact, for a long time it was
unquestionably the best kosher restaurant in New Jersey.  Now I would
award that honor to Moishe's Restaurant in Highland Park (where I
reside).

(I would welcome a message from any Princeton University alumni
receiving this message.)

(End digression)

It is possible that the Brazil nigun was also based on the original
Solomon Rossi version.

Joe Abeles 
David Sarnoff Research Center, Princeton, NJ
[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 22:39:25 EST
>From: [email protected] (David Chasman)
Subject: Hatmana

Michael Kramer's discussion of Hatmana brings up a question that
bothered me in Mishnayot shabbat.  In these mishnayot, there is a
discussion of davar hamosif/she-ayano-mosif hevel (something which
does/doesn't add heat).  I have no problem accepting that the authors of
these mishnayot didn't have the same understanding of heat as we do.
Along these lines:
(1) Has anybody tried the list mentioned in mishnayot shabbat and found
    them to have an exothermic reaction with water (which would likely be
    in the mixture )?
(2) If not all of (1) turn out to be exothermic, did some empirical
    observations on the subject get brought up in the Gemara ?
--David Chasman

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 10:05:45 IST
>From: [email protected] (Dov Green)
Subject: Russian Aliya

One hears in the media, both in Israel & abroad, about the failure of
absorbing the Russian Aliyah.  Recently, I had a first-hand experience
which I would like to share with the readers of Jewish Bitnet.  This
past Shabbat our yishuv ( settlement ) hosted about thirty students from
the mechina ( preparatory ) program of the Jerusalem Institute of
Technology.  These boys ( about 18 years old plus/minus ) are taking a
triple load, ulpan to learn Hebrew, Jewish Studies, & pre-engineering.
After this year, they are eligible to enter the College in the Atuda
program where they receive their degrees first and then serve in the
army in their area of training ( optics, computers, etc. ). So eight or
nine years down the line they will be barely distinguishable from any
other Israeli. Consider the amount of investment that is being made in
these kids, it is staggering.  Kol Hakavod to Prof Lev & anyone who
supports these institutions.  By the way, our two guests had each spent
a half year to a year studying in yeshivot before they entered the
program.  Needless to say, these kids are sharp, on the ball & it was a
pleasure to engage them in conversation.

In Shule on Shabbat morning, we have a short Shiur in Halacha after
davening. The person who teaches the class ( R. Haim Cohen ) departed
from the text & said:

"This past week was the anniversary of the death of Stalin. In this
century no one did more to blot out the Jewish soul, than Stalin.
Anywhere his reach extended, if one was caught teaching a Jewish word,
or keeping Shabbat, or Milah he was subject to horrible turture and
exile. From the seventh level of Sheol where he most certainly is to be
found, would that the dust be uncovered from his eyes so he can see that
the children & grandchildren of those who he sought to repress and bring
to shmad have come to Israel, are are studying Torah, and fulfilling . ."

R. Haim's voice Choked and he could not continue. There wasn't a dry eye
in the Shule.

This is a rather different perspective on the Russian Aliyah.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 10:08:18 +0200
>From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Separation before Marriage

I may have said this before on this list, some friends of mine had the
photographs taken at their wedding before the guests arrived instead of
after everyone is sitting down to eat after the chuppah.  Maybe they
didn't want to miss the soup.  Anyway, I asked them about this, and they
said that they had checked this with their (O) messader kiddushin who
said, "it's not a halacha, it's not a minhag, it's just an inyan".

I have no idea what this means, I've never heard "it's just an inyan"
meaning that it is optional (nor do I know how to identify the "just
inyanim" in the Shulchan Aruch).



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 11:49:24 +0200
>From: Ezra L Tepper <[email protected]>
Subject: Separation before Marriage

The authorities I consulted premaritally said that the period of
separation was strictly required only after the bride goes to the
mikveh.  Other separation periods are dependent upon family custom.

There is ultimate logic operating here. Since in the seven day period
before the mikveh the bride is carefully checking for possible signs of
blood, there is no problem of _dam chimum_ (because this refers to the
flow of some small speck of blood that might not have been observed, not
full blown menstruation). Following the mikveh, when checking ends,
there is a possibility of such a speck being overlooked and, therefore,
the separation. This possible appearance of unnoticed _dam chimum_ (and
I'm not sure what the statistics are) would mean that the couple would
begin their married life with an inadvertent sin (_averah b'shogeg_),
certainly starting things off on the wrong foot.

Ezra Tepper <[email protected]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 13:52:09 +0200
>From: Ezra L Tepper <[email protected]>
Subject: Shaatnez

Following all your learned contributors explanations of the question of
the prohibition of shaatnez (linsey-woolsie), I have always understood
it to be a queston of the sanctity of Temple service. Since the some of
the garments of the Kohen are prescribed to be made from shaatnez,
obviously a sign of dignity and worthiness, that is why it is prohibited
for mundane uses and set aside for the Kohanim and for use in in tzitzis
(fringes).  It would thus be equivalent to blood, which was restricted
to use on the altar but not for human consumption.

Ezra Tepper

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 92 09:37:52 -0500
>From: Sean Philip Engelson <[email protected]>
Subject: Yiddishkeit in Nice

In the beginning of May, I'll be attending a conference in Nice, France.
I was wondering first of all what sort of kosher food and such may be
available there.  Secondly, if there is any kind of minyan in the
vicinity of the Acropolis.  And third, what sort of Shabbat
possibilities there may be (for someone who has no French at all); I
have to decide whether or not to stay for Shabbat.

Any and all information would be most welcome.  Thanks very much.

	-Shlomo-

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 09:11:39 EST
>From: [email protected] (Susannah Danishefsky)
Subject: Zimmun for Women

I once asked Horav Pinchas Scheinberg Shlita about women making a 
Mezuman when they are eating together without men.  His answer was 
"the minhag is not".


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 34


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Avodah Zorah
             [Ezra L Tepper]
        Christianity, Islam and Avoda Zara
             [Warren Burstein]
        Jewish Doctors During the Holocaust
             [Robert Levy]
        Kashrut in Quebec City
             [Yehuda Berenson]
        Lists of Ingredients on Processed Foods (2)
             [Mike Gerver, Ben Dickman]
        Regarding a week's separation before marriage
             [Aryeh Frimer]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 13:58:58 +0200
>From: Ezra L Tepper <[email protected]>
Subject: Avodah Zorah

Let me raise a big flame. You have been discussing the problem of Avodah
Zorah on the part of non-Jewish populations amongst which Jews live.

This is only one of the seven commandments of No'ach that the non-Jewish world
is supposed to observe. (Ignorance of the details of these commands does not
free the non-Jew of culpability under this code.)

Let's look at just three points of this law:
  a. Prohibition against murder
  b. Prohibition against adultery
  c. Requirement to set up a legal system to enforce these laws

In the western world, in general, abortions are rampant and even legal.
Violation of a. and c. (as given in the Rambam, Yad) Adultery is rampant and
not punished under criminal law. (The rule of consulting adults.) A violation
of b. and c.

Non-Jewish societies that do not live under the Laws of No'ach are
certainly an anathema according to Jewish law (and under the Sanhedrin
law, any violation of these laws carries with it the death penalty). In
fact, perhaps more anathema that non-Jews who worship idols and also
believe in G-d as creater of the world. As one of your contributors
wrote, many authorities believe that _shituf_ (belief in G-d and other
powers) may not be forbidden under the Noachite Laws.

As I like to put it: the Moslem countries that cut off a man's hand for
thievery have moved a step in the right direction. In reality, however,
they should be cutting off their heads.

Ezra Tepper <RRTEPPER.WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 21:33:30 EST
>From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Christianity, Islam and Avoda Zara

If either Christianity or Islam is ruled to be Avoda Zara, anyone who
doesn't do business exclusively with Jews would face severe
difficulties.  One would not be allowed to either buy from or sell to
adherents of an idolatrous religion (or to pay one's workers if members
of these religions) three days before their holidays.  The Rambam, who
considered Christianity to be AZ explicitly mentioned that the
prohibition extends from Thursday thru Sunday.

Now of course we can't just say that, well it would be very difficult if
they were Avoda Zara so they must not be.  On the other hand one should
consider the consequences.

Now if "increasing antisemitism" could even be considered as a desirable
thing, maybe impovershing Jew, would, too.  Of course even in Israel it
is difficult to entirely avoid financial contact with non-Jews...


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 18:26:44 EST
>From: [email protected] (Robert Levy)
Subject: Jewish Doctors During the Holocaust

I am in charge of a project to create an exhibit on the role and fate of
Jewish doctors during the Holocaust.  This effort will lead to an
exhibit at the Holocaust Memorial Center of the greater Detroit area.
If anyone has any information on this subject, or knows of any surviving
Jewish doctors, please contact me.  Thanks, Robert Levy



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 13:55:27 EST
>From: BEREN%[email protected] (Yehuda Berenson)
Subject: Kashrut in Quebec City

Dear Comrade,
I and my wife will be at a Congress in Quebec City (Universite
Laval) during the week of August 16th.We're interested  in find-
ing kosher accommodations, or any suggestions as to how to faci-
litate the eating situation or guides to what items might be
available in local supermarkets that we could depend on. I'd be
most appreciative of any guidance that any of readers might be
able to provide.
                        Cordially,
                      Yehuda Berenson
          address:  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 00:23 EST
>From: [email protected] (Mike Gerver)
Subject: Lists of Ingredients on Processed Foods

David ([email protected]) asks whether it isn't "more of an
urban legend" that there are really unlisted trafe ingredients in
processed foods. I have heard (although I can't give him a source for
this...) that railroad tank cars used for oil are not normally cleaned
out after being emptied, and that "100% vegetable oil" can come from a
tank car which was previously used to transport lard, and might actually
have more than 1/60 of lard in it, from what was sticking to the walls
of the tank car. The point of this story was this actually happens, not
just that it theoretically could happen without violated FDA
regulations. There are kosher tank cars reserved for vegetable oil which
is under kashrut supervision, of course.
                                          Mike Gerver

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 21:37:34 EST
>From: [email protected] (Ben Dickman)
Subject: Lists of Ingredients on Processed Foods

Regarding David's ([email protected]) question on lists
of ingredients on processed foods:

Laws are promulgated by the FDA and by individual states.  An
interesting fact is that the definition of "ingredient" varies from
state to state.  For example, a Rav who was supervising kashruth in a
facility processing milk into sour cream saw, on one of his visits, a
worker adding some non-authorized substance to the milk.  The Rav asked
why the facility had taken in the ingredient without notifying him.  He
was told, in all innocence, that the substance (a corn derivative) was
only being used to adjust the pH balance of the milk (different milk
sources have varying pHs), and so it wasn't really an ingredient.  It
was just modifying the milk.  This sour cream was therefore kitniyot,
and not usable for Pesach under normal circumstances by Ashkenazim.

It should be common knowledge by now that baking facilities can use lard
as a pan greasing agent without calling lard an ingredient in the baked
goods.

	Ben Dickman



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 11:18:36 EST
>From: Aryeh Frimer <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Regarding a week's separation before marriage

      I've gone through many (!) sforim (books) which discuss the laws
and customs of marriage and none mention the custom of separating a week
before the wedding. The argument of the eminent Rabbi Dov Green that the
source is "Dam Chimud"  (staining due to
excitement/anticipation/arousal) doesn't seem appropriate, since
separating would merely increase the chances of Dam Chimud at the
Chuppah when they meet again.  Ezra Tepper's analysis of Dam Chimud as a
chshash (doubt) perhaps she stained without realizing is correct. It
does not apply to a woman who is checking herself and has established
that she is not menstruating (Mesuleket Damim).
     Two reasons for the custom of separation are as follows:
         1) We know of many places where Halacha or custom separate
us from an Item in order to increase the anticipation and excitement.
Halacha requires one to refrain from eating Matza Erev Pesach so that
the Matza of Obligation (Matzat Mitzva) will be eaten with zest
(be-te'avon).  Some customs add to this rabbinic prohibition not to eat
matzah the week of pesach, some from Rosh Chodesh Nissan and some as far
back as Purim.  A similar logic may be applicable here. Chazal went to
great lengths to keep excitement high between the Chatan (Groom) and the
Kallah (Bride) - even permitting the bride certain prohibitions on Yom
Kippur, so as to maintain her beauty and Charm. The Minhag may be an
attempt to enhance the magic and anticipation of the wedding day.
I think this consideration is particularly valid in a society where the
engaged couple see each other all the time.
        2) Chazal have warned us regarding the possibility of
pre-nuptial jitters and fights. To paraphrase the Rabbis "There is never
a Ketuba that didn't have some hitch before it was signed" (Let Ketuba
delo Shadi Beh Carga").  In order to prevent the unnecessary and often
silly (- stupid is probably a more accurate term) fights that occur
between the Chatan and the Kallah as they move down the home stretch -
custom may have seen wisdom in keeping them apart.  (The telephone has
clearly circumvented this to some extent).
    Based on my own experience both as Chatan and Rabbi, I find wisdom
in the custom; but the bottom line is that it is only a custom and by no
means universal.
                 Aryeh Frimer


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on israel.nysernet.org in the directory
archive/mail-jewish


End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 35


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Avoda Zara
             [Warren Burstein]
        Conference On Rhetoric And Culture
             [Sam Edelman]
        Jewish Doctors During the Holocaust
             [Sasha Englard]
        Mixed Schools
             [Isaac Balbin]
        Need experts on hilchos Shabbos re: electricity/eruvin
             [Jason H. Elbaum]
        Orlando Florida
             [David Isaacs]
        Touching
             [[email protected]]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 12:12:36 EST
>From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Avoda Zara

I'm not sure what Ezra Tepper wants, or what he means by "Let me raise a
big flame".  There is a halachic question for Jews, how to relate to a
non-Jews, which depends on whether the non-Jew in question is an
idol-worshipper or not.  We need to have an answer to that question.

Furthermore, any attempt to get the Bnei Noach to obey the Seven Mitzvot
including capital punishment would make me very worried - how do we make
sure that they realize from the start and don't later forget that
they're not supposed to execute Jews for infractions of the laws?

Has anyone ever asked a Ben Noach (someone who is not Jewish but obeys
the laws) what he or she thinks about the death penalty?  Now we can't
sentance anyone to death until the Sanhedrein is re-established, but it
would seem that a Ben Noach doesn't need to wait.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 12:14:43 EST
>From: Sam Edelman <[email protected]>
Subject: Conference On Rhetoric And Culture

THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
RHETORIC AND CULTURE
TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY

	The Second International Conference on Rhetoric and Culture will
be held in June 1993 at the Tel Aviv University, Abstracts for papers in
the following areas will be accepted:

	a. Legal Rhetoric in the past and present,
	b. Rhetoric, Education and Cross-cultural Perspectives,
	c. Rhetoric and Politics,
	d. Jewish Rhetoric,

	Abstracts should be sent to:

	Dr. Tamar Brosh  Prof, Sam Edelman   Prof. N. Gutenberg
	P.O.B. 39328    Dept. of Human Comm.    11, Schuman St.
	Ramat Aviv 61392	Studies		   Saarbruken 6600
	ISRAEL 	      Chico, CA 95929-0502     Germany
					USA
	by April 15, 1992.

	Participants will receive letters of acceptance by
January 1, 1993.

	THE PROGRAM of the Second International Conference on
Rhetoric and Culture will consist of:

	a. Plenary sessions with one or two keynote speeches of 30 to 40
minutes each.  A number of discussants will respond to the keynote
speeches.

	b. Parallel sections which will consist of three lectures of 20
minutes each, followed by a discussion.

THIS CONFERENCE IS SPONSORED BY THE SPEECH COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION OF
THE UNITED STATES, THE ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF SPEECH CULTURE, THE GERMAN
SPEECH COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION AND OPEN UNIVERSITY, TEL AVIV, ISRAEL
AND TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY, TEL AVIV, ISRAEL

ABSTRACTS MAY BE SENT TO PROF. EDELMAN @ THE FOLLOWING INTERNET #:
[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 08:10:36 EST
>From: [email protected] (Sasha Englard)
Subject: Jewish Doctors During the Holocaust

In reference to Robert Levy's inquiry on the fate and role of Jewish
doctors during the holocaust (Mail Jewish,Volume 3 Number 34), I would like to
call his attention and that of the entire membership to a most relevant
and touching recent publication. "I REMEMBER NOTHING MORE:The Warsaw
Children's Hospital and the Jewish Resistance" by Adina Blady Szwajger.
It is a TOUCHSTONE BOOK published by Simon & Schuster in English
translation from the original Polish in 1990.  The author is a retired
physician living in Warsaw and the book is an authentic powerful and
moving recollection of her struggle to save the children of the Warsaw
ghetto. I would welcome impressions and comments from those that have
read the book. 

Warm regards.  Sasha Englard.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 08:07:41 EST
>From: Isaac Balbin <[email protected]>
Subject: Mixed Schools

I am interested in either formal responsa or informal responsa with
proper attribution on this issue.  Reb Moshe Z"TL in Igros Moshe forbids
it after early primary school. I have heard that the Rambam high school
in the states was set up by Rav Soloveitchik (may he have a refuo
shleimo).  We have a new Dean of one of a Mizrachi high school here in
Melbourne, a Rabbi Baruch Lanner (from the States) who when asked about
this issue replied that in one of the schools he was in charge of the
secular studies were mixed and the limuday kodesh [religious studies -
Mod.] were [I think the word "not" should be added here - Mod.] mixed
and in another it was all mixed. He considered "academic excellence" to
the number one priority and that this was a side issue which one aspired
to in the form of the top of jacob's ladder. There are, I am told, some
mixed Mizrachi schools in Israel as well. Is it a case that Rabbonim are
not asked or is it a case of Rabbonim giving a private Psak based on
economics?  or is it a case of Rabbonim giving a private Psak because
they don't see any issur? Surely there are plenty of mothers and fathers
out there who would have had to face this problem. What did *your* Rav
say, and what was his rationale?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 17:14:39 EST
>From: Jason H. Elbaum <[email protected]>
Subject: Need experts on hilchos Shabbos re: electricity/eruvin

I need to get in touch with people who are familiar with issues of
halacha and electronics in relation to Shabbos.  Specific questions
involve electronic locks and eruvin.  Please let me know if you have
suggestions; a contact at the Institute for Science and Halacha (is it
called Tzomet?)  would help.

==> Jason Elbaum     [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: <No date in header>
>From: David Isaacs <attmail!spuxll!dei>
Subject: Orlando Florida

My wife and I will be visiting the Orlando Florida area the 2nd week in 
May.   Any information about Kosher Facilities would be appreciated.  Since
we will probably be taking a room with a kitchenette, info on what is available
in the local Supermarkets would also be appreciated.

Thanks
David Isaacs

internet!attmail!spuxll!dei

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 14:36:41 EST
>From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Touching

I think before we need to explain to gentiles why we do not touch their
hands (given they are from the opposite sex), we should first explain it
to ourselves. If the whole laws applying to negiyah are only b'derech
chibah (in ways of endearment), then there should be no problem with a
simple business hand shake. Furthermore we need to balance any potential
problems of shaking the opposite sexes hand against the possible
embarassement or insult of that person which could be put into the
category of chilul hashem.

Steve Epstein





----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 36


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Chumra
             [Stephen Phillips]
        Hatmona
             [Bob Tannenbaum]
        Mayim Acharonim (washing before Birkat Hamazon)
             [Prof. Aryeh Frimer]
        Minhag of Sefiras haOmer restrictions
             [Bruce Krulwich]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 18:13 GMT
>From: Stephen Phillips <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Chumra

> I am wondering if anyone can clarify for me the concept of chumrot.
> What categories of behavior are subject to chumrot and what are not?

I am not speaking with any authority on this subject, but I have one
or two thoughts on the question of Chumros.

According to HaRav Feldman of the Golders Green Beis Hamidrash, and one
of the foremost Poskim in London, there are two types of Chumros.  The
first is "Chumros HaShulchan Aruch", that is those cases where there are
varying viewpoints among (say) the Rishonim on a particular Halochoh and
the Shulchan Aruch decides in accordance with the stricter opinion. The
context in which Rav Feldman made his statement was in a shiur on the
laws of Bossor VeCholov (meat and milk), and these laws often highlight
this question of Chumros. In many cases where the law (for Ashkenazim)
is in accordance with the more Machmir (strict) opinion of the Remoh
(Reb Moshe Isserlis) but Hefsed Meruboh (great loss) may result, then a
more lenient opinion may be followed.

The second type of Chumros is "Chumros Ho'Olom", that is those Chumros
that people have taken upon themselves, but without it being strictly
necessary according to the Shulchan Aruch. A good example of this is one
which Rav Feldman has quoted on a few occasions in connection with his
Rebbitzin. Once or twice Rav Feldman and his Rebbitzin have been in a
store selling both kosher and non-kosher fish and the same knives are
used for both kinds of fish. According to Rav Feldman, one can buy the
kosher fish from such a store and all that is required is washing and
scraping of the parts that have come in contact with the knife.
Rebbitzin Feldman, however, will not allow her husband to purchase fish
in such a store; she is, in that regard, more Machmir than her husband.

I can understand the Eruv question. When I was in Yeshivah in Jerusalem,
one of the Rabbonim, HaRav Munk z'tzl (the founder of Rav Feldman's
Shul), would not carry on Shabbos despite there being two Eruvin around
the city. He said that this was so that one should not come to carry
when spending Shabbos in a city that did not have an Eruv and also so
that people should not forget that it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos.
I wonder how many people (especially children) in cities in Israel are
aware of this prohibition, so used as they are to carrying within an
Eruv.

Ofcourse, among the second type of Chumros are those which are quite
unnecessary and sometimes smack of religious "one upmanship". I am going
to stick my neck out and say that such Chumros are more often than not
born of ignorance of the Halochoh.

There is also the well known story of Reb Moshe Feinstein z'tzl being
asked a question and the questioner requested that Reb Moshe give a
Machmir opinion. Reb Moshe retorted to the effect that he was neither
Meikil (lenient) nor Machmir; if the Torah permitted something then it
was permitted.

It is very easy to prohibit something, which is why we say "Ko'ach
De'Heteira Odif" (the strength of a permission is greater). Whenever I
have a She'eloh I always ask a recognised Posek, sure in the knowledge
that the answer will be authoritative.

Stephen Phillips.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 11:04:17 est
>From: Bob Tannenbaum <trumpet!bob>
Subject: RE: Hatmona


I'm afraid that some of the talk on the net about Hatmona is mistaken and
would lead to mistakes in Halacha.

Hatmona is a very complicated subject. Also, it should be kept in mind
that this is a gezarra d'rabbanon (rabbinical decree to keep us removed
from other forbidden actions) and follows its own rules which may not
seem logically consistent with other regulations of cooking on Shabbos.

The basic definition of hatmona is when some warm food item is wrapped
entirely in something which not only serves to maintain its heat, but
also serves to increase the heat.

Before Shabbos starts, you MAY wrap the warm food in an item which does
not increase the heat of the food, but NOT in something which increases
the heat.  After Shabbos starts, you may NOT wrap up the food even which
does not increase the heat.

Putting a pot in the oven before Shabbos is NOT hatmona because the pot
is not wrapped up, even though the oven adds heat. Note, other rules
apply regarding leaving something in an oven on Shabbos.

Taking the pot off the stove before Shabbos and wrapping it in towels or
blankets is permitted because no heat is added.

However, entirely wrapping the electric kettle with towels is NOT
permitted, because even though the towels themselves do not add heat,
their action in combination with the electric element is to increase the
heat of the water. If a significant opening is left in the towels, we
say that the kettle is not wrapped entirely, and then it is permitted to
leave the towel on the kettle.

The same thing applies for a pot which is left on the blech, or for a
crock pot which is left on. These pots may not be wrapped in towels,
since even though the towels themselves do not add heat, their action in
combination with the fire or the crock pot causes an increase in heat,
and is forbidden because of the rabbinical cautionary decree of hatmona.

However lightly draping a single towel over the pot, so it is not
entirely covered would be permitted.

Ezra Bob Tanenbaum -- (908)615-2899 -- HR 1L-225 -- att!trumpet!bob

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 21:34:03 EST
>From: Prof. Aryeh Frimer <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Mayim Acharonim (washing before Birkat Hamazon)

          Every posek or text I've ever seen who has discussed this
question makes it clear that women are as obligated as men are in Mayim
Acharonim. The fundamental question is whether anyone is obligated.
Tosafot says no, because we don't have melach Sdomit (Salt from Sodom,
which was supposedly extremely powerful and dangerous) anymore. The
Aruch haShulchan adds that eating with knives and forks also helps set
aside the problem, since for the most part our hands remain clean. Other
poskim suggest that based on the Jeruslam Talmud there is an obligation
to wash in preparation for prayer.
          In any case, when the washing cup is passed around, all
should theoretically wash. This would not, however, be the first case
where the Ikkar Hadin (the law as decided by the codes, without  any
stringencies) is lenient; yet the custom or preferable halachic practice
(in order to satisfy even the requirements of the minority opinion) is
to be machmir (stringent), but the prevalent custom among women was
to be lenient. (Another example is Haseiba, leaning for the Arba
Kosot. The Rama holds that meikar hadin we pasken like the Ra'Aviah that
there is no obligation to lean nowadays; however le'chatchila we lean.
He notes that many women tend to rely on the Ra'Aviah and do not lean,
even though as Nashim Chashuvot [important women] modern women are
obligated to do so.)
                      Aryeh Frimer
                     F66235@barilan

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 21:26:58 EST
>From: [email protected] (Bruce Krulwich)
Subject: Minhag of Sefiras haOmer restrictions

When I said:

>(2) Nowadays noone is bound as to which minhag to hold, so it is permissible
>    to change from year to year for whatever reason
>    (Igros Moshe OC chelek aleph siman kuf nun tes)

I was only referring to the minhag of which period of sfiras haomer to keep
the restrictions of partial aveilus [mouning].  It does not apply to other
areas of minhag, in which we are bound (more or less) to follow the mesorah
[tradition] of our family (or personal Rabbi in some situations).

The issues involved in the minhag of the sfira restrictions are different than
other minhagim because the partial aveilus is linked to the town in which we
live (see the SA/MB refs I listed before).  Since no community nowadays (at
least in America) can be said to be following a "town mesorah" (unlike towns
in Europe before World War 2), we have freedom in choosing our minhag.

For more info check out the Igros Moshe reference or ask your Rav.

Dov (Bruce) Krulwich
[email protected]




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 37


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Greeting 'aveilim' when they come into shul on Friday night
             [Jonathan Chody]
        Need experts on hilchos Shabbos re: electricity/eruvin
             [Warren Burstein]
        Orlando
             [[email protected]]
        Sefarad Mailing List
             [Dov Winer]
        United Jewish Appeal Mailing List -- CHANGE
             [Alan M. Gallatin]
        Week's Separation Before Marriage
             [Ben Dickman]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 06:48:44 EST
>From: Jonathan Chody <[email protected]>
Subject: Greeting 'aveilim' when they come into shul on Friday night

The footnotes in the Siddur HaGroh quote a very interesting Pirkei
D'R'Aliezer who says as follows:

King Solomon designed special gates in the Temple, one for mourners and
the other for chassanim, (a groom in the first week after his wedding)
through which these people would enter so that other people would know
whom to comfort and whom to make happy.  To continue this after the
churban, Chazal institued the minhag of greeting aveilim or chassanim
with an appropriate blessing when they come to shul on Friday night.

It is a widespread custom to comfort 'aveilim' when they come into shul
(after L'cha Dodi) on Friday night. This would usually be the first time
they appear in public after the burial.  I have not seen this done for
chassanim. Does anyone know why not?  Are there places that do?

Jonathan Chody  ([email protected])

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 09:27:48 EST
>From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Need experts on hilchos Shabbos re: electricity/eruvin

The Institute for Science and Halach is at 1 Hapisga St, Jerusalem.
Phone numbers are
972-2-424880
972-2-432230
972-2-416505
The fax number is (write ATT: M.M.T. on the fax)
972-2-432230

Source: Dapei Shofar: The Guide for Kashrut and Religious Consumerism

I believe that Tzomet is a different organization, and I think it is
in Gush Etzion, but it is not listed there, or in the Jerusalem phone
book.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 21:56:33 EST
>From: [email protected]
Subject: Orlando

  From the 1991 edition of "Travelling Jewish in America"

  Elaine's Cafe and Catering. 3716 Howell Branch Rd.
 in Winter Park. 679-9000
  Orlando Rabbinical Council (Hashgacha.)

  Palm Terrace Restaurant, Hyatt Orlando Hotel, 6375 W Irlo,
  Bronson Hwy, (US 192) in Kissimmee. 396-1234
  OU

  Food Stores:
  Amira's Catering and Specialty, 1351 East Altamont in Altamont
  Springs. 767-7577  ORC

  Kosher Korner 1035 Semoran Blvd. in Casselberry. 834-4335
  Lubavitch

  Market Place Deli, same as Palm Terrace Restaurant.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 00:14:29 IST
>From: Dov Winer <VINER%[email protected]>
Subject: Sefarad Mailing List

Announcing the Sefarad Newsletter

The word "Sefardic" refers to Jews whose origin is from Spain.

Until the last expulsion of Jews, which occurred in 1492, the center
of the Jewish world was located in Spain.  Afterwards, the Spanish
Jews dispersed mostly to North Africa, and the Ottoman Empire.
However, they also later made their way to Holland, England and other
parts of Europe.  By the 17th century they had reached the Americas.

As a result of Inquisitions in the Iberian Peninsula and in the
Americas, where Jews were forbidden to reside unless they converted to
Catholicism, many chose to become Crypto-Jews, outwardly appearing
Catholic while privately practicing aspects of Judaism.  Thus, today,
millions in the Spanish and Portuguese speaking world have Jewish
roots.

This Judeo-Spanish culture, both that of those who remained Jewish and
those who assimilated into the surrounding non-Jewish population, is
the subject of this newsletter.

Sefaradic Jews are today found in the Americas, Western and Eastern
Europe, Turkey, Israel, Egypt and North Africa, and even in other
remote African countries such as Zaire, Zimbabwe, and South Africa.

This newsletter will come out once a month (conditions permitting).
To receive it, send a message to [email protected], saying

subscribe sefarad "your name"

Do not specify a Subject: line in the message, and do not include any
other lines (e.g. do not include your signature).  Specify your real
name, not your computer address.

For the latest newsletter (dated March 1992) send mail to
[email protected] and ask for a copy.

Dov Winer
Ben Gurion University
Internet : viner at bguvm.bgu.ac.il

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 14:32:14 EST
>From: [email protected] (Alan M. Gallatin)
Subject: United Jewish Appeal Mailing List -- CHANGE


THE UNITED JEWISH APPEAL (UJA) MAILING LIST HAS MOVED!

The UJA mailing list is no longer located on GWUVM.  It is now
run by the LISTSERV on ISRAEL.NYSERNET.ORG -- Please send all
future subscription requests to:

[email protected]

in the form of a one line message which says:

subscribe uja Your Name

You may wish to add a second line with the word 'help' in order
to get a list of valid commands for this LISTSERV site (as the
commands differ somewhat from the mainframe version of LISTSERV).

*****  AS OF 29 MARCH 1992, ALL EXISTING SUBSCRIBERS OF THE UJA
       MAILING LIST HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED AUTOMATICALLY.  Details
       concerning this move should already be in your e-mail box
       if you are one of these subscribers.

     -- Alan M. Gallatin <[email protected]>
           Duke University School of Law; Durham, NC


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 12:13:57 EST
>From: [email protected] (Ben Dickman)
Subject: Re: Week's Separation Before Marriage

The week before I was married, I asked Rav (Avraham) Pessin of Monsey
about this.  He said that it was not a minhag that was official (and
therefore obligatory), and that he knew of no source that would
establish it as such.  "But the olam [the Jewish public] has enough
people who get so emotional about it, that you're probably better off
going along with it so as not to antagonize anyone."

Now, I was married in the Young Israel of Avenue K in Brooklyn,
and I had to do a lot of the last minute running around to get the
Chuppah ready.  The presence of my Kallah in places I had to be was
disastrous.  I was not able to get into the Chuppah room to check the
electrical outlets (no, they *didn't* work, and the photographer had
to go through contortions to get power elsewhere), to make sure the
right wine was on hand (no, it wasn't the red wine we had asked for.
There was a warm bottle of <explosive> red sparking stuff, or a bottle
of dry white.   The Chuppah was delayed to find clean glasses.  My
father-in-law objected to the white wine, based on his minhagim.
The Rav had to appease him with an assurance that this was a
"meshubach" [high-quality] white wine.)  I came away with the feeling
that I could have made better use of my seichel [intelligence]
in negotiating the trade-offs.  Having had a few trusty servants
would have helped.

	Ben Dickman


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 38


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        A question on chumrot (2)
             [Art Werschulz, Najman Kahana]
        C Program for Counting of the Omer
             [Todd Litwin]
        Less-Than-Complete Ingredient Lists
             [Elise G. Jacobs]
        Middle of the Torah
             [Richard Schultz]
        Mixed Schools
             [Rick Turkel]
        Orlando
             [Eli Turkel]
        Touching (2)
             [Rick Turkel, Najman Kahana]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 09:37:31 EST
>From: Art Werschulz <[email protected]>
Subject: A question on chumrot

All the chumrot [stringencies, for lack of a better translation] I
have ever heard of pertain to mitzvot bein adam le'Makom [between man
and G@d].  Has anybody ever heard of chumrot relating to mitzvot bein
adam le'chavero [between one person and another]?

      Art Werschulz
      InterNet:  [email protected]
      ATTnet:    Columbia University (212) 854-7119 854-2736
                 Fordham University  (212) 636-6325

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 13:51 JST
>From: Najman Kahana <NAJMAN%[email protected]>
Subject: A question on chumrot

	Two points to ponder:
	- The gemara Rosh Hashana 14b says that a person who takes both
the chumrot of Hillel and Shammai is a "ksil" (fool).  The gemara states
that a person should choose a school of thought and do all its chumrot
and kulot.
	- The gemara in Beitza states that it is trivial to find
chumrot, but that it requires knowledge to find kulot.

	Regarding the specific case of eruv: when I lived in Laurelton
(Queens, NY) we tried to build one, and our Rav strongly opposed it
while refusing to give his reasons.
	Later on, when I moved to Forest Hills (Gilded Ghetto in
Queens), I learned, first hand, his reasoning. At least four or five
times, in the middle of tfila (during the winter) a messenger would
appear, whisper to the Rav and the Rav would announce "The eruv is
down". Out of politness, no one ever asked how people with small
children in carriages went home.., how did they get into their houses,
etc.
	What I am trying to say, is that a chumra on eruv may be a
little more than just a chumra ...

Bye
	Najman Kahana
	Najman@hadassah


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 92 21:25:58 EST
>From: [email protected] (Todd Litwin)
Subject: C Program for Counting of the Omer

Now that Purim is over and Pesach is on the way, it's time to start thinking
about the counting of the omer. I have trouble remembering the count from day
to day. So last year I wrote a simple, little C program to generate a list
of which days to make which count. I like to stick this list inside the back
cover of my siddur for easy reference. I thought that others might be
interested in my program, so I am posting it here. I have also included a
listing of the count for this year. 

[The listing and C program are not included in this mailing, they are
available by anonymous ftp from israel.nysernet.org in the file
archive/mail-jewish/omer. They are also available from the archive
server by email. Send an email message to [email protected]
(listserv NOT mail-jewish) which contains the line:

get mail-jewish omer

    Mod.]

Now before anyone tells me that there are nicely pre-printed lists of the count
available, I should say that I have just recently discovered this myself. But
I have never actually seen one, and don't seem to have ready access. So I will
continue to use my own. If there are others in my same position, I hope that
my program will be useful.

By the way, if I have made some ghastly mistake in what follows, please let
me know. Happy counting!

	Todd Litwin
	[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 12:18:05 EST
>From: [email protected] (Elise G. Jacobs)
Subject: Re: Less-Than-Complete Ingredient Lists

An example is the package of M &M's.  Nowhere one the ingredient list
does it mention the animal fat used to stick on the M's.

The other problem is that many ingredient lists read "natural flavoring"
and there are kashrus problems with some of these.  The lack of
specificity is of obvious concern.

elise

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 15:50:44 -0800
>From: [email protected] (Richard Schultz)
Subject: Middle of the Torah

A while back, there was a discussion about the middle letter of the Torah.
I seem to remember someone saying that the vav of "gachon" towards the end
of parshat Shemini (which we read last week) was *not* the middle letter,
but rather the middle of the large letters.  If my memory is correct, then
what is the middle letter of the Torah?  Thanks.

					Richard Schultz
					[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 10:51:12 EST
>From: rmt51%[email protected] (Rick Turkel)
Subject: Re: Mixed Schools

In response to Isaac Balbin's request for data on mixed schools, my
daughter attended the Ida Crown Jewish Academy in Chicago, graduating
last June.  The Academy's policy is to have separate classes for limudei
kodesh (religious studies) and mixed classes for limudei chol (secular
studies).  I am under the impression that that is the norm, at least in
the US and Canada, for "centrist" or "Modern Orthodox" high schools.
The day school here in Columbus, Ohio has all classes mixed through
eighth grade.

        Rick Turkel     ([email protected])      ([email protected])

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 09:27:57 EST
>From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Orlando

     With respect to kosher food in Orlando there was a full article in
the February issue of Kashrus magazine. In short the Hyatt Orlando has
a kosher restaurant in Kissimmee called the Palm Terrace restaurant.
It is open June-september and November-march and dinner is served 6-9
sunday-thursday. On friday nights a shabbod dinner is served and on shabbat
breakfeast, lunch and dinner. All is OU glatt. Dinners are $29-$36.

    The Market Place is in the lobby of the Hyatt Orlando and kosher nosh
is available in the refrigerator section of the sandwich shop - seasonally.

Unofficially Disnet World will allow food brought into the park if it
is explained that it is for dietary reasons. All popcorn is Disneyworld
is OK-D (Radenbacher). The Hyatt also has a shul and an eruv. Shabbos
guests can request a regular key instead of a key card.

    Kosher Korner is a caterer is Orlando and provides delivery service
of meals. They will accept advance orders for an entire week.

   Option # 3  kosher food can be ordered at disneyworld parks, given
24 hours notice they will supply OU frozen meals at their full service
restaurants. Complete meal is about $10. Also at the disney hotels kosher
meals can be ordered in advance for $14 - $25 including entertainment.

     For more details see the article.

Eli Turkel

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 92 10:51:12 EST
>From: rmt51%[email protected] (Rick Turkel)
Subject: Re: Touching

I agree with Steve Epstein's comments on negia (touching members of the
opposite sex) as it relates to a simple business handshake.  I always
thought that the issur (prohibition) was primarily among the unmarried
(lest it lead to further improper contact) and between a married couple
when the wife is a nidah (from the time she begins to menstruate until
she returns from the mikveh - for the same reason).  The extension of
the issur to contact between ANY man and ANY woman, I believe, is a
matter of tzniut (modesty) so as not to create a difference between a
woman's husband and any other man and thereby call attention to the fact
that she is a nidah.

        Rick Turkel     ([email protected])      ([email protected])

                                Ein navi be`iro.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 92 13:21 JST
>From: Najman Kahana <NAJMAN%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Touching

Not sure of my grounds, but....
I was under the impression that "Negia" stems from the rules of "nida".
If so, as far as I know, there is no din "nida" in an non-jew and there is
no prohibition to shake hands with a non-jewish woman.

Najman Kahana






----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 39


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Aufruf vs Minhag Priorities
             [Lou Rayman]
        Deadbolt
             [Bob Werman]
        Eruv Down
             [Warren Burstein]
        Omer
             [Warren Burstein]
        Zimun for Women
             [SHLOMO H. PICK]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 23:48:44 EST
>From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

The cutover to nysernet appears to have gone mostly well. I realize that
some of you, especially our friends at Bellcore, missed a bunch of
issues. If you have access to ftp, they are all available for anonymous
ftp at israel.nysernet.org. Just ftp to israel.nysernet.org, login as
anonymous, give your email login as the password, cd to
archive/mail-jewish/volume3 and they are there. There are still a bunch
from volume three that I need to upload, which I hope to do during the
next week, but I think all the missed ones are there. In addition, in
the directory archive/mail-jewish there are the old mail-jewish issues,
each year in a single file till we implemented volume numbers, then
volume two in it's own file. Two other files that are there are the omer
program that was mentioned in the last mailing, and the postscript
version of the Purim spiel Sam posted before Purim (sorry it was not
there before Purim).

For those without ftp access, some of this stuff is also available via
email from the listserv server. This is one of the things we have gained
by going to this software. You can now do a bunch of things directly by
email, by mailing to [email protected]. NOTE: the place to
send these email messages is listserv NOT mail-jewish or mljewish.
Submissions should be sent to [email protected] or
directly to me, [email protected]. 

Three things that you can do via the listserv software are:

Subscribe (mostly of importance when your friend wants to join, as you
are already subscribed). The message for that is:

subscribe mail-jewish "Your name"

Leave the list:

signoff mail-jewish

Get something from the (listserv) archive:

get mail-jewish "name"

I think that the command: get mail-jewish Index  will get you an index
of what is in the mail-jewish listserv archive. NOTE: this is not the
same as what is available in the anon ftp area. The following is the
list of what is currently available:

omer		Omer program refered to in last posting
omer.c		Warren's omer program refered to in this posting
purim.ps	Sam's purim spiel, postscript version

As more things are added, I will let you know. I will try and get the
issues that many of you missed there as well.

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 08:58:18 EST
>From: [email protected] (Lou Rayman)
Subject: Aufruf vs Minhag Priorities

Jonathan Cody quotes (in m.j v3 #37) the Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer story
about the gates Shlomo Hamelech built in the Bais Hamikdash for Avelim
(mourners) and Chasanim (birdegrooms).

I dont know of any minhag to greet the Chasan in shul on friday night,
but the minhag of the Aufruf, giving the chasan an aliya on Shabbos
morning, is based upon that story.

Later in the same posting, Ben Dickman discusses the tzores he had
before his wedding because of (to use his term) the "unofficial" minhag
of the bride and groom seperating the week before the wedding.  I have
heard of many instances, including my own wedding, where a Rav
permitted the bride and groom to get together during that week - not
for a date, but for a pressing matter related to the wedding.  This is
not meant as a general heter (not that I'm qualified to give one
anyway), just to inform the public.

To combine the two trains of thought: The Aufruf is a minhag mi'Divrai
Nevi'im (based upon prophetic command) while the week of seperation is
of much later origin.  Therefore, the modern day 'custom' in some
circles to have the Aufruf TWO weeks before the wedding, so the callah
can attend, seems to me to be a violaton of the more established minhag
to avoid conflict with a less established one.  Any comments?

Lou Rayman  -  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 19:14:27 EST
>From: [email protected] (Bob Werman)
Subject: Deadbolt

I remember the discussion of hotel electric keys and the shabbat but
never felt it until this past shabbat when I spent time in a US hotel.
There was no problem with opening the door as the management seemed
happy to send a man to open it for me.  I discovered that the deadbolt,
however, which is necessary to seal the lock safely also operates the
heating system.  It only works from within and is cancelled when the
door is opened to avoid excessive use.

I was stuck.

Any thoughts?

__Bob Werman [email protected]
Jerusalem,

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 03:39:32 EST
>From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Eruv Down

> At least four or five times, in the middle of tfila (during the
> winter) a messenger would appear, whisper to the Rav and the Rav would
> announce "The eruv is down". Out of politness, no one ever asked how
> people with small children in carriages went home.., how did they get
> into their houses, etc.

An annoucement was made in my shul in Jerusalem this winter when the
Eruv went down that people could leave things and get them after
Shabbat, and just at that momement the announcer was handed an infant.

Here in Israel, when the Eruv goes down, it is announced on the radio.
In case people are too busy preparing for Shabbat to listen, they
usually get half a dozen phone calls from their friends to let them
know.  The parents of that infant must get several dozen by now.

It would be a good idea to have a telephone-tree organized, so that if
the eruv goes down one person calls N people who each call N and so on
so that everyone on the list is informed before they go to shul with
small children.  Redundancy should be built-in.  If we have another
winter like that, I'm going to suggest doing something like that at my
shul.

Of course the week that I really went all-out calling everyone I knew
was the week that it turned out that the Eruv was fine, after all,
except in one neighborhood with its own Eruv, and I had to call them all
a second time...


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 11:55:10 +0200
>From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Omer

I have a program that is suitable for inclusion in login/logout scripts,
it automatically computes the date each time so it doesn't need to be
changed each year.  It's in ~ftp/archive/hebrew-calendar/omer.c, [or send
the command: get mail-jewish omer.c .  Mod.]

It counts in English, trasnliterated Hebrew, and Hebrew (if your terminal
supports it).

I also run it from cron, since I am the only user on my home system, to
broadcast a message to all terminals at 4AM, on the assumption that I will
see it when I wake up and will count if I forgot the previous night.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 14:25 O
>From: SHLOMO H. PICK <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Zimun for Women

The following is a record of the question posed to the renowned
posek in Yerushalayim:  R. Yoseph Shalom Elyashiv, son-in-law of
R. Aryeh Levine and father-in-law of R. Chayim Kenyavski:
I (shp) who have daughters who eat and make a zimun, can I answer or
must I walk out of the room?
The renowned Rabbi replied:  Only the daughters of R. Avraham had the
custom (nahagu) to make a zimun (Tosophot, Brachot 45b).  This he re-
peated twice, and then apparently decided to add the following (maybe
upon seeing the disconcernment on my face):  However, the truth of the
matter is, that according to the Halacha they can make a zimun, and the
male person there can answer as long at the Name of G-d (Elokeinu) is
not used.
I further pressed and asked, if my father-in-law is there, and there are
two males, may they still do zimun, and he answered yes, they may
answer.  [Hence, it is quite clear that there is no need to evacuate the
room!  ] 
 
  - yours, shlomo pick



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 40


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Chumrot (3)
             [a.s.kamlet, meylekh viswanath, Goldberg Moshe]
        Correction to Sefarad List
             [Warren Burstein]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 31 Mar 1992  13:18 EST
>From: cblph!ask (a.s.kamlet)
Subject: Chumrot

In the specific case of t`filin, would someone who attempts to
wear two sets, one for Hillel, one Shammai, in order to approach
G-d, who also wears two sets of t`fillen, be considered to be a
ksil?


>	Regarding the specific case of eruv: when I lived in Laurelton
> (Queens, NY) we tried to build one, and our Rav strongly opposed it
> while refusing to give his reasons.
>	Later on, when I moved to Forest Hills (Gilded Ghetto in
> Queens), I learned, first hand, his reasoning. At least four or five
> times, in the middle of tfila (during the winter) a messenger would
> appear, whisper to the Rav and the Rav would announce "The eruv is
> down". Out of politness, no one ever asked how people with small
> children in carriages went home.., how did they get into their houses,
> etc.
>	What I am trying to say, is that a chumra on eruv may be a
> little more than just a chumra ...

This makes me think: Are there times when we should be lenient and
not strict in recognizing when a law could be broken?

In the case cited, by making public the fact that the eruv is down, yet
many with baby carriages are in attendance, people would now go home
with the carriages but would know they shouldn't do so. This makes
several people knowingly break the law.  For their circumstances, might
it not be all right to not tell them?

I have seen the case in a very small minyan, where the tenth man will
place down his sidder and talis and say "I'm still here" and leave the
room.  He may or may not be in the building.  In these cases, the
practice has been to consider him to still be in the minyan.  In most
cases the person will return in a moment anyway.

If he leaves without saying anything, should the hazzan be told there is
no longer a minyan?

If a stranger enters a minyan, should he be asked if he is Jewish?
SHould he be grilled as to how he became Jewish?  What I'm trying to
ask, not well, is: are there cases where we should be lenient on the
law; where we can withhold facts from people so they do not know they
may be transgressing the law?  The case of the eruv is an example; it
stopped people who may have brought their talises from carrying them
home, but placed people with baby carriages in a position where they now
felt guilty for transgressing the law.

I can think of a different case of not notifying someone of the death of
a close relative, if they would have a long, expensive trip to take to
attend the funeral.  The people not notified could not have known they
should have attended the funeral so do not transgress any law.  And I
think if they are not told until after the Shiva period, they do not
have the obligation for Shiva?  This is a different subject for sure,
but seems to have the same objective: By not telling someone of what
would be an obligation to adhere to the law if they knew, they do not
transgress the law.

Art Kamlet [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 92 11:08:26 EST
>From: [email protected] (meylekh viswanath)
Subject: Re: Chumrot

>All the chumrot [stringencies, for lack of a better translation] I
>have ever heard of pertain to mitzvot bein adam le'Makom [between man
>and G@d].  Has anybody ever heard of chumrot relating to mitzvot bein
>adam le'chavero [between one person and another]?
>
>      Art Werschulz

I can't remember off hand, but there are many such situations in the
gemara; the term used is usually bemiddas khasidus.  I recall a few
regarding hashoves aveyde (returning a lost object)--I believe there the
'chumra' related to returning something that the baal already had yeush
on (the previous owner lost all hope of recovering the item)--and
shmires (laws of bailment).

>Not sure of my grounds, but....  
>I was under the impression that "Negia" stems from the rules of "nida".
>If so, as far as I know, there is no din "nida" in an non-jew and there is 
>no prohibition to shake hands with a non-jewish woman. 
>Najman Kahana > 

I believe there is a
din of nida d'rabbonon regarding non-jewish women.  I don't know exactly
how that operates, but a man who has sexual relations with a non-jewish
woman is khayev mishum nida d'rabbonon.


meylekh ([email protected])


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 92 13:57:07 +0300
>From: [email protected] (Goldberg Moshe)
Subject: Re: Chumrot

What seems to be a quite comprehensive discussion on the general question of
chumrot appears as an appendix in the following:

       Sha'are talmud torah
       Yehuda Levi
       mahadurah shelishit murhevet
       Jerusalem
       Olam ha-sefer ha-torani (Rehov ha-pisgah 10)
       1987
       362 pages

The appendix is called:  "Chumrot:  meshubachot, hedyotiot, oh apikursiyot"
(something like: "chumrot: praiseworthy, simpleton, or Eppicurian"). I have
no idea if this has been translated to English, but it is well worth any
effort involved in studying it.

Levy points out several reasons given by the Talmud and later poskim to 
not perform a chumrah without good reason:

(1) Nikrah hedyot (may be called a simple person): (Yerushalmi Shabbat
    chap 1 halacha 2) One rabbi interrupted his meal to pray and another
    rabbi commented:  "Anyone who is not obligated to do something and
    performs it anyway is 'called a simpleton'".

(2) Mehezai k'yuharo (gives the false appearance of importance): (Babli
    baba kama 59b) A rabbi was punished for dressing a special way
    to show sorrow about the destruction of Jerusalem because of the
    principle of mehezai k'yuharo until he was recognized as a truly
    important talmid haham.

(3) Shelo l'hotzee laaz al harishonim (Not to disparage the earlier 
    generations): (Babli gittin 5b) One should not insist that a
    messenger bringing divorce papers from far away bear witness that
    he saw every letter of the "get" while it was being written because
    that would then imply that previous divorces might not be valid
    (in the past the requirement was not so strict).

Levy himself writes the following:  
    In general, almost any chumrah requires from us money or time or 
    energy--and all of these should be dedicated to work for the 
    Almighty, in mitzvot like studying Torah, Chesed, etc.  If we
    expend them for something that we were not commanded to do, we have
    thereby decreased what is available for the mitzvot.  Thus, almost
    every chumrah has an opposite aspect that brings about a kulla
    ("atiya lidai kulla").

The above is an extremely brief summary of a comprehensive piece of work,
please see the original for the full exposition.  

At the very least, it would seem that just as it is legitimate to ask
if we should perform a chumrah, it is also perfectly valid to ask:
  "Am I PERMITTED to take this chumrah on myself?"




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 92 16:11:29 EST
>From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Correction to Sefarad List

The announcement that we sent to JEM and JUDAICA had a mistake so I
probably made the same one here: subscriptions to sefarad go to
[email protected], and not as previously posted.





----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 41


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Addendum to Kitniyot
             [Daniel Lerner]
        Eruv Down (3)
             [Brave Raven, Brave Raven, Ronald Greenberg]
        Greeting 'aveilim' when they come into shul on Friday night
             [Steven Schwartz]
        Israel Bonds
             [stern,chaim]
        Need Gabbai Handbook
             [Frank Silbermann]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 12:27:50 EDT
>From: [email protected] (Daniel Lerner)
Subject: Addendum to Kitniyot

A friend of mine who has Rabbi Eidlitz's Pesach list informs that
coriander, cumin, sesame seed, poppy seed, celery seed, mustard, and
turmeric are all kitniyot.

Dan Lerner


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 92 01:42:24 EST
>From: Brave Raven <[email protected]>
Subject: Eruv Down

	Could someone please clarify:  

	The story was told of numerous announcements of a downed eruv.  I
have always been under the impression that the eruv is not supposed to be
inspected on Shabbos.  Moreover, I have "heard" that even if an individual
sees *on Shabbos* that the eruv is down that he is supposed to keep it to
himself.

	Does anyone know if such is true, and if not what the source might be?


Refael Hileman


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 21:53:33 -0800 (PST)
>From: Brave Raven <[email protected]>
Subject: Eruv Down


	I have felt for a long time that announcing problems with an eruv
or with kashrus is the one defendable use of using computers to call
automatically.  The main problem with this would be if you had a time
constraint since the computer, with only one or a limited number of lines,
would not be as productive as a branching tree would be.


Refael Hileman

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 92 10:31:41 EST
>From: Ronald Greenberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Eruv Down

An email question relating to the mail.jewish discussion on eruv and
my response:

  >I've never looked into this myself, perhaps you know.  What is the
  >difference between telling someone that the Eruv fell during Shabbat
  >and telling someone who took their infant to shul that the Eruv fell
  >beforehand?  Either way there is someone in shul with a strong
  >temptation to carry.

I must admit that I don't really have a completely clear understanding,
but the notion I have is that there is no transgression for the one who
carries in the former case, but there is in the latter case.  That is, a
person has a responsibility to check before shabbos that the eruv is up,
and if it's not, he transgresses by carrying on shabbat.  I suppose it
would still make sense to not tell about the eruv somebody you know will
still carry, since it would be better that they do it somewhat in
ignorance, but if you can stop people from carrying, you stop them from
committing a transgression.  When the eruv falls during shabbat, you're
not just trying to lessen the nature of people's transgression by not
giving them information; rather there is actually no transgression if
they do not have the information.  What I've said may not be correct,
but it is my impression.

Ron


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 92 09:41:00 EST
>From: [email protected] (Steven Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Greeting 'aveilim' when they come into shul on Friday night

> From: Jonathan Chody <[email protected]>
> 
> It is a widespread custom to comfort 'aveilim' when they come into shul
> (after L'cha Dodi) on Friday night. This would usually be the first time
> they appear in public after the burial.  I have not seen this done for
> chassanim. Does anyone know why not?  Are there places that do?

Three reasons come to mind.
(1) Chatanim are not restricted from appearing in public.
(2) Weddings are planned and announced, and the community knows who is getting
    married weeks in advance.  The opposite is true of aveilus.
(3) The chatan -is- publicized at his aufruf [called to the Torah reading on
    the Shabbat prior to his wedding].

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1 Apr 1992  12:31 EST
>From: [email protected] (stern,chaim)
Subject: Israel Bonds

Is there any problem regarding interest given on State of Israel Bonds ?

I once asked a guy from Israel this question, and he told me that there
is a blanket "Heter Iska" on State of Israel Bonds which "everyone
accepts".

If anyone knows any more detailed information about this, i.e. who made
this specific Heter Iska, does everyone really rely on this, etc. please
post or let me know. Thanks.

Chaim Stern 




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 92 16:35:59 EST
>From: Frank Silbermann <[email protected]>
Subject: Need Gabbai Handbook

I have been attending daily minyanim for a little over two years.  I
started with the Metsudah Siddur (a linear translation) until I had
enough sense of the Hebrew grammar and vocabulary to be able to look up
words using the page-by-page translation offered in conventional
siddurim.

Sad to say, this rudimentry knowledge of Hebrew makes me one of the
elite in learning among the laymen of our congregation.  Now, the old
gabbaim are growing too old and ill to attend regularly, and in its
desperation, my synogogue has appointed me to be a "Gabbai-in-training."

The Shul has no written instructional material on Gabbinical duties.
They expect me to pick up what I need to know by looking and listening,
but I have never been able to learn anything this way.  (In school I
involuntarily "spaced out" within the first ten minutes of every class,
and was saved only by my execellent reading comprehension).  So, where
should I look for reading material on how to be a Gabbai?

Frank Silbermann	[email protected]
Tulane University	New Orleans, Louisiana  USA



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 42


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Feldblum]
        Gabbai Handbook (3)
             [Dov Green, Hillel Meyers, H. Wyzansky]
        Two questions
             [Chaim Schild]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 11:03:58 EDT
>From: [email protected] (Avi Feldblum)
Subject: Administrivia

[I've gotten mail from a bunch of people that they did not receive this
number, I did not as well. So here is another try. If anyone is seeing
this for the second time, my apologies.]

Here is a list of what is available from the listserv part of the
israel.nysernet.org archives. To get this list at any time, send the
line: 

index mail-jewish

to [email protected]

To get any of the files, send the line:

get mail-jewish FILENAME

to [email protected]. DO NOT SEND THE MESSAGE TO
[email protected], that will just get forwarded to me.
Mailing list submissions DO GO to [email protected]

Archive: mail-jewish (path: listserv/mail-jewish) -- Files:
  omer (1 part)  
  purim.ps (2 parts)  
  omer.c (1 part)  
  v3n26 (1 part)  
  v3n27 (1 part)  
  v3n28 (1 part)  
  v3n29 (1 part)  
  v3n30 (1 part)  
  v3n31 (1 part)  
  v3n32 (1 part)  
  v3n33 (1 part)  
  v3n34 (1 part)  
  v3n35 (1 part)  
  v3n36 (1 part)  
  v3n37 (1 part)  
  v3n38 (1 part)  
  v3n39 (1 part)  
  v3n40 (1 part)  
  v3n41 (1 part)  


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 11:06:30 IDT
>From: [email protected] (Dov Green)
Subject: Gabbai Handbook


Frank Silbermann asks for a Gabbai Handbook. There was one published
by the infamous ArtScroll ( Mesorah Ltd. ). It was out of print and
is currently back in print. In a similar vein, the compendium of laws
in the back of the ArtScroll Siddur might be helpfull. Also suggest
"To Pray as a Jew" by the late R. Chayim Donin. Since I'm not sure 
what kind of operation you've got ( is there a Rabbi ? a shamash/sexton ?),
I'm hard pressed to advise you cause I don't know if you are going
to have to set up the torah scrolls for the Shabbat reading or decide
whether to say tachanun ( or Hallel ) on certain days. The aspect of
the gabbai job was requires the greatest finesse is the giving out of
honors. There are the halachic obligations ( e.g. yartzeit ), customs
( birthdays & anniveraries ), and conventions ( chazakot ? ) which must
be considered. The boys at bellcore have a geat little gabbai program
which does some of the calculations for you. Maybe the moderator could
put it on the listserv server. [If the "boys at bellcore" will send me
the gabbai program, I will gladly put it up on the server. Mod.]

Good luck.

[Other responses recommending Artscroll Gabbai Handbook (or basically
included in other responses) are:

[email protected] (Asher B. Samuels)
Hillel Markowitz    [email protected]
[email protected] (Mike Allen)

 Mod.]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 17:55:16 EDT
>From: [email protected] (Hillel Meyers)
Subject: Gabbai Handbook


   In response for the request for information on a Gabbai Handbook, let
me make a few recommendations.  One of the benefits of the Artscroll
Siddur is its English instructions that go along with all of the
different parts of the Tefila.  Those are not only good for the regular
minyan attendee but also for the Gabbai.  I recommend the RCA edition of
the Artscroll Siddur. Certain tefilot that make reference to Medinat
Yisrael can be found there and are absent from the Artscroll Siddur. The
Artscroll Machzorim also provide useful information for the Tefilot
during the Chagim.

  For specifics based on each years calendar, Ezras Torah publishes a
translation in English of their original popular Luach in Hebrew.

   Of course there are many other Tefila information luach's available
in Hebrew, including one published by Heichal Shlomo in Israel.  That
one will cover Yom HaAtzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim.

   I hope this helps,

Hillel

Hillel Meyers    [email protected]
Motorola Inc.    Schaumburg, IL USA



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 14:52:06 EDT
>From: [email protected] (H. Wyzansky)
Subject: Re: Gabbai Handbook

Artscroll has a book out which I believe is called The Gabbai's
Handbook.  It has such things as the call up to the Torah and the Mi
Shebeirach (prayer said after an an aliyah (call to the Torah) for the
person getting the Aliyah, people he wants to give a blessing to, sick
people, fifth cousins twice removed :-), etc.) for weekdays, Shabbat,
holidays, etc.  It also has the rules of precedence for Aliyahs.

You also need a Chumash or Siddur which gives the locations of the Torah
readings on all occasions, so that the Torah can be prepared beforehand
(it is somewhat embarrassing, not to mention a Tircha (bother) for the
congregation, to realize that you need a Torah at Parshat HaChodesh (in
Shmot (Exodus)) and the only Torah you have is still at Parshat Zachor
(in Devorim (Deuteronomy)) which was read two weeks previously).

You also need a thick skin and a great deal of patience to handle such
things as the inevitable people who will come in to shul during the
Torah reading and tell you that they have Yahrzeit and need an Aliyah,
or the person who reserved Maftir (the last Aliyah, who also reads the
Haftara (prophetic reading)) and comes strolling in during Shevii (the
seventh (and last) normal Aliyah) and expects you to have held it for
him, or the Bar Mitzvah who comes in with a list of twenty relatives and
guests who must absolutely be given Aliyahs.

On the other hand, you will also get a great deal of pleasure for
intimately participating in such Simchas as baby namings and Aufrufs
(Aliyah for a groom before his wedding), in coaching a nervous Bar
Mitzvah boy while he reads the Torah, and in ensuring the services run
smoothly.  Remember, if a Gabbai is noticable, then he is probably in
trouble.

It is not an easy job, but it is worthwhile, and the rewards are 
great.

Enjoy, 
Harold Wyzansky
(retired Gabbai)




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 08:45 EST
>From: SCHILD%[email protected] (Chaim Schild)
Subject: Two questions

1. Can someone please fill me in on the Yaabetz (Rabbi Yaakov Emden)
whose siddur I ran across. I know he lived in the 17th century but where
and what was his main approach to Torah (i.e. school of thought) ?

2. There is a quote from the Gemara "Ain tzav ela avodah zorah". Where
is it written ?

Chaim



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 43


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Chumrot
             [H. Wyzansky]
        Jewish Leap Year
             [Shlomo H. Pick]
        Separation before Marriage
             [Morris Podolak]
        Spanish Cemetary in Manhattan
             [[email protected]]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 21:21:23 EDT
>From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

[If this is the second copy of this mailing that you get, please
excuse. There appears to have been a space problem on nysernet which
lead to two mailings not going out to most if not all of you.]

The directory location of the anonymous ftp archives on
israel.nysernet.org have been moved. The new location is:

	israel/mail-jewish

There has been some reports of truncated mailings. I've shortened the
average length from about 250 lines to about 200 lines. Please let me
know if there are problems with the mailings.

I am aware of the > being put in front of the From: line. The people at
israel.nysernet are looking to see if they can figure out where it is
coming from. If any of you out there have had experience with this
problem, please let me or [email protected] know.

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 92 15:26:38 EST
>From: [email protected] (H. Wyzansky)
Subject: Re: Chumrot

>In the case cited, by making public the fact that the eruv is down, yet
>many with baby carriages are in attendance, people would now go home
>with the carriages but would know they shouldn't do so. This makes
>several people knowingly break the law.  For their circumstances, might
>it not be all right to not tell them?

In the case of an eruv, it was explained by my Rav that once it is
checked and approved before Shabbat, since on most Shabbatot it remains
valid the entire Shabbat, that a chazakah (established condition) is
established that it is valid for the entire Shabbat unless we know that
some condition (a bad storm, etc.) has occurred that would surely
invalidate it, and that, in case of doubt, we are not allowed to go
around and check whether it is still valid, but instead should rely on
the chazakah that was established before Shabbat.

[Re: what happens if someone obligated to sit Shiva does not hear of the
death until some later period. Mod.]

They are obligated to sit Shiva from the time they hear of the death, 
even after the original Shiva period had passed.  I know in one case 
that a man, in poor health, was purposely not told of the death of his 
brother in Israel, which had occurred a couple of weeks previously, 
until the day before Shavuot, so that he would only have to sit Shiva 
for half a day until Shavuot started.

Harold Wyzansky

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 92 15:44 O
>From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Jewish Leap Year

Earlier, I mentioned the German rite of mentioning ulchaparat pesha only
on adar II.  With a little lumdus, one can say that the machloket is
dependent upon a halacha which for convenience sake i'll use Rambam,
kidush hachodesh 4:13 as the source.  Beit din can only declare a leap
year after rosh hashana - but only in a time of need (mipnei ha-dechak).
In normal times, only during Adar can a leap year be declared.  The
normal custom is like the "dechak" [time of need - Mod.] while the
german rite is in accordance to the normative year.  According to ibid
4:14, one should not sanctify the 30th day of adar for it is worthy of
being nissan but if done it is adar II.  However certainly on rosh
hodesh nissan the leap year is over, and there is no need or point in
saying ulchaporat pesha.  However, I have heard both sevarot [opinions -
Mod.] and even a custom here and there to say it.  Has anyone else heard
of such a thing? - shlomo


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 92 03:33:33 EDT
>From: Morris Podolak <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Separation before Marriage

I was surprized by the comments of Ezra Tepper and Aryeh Frimer with
regard to _dam chimud_.  Both say that this does not apply to a woman
who is no longer menstruating and is checking herself daily.  This seems
to contradict the following din (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 192:3): If a
marriage was agreed upon, and then the engagement was broken off for
some reason.  If a new date is afterwards set, then the bride needs to
wait another seven clean days.  Rabbi Moshe Isserles in his glosses on
this din adds that this is true even if she was checking herself
constantly during the intervening days.  Since most modern Ashkenazi
practice is based on the rulings of Rabbi Isserles, I would think this
opinion is pretty much accepted among Ashkenazim.  My impression from
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's comments in _Taharat Habayit_ is that Sepharadim
accept this ruling as well.  The problem then is to understand how the
bride and groom can ever stand together for the ceremony itself.

Here I must take exception to the position of both Ezra and Aryeh when
they try to argue the case using logic.  I'm a physicist myself, and I
fully understand the power of logical reasoning in drawing conclusions
from data.  I maintain, however, that the logic used in deriving the
halacha is not necessarily the same as the logic used in deriving
science.  The halachic framework is much richer and requires a somewhat
modified approach.  In our case, I think we simply have to fall back the
tradition we have as given in the Gemara (Niddah, 66a). The point of the
Gemara seems to be that the act of accepting the marriage proposal is
what generates the dam chimud.  It is not the seeing of the other
person.  I agree that that doesn't make terribly much sense, but I would
claim that that is simply because we really don't understand what dam
chimud really is.  This is reflected in the many differing opinions
among the poskim regarding details of the laws of dam chimud. Let me
give just one example: Suppose a woman agrees to marry someone whom she
has never seen.  She has to count 7 clean days because of dam chimud.
Suppose she meets the man a short while before the wedding. Surely there
is more desire generated now that she has seen him.  Does she have to
count 7 more clean days?  Some authorities say yes, others say
definitely not.  The reason for the difference of opinion is largely due
to the uncertainty of what exactly causes dam chimud.  The interesting
thing is that the practical halacha can be decided even without this bit
of information using the standard techniques of halachic decision
making.  That is what I meant when I said that standard logic doesn't
always work.  Although it is a very powerful tool, one has to be careful
in using it to arrive at halachic decisions.

With that in mind, we can perhaps understand why this business of not
seeing your fiance a week before the wedding has such an uncertain
status.  Is it a minhag or isn't it.  I would speculate, and I stress
this is speculation, that the reason Aryeh Frimer didn't find any
reference to it in any of the sources he checked (I didn't either) is
that this minhag never received halachic approval.  Possibly people
reasoned that if the very acceptance of the proposal caused dam chimud,
then seeing the prospective partner would certainly do so.  It is just
one of those things that Judaism picked up along the way for no good
reason.  Again, I'm just speculating, so if anyone has any info on the
matter, I'd appreciate hearing it.

With best wishes,
Morris Podolak






----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 92 11:42:56 EST
>From: [email protected]
Subject: Spanish Cemetary in Manhattan

I was in the Chelsea part of Manhattan on Saturday night, and my wife
and I came across a small cemetery tucked behind a building on (I
believe) E 21 St between 6th and 7th ave.  The sign read "Cemetery of
the Spanish and Portugese Synagouge" with dates from the 19th and early
20th centuries.

Does anyone know anything about this cemetery?  Is it maintained, and,
if so, by whom?  Is anyone noteworthy or famous buried there?

On a more theoretical note, what is the halacha concerning very old
cemeteries?  Is there a requirement to maintain them, or, if they've
already been desecrated, to repair them?  Can, or should, one remove old
coffins for reburial in a more respectable place?

(The cemetery on E 21 street looked like it was in pretty good shape.)

A side note - cemetaries are always placed outside the city reasons
(for halachik reasons, and, I presume, also for health reasons).  Its
interesting to note that when this cemetery was in use, E 21 St was
sufficiently OUTSIDE the city!

Lou Rayman
[email protected]





----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 44


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Doorknobs
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Havdalah on Yom Tov
             [Mark Frydenberg]
        Kitniot
             [Eli Turkel]
        Kitniyot addenda
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Pesach Questions
             [Mark Frydenberg]
        R. Yaakov Emden (HaYavetz)
             [Jeff Finger]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 92 21:16:14 EDT
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

Sorry for the delay in mailings coming out. Between work, Pesach and
taxes (here in the US) I got overwhelmed. I'll try and get one out today
and tomorrow, and then I should be able to finish catching up next week.

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 15:54:36 EDT
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Doorknobs

I wonder if somebody can advise me concerning treatment of doorknobs for
Pesach.  When we lived in Boston, we did the usual: boiling the metallic
doorknobs, painting (or revarnishing) the wooden ones, and covering the
plastic and glass ones.  Here in Israel, however, we have recently moved
into a new house which has odd-shaped plastic doorknobs (actually door
handles).  Our old doorknob covers don't fit them, and we're having
trouble finding new ones of the right shape.  The problem is exacerbated
by the fact that most of the available covers carry a Sepharadi
hechsher, which (in principle) allows the use of mei kitniyot (e.g.,
peanut oil) in the manufacturing process.

So the question: Has anyone run into a heter for boiling plastic
doorknobs for Pesach?

Ben Svetitsky    [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 15:42:12 EDT
From: [email protected] (Mark Frydenberg)
Subject: Havdalah on Yom Tov


What are the requirements for Havdalah at the Second Seder (when it
falls on Saturday night, as it does this year)?

As I understand it, this is the order:

        1 light the festival candles ("l'hadlik neyr shel yom tov")
        2 say the festival kiddush
        3 say "boray m'oray ha-aysh" and "ha-mavdil ben kodesh l'kodesh"
        4 say she-he-chiyanu

Do I use a Havdalah candle? If not, then what is the blessing for fire
said over? And why is the blessing over the spices omitted? 

Thanks,

Mark Frydenberg
[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 10:01:59 EDT
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Kitniot


     In terms of which seeds are kitniot there are many opinions. A
number of poskim (including Rabbi Yitzchok Elchanan Spektor) also felt
that any oils especially if made without water from kitniyot are allowed
on Pesach. To the best of my knowledge none of the major American
kashrut organizations accept this leniency.

     For cottenseed oil Rav feinstein allowed it except if one's custom
was not to eat it. Many other poskim in the past have also allowed it.
As far as I know the same heter would apply to all seeds from inedible
products where the seed has to be processed in order to be eaten. Also
many rabbis allow peanuts or peanut oil because it was not included in
the original custom. Rabbi Eliashiv and the Badatz of Jerusalem do not
allow any seeds for ashkenazim on Pesach. For reasons I don't understand
some organizations in Israel have made a major stink about this and made
a big deal of the issur of eating cottenseed oil on Pesach. I have heard
in the name of Rav Lichtenstein that sunflower oil would fall in the
same category as cottenseed oil and be allowed by those who accept Rav
Moshe feinstein's opinion, which the accepted one in America.

Eli Turkel
icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov







----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 01:41:08 EDT
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Kitniyot addenda

These Pesach lists are getting out of hand.  The current thing in Bnei
Brak is to ban coffee and chocolate, since both coffee and cocoa come
from "beans."  Never mind that these "beans" grow on trees...

One should check carefully the provenance of Pesach lists before taking
them seriously.  One doesn't have to be a Sepharadi to have a nice
Pesach; one only has to keep some perspective.

Ben Svetitsky    [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 09:26:04 EDT
From: [email protected] (Mark Frydenberg)
Subject: Pesach Questions


I have two questions about Passover.  

First, does anyone have a recipe for "Sephardic Charoseth"
I know it's made with dates, but what other ingredients?

Secondly, is tofu kosher for Passover?  

Thanks,
Mark Frydenberg   
[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 92 16:30:37 -0400
From: [email protected] (Jeff Finger)
Subject: R. Yaakov Emden (HaYavetz)

I, too, have been intrigued by "Siddur Beit Yaakov". Encyclopaedia
Judaica contains a three column entry on the YaVeTZ (1697-1776), that
is, Rabbi Yaakov ben Tzvi from Emden . All material below was taken from
that article (listed under "Emden, Jacob") written by Moshe Shraga
Samet.

Regarded was one of the outstanding scholars of his day, Emden was a
firebrand who did not have an official rabbinic post (except for five
years at Emden), and thus he was freer than most to criticize the
establishment of his day. In Altona, near Hamburg, Emden founded a
printing press to disseminate his views. He was familiar with science,
Latin, Dutch, and German, and was the author of
        Lekhem Shamayim (on the Mishna), 
        She'elat Yavetz (responsa), 
        Mor u'Ktzi'ah on Shulkhan Arukh (Orekh Khayyim), and
        Emden's siddur with commentaries (Siddur Beit Yaakov 1745-48),
among other works.

According to Encyclopaedia Judaica, Emden distanced himself from "the
Ashkenazi method of study (pilpul) and customs", rejected philosophy and
scientific criticism in the sphere of Judaism, and based his approach on
grammar, philology, and history. Emden also corresponded extensively
with early proponents of Haskalah.

Emden spent much of his life fighting the the secret groups supporting
the Shabbatean and Frankian heresies, becoming expert on uncovering
allusions to their secret doctrines. He questioned the antiquity and
sanctity of parts of the Zohar that he felt were forgeries of an ancient
and sacred text. In addition, he felt that the "Guide to the Perplexed"
contained heretical tendencies, but that the Rambam was not its author.

The article lists a number of Hebrew, English, and German references on
Emden.

Mo'adim le'simkha!

Itzhak "Jeff" Finger



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 45


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Gabbai Handbook (2)
             [Yosef Branse, Aaron Seidman]
        Music by Sulzer or Levandofsky
             [Len Bliss]
        Sfira List
             [Daniel Lerner]
        Spanish-Portuguese Cemetery in Manhattan (4)
             [Bob Kosovsky, Arthur I. Plutzer, Susan Slusky, Rick Turkel]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 8:51:27 +0200 (O)
From: [email protected] (Yosef Branse)
Subject: Gabbai Handbook

Frank Silbermann asked for a gabbai handbook. I saw in our shul 
a slim volume called just that: "The Gabbai's Handbook" from Mesorah 
Publications, published in 1984. It is not exactly what he is looking for, 
but it does give the various brachos a gabbai is usually responsible for
during the Torah reading, with translations. It also has material on the
Hakafos of Simchas Torah.
I have no idea how much it costs or where it can be found in the U.S.

Yosef (Jody) Branse             University of Haifa Library      
                                Mt. Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel  
 Internet/ILAN:     [email protected]                         


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 13:01:46 -0400
From: Aaron Seidman <[email protected]>
Subject: Gabbai Handbook


I put together a handbook for the gabbaim in our havurah that may be
useful for others, and I would be willing to make it available to
others.

Let me start by stating that a) ours is a Reconstructionist* group, so
it would need to modified for an Orthodox congregation, b) it is, in
some places specific to our particular congregation, and c) it is the
kind of thing that would be more of a supplement than a replacement for
the ArtScroll handbook.

The emphasis is on gabbai as manager of the entire service and tries to
give as much detail as feasible on all the things that have to get done
in the course of a Shabbat morning.It is, in its present form, six pages
when printed (formated in Latex). One of our other members prepared a
checklist for the gabbai to fill in ahead of time (e.g. page numbers in
the Humash, whether to do a Birkat HaHodesh, special aliyot, etc.),
which I don't have in electronic form, but might be able to get.

Aaron

*To paraphrase an old bread ad, "You don't have to be Orthodox to read
 Mail.Jewish."  :^)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 14:49:14 EDT
From: Len Bliss <[email protected]>
Subject: Music by Sulzer or Levandofsky

I am passing on a request by Mr. Henry Wells for information about where
he could obtain sheet music or tapes of High Holy Days liturgical music
by Sulzer or Levandofsky.  Please respond to me at :

                   BLISSLB@APPSTATE
                       or
                   [email protected]

Len Bliss
Appalachian State University, Boone, NC 28608  USA


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 14:34:04 EDT
From: [email protected] (Daniel Lerner)
Subject: Sfira List

Someone asked if there were any Sfirat haOmer lists.  There is such a
list in the O U Passover Guide.  (The booklet with lists of Passover
Products put out by the O U. )

Dan Lerner

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 12:37:55 EDT
From: Bob Kosovsky <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Spanish-Portuguese Cemetery in Manhattan

The cemetary on West 21st Street between 6th and 7th Avenues is the
third cemetary of Shearith Israel - commonly known as the Spanish and
Portugese Synagogue (currently located on 70th Street and Central Park
West).  The second cemetary is located (in truncated form) on 11th
Street between 5th and 6th avenues (on the south side of the street,
enclosed by a wall).  The first cemetary (I forget its location) was
paved over many years ago.  Both the second, third, and current
cemetaries (located in New Jersey) are under the maintanence of Shearith
Israel.

Bob Kosovsky
Graduate Center -- Ph.D. Program in Music(student)/ City University of New York
New York Public Library -- Music Division
bitnet:   [email protected]        internet: [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 09:48:09 EDT
From: Arthur I. Plutzer <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Spanish-Portuguese Cemetery in Manhattan

The cemetary to which you refer is probably under the maintenance of
Congregation Sheareth Israel, (a.k.a. The Spanish and Portugese
Synagogue, Rabbi Marc Angel, sr. Rabbi) currently located at 70th Street
and Central Park West.(Their telephone number is 212-873-0700) To my
recollection, the congregation is currently in its third or possibly
fourth location. They date to New Amsterdam. The current location
includes a crypt of some of the original burials which took place when
the congregation and the cemetary was further downtown. I believe that
there are still some small cemetary plots maintained at around 10th st
on the West Side, and also at around Chatham Square across from what is
now Chinatown.  Shearith Israel does run tours of the synagogue and its
history from time to time. This being the year of the Sepharad, no doubt
their schedule is active with special events.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon Apr 13 09:32 EDT 1992
From: Susan Slusky
Subject: Spanish-Portuguese Cemetery in Manhattan

I believe that this is the cemetery about which there is some discussion
in Stephen Birmingham's book _The Grandees_.  The book tells about the
Spanish and Portugese Jews who came to America in Colonial times.  The
cemetery (if this is the same one, I don't own the book but read a
borrowed copy so I can't check) is still maintained by the Spanish and
Portugese Synagogue, otherwise known as Shearith Israel, which has
progressively moved uptown since its seventeenth century beginnings. The
synagogue is now on Central Park West. The cemetary is also apparently
the scene of a yearly ceremonial visit by descendants of these early
Jewish Americans.  As you say, at the time it was established 21st St
was way out of the populated part of the city. It ought to have
eighteenth century graves as well as nineteenth and early twentieth.
These folks were well settled by the nineteenth century (when the
Germans showed up and embarrassed them.)

Susan Slusky


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 15:08:42 EDT
From: [email protected] (Rick Turkel)
Subject: Spanish-Portuguese Cemetery in Manhattan

Regarding Lou Rayman's question on the Spanish-Portuguese cemetery on
21st St.  in Manhattan: I would occasionally pass that it on my way to
shul some 25 years ago.  As I recall, the sign says "Third cemetery...."
It always looked to me to be well cared for, presumably by Shearith
Israel, a.k.a. the Spanish-Portuguese Synagogue, now located at 70th St.
and Central Park West.  I always assumed that it had been outside any
residential neighborhood when it was first consecrated, although by the
time of the latest "plantings" it most surely was not.

By the way, since it's west of Fifth Ave., it's W. 21st St., not E. 21st St.

	Rick Turkel     ([email protected])      ([email protected])

				Ein navi be`iro.








----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 46


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Havdalah on Yom Tov
             [Susan Hornstein]
        Shira trup in parshas b'midbar?
             [David Sherman]
        Shiva if one hears after a prolonged time
             [a.s.kamlet]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 May 92 23:22:44 EDT
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

Hello All,

I'm back now, and I hope to get things back running smoothly. I
apologize for the both the lack of mailings going out, and lack of
responses to many of you on private email to me. I will start getting
things going over the next few days, so please be patient with me. 

A couple of notes from the Nysernet side of the house, (Thanks Warren):

1) They replaced sendmail on nysernet, and the >'s in front of the From:
lines seem to have gone away.

2) Typing a * in VM mode of Emacs correctly splits the digest up.

3) Putting the word "Digest" in the subject: line of mail-jewish will
allow nn to automatically recognize the digest format.

4) Warren has set things up so that anyone who wants can get mail-jewish
or israeline by nntp.  This means that they can have these lists appear
as Usenet newsgroups on their system.  Is this OK with everyone?  No one
has started to use it, yet.

Avi Feldblum  -  mail.jewish moderator
[email protected]  or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 92 14:58:55 -0400
From: Susan Hornstein <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Havdalah on Yom Tov

Mark Frydenberg asks about Havdalah at the Second Seder, which is really
a more general question about Havdalah at the end of Shabbat going into
Yom Tov (1st or 2nd day).  There is an acronym that makes this easier to
remember.  (It does not include candlelighting, which can occur at any
time after davening Ma'ariv or proclaiming the end of Shabbat via the
phrase "Baruch ha'Mavdil bein Kodesh l'Chol."  Hmm, maybe on such an
evening one would have to say "Baruch ha'Mavdil bein Kodesh l'Kodesh.")
The acronym for Kiddush and Havdalah is YaKNaHaZ or YKNHZ, which stands
for:
  Yayin (Wine - the blessing of Borei P'ri Hagafen)
  Kiddush (Sanctification - the blessing of M'kadesh Yisrael V'Haz'manim)
  Ner (Candle - the blessing of Borei M'orei Ha'esh)
  Havdalah (Separation - the blessing of Hamavdil bein Kodesh l'Kodesh)
  Z'man (Time/Season - the blessing of She'hechiyanu)
Pesach is really the easy time for such a kiddush, because it's all listed out
in the Haggadah!

As for the other questions, my answers are of the "I'm not sure but I
think..."  variety: We did not use a Havdalah candle (of that I'm sure).
I think that the requirement for a special Havdalah candle may only be a
minhag and that any light will really do (this turns out to be true for
Shabbat candles in an unusual situation -- others should clarify).  And,
I believe that the spices are not associated with this Havdalah because
it flows into another holy day (bein Kodesh l'Kodesh) rather than
directly into chol (weekdays).  Presumably (again, others should
clarify) the need for extending the holy atmosphere into the mundane
week via spices is not as great in such a case.  Are the spices added
Sunday night after the second day of Yom Tov?  I don't think we did this
last week.  Why not?  Sorry the last part of this was just musing, and I
hope the acronym helps in the future.  Mo'adim L'simcha Susan Hornstein
bellcore!pyuxd!susanh



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 23:08:59 EDT
From: [email protected] (David Sherman)
Subject: Shira trup in parshas b'midbar?

I have a question concerning the trup [musical notes] when layning
[reading the Torah] for parshas B'midbar, which is June 7 this year.

Most readers will be familiar with the "shira" trup which is used for Az
Yashir [the song at the Red Sea], from parshas B'shalach, which we just
heard on Pesach.  (The repeated musical note sequence is: CDEEEEEEEDCE
<pause> GGAGE, DEDDC.)

I lained B'midbar a couple of years ago, but not last year.  Last year,
I heard the ba'al koreh [reader] use this "shira" trup repeatedly in the
third aliya, for the sequence "v'nasi liv'nai <tribe> <name of prince>
utsva'o uf'kudeyhem".

Questions:
	1. How widespread is the practice of using this trup here?
	   Should I do it?
	2. Why is it done?  Is there a source for it in the
	   Gemara or Shulchan Aruch?
	3. How does one know what parts of the layning throughout
	   the Torah have a special trup?  This seems like one of
	   the last remaining parts of the "oral tradition" that's
	   not written down anywhere, though I'm sure it is.

Thanks for any help.

David Sherman
Toronto - 416 889 7658

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 12 Apr 1992  15:46 EDT
From: cblph!ask (a.s.kamlet)
Subject: Shiva if one hears after a prolonged time

  [Re: what happens if someone obligated to sit Shiva does not hear of the
  death until some later period. Mod.]

  They are obligated to sit Shiva from the time they hear of the death, 
  even after the original Shiva period had passed.  I know in one case 
  that a man, in poor health, was purposely not told of the death of his 
  brother in Israel, which had occurred a couple of weeks previously, 
  until the day before Shavuot, so that he would only have to sit Shiva 
  for half a day until Shavuot started.

 From the Kitzurt Schulchan Aruch, even this waiting until Shavuot
and sitting 1/2 day might not be necessary:
 Chap 206: "If the news [ of death ] reached him after thirty days it
is delayed news and he need not observe mourning for more than an
hour; it makes no difference whether he received the tidings by day
or by night. One hour's mourning is sufficient in that event even
for one's parents...."
          "One who has received delayed news, need not observe any
mourning ritual other than the removing of his shoes, but he is
allowed to work, bathe, annoint himself, have sexual intercourse,
and study the Torah...."
          "If anyone lost a relative and he does not know about it,
he must not be informed thereof.  Concerning the one who bears such
news, it is said (Proverbs 10:18) 'he that utters a report is a
fool.' As long as a person is unaware of his relative's death, he
may be invited to a bethrothal or wedding feast, or to any joyful
gathering, like any other person.  If a husband knows that his wife
lost a relative, he  may have intercourse with her since she is
unaware of it."
         "If one is asked concerning the welfare of a relative who
had died, he should not say that he is alive,... but should answer
ambiguously so the inquirer will surmise that the relative had
died."

Art Kamlet [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 47


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Feather and Wooden Spoon
             [Jan David Meisler]
        Lansing/Atlanta
             [David A Rier]
        Los Angelos Area
             [Leeba Salzman]
        Wearing a watch on Shabbos
             [Robert A. Levene]
        What does "Challah is taken" mean?
             [Dick Wexelblat]
        Wrong-headed use of T'fillin?
             [Victor S. Miller]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 92 08:46:24 -0400
From: Jan David Meisler <[email protected]>
Subject: Feather and Wooden Spoon

Does anyone know the reason for the use of the feather and wooden spoon
when searching for the Chametz before Pesach?  I understand why we use a
candle, but not the other two objects.

					Yochanan
[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 May 92 7:58:52 EDT
From: David A Rier <[email protected]>
Subject: Lansing/Atlanta

I am going to the Midwest the week of May 11, and will be in the
Lansing/East Lansing area around 5/13-5/14.  Are there any kosher places
to eat or daven?  Also, I'll be in Atlanta the following week.  I know
about Cong. Beth Jacob; does anyone know about places to eat?  Also,
there are kosher/shomer shabbos beds and breakfast near Beth Jacob--does
anyone know about the degree of kashrus there?

                   Thanks, David Rier 
(Internet: [email protected])  (Bitnet: dar6@columbia)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 May 92 15:22:07+0300
From: [email protected] (Leeba Salzman)
Subject: Los Angelos Area


My sister is looking into the possibility of spending a year or so in
the LA area and would like info on the Jewish community there.  She
needs a day school for a 5 year old, 7 year old and 9 year old and would
like to live close to a shul (within an eruv for pushing a stroller).

Thanx.

[email protected]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 92 17:41:20 -0400
From: [email protected] (Robert A. Levene)
Subject: Wearing a watch on Shabbos

What are the different halachic issues concerning wearing a wristwatch
on shabbos where there is no eruv?  Is the issue different for men and
women?  What if the watch is a fancier watch than the multi-alarm
plastic digital watch worn during the week?

My rav wouldn't matir [permit - Mod] it, nor did he assur [forbid - Mod]
it, but mentioned that some men have a custom not to wear wristwatches
in a public domain on shabbos.  Is this a common minhag, a minhag of
particular groups, or the sort of chumra one shouldn't worry about until
one keeps cholov Yisroel, chodosh/yoshon, etc.

Also, suppose a man is permitted to wear a fancy watch on shabbos.  If
he can't find it, can he then wear his weekday watch just to be able to
know the time?

Rob

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 92 07:28:23 -0400
From: [email protected] (Dick Wexelblat)
Subject: What does "Challah is taken" mean?

What does "Challah is taken" mean?

	Dick Wexelblat

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 12:46:58 -0400
From: Victor S. Miller <[email protected]>
Subject: Wrong-headed use of T'fillin?

I have a question about the proper way to wear the Tefillah Shel Rosh
[head Tefillin - Mod.].

In the book Tefillin, R. Aryeh Kaplan (z"l) says:

  The head Tefillin should be centered in the middle of the head and
  worn must above the hairline.

  It is most important that no part of the box protrude below the
  hairline.  You may notice some older men wearing Tefillin on their
  foreheads, but they are wearing them incorrectly.  Although the Torah
  states that the head Teffillin are to be worn "between the eyes," the
  Oral Torah explains that this means in the middle of the head, above
  the hairline.  If the hairline has receded, then the Tefillin should
  be worn just above the point of the original hairline.

In the book "The Halachos of Tefillin" R. Shimon Eider says:

  17. The position of the Shel Rosh starts where the roots of the hair
  begin growing above the forehead (1) (see diagram 39).  Although the
  Torah say "bein einecha" (between you eyes), Chazal have determined
  that the Shel Rosh must rest on a place where the hair normally grows
  (2).

.

  The ENTIRE Tefillah Shel Rosh must rest on a place where hair grows,
  even the very bottom portion [ and the bottom corners of the Bayis
  [box - Mod.] ] must rest in a place where there are normally hair
  roots (3).  Even if a minute portion of the Tefillah rests on the
  forehead -- where no hair grows, he has not fulfilled the mitzvah and
  his brocho is in vain (4).

.

  Those who place Tefillin on their foreheads (see diagram 40) are
  conducting themselves like the Karaites and have not fulfilled the
  mitzvah (5).  Scrupulous individuals should caution their friends
  and teach them not to err in this, so that they should not be among
  the transgressors of Israel who sin with their bodies; because one who
  wears the Shel Rosh on his forehead is considered a head that did not
  wear Tefillin and the brocho is in vain (6).  As we learned
  previously "Tefillin resting in their improper position are considered
  as if they were lying in the Tefillin bag" (7)

1-- Menachos 37:1
2--ibid.
3--ibid.
4--ibid.
5--ibid.
6--ibid.
7--ibid.

(2 through 7 have other comments).

All of this seems to be rather clear and unequivocal.  However, I have
observed a number of quite scrupulous and learned people (mostly
Chassidim, but, not exclusively) who wear their Tefillah Shel Rosh so
that the bottom part of the bayis is noticeably below the hairline.  For
example, in the recent article on the Lubavitcher Rebbe in the New York
Times, ALL of the Lubavitchers wearing Tefillin are wearing them this
way.  So it seems that in some corners this might be considered a
machlokus.  All of this has left me a little confused.

Also on the issue R. Eider seems to be rather firm about the merit of
admonishing friends about this.  The practicality of this is another
problem:  How can one easily explain to a man of 70 who's been wearing
his Teffillin one way all his life that it's wrong?

		Victor Miller
		[email protected]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 48


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        California Dreamer
             [Danny Meyer]
        Eruv and Chumrot
             [Morris Podolak]
        Job Search Trips to Israel
             [Anonymous]
        Questions on Shul Practices
             [Shlomo H. Pick]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 May 92 20:24 EST
From: [email protected] (Danny Meyer)
Subject: California Dreamer

	I may be working in Forestville, California this summer.  That's
sort of near Santa Rosa.  I'm looking for information on Jewish life in
that area.  I'm especially looking for a synagogue, preferably
Conservative or Orthodox, and for kosher vegetarian food.  I may be
living in someone else's house, so I may have kashrut difficulties.  I
guess that asking for suggestions on how to eat is the halakhic-question
portion of this letter.  Any information on housing would be
appreciated, too, especially if it helps with kashrut.

					Thanks,
					Danny Meyer
					Oberlin College


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 06:44:43 -0400
From: Morris Podolak <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Eruv and Chumrot

Robert Gordon's question about chumrot is both fascinating and
important.  I have not made a detailed study of this subject, so I can't
talk about chumrot in general.  I can, however, perhaps shed some light
on the issue of an eruv.  An eruv can only be established in a place
that is not a reshut harabim deoraitha (a public domain in the biblical
sense).  The obvious question then is what constitutes a reshut harabim
deoraitha?  According to some definitions there are two conditions:
first, that there be a street that is 16 amot (about 8 meters) wide, and
second that 600,000 people cross it in one day.  I am leaving out a
great many details here, in particular such things as what exactly is
meant by "street", do the 600,000 have to be Jews, etc.  All I want to
do is point out that there are two criteria.  If BOTH are required to
make a place a reshut harabim, then very few places are disqualified
from having an eruv.  If only the first criterion is required, then very
few places are ALLOWED to have an eruv.  The practice is to require both
conditions for a reshut harabim, but many authorities (including the
RAMBAM) hold that any place that is 8 meters wide cannot be included in
an eruv.  Although there are enough authorities who rule leniently on
the subject so that one can generally rely on whatever eruv has been set
up, the poskim who are strict are real heavyweights, and cannot be
ignored.  This is why the whole issue of eruv is so complex.  In fact, I
have given only the bare bones of the problem, and the technicalities of
eruv making are such that it is very easy to go wrong.

I once asked the Rabbi A. H. Lapin z"l of San Jose why he didn't set up
an eruv in his community.  The fact that young couples couldn't take
their children out on Shabbat made life difficult for a number of
families.  His answer was that if someone was looking for a way to make
trouble, the easiest thing was to cast doubt on the validity of the
eruv.  When his son wanted to set up an eruv in Los Angeles, the father
urged him to get the approval of the foremost authorities of the day, so
that there could be no chance for dissention.  In light of all this, it
is easy to understand why one might not wish to carry even when an eruv
exists.  Somewhere along the line some sort of leniency was used, and a
person may have such high personal standards that he doesn't want to
rely on that leniency.  There are several problems with this approach,
however.  In the first place, one must be very careful not to cast
aspersions on the people responsible for setting up the eruv.  It is
fine to avoid carrying because you choose to rely on the RAMBAM's
opinion over that of other rishonim.  It is quite another thing to avoid
carrying because you thing the rabbi of the city is incompetent.  Such
things must be handled with delicacy.  In addition, one must distinguish
between what the halacha demands, on the one hand, and satisfying every
opinion in the book on the other.  The halacha is decided by looking at
previous opinions on the matter, and weighing both the arguments and the
stature of the people who made them.  When a final decision is reached,
it will not necessarily be so strict that it satisfies everyone.  The
job of the posek is not to cover all the bases, but to chose a path that
is in some vague sense true to the "Torah way".  Once that halachic path
is chosen, one then has the option, sometimes, to chose a more strict
path for himself.  This is a matter of personal choice.  It is vital to
remember, however, that the choice is personal, and you cannot look down
on anyone who feels that following the plain halacha is sufficient.

One last thing.  One must be careful even when being strict.  In the
first place, being strict in one place, may cause one to be lenient in
another.  It is fine to be strict and stay up all night learning Torah
on the night of Shavuot.  If, however, the person will then be so tired
that he will fall asleep during the morning prayers, he loses more than
he has gained.  Second, the Mishna in Brachot (1:3) tells that when
Rabbi Tarfon deliberately acted strictly in accordance with Beit Shammai
he was told that he was deserving of death!  There are many reasons
suggested by the commentators for this, and the interested reader can
pursue it on his own.  I only want to point out that being strict
doesn`t always work.


With best wishes,
Morris Podolak

MsDos




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 16 Apr 92 11:22:35 U
From: Anonymous
Subject: Job Search Trips to Israel

I have heard that there is an organization which sponsors job search
trips to Israel for people considering aliyah.  Do you know who I can
get in touch with to find out more about this? You can publish the
answer in mail-jewish or reply to the Moderator who will forward them.
Thanks for your help.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 11:23 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Questions on Shul Practices

[While I recognize that the following questions may be viewed as
inflamatory by some, I'm quite sure that they are meant seriously, and
deal with a difficult and at times hard to deal with issue. Moderator]

After participating in a conservative list, I have the following
questions about some practices among American Orthodoxy.  These
questions were always in the back of my mind, but now they have come to
the forefront as a result of some discussions that were carried out.

1.  It is common in many orthodox shuls to give local conservative
rabbis who are guests aliyot.  As it has come to my attention that most
of these Rabbis do not believe in the Divinity of the Torah (i.e. Torah
me-Sinai, including the Five Books of Moses), [NOTE: Whether this is
true for "most", esp. most who have learned in orthodox institutions, is
probably a debatable issue. For the purpose of the question, I think we
can state: assuming the Rabbi in question is known not to accept Torah
from Sinai. Mod.] how is it permitted to give them Aliyot.  I know of
many such Rabbis who have also learned in orthodox institutions so it is
hard to refer to them as "Tinok shenishba".  Does giving them Maftir
solve the problem (just like giving a kattan i.e. minor the maftir) or
should that not also be a problem?

2.  There are many orthodox minyanim who count as part of their minyan
members or guests who publically and actually drive to shul on shabbat
and without them there is no minyan.  In actual pratice, if asked any
orthodox rabbis worth his salt or ordination would tell that person -
stay home and don't drive on shabbat.  If all those members would do so
then that rabbi would have no minyan.  Now that they have come, the
public service is conducted in the orthodox fashion with a proper
mechitza, etc. - just that the members came and will go home in their
cars.  So the question is, how can you daven (pray) in such a place?
Now I know the minhag is to be lenient, and the probable reason for the
first question is "eiva" i.e. fear of hatred and retaliation (just like
in zahal I will bury the dead of Arab soldiers who are my enemies). [No,
Shlomo is NOT saying that someone who drives to shul is the same as an
Arab soldier. The point is that "eiva" allows you to do things that
might otherwise not be permitted. Mod.]  The second question, may be
that either the rabbi doesn't want to lose his job, or better yet, if
you don't allow them, they'll drive to a conservative temple anyways, so
it is better that they come to the orthodox one.  My question is: Is
this sound (halakhic thinking)?  Are there better heiterim?  Or is there
opposition to these heiterim?  [just as an example, in my shul in
israel, anyone who shaves on chol ha'moed or sefira or bein ha-mitzayim
will not get an Aliya.  In the local shul in the usa in my youth, anyone
wearing shoes on yom kippur would get no kibud at all.]

Shlomo Pick





----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 49


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Atlanta
             [Elise G. Jacobs]
        Eruv and Chumrot
             [Hillel Markowitz]
        Feather and Wooden Spoon
             [Yossie Rubin]
        Job search trip to Israel (3)
             [Samantha Halpern, Anthony Waller, Andy Cohen]
        Wristwatches on Shabbat
             [Jem Steinberg]
        Yom Atzma'ut
             [Bob Werman]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 May 92 23:05:53 -0400
From: [email protected] (Elise G. Jacobs)
Subject: Re: Atlanta

Atlanta!!!! My hometown.  The excitement....

If you need a place to stay, call 404-633-0551 (Beth Jacob) and they
will set you up with a kollel family.  Or, call 404-636-3362 (The
Friedman's) and they will assist you.  There are two deli's and one
pizza-type restaurant under orthodox hechsher.  The pizza shop (Wall
Street Pizza) is cholov yisroel.  There is a high degree of kashrus
here, administered by the Atlanta Kashrus Commission, which is under
Rabbi Feldman, head of Beth Jacob.


Elise Jacob


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 May 92 09:51:49 -0400
From: [email protected] (Hillel Markowitz)
Subject: Re: Eruv and Chumrot

The Baltimore eiruv was very careful in this matter.  They made sure to
get the approval of EVERY rabbi in the community and include the shuls
inside the eiruv.  They also were careful to get approval from Rav
Ruderman (Z"L) (then Rosh yeshive of Ner Yisroel).  This avoided a
number of problems.

On the matter of chumrah, there are people who do not use the eruv
themselves because of "chinuch".  That is they do not want to get
careless when they are visiting in a community without an eruv.  One
friend of mine told me that as he was putting on his tallis to go to
shul in one such community he started out the door and almost wound up
carrying.

Another reason is that of chinuch for the children so that they learn
that carrying is normally not allowed.  There is a story of someone who
came to the U.S. from Israel to a community without an eruv.  Noone had
thought to mention that the community did not have an eruv and he didn't
think that a community wouldn't have an eruv (being so used to everyone
having one in E"Y).

| Hillel Markowitz    |     Im ain ani li mi li    |
| [email protected] | Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha |


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 May 92 12:42:04 -0400
From: [email protected] (Yossie Rubin)
Subject: Feather and Wooden Spoon

>Does anyone know the reason for the use of the feather and wooden spoon
>when searching for the Chametz before Pesach?  I understand why we use a
>candle, but not the other two objects.

	The feather is to sweep the crumbs you find, the spoon is to 
collect the crumbs that you are sweeping with the aforementioned 
feather.  

	When you're finished, the spoon doubles as firewood to burn 
the crumbs that you swept with the feather. 

	When the chametz is all burnt, you take some water to put
out the fire that burned the spoon which collected the crumbs that
was swept in with the aforementioned feather...(big finish)...
which you ended up buying for 2 dollars!

	-Yossie Rubin
	...att!groucho!jyr


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 May 1992 00:26 EST
From: [email protected] (Samantha Halpern)
Subject: Job search trip to Israel

This in response to an anonymous posting regarding trips to Israel for
those who are considersing aliyah.  There is an organization called
NA'AM (the North American Aliyah Movement) based in New York City.  I
know that they have a trip this summer called "Discovery."  To find out
more call NA'AM at (212) 339-6060 and speak with Danna Kalkstein.  She
is very nice and extremely helpful.  If you get the answering machine be
sure to leave a message with your name & phone number, my calls have
always been promptly returned.  NA'AM also has an internship program
(I'm participating in it this summer) - placements are available
throughout the year.

Other ideas:

Sherut La'am - "Service to the People" - includes 3 month Hebrew Ulpan on 
a kibbutz (1/2 day study, 1/2 day work).  Next 9 months are spent working 
full time in your chosen profession.

WUJS - International Graduate Center for Hebrew & Jewish Studies in Arad.
For college grads and professionals.  6 month ulpan; then placed in your
chosen field.  Prepares you for entry into Israeli society.

For more information on these and other programs contact AZYF (American
Zionist Youth Foundation) at (212) 318-6123.

Hope this helps - Good Luck!

-Samantha Halpern


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 May 92 15:05:16 IST
From: Anthony Waller <P85014%[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Job search trip to Israel

  We did a pilot tour with a group called "Tehila" who help in all
aspects of Aliya, specifically for religious olim.  They also helped
out once we arrived in Israel on Aliya.  You can contact them through
your local Aliya shaliach.  I believe they organise around 6 pilot tours
every year from the States to Israel.

Anthony Waller             BITNET:    [email protected]
Bar-Ilan University        INTERNET:  [email protected]
Israel.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 May 92 17:08:44 -0400
From: [email protected] (Andy Cohen)
Subject: Re: Job search trip to Israel

There are two organizations I know of: NAAM (The North American Aliyah
Movement), which is a secular organization, and Tehilla, a religious one.

I'm just beginning my contact with these groups, but I've been told that
while NAAM is secular, it's not anti-religious, and that while Tehilla
is religious, it's open to non-observant Jews, as long as they don't
flout halacha while attending NAAM functions.

Here are the relevant numbers and addresses:

        NAAM
        110 E. 59th Street, 3rd floor
        New York, NY  10022
	212-339-6060

	Tehilla
	Same address as NAAM, but the next office over
	212-339-6055

Good luck!

	Andy Cohen

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 May 92 22:40:30 -0400
From: Jem Steinberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Wristwatches on Shabbat

Rob Levene asks about wearing wristwatches on Shabbos. See Igros Moshe
O.C. 1:111, who permits the practice, but advises "Torah scholars and
Gd-fearers" to refrain nonetheless, for ancillary reasons.

He does not distinguish between "fancy" watches and plain, functional
ones.

Yehoshua Steinberg

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed,  6 May 92 12:34 +0300
From: Bob Werman <[email protected]>
Subject: Yom Atzma'ut

I am generally happy with my orthodoxy and do not usually find too much
difficulty combining it with my zionism.  But every year the same
problem arises around Yom Atzma'ut.  I can accept the fact that there
are those who will not say hallel with a bracha.  I can even live with
those who do not say hallel at all - as long as they provide me with an
equal opportunity, an altenate minyan, to say my hallel in.

I am completely confused by the lack of effort of any rabbanim, even
those who are identified with the zionist movement, to see Yom Atzma'ut
as a bitul of the mourning of yamei ha-omer.  No shaving, no music, no
end of mourning.

I would appreciate hearing about the experience with these problems from
others who feel as I do.  And of course I will always listen to the
arguments of those who disagree with me.

Hag same'aH.


__Bob Werman    [email protected]    [email protected]
Jerusalem




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 50


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Cleveland, OH
             [[email protected]]
        Doorknob update
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Jewish Survival
             [Dov Green]
        Kiddush Friday Night
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Lansing/Atlanta/LA
             [David Kaufmann ]
        Shira
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Unrealistic Requirement for Eruv?
             [David Ofsevit]
        Wearing a watch on Shabbos
             [David Kaufmann ]
        Wrong-headed use of T'fillin?
             [David Kaufmann ]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 May 92 15:49:42 EDT
From: [email protected]
Subject: Cleveland, OH

I'm going to be in Cleveland weekdays. Does any one know about places to
eat?
Thoda Raba.
Gershon Golomb

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 May 92 03:33:59 -0400
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Doorknob update

Thanks to all those who responded to my query about doorknobs.
Unfortunately, no practical solution emerged in time for Pesach, so we
ended up taking all the doorknobs off and we opened the doors with
pliers for a week.  Actually, since the day after Pesach was Shabbat, I
was concerned about whether I could take out the doorknobs from where
they had been put away.  I decided that since there was no kinyan
involved, they could be taken out on Shabbat as long as I had
established intent beforehand (to avoid muktzeh).  Naturally, I didn't
tighten the screws until after Shabbat.

Ben Svetitsky  [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 May 92 08:05:17 IDT
From: [email protected] (Dov Green)
Subject: Jewish Survival


Last week I listened to the live broadcast of the "March of Life"
of some 5300 Jewish kids from Auschwitz to Birkenau. I was wondering
about the wisdom of flaunting the mystique of Jewish survival, rubbing
it in the nose of all those goyim. I mean, it's important for us to
know that they can't destroy us, but what value is there for us to 
proclaim it loudly to them.

(- Personal confession: I was in a Yeshiva H.S. dorm in NYC during
the late 60s early 70s. The subways were still rideable in those days,
and we spent a lot of evenings in front of the Soviet Mission to the 
U.N. screaming and carrying on. We were aware that the "gedolim" 
were very against demonstations, but we were convinced by people
like M. Kahane, A. Weiss, and the folks at SSSJ that it was important
to make noise. We felt that stuff like Jackson-Vanick and getting 
the Leningrad 8 aquitted had to do with our voluble protests. So that by
asking this question now, I am coming from the other side. -)

I passed this question around in Shule last Shabbat and got the following
answers:

. It's not important for the goyim, but it is important for the kids
  who went. They have been brought up experiencing many events passively
  ( via the boob-tube). It was clear from interviews I heard that this
  experience had a profound affect on a number of these kids.

. The goyim are waiting for us not to come, watching for the year we
  don't come so they can convert Auschwitz into a shopping center, or
  worse.

. It's important for the goyim to see all the Jews who come, and under
  what circumstances they are coming, while they are starving for a loaf 
  of bread.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 May 92 21:48:43 EDT
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Kiddush Friday Night

I am interested in examining the question of husband/wife making kiddush
on friday night. The issue involved is that while both a man and woman
have an obligation from the Torah to make Kiddush, that Torah level
obligation may be fulfilled by saying the Shemonah Esreh during the
Ma'ariv prayer. Since women are not obligated in ma'ariv, it is not
unlikely that the woman will have a Torah level obligation while the man
will have only a Rabbinic level obligation. In such a case, is it
required or prefered that the one with the Torah level obligation make
Kiddush and the one with the Rabbinic level obligation listen and
thereby satisfy his obligation.

What I am primarily looking for is leads to sources that discuss this
issue. I know, and have looked at, the Minchas Chinuch. I'm pretty sure
that R' Moshe discussed it somewhere, but would appreciate the
reference. What other references do people know about? Comments and
discussion on the issue would be enjoyed as well.

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 May 92 12:22:26 -0400
From: David Kaufmann  <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Lansing/Atlanta/LA

For Michigan information call Rabbi Weingarted at 616-454-5002.

For Atlanta, call Rabbi New at 404-843-9582

For LA, call Chabad of CA at 213-208-7511.

David Kaufmann - INTERNET:      [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 May 92 16:10:51 -0400
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Shira

I've never heard of using the Shira tune in the Torah reading of
parashat Be-midbar.  I use it in Mas'ei, tying together the short verses
in Num. 33.  And of course in Be-shalach, but only for (1) half-verses
in the Shira that have the name of God in them, including v. 21 but not
v. 19, and (2) the second half of 14:29 (but not 14:22).  Darned if I
know why.

Ben Svetitsky   [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 May 92 10:14:30 -0400
From: [email protected] (David Ofsevit)
Subject: Unrealistic Requirement for Eruv?

In Vol. 3 No. 48, Morris Podolak gives as one of the conditions for
establishing an eruv that it not be in a place where "600,000 people
cross it in one day."  This strikes me as a meaningless number, since I
doubt there are many places in the world where that many people cross in
a day.  I believe that a busy multilane highway is considered to be at
capacity if 200,000 vehicles (300,000 people at usual average occupancy)
use it in a day.  What possible significiance can 600,000 have?  (Maybe
it has something to do with the number of males enumerated in the Torah,
following the Exodus?)

		David Ofsevit 



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 May 92 12:22:26 -0400
From: David Kaufmann  <[email protected]>
Subject: Wearing a watch on Shabbos

 As I understand it (having heard a number of discussions on this issue
with the local Chabad rabbi), one may wear clothing and accessories,
but not carry. If the watch is jewelry, i.e., fancy/expensive, one may
wear it as jewelry, but not for its function as a watch. Also, one has
to be careful with certain types of watches that are wound by
wrist-movement.  As jewelry is more common/acceptable for women, there
is greater leniency in what they wear.

 From what I understand, those who are careful do not wear watches,
because there is a question about them, although I know several
observant individuals, including rabbis, who do wear fancy ones.

David Kaufmann - INTERNET:      [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 May 92 12:22:26 -0400
From: David Kaufmann  <[email protected]>
Subject: Wrong-headed use of T'fillin?

>For example, in the recent article on the Lubavitcher Rebbe in the New
>York Times, ALL of the Lubavitchers wearing Tefillin are wearing them
>this way.  So it seems that in some corners this might be considered a
>machlokus.  All of this has left me a little confused.

I suspect that what was seen was a result of the photograph. As far as
I know, there is no machlokus. Lubavitchers are certainly careful to
wear the shel rosh at the hairline.

David Kaufmann - INTERNET:	[email protected]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 51


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Questions on Shul Practices (4)
             [Warren Burstein, Isaac Balbin, Bruce Krulwich, David Kaufmann]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 May 92 05:01:53 -0400
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Questions on Shul Practices

>1.  It is common in many orthodox shuls to give local conservative
>rabbis who are guests aliyot.  As it has come to my attention that most
>of these Rabbis do not believe in the Divinity of the Torah

I am not aware that we are supposed to give people a quiz before they
get an aliya.  Maybe if the person in question has publically stated
something, but one ought not to assume what a person believes based on
where he works.  I know of many O rabbis who work at C shuls because
they like food on the table.

As to the question of someone who has publically stated a belief
contrary to Torah, this is the sort of type of question that destroys
shuls.  If you must, ask the Rav of the shul, and quietly.  Don't think
of talking about it with other members of the shul.

>2.  There are many orthodox minyanim who count as part of their minyan
>members or guests who publically and actually drive to shul on shabbat
>and without them there is no minyan.

What's the halachic problem with counting them?  One should not
encourage people to drive to shul on Shabbat, but must one throw them
out if they come?

>[just as an example, in my shul in israel, anyone who shaves on chol
>ha'moed or sefira or bein ha-mitzayim will not get an Aliya.  In the
>local shul in the usa in my youth, anyone wearing shoes on yom kippur
>would get no kibud at all.]

Well there are heterim for shaving during sefira.  Does your the Gabbai
know who has a heter and who doesn't, and can he tell the difference
between real and fake leather shoes at a glance?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 May 92 13:49:37 +1000
From: [email protected] (Isaac Balbin)
Subject: Re: Questions on Shul Practices

(1) With respect to Conservative Rabbis, one has to judge each case on
its merits. As such, the more pertinent question becomes, does one have
a chiyyuv (obligation) to go up to the gentleman in question and ask
him, ``Are you a Kofer B'Torah Misinai (deny the siniatic tradition)''.
Do we apply the rule of Roiv (majority)? That rule will be different
from place to place and country to country.  I recall T'shuvos from Reb
Moshe on this issue, but I would need to go back to them in order to
recall detail.

(2) The problem of Mechallel Shabbos Befarhesya (Public Shabbos
Desecrator) is better known. There are opinions that hold that this only
applies to agricultural laws of Shabbos. There are opinions that hold
that there has to be a *minyan* of kosher witnesses that see the
desecrator perpetrating the chillul shabbos. There are opinions that say
they have to be a Mumar Lehachis (break shabbos for breaking shabosses
sake) as distinct from Mumar L'Tayovoin (break shabbos because its
easier to get by).  There are opinions that limit it to Issur D'orayso
(Torah prohibitions).  There are opinions that ask how it is possible
for a ``mechallel shabbos'' to go to Shule---some come week in week out.
These opinions hold that there is a innate contradiction in terms with
such people that cannot be held up to the intent of the ``mechallel
shabbos'' of Chazal.  All this from memory---I looked into this issue
many many moons ago because of the question of inviting such people to
ones house on Yom Tov.  (It intersects lots of halachos, eg the status
of their cooking, the status of wine they have touched etc etc).

In short Shlomo, in Golus, thinks tend to be grayer than in Israel


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 May 92 13:31:57 -0400
From: [email protected] (Bruce Krulwich)
Subject: Questions on Shul Practices

My impression is that the history of American Orthodoxy (discussed well
by R' Beryl Wein, and clear from talking with old-time Rabbaim) is that
pre-WW2 American Orthodoxy was having severe problems with assimilation,
and only gained the strength that we see today when the main centers of
Jewish learning and traditional life moved from Europe to the US and to
Israel.  This resulted in "American Orthodoxy" adopting some leniencies
that authorities of the time deemed necessary but which now exist
largely for historical reasons.

I don't think it's our place to second-guess the Torah authorities of
the time, and the personal knowledge of some Rabbaim from that time (in
particular Rabbi Leo Jung) is one of strong integrity and personal
stringency.  And yet, it's crucial (IMVHO) to recognize positions that
were taken for reasons that no longer apply and to make sure that our
practice is in accordance with halacha.  Unfortunately it's very hard to
stop a practice that's in place, and Shlomo's examples may very well
fall into that category.  Other examples exist in regards to Kashrus.

Dov (Bruce) Krulwich
[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 May 92 12:12:31 -0400
From: David Kaufmann  <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Questions on Shul Practices

I wonder why you would think it would not be permitted to give them
Aliyot? Let's assume that the individual in question (it really doesn't
matter if he's a rabbi, after all) studied in an orthodox institution
and cannot be described as a "tinok shenishba". (I hasten to add that
completing a course of study does not necessarily remove one from that
category.) We are then left with the question of what disqualifies an
individual from being a member of the community, since that is the only
qualification for receiving an aliyah. (Please note that ignorance does
not disqualify; hence the emergence of Baalei Korah. Ignorance can
include not only ignorance of how to read, but ignorance of meaning and
implications, i.e., belief.)

Certain "sins" disqualify an individual from certain responsibilities.
For example, a thief or a professional gambler cannot be a witness. He
does not lose his status as a Jew and could therefore, be counted in a
minyan (I think). Remember, the original definition of a minyan comes
from G-d's description of sinners, in reference to the ten spies: "how
long will this evil congregation..."

I am not, of course, labelling these conservative rabbis as sinners.
The problem of being m'hallel Shabbos b'farhesya (publicly desecrating
Shabbos) is a serious problem, but one that requires the expertise of a
rav to determine and apply.

Thus, just as an observant Jew's shortcomings do not disqualify him for
an aliyah, neither does this conservative rabbi's. I would think the
only disqualification is heresy, i.e., acceptance of another religion,
G-d forbid.

>2.  There are many orthodox minyanim who count as part of their minyan
>members or guests who publically and actually drive to shul on shabbat
>and without them there is no minyan. ....  My question is: Is this
>sound (halakhic thinking)?  Are there better heiterim?  Or is there
>opposition to these heiterim?

I don't think one needs a heiter at all. I think the question arises
from a misunderstanding of the nature of halakah and the demands of
Torah. If a person doesn't keep kosher, does that mean he shouldn't put
on tefillin? Of course not. While one should strive to keep all the
mitzvot, Judaism is not an all or nothing religion. Each mitzvah in and
of itself is valuable and contributes to the kedusha of the world. Of
course people shouldn't drive to shul on Shabbos, but now that they have
and they are there, there is no reason not to daven with a minyan. Also,
of course, observance is a growth and learning process.  Yesterday, the
individual went to the movies on Shabbos; today he drives to shul and
goes shopping afterward; tomorrow he only drives to and from shul. The
next day, he moves close to shul and walks. As long as the rabbi makes
it clear, tactfully and with respect, that what the person should be
growing towards is observance, then each individual must be accepted at
their current level.  Obviously, there are some things such a person
would not be qualified for, but that does not negate their worth as a
Jew (and every Jewish male over 13 qualifies for a minyan), but only
reflects a current level of understanding and responsibility.

David Kaufmann
INTERNET:	[email protected]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 52


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Cleveland, OH.
             [Howard S. Oster]
        Completion of Contract in Jewish Law
             [Isaac Balbin]
        Czechslovakia
             [Jeremy Newmark]
        Doorknobs - final posting (2)
             [Benjamin Svetitsky, Mike Kramer]
        Ibn Ezra
             [Chaim Schild]
        Shuls in San Carlos, California
             [Eli Turkel]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 92 22:02:20 -0400
From: [email protected] (Howard S. Oster)
Subject: Cleveland, OH.


Gershon Golomb: Here are some places to eat in Cleveland.
 Two Pizza shops, Yacov's on Cedar Rd. and Kinneret on Taylor Rd.
 A Fleishig Restaurant (Academy Party Center) on Mayfield
 A Chinese Restaurant on Taylor
 Two bakeries on Taylor (Lax and Mandel, and Unger's which is also
   a kosher food mart)
 Butcher shops, e.g. Basch's on Taylor, and Altman's on Green --
   Altman's has prepared foods for take-out.

All of the above streets are major streets; Green and Taylor are
parallel to each other and perpendicular to both Cedar and Mayfield.

Any problems... give me a call. I'm in the book.

Howie Oster

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 May 92 11:49:10 +1000
From: [email protected] (Isaac Balbin)
Subject: Completion of Contract in Jewish Law

I am looking for articles which revolve around the concept of
completion of contract in Jewish Law as they pertain to 
say a handshake, exchanges of ``Mazal and B'Rocho'' and L'Chaim.

The type of articles I am after are ones by say Jewish Law Professors
in secular Journals, although I will take any pointers.

Thanks in advance.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 May 92 06:10:13 -0400
From: [email protected] (Jeremy Newmark)
Subject: Czechslovakia

Does anybody have any information on Kosher food / shuls etc. in the
Bratslavia area of Czechsolvakia as I am due to attend a conference
there in a few weeks.

Thanks

Jeremy Newmark

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 92 13:29:45 -0400
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Doorknobs - final posting

OK, OK, Avi was right and I was wrong.  I didn't think ANYBODY would
take the doorknob thing seriously, and I posted the second posting to
make sure.  PLIERS???  Come on, now.

The subject came up not as a late April 1 prank, but as a gut reaction
to the latest flood of chumrot rushing against the ramparts as another
Pesach closes in.  (This time, new kitniyot.  Next time, ...?)  I really
hope nobody comes out of all this feeling like a chump, but at the same
time I hope the significance of the conclusion will not be lost:  that
people are willing to believe ANY chumrah is possible.  I don't want to
patronize, but this goes double for those who are new to mitzvot or who
feel uncertain in their knowledge.  To paraphrase (and slant) Morris
Podolak's point of a week ago, the aim of studying halacha is to find
out what the halacha IS, not what beautiful and rare chumrot I can
complicate my life with.  Pesach, especially, can be very simple if
you merely follow halacha and don't waste time on taking apart the oven.

Incidentally, the issue of kinyan is a genuine one of halacha, which
comes up in Israel whenever Pesach ends on Friday night.  On Shabbat
which immediately follows, hametz is permitted, but all the hametz which
we owned has been sold to a goy.  Can we reacquire it on Shabbat, and eat
it?  The conclusion seems to be, no.

To end on a note of Torah, let me explain why I do not use smiley faces
:-) as a matter of principle.  I refer you to Hirsch on Ex. 14:11.
The verse says:  "Is it that there were no graves in Egypt, that thou hast
taken us away to die in the wilderness?"  Hirsch:  "This sharp irony
in moments of deepest anxiety and despair is characteristic of the witty
vein which is inherent in the Jewish race (sic) from their earliest
beginnings."

Ben Svetitsky   [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 92 14:11:25 -0400
From: [email protected] (Mike Kramer)
Subject: Doorknobs - final posting

I sympathize with Mr. Svetitsky's frustration with proliferating
chumrot, and I do posess a sense of humor.  But may I suggest that wit
and sarcasm should be distinguished from each other.  Wit need not have
a derisive edge to it; sarcasm does.  I think that the chametz doorknobs
was on the sarcastic side.

Since this is a moderated forum, a plea to the moderator: I would have
no problems with "doorknob" postings around April 1st (even late April
1st) or Purim time.  But I think that the second posting was ill-timed.
Even though it is Yom Haatzmaut, we are basically in the middle of the
Sefirah period.  We mourn the loss of Talmidei Rebbe Akiva because they
were not "Noheig Kavod Ze-La-Ze".  Perhaps this is a time for a little
more introspection on how we comment on other's opinions or styles of
observance.

[ I accept the criticism about the potential ill timing vis a vis the
Sfirah period. However, on balance, I still think the pair of postings
were appropriate to the Pesach period. I think they were more directed
toward making people think about what they are doing than making fun of
other peoples practices. However the points that Mike brings up in the
next paragraph are valid as well. How to balance Ben's concerns and
Mike's concerns might be an interesting thread to develop.]

Actually I periodically find halachot that are "true blue halachot" but
run counter to intuition. Is it better for someone to be "gullible" to
chumrot and not miss the valid chumrot, or is it better to be wary of
"chumrot" and possibly incur a delay in observing some real halacha? I
think that people should have the freedom to choose their style, as long
as they don't try to impose their style on me.

Mike Kramer

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 08:49 EST
From: SCHILD%[email protected] (Chaim Schild)
Subject: Ibn Ezra

I am looking for either
1. The Mossad HaRav Kook edition of the Ibn Ezra's Persush on the Chumash
2. Any English translation of the Ibn ezra on the Chumash
3. A Hebrew commentary on the Ibn Ezra's Persuh on the Chumash with Maarei
	Makomot.

Please let me know who I can get any of the above from...

Chaim
SCHILD%[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 08:50:19 EDT
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Shuls in San Carlos, California

   Does anyone know of any shuls within (long) walking distance of
San Carlos, California  (Silicon Valley south of San Fransisco but not
walking distance to Palo Alto).

Eli Turkel
[email protected]




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 53


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Halachot of Yom Ha'Atzmaut (Y.H.) (2)
             [Mike Kramer, Prof. Aryeh Frimer]
        Jewish Survival (2)
             [Danny Meyer, Arthur I. Plutzer]
        Separation before marriage
             [Ezra L Tepper]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 92 14:11:25 -0400
From: [email protected] (Mike Kramer)
Subject: Halachot of Yom Ha'Atzmaut (Y.H.)

In response to a recent question on Yom Haatzmaut vis-a-vis sefira, see
the book "Hilchot Yom Haatzmaut V'Yom Yerushalayim" by Nachum Rakover
for a wide spectrum of views among Rabbanei Eretz Yisrael on how the
clash between Minhagei Sefira and Chagigat Yom Haatzmaut can be or
cannot be resolved.  There seem to be respectable opinions on either
side].


Mike Kramer

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 May 92 02:36:11 -0400
From: Prof. Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Halachot of Yom Ha'Atzmaut (Y.H.)

          I refer all who are interested in the Halachic ramifications
of Y.H. to study Prof. N. Rakover's Collection of Responsa and Articles
on nearly every aspect of "Hilchot Yom Ha'Atzmaut". In particular, those
who like myself say Hallel without a Bracha do so based on Halachic
considerations, not ideological ones. The noted Rishon, Rabbi Menachem
HaMeiristates explicitly that when a miracle of salvation occurs to a
communitythey should say Hallel BUT WITHOUT A BRACHA. ALL the Chief
Rabbis of Israel, with the noted exception of Rabbi Goren, rule that
Hallel Shalem should be recited without a benediction.
          In Israel nealy all the Religious zionist communities I'm
acquainted with set aside the laws of aveilut and listen to music, dance
in the streets (EZRA and B'nai Akiva) YH eve and shave. Some do not
shave for simple convenience reasons, namely not to have to go thru that
"grubbyitchy first two week growth" again; but that's a matter of
convenience, not ideology.
          Chag Sameach!
                                 Aryeh Frimer
                                 F66235@BARILAN



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 May 92 11:58 EST
From: [email protected] (Danny Meyer)
Subject: Jewish Survival

	I just re-read Dov Green's letter about the March of Life, and
I'm not sure I understand it.  Are you suggesting that the goyim will be
annoyed because we're proud of being alive?  I can't think of many
people who would be upset by that.  Well, anti-Semites might, but should
we stop marching because there is anti-Semitism in the world?  I suppose
there might be some people who would be so upset by our presence that
they'd attack us again, but I think more people would be reminded that
someone tried to destroy the Jews before and would hope that it can
never happen again, that they could never be part of genocide.  Silence
can be dangerous, as I'm sure you know.  Am I missing the point of the
letter somewhere?

					Sincerely,
					Danny Meyer

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 92 13:55:37 -0400
From: Arthur I. Plutzer <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jewish Survival

re: The March of Life. As I understand it, this project was sponsored by
the Board of Jewish Education who has taken over to Europe a number of
children's tours to the "sites".

We all may choose to determine what lessons are to be learned from such
demonstration. I am not sure that Jewish survival is the only one.
However, Jewish survival is just as dependent on our raising a new
Jewish generation and to the extent that programs such as March of Life
provide a Jewishness education they are surely critical.

Given the nonsense - if you have followed the other bbs - of the college
Holocaust Revisionism attempts, I think this program is doubly
important.

What is so troubling to the survivors is the knowledge that those with
first-hand witness are reaching the end of their natural lives.

Shalom,

Arthur I. Plutzer
AIPBH@CUNYVM - City University of New York


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 May 92 13:25:48 +0300
From: Ezra L Tepper <[email protected]>
Subject: Separation before marriage

Morris Podolak writes (V3#43)

> I was surprised by the comments of Ezra Tepper and Aryeh Frimer with
> regard to _dam chimud_.  Both say that this does not apply to a woman
> who is no longer menstruating and is checking herself daily.  This seems
> to contradict the following din (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 192:3): If a
> marriage was agreed upon, and then the engagement was broken off for
> some reason.  If a new date is afterwards set, then the bride needs to
> wait another seven clean days.  Rabbi Moshe Isserles in his glosses on
> this din adds that this is true even if she was checking herself
> constantly during the intervening days.

There is really no contradiction at all. The Shulchan Oruch is talking
about a _g'zeras chachamim_ (specific Rabbinical decree) that when a women
_fixes the date for her marriage_, she is considered _tamei_ [unclean]
because there is fear of _dam chimud_. This was particularly relevant in
Talmudic times where there were problems of _tumah_ connected with
handling _terumah_ (sanctified tithes) and other items. It also applies
today, as we do not cancel _gezerot_ and there are implications of this
_gezera_ with regard to sexual relationships (which would be forbidden
under the Rabbinical decree). This _gezera_ the Rema says, applies even if
the woman was checking during the period that a marriage was called off
and a new date set. The _Achronim_ [latter day poskim] note that this
_chumrah_ [strict interpretation] only holds when the wedding was
_completely called off_ for several days due to some disagreement between
the families and a new date set. I assume that the reasoning here is that
one has to observe the rabbinic decree despite the fact that _dam chimud_
in this case would have been noticed or that when a wedding is called off
the woman is not examining herself as closely as she otherwise would.

However, regarding not seeing the groom, we are discussing a custom which
although based on similar reasoning, will allow a lenient interpretation.
Although the _gezera_ applies (according to the Rema) even when she is
checking (and this view is not accepted by others), his _psak_ is given
only when a new marriage date has been set, and not when the bride just
sees the groom. And even in a case when the marriage date is actually
rescheduled, and this was due to illness or other accidental circumstance
(and not a family disagreement), all sources I could find did not require
another seven days if the rescheduling occurred during the period while
she was checking.

Naturally I have no authority to put down a _psak_ and a rabbi should be
consulted. Whatever the case, one has to follow his family custom with
regard to separation. I just brought down what I saw for purposes of
discussion.

Podolak then moves on to philosophy and writes

>                    I maintain, however, that the logic used in deriving
>halacha is not necessarily the same as the logic used in deriving
>science. The halachic framework is much richer and requires a somewhat
>modified approach.

I'm in complete agreement with that. However, he continues

>                   In our case, I think we simply have to fall back [to]
>the tradition we have as given in the Gemara (Niddah, 66a). The point of
>the Gemara seems to be that the act of accepting the marriage proposal is
>what generates the dam chimud. It is not the seeing of the other person.

Yup (see above).

>I agree that that doesn't make terribly much sense,

Yup again.
>                                                    but I would claim
>that that is simply because we really don't understand what dam chimud
>really is.

Here I tend to disagree. What we really don't understand is the full
reason why the Sages decreed the seven days of _tumah_ following the
acceptance of marriage by the woman. One of the _poskim_ with whom I
studied said that many of the reasons give in the Gemorah for various
_gezeiros_ do not reflect the variety of reasons -- halachic, social,
historic, and psychologic -- that went into their decision. For
considerations that we don't know, or ever will, they didn't want to give
their entire panorama of reasons and the Talmud presents only one, the
standard, or formal, reason -- which often "doesn't make much sense." Our
responsibility is to follow the _gezeira_ and not delve too deeply into
the formal reason, as we have no right to extend _gezeiros_ or modify
them. In addition, the formal reason may not have been the most important
of the variety of considerations on which they based their decision, which
the Sages felt were better left unsaid.

Ezra Tepper <[email protected]>




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 54


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Lag B'Omer Practices
             [Gordon Berkley]
        Proposal For Daf-Yomi Mailing List
             [Yosef Branse]
        Reshus Harabbim Deoraisa ("Public" Place)
             [Zev Kesselman]
        Wearing a Watch on Shabbos (2)
             [Justin M. Hornstein, David Seth Green]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 May 92 18:13:19 EDT
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <[email protected]>
Subject: Administrivia


Mea Culpa (or Hatati, Auviti etc.) on the Re: Drop me from the list
message that went out. To those that feared that I was dropping them,
put your mind at ease. I used the Reply feature of my mailer and because
the way mail sent to [email protected] is forwarded to me,
reply sends to all of you. I will try and be more careful in the future.
If you are sending mail that you think I will be replying to, the
addresses on the bottom are prefered, but mail-jewish and mljewish, both
 @israel.nysernet.org will also get to me.

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 May 92 15:33:15 -0400
From: [email protected] (Gordon Berkley)
Subject: Lag B'Omer Practices

Every year I have a problem with Lag B'Omer:  According to every source
I have checked (Kitzur, Mishna Brura, etc., ) the chumrot of sfira extend
until the *day* of Lag B'Omer.  However, all of the *celebrations*
(i.e., bonfires) are on the night before.  Noone has been able to resolve
this contradiction to explain why these celebrations are allowed.

Any thoughts?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 May 92 02:23:30 -0400
From: [email protected] (Yosef Branse)
Subject: Proposal For Daf-Yomi Mailing List

Call for discussion: Daf Yomi mailing list.
I'd like to sound out the Internet "velt" about the desirability
of setting up a mailing list devoted to Daf Yomi (the 
program of Gemara study in which a single page of Talmud Bavli is
studied every day, leading to completion of the whole Gemara 
in 7+ years.)
I'm running it up the MAIL.JEWISH flagpole, and if it doesn't get
shot down, I'll submit the idea to a wider audience.
I have in mind  a forum for such topics as the following:
1) queries/explanations regarding difficult passages in current 
   dappim
2) chiddushim (novellae), interesting insights, and other comments 
   based on current dappim
3) exchange of information regarding locations and times of shiurim
   (e.g., "I'm going to Riyadh on business next week. Where is there
    a Daf Yomi shiur?")
4) evaluation of and updates regarding learning aids, such 
   as translations (Soncino, Artscroll, Steinsaltz), review publications, 
   Dial-a-Daf, taped shiurim, etc. 
5) information about offshoots of Daf Yomi - such as the Halacha/Mishna
   Yomit, or the Amud Yomi
6) hadranim  given at the conclusion of learning a masechta
7) historical, biographical and anecdotal material relating to Daf Yomi
   and its devotees     

The above are just possibilities, which could be modified or expanded
according to the interests of participants.

If there is sufficient enthusiasm to set up a group, other "meta" 
issues would need to be addressed, such as:

1) a moderated or unmoderated group?
2) free form, or digest?
3) frequency of appearance - it seems to me that in light of the rapid
   flow of Daf Yomi, it would need to appear at least weekly 

My boss has agreed in principle to allow storage space on our system, 
if no other locations are available.

I suggest that, rather than clogging MAIL.JEWISH with discussion of
this proposal, anyone interested contact me directly: [email protected],
and I will collate the responses. 

Also, any advice on the technical end of setting up and maintaining a 
project like this would be welcome, as I have no prior experience.

Yosef (Jody) Branse             University of Haifa Library    
                                Mt. Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel
Israeli U. DECNET: HAIFAL::JODY  Internet/ILAN:     [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 May 92 09:00 JST
From: Zev Kesselman <ZEV%[email protected]>
Subject: Reshus Harabbim Deoraisa ("Public" Place)

	David Ofsevit revived the thread of reshut-harabbim deoraita
(600,000 people per day) as being an unreasonable number for normal
highway use, and therefore

>>              What possible significance can 600,000 have?  (Maybe
>>it has something to do with the number of males enumerated in the Torah,
>>following the Exodus?)

	Allow me to add my confusion.

	I'll buy the 600,000 part;  I'd like to understand where the
"per unit time" came from.  If you tell me "600,000" clumped together
at any moment, then I get it.  If you tell me "per 40 years", then I
get that, too (though every eruv around would then be up the crick!).
How does "per diem" get into it?

				Zev Kesselman - Zev@Hadassah


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 92 17:22:19 EDT
From: Justin M. Hornstein <violin!jmh>
Subject: Wearing a Watch on Shabbos

There has been an undercurrent in the discussion on wearing wristwatches
on Shabbat that there may be something inherently inappropriate about
wearing a timepiece on Shabbat. I have not consulted any of the 
authorities mentioned in M.J; my comments are based on items I learned
a while ago.

I think the issue of whether one should/shouldn't wear one centers on an
individual's perception of it being appropriate to the Shabbat aura
the person develops for him/herself (Does knowing the time incline the
person to a weekday attitude, etc.). Once this has been assessed, the
issue of wearing a watch reduces to basic considerations of any item one
physically handles on Shabbat, namely:

	a) It is something prepared before Shabbat that has a use on
	Shabbat.

	b) If worn in reshut harabim (public domain) it duly constitues
	a garment.

The halachic readout I remember on this was that wearing any running watch
on Shabbat, in any domain, was fine. I even recall that winding a running
(manual) watch, or wearing a self-winding watch did not present a problem.
All this is due to it being functional, and none of the manual activities
constituting preparation or melachah (prohibited actions).

In the event that the watch stops, I believe you have instant muktzeh
(inappropriate Shabbat item) on your person. Now, the basic notion of
an item that is muktzeh is that it may be touched, but not moved. I do
not know how this applies to a stopped watch (take off/leave). However,
I do believe that having precious metal/stone in it may mitigate the
muktzeh matter even if it stops.

As with all these discussions, consultation with your Posek is a must.

					Justin M. Hornstein

					[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 May 92 07:51:46 -0400
From: [email protected] (David Seth Green)
Subject: Re: Wearing a Watch on Shabbos


It seems to me, with my limited knoweldge, that either one can or can't
wear a watch on Shabbos.  The descriptor of "fancy" doesn't make much
sense to me.  What I may consider fancy, you may consider plain.  Is
"fancy" dependent on cost?  Are fancy watches only Rolex and above?  Are
fancy watches only those that the average person would say "That's a
real nice watch you got there..." ?

I can understand that you may have a designated watch that you only wear
on special occasions, but that may not qualify as a "fancy" watch?

Here is an example.  Let's say you have two watches.  One is a solid
gold Rolex that you wear everyday to work, but it is also a manual wind
watch.  For Shabbos, you have a quartz, battery operated Swatch (about
30 US dollars (retail)).  No doubt that the Rolex would be considered by
most to be fancier, however, the Swatch would probably have a real nice
design, and is not manual wind.

Which would be the Shabbos watch of those two!


David Seth Green




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 56


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        High Schools
             [Susan Slusky]
        Juifs en ANgers?
             [Josh Klein]
        Molock
             [Erela Brown]
        New Orleans
             [Zev Hochberg]
        Orthodox communities in NJ
             [Francine Storfer]
        Wearing a Watch on Shabbos (2)
             [rabinowitz,miriam, Yaakov Bendavid]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu May 14 10:00 EDT 1992
From: Susan Slusky <att!mhuxo!segs>
Subject: High Schools

My two eldest children are now seventh grade in a day school that
terminates in eighth grade. Thus, G-d willing, next year they apply to
and the year after they enter high school.  So I find myself intensely
interested in the subject of Jewish high schools. I and my husband are
products of public high schools and products of families that would
never have considered Jewish high schools, so we're making this up as we
go along. We are lucky enough to have a choice among several high
schools that run buses from our neighborhood, Highland Park/Edison, NJ,
but not so fortunate as to have one in the neighborhood. For those who
know the area, the high schools that run buses, and the approximate bus
travel time, one way, are:

1. Jewish Educational Center (boys only), Elizabeth - 45 min
2. Bruria HS (girls only), Elizabeth - 45 min
3. Yeshivah of Flatbush, Brooklyn - 1 hr 15 min
4. Hillel Academy, Ocean Twp - 1 hr
5. Solomon Schechter HS, West Orange - 1 hr

I am interested in opinions from y'all on how to choose a high school.
What should I look for when I get shown around one?  How much
consideration should the length of bus ride get? What's important? I'm
especially interested in the opinions of those of you who attended
Jewish high schools and those who have sent their own kids to such
schools and those who know something about the high schools I have
available.

Just to round out the discussion, the kids are boy and girl. They don't
particularly want to go to the same high school. They now attend a
Solomon Schechter elementary school but attended an Orthodox yeshiva
from kindergarten to 3rd grade. The switch was made for non-theological
reasons.

Thanks in advance,

Susan Slusky - att!mhuxo!segs

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 May 92 12:08 N
From: Josh Klein <VTFRST%[email protected]>
Subject: Juifs en ANgers?

I'll be in Angers, France (300 km southwest of Paris) the week of July
19-26.  Anybody know anything about yiddishkeit there or nearby? The
Jewish Travel Guide lists a shul, but no other contacts.

Josh Klein - VTFRST@Volcani

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 22:08:02 -0400
From: Erela Brown <[email protected]>
Subject: Molock


I'm searching for Talmud references to Molock (to verify an allusion in
Agnon's temol shilshom).  The Jewish encyclopedia claims that in Avoda
Zara such reference indicates that the image of the Molock had a dog's
face.  I looked up avoda zara but all I found there was the comparison
between the price of a dog and etnan (the price of a prostitute).  Can
any one help to clarify this?  

Thanks Erela Brown.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 May 92 23:01:44 -0400
From: Zev Hochberg <[email protected]>
Subject: New Orleans

Anyone have info on Shuls, Kosher food in New Orleans?  Please respond
by posting here, or directly to me.

Thanks, Zev Hochberg
        Internet: [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 May 92 10:32:16 PDT
From: [email protected] (Francine Storfer)
Subject: Orthodox communities in NJ

I will be moving to New Jersey at the end of June and will be looking
for a place to live.  Any recommendations about Orthodox communities
within a 30-45 minute drive of Union, NJ (next to Elizabeth), would be
most appreciated.  I'm interested in learning about the size, nature,
and demographics of the community and the hashkafa of the Rav.  Where
in the ideological spectrum of Orthodoxy is the community?  Are there
regular shiurim, and on what kinds of topics?  Are there single people
as well as couples and families?  etc. etc.

Thanks for your help!

Fran Storfer
[email protected]			[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 May 1992   9:11 EDT
From: [email protected] (rabinowitz,miriam)
Subject: Wearing a Watch on Shabbos

When I was in Stern College (many moons ago), I took a Hilchot Shabbat
class with Rabbi Tzvi Flaum.  We discussed the issue of watches on
Shabbat.  Now, it's been a while since then, and I haven't consulted my
old notes from the class, but I do recall a rationale for the
"Fancy-Non-Fancy" question.

(Please don't quote Rabbi Flaum on this.  This is how I remember it.
But like I said, it's been some time since I attended Stern.)

I believe the issue is as follows: If one is wearing a watch that is not
ornamental, but strictly for the use of telling time, then there is a
fear that if the watch stops working, the individual will remove it and
carry it.  However, if the watch is ornamental and would be worn by the
individual whether or not the watch is running, then there is no fear
that it might be removed and ultimately carried.

Exactly what is ornamental is a debatable issue.  I recall learning that
for women, any watch that is pretty or adds to an outfit etc. etc.
counts as ornamental, I guess because, typically, women wear
"tachshitim" (jewelry, adornments, etc.) that aren't necessarily gold
and silver - such as the plastic costume jewelry etc.  However, with
men, the boundaries for "tachshitim" is more narrow because typically,
the only kind of adornments that men wear are made of gold.  (OK.  There
are those that would argue that men wear tie tacks and tie clips and
cufflinks that are not gold.  The point is a good one.  However, in
general, men are more selective about the type of tachshitim they wear
than are women.  Certainly, we don't see many orthodox men wearing
plastic costume jewelry.  For more info on what constitutes a "tachsit",
consult your local rabbi.)

We were taught that in an area where there is no eruv, a woman could
wear an ornamental watch of any sort and a man could wear only a gold
watch (presumably b/c that was the only thing that would "count" as
ornamental for a man).  In an area where there was an eruv, watches
could be worn without a problem.

Miriam


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 00:58:11 -0400
From: [email protected] (Yaakov Bendavid)
Subject: Wearing a Watch on Shabbos


The explanation I heard from my high-school Rav was that there are two
issues:

1) Halachically, women are considered to wear jewelry as an integral
   part of their garment - does the concept of jewelry-as-garment apply
   to men?

2) If jewelry-as-garment applies to men, then is a wristwatch considered
   jewelry?  Here, the criterion given by my Rav was simple. If the
   watch did not work, would you wear it anyway? If you wear the watch
   strictly for function, you are carrying a timepiece. If you'd wear it
   even if it's broken, it's jewelry.

Yaakov BenDavid


[Similar Responses to the two above were received from:

 Amir Davidov <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Susannah Danishefsky)
sun!nsc!taux01.nsc.com!avi (Avi Bloch)
David Kaufmann <[email protected]>
Manny Lehman <[email protected]>

Remember, these discussions should be viewed as a way to learn about an
issue, not for an actual Psak Halacha (halachic decision). For that
purpose, please contact your local Rabbi, as always.

Your friendly Moderator]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 57


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Bracha on Coffee and Chocalate (2)
             [Rick Turkel, Francine Storfer]
        Eruv
             [Hillel Markowitz]
        Minhag and Nusach (3)
             [Marc Meisler, Hillel Markowitz, David Mitchell]
        Music and Sfira
             [Dov Samet]
        Remazim
             [Goldberg Moshe]
        Women and Hagbah
             [Prof. Aryeh Frimer]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 14:39:01 EDT
From: rmt51%[email protected] (Rick Turkel)
Subject: Bracha on Coffee and Chocalate

Shlomo Pick writes in m.j 3#55:

>                           ....  Assuming that my fellow townspeople
>are talmidei chachamim, and most of those that I know are, they are
>familiar with the problem of the bracha on coffee and chocalate, that
>the real bracha should be ha-eitz and only the minhag has it as shehakol.

Why should the bracha properly be ha-eitz?  True, both coffee and
chocolate are derived (in part) from seeds which grow on trees; however,
their form has been changed to such a degree that they no longer
resemble the original vegetable material from which they were prepared,
and therefore we make a shehakol.  In actual fact, the amount of
plant-derived material in a cup of coffee is certainly under 1% of its
volume, so what's his basis for saying the bracha should be ha-eitz?  If
it's just a matter of the flavoring then the bracha on orange soda
should also be ha-eitz!  There's more to the shehakol on coffee and
chocolate than simply an erroneous minhag.

        Rick Turkel   ([email protected])   ([email protected])

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 13:47:47 -0400
From: [email protected] (Francine Storfer)
Subject: Re: Bracha on Coffee and Chocalate

Shlomo Pick writes that the bracha on coffee and chocolate (which come
from "beans" that grow on trees) is borei pri ha-eitz, not shehakol
nih'yeh b'dvaro.  Wouldn't that only be true if one were to eat the
actual beans?  But since coffee and chocolate, as commonly consumed,
are altered forms of the original, isn't that part of why we say
shehakol?  Aren't these cases similar to saying ha-eitz over an
orange, and shehakol over a glass of orange juice, or borai pri
ha-adama over grain, but borai minei m'zonot over crackers?

Fran Storfer


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 14:46:56 -0400
From: [email protected] (Hillel Markowitz)
Subject: Re: Eruv

>    Hillel Markowitz was lucky that all the rabbis in Baltimore agreed.

Some people complained and refused to use the eruv.  For some reason,
they changed their minds when the wives had babies.  It seems the wives
insisted that the husbands had to baby sit on Shabbos.  Shortly
thereafter they joined the rest of the families out for a shabbos walk.
(:-).

Hillel Markowitz    [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 May 92 14:36 GMT
From: Marc Meisler <[email protected]>
Subject: Minhag and Nusach

I bought a book in Israel called "Yom Tov Sheni Kehilcahso" which
discusses among other things, what to do when you daven one nusach and
are in a shul where they daven another.  If you are the Shatz you are to
use the nusach of the shul.  If you are not, you are to use the nuscch
that you regularly use except for Kedushah with the congregation when
you are supposed to use the nusach of the shul.  I think the reason is
that Kedushah is like everybody davening in one voice.  I think this is
an answer to how people who daven nusach ashkenaz can "associate
themesleves" with groups that daven nusach Sepharad or Ari.  Here in
Boston a lot of people who are ashkenaz daven at the shul of the
Bostoner Rebbe and that is what they do.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 14:46:56 -0400
From: [email protected] (Hillel Markowitz)
Subject: Minhag and Nusach

I understand that if you are davening in a shul with a particular minhag
you are supposed to use the minhag of the kehillah.  This would
basically affect Kaddish, Kedushah and the Shliach Tzibbur as the rest
to yourself wouldn't be noticed.

Hillel Markowitz    [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 12:28:39 CST
From: David Mitchell <H7HR1001%[email protected]>
Subject: Minhag and Nusach

Dan Lerner asked if converts can choose customs (e.g., convert with an
ashkenzaic rabbi, but choose sephadic custom, say, of having kitniyot on
pesach).  I don't know the source, but a knowledgeable rabbi told me
that converts should (must?) follow the customs of the rabbi(s) they
converted with.

David Mitchell - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 May 92 16:49:54 -0400
From: Dov Samet <[email protected]>
Subject: Music and Sfira

Aryeh Frimer writes:

>          In Israel nealy all the Religious zionist communities I'm
>acquainted with set aside the laws of aveilut and listen to music, dance
>in the streets (EZRA and B'nai Akiva) YH eve and shave. Some do not

This seems to imply that listening to music is not allowed during the
sfira.  Is there any source for such a prohibition? Marrying and shaving
are the only things mentioned in the Sulchan Aruch.  (By the way, the
minhag not to marry can be traced back to the gaonic period while not
shaving is not mentioned until the 13th century and even then only in
Ashkenaz. Daniel Sperber, in Minhagey Israel, claims that this late
minhag is related (in some sources explicitly) to the Crusades
persecutions).  Indeed there is another minhag mentioned in the SA: not
to do any melacha after sunset. Did anybody hear of somone who is makpid
on this?

It is interesting to note that 'arutz 7' (a 'religeous' radio station in
Israel) broadcasts all kinds of music during the sfira.

Another question is what is 'music' halachicaly. (Note that it does not
have an equivalent word in either Hebrew or Aramaic). It is quite clear
that the type of music which is prohibited because of aveilut is one
that causes simcha. Thus for example, there is a general prohibition on
such music through the whole year due to aveilut on the churban (SA
siman 560. This siman plays amazingly minor role in the Orthodox society
nowdays). Moreover, simcha in these halachot refers to social behavior
and not to emotion. What is the din then of the Carnival of Animals by
Saint-Saens? Are we allowed to listen to it privately during aveilut, or
since it is funny we aren't. And im timtzi lomar we aren't, are we
allowed to listen to Beethoven's fifth symphony (certainly not funny) or
are we not, since we enjoy it spiritually. And im timtzi loamar we
aren't, are we allowed to listen to any of the atonal pieces of
Shceonberg?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 May 92 09:55:22 +0300
From: [email protected] (Goldberg Moshe)
Subject: Remazim

Three remazim (hidden meanings) from the same passage in Behar, the Torah
portion read this week (in Israel) or next (outside of Israel):

     Vayikrah 25 v. 13:
     Bishnat hayovel hazot tashuvu ish el ahuzato.
     In this Jubillee year each man shall return to his heritage.

(1) Kabalists used the word hazot as a hint to the year 5408 ("heh" for
    5000, and the numerical values of zot is 408).  During 5408, we were
    to wait for redemption (Jubilee year . . . each man shall return).
    This was approximately the year of the appearance of Shabtai Zvi,
    and I have seen conjecture that his initial acceptance was at least
    partly due to the remez in the passage.

(2) But alas Geula did not come in 5408.  However, the word "tashuvu"
    is spelled with one "vav", so that it adds up to 708.  The year
    (5)708 is 1948, when the State of Israel was proclaimed.

(3) And now we come to this year.  The word "bishnat" is made up of the
    letters "tav shin nun bet"--this year, (5) 752. I have no further
    comments on this remez.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 01:58:54 -0400
From: Prof. Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Women and Hagbah

     I am presently working on an extensive paper (for "Tradition") on
Women's Prayer Services. The Mishneh Berurah at the end of Orach Chayim
Siman 88 cites a custom that Menstruating women abstain from looking at
a Sefer Torah when it is raised for Hagbah. (I should note that Rav
Ovadya Yosef (Yabia Omer III) and The London Bet Din (L'Eyla Rosh
Hashana 1989) maintain that this custom may be disregarded). In a
post-script to Rabbi Mordechai Tendler's famous letter on Womens
Services he quotes his Grandfather, Rav Moshe Feinstein Zatsa"l to the
effect that this custom is no longer in practice.
    I would greatly appreciate if people would do an informal survey in
their communities and notify me whether this is indeed the case. Please
inform me whether the community is Modern Orthodox, Agudah, Haredi.
While these identifiers are very misleading they do give me some feeling
of where on the Hashkafic spectrum the community/synagogue lies.

                   Much Thanks for your assistance
                     Aryeh Frimer  -   F66235@BARILAN





----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 58


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Ibn Ezra on the Chumash (2)
             [Warren Burstein, Michael R. Stein]
        Kiddush (4)
             [Shlomo H. Pick, Bob Tannenbaum, Eli Turkel, Jeremy Nussbaum]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 7:22:35 EDT
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

Thanks to all you who sent me stuff about Kiddush. I've included most of
the stuff in this mailing, and I'll start getting to work on the sources
you have pointed out. I'll have a summary posting of my results after
Shavuot. 

One thing that may be useful is those people that put requests about
shul/kosher dining etc on the mailing list, if you get a bunch of
responses, try and put the info together, along with anything you learn
while you are out there, and send it to me. This information would then
be available for other people. Along the same lines, there is an effort
underway to revive the Kosher database that used to reside at gte.com.
This will be an automated email server that you send it the city name
and it responds with a list of kosher restaraunts in the area. If I hear
more about it, I will post the info here.

It looks like there are more jewish related email lists in the process
of being set up. As they finalize, I will give you the information here.

NOTE: The address for subscribing or signing off is:

  [email protected]

To sign off, send an email message from the account that you are
receiving mail.jewish at with the line:

signoff mail-jewish

To subscribe, send the message:

subscribe mail-jewish "Your Real Name Here"

I hope to be able to put together many of the shul practices responses
and it will be in one of the next two mailings, I hope. Lots of good
stuff coming in, I'll try and keep on top of it all.

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 May 92 02:28:48 -0400
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Ibn Ezra on the Chumash

I saw a Mossad Harav Kook version of the Ibn Ezra on Chumash, but it
looked very old and the owner of the book said he thinks it's out of
print. 

[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 May 92 17:23:37 CDT
From: [email protected] (Michael R. Stein)
Subject: Ibn Ezra on the Chumash

Most book stores in Chicago carry the Torah Chayyim of Mossad Harav Kook,
which is a new "Mikra'ot Gedolot" with the perushim from the editions of
the m'farshim published previously by them.  The Ibn Ezra is there, with
citations and footnotes (in fact, for Shmot there are *2* Ibn Ezra's, long
and short, which refers to the perushim, of course, not the person). All
the chumash except D'varim is available now.

One such store is Rosenblum's, 2906 W Devon,312/ 262-1700.

Michael R. Stein					  [email protected]
Department of Mathematics, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-2730

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 May 92 14:27 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Kiddush

See Beur Halackah of the Chafetz Chayim, 271, S.V. miyad (p. 90) of
standard Mishna Brura.
Shlomo

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 May 92 09:44:57 edt
From: Bob Tannenbaum <trumpet!bob>
Subject: Kiddush

This is discussed by
1. Orach Chaim 271 (Raish Eyin Aleph) paragraph 2 (Bet)
   The "Dagun MeRava" by R. Yechezkel Landau on the Shulchan Aruch
2. Also the "Hagaot R. Akiva Eiger" on the same spot

3. Also Gemora Brachot Daf 20 (cof) side B
   look in the Piskei HaRosh in the back of the Gemorra

The general synopsis of this is that since the husband had an original
obligation from the Torah, even though he has fulfilled that obligation,
we have the principle of Arvut (fellowship) so as long as anyone has an
obligation, everyone else in the fellowship keeps enough obligation to
allow them to do the Mitzva again for the other person.

So a person may make Kiddush many times for others as long as the others
have not heard Kiddush yet.

See Orach Chaim 273 (Raish Eyin Gimmel) which discusses making kiddush
more than once.

Note that this commonly applies to the mitzva of Shofar.

This information provided to me through the courtesy of my officemate
Chaim Straus.

Ezra Tanenbaum
(908)246-2896 home
(908)615-2899 work
[email protected] (att!trumpet!bob)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 92 17:04:16 EDT
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Kiddush

    I recently heard an extended shiur from Rabbi Burnstein, rabbi of
the Young Israel of Buffalo on this topic. If you want details try contacting
him, he seems to be very friendly. I can just relate some things that I
remember (sorry no sources).

1.  The Nodei Beyehuda claims (based on Rosh) that woman are not included
    in the rule of "arevut" and so a man cannot say a kiddush for his wife.
    Most achronim, e.g. Rabbi Akiva Eiger, Aruch Hasulchan disagree and
    explain the Rosh differently. It is too complicated to explain by email
    in a few sentences.

2.  There is a big disagreement what it takes to satisfy the requirement
    of "kiddush" from the torah on friday night. At one extreme some
    feel that merely saying shabbat shalom is enough. There are stories
    that the Chazon Ish would say shabbat shalom to nonreligious jews on
    shabbat so they would answer him in kind and so they would fulfill
    their Torah obligation. Others feel that one must mention the exodus
    from Eygpt and so the man does not meet his Torah obligation in
    Maariv since "yetziat mitzraim" is not mentioned in the friday night
    shemonei esrei (not in agreement with the Magen Avraham).

3.  As mentioned previously, the woman's obligation may only be rabbinical
    as she fulfills her Torah obligation by saying shabbat shalom or some
    other prayers. 

4.  The man's obligation may be from the Torah. Although in theory he can
    satisfy his obligation through Maariv once the rabbis instituted kiddush
    over wine that is the only acceptable way. Either this is part of the
    rabbinical enactment or else we assume that there was no intent to fulfil
    kiddush with Maariv since the man was going to say kiddush over wine later.

See also a long discussion of your problem in Aruch Hashulchan in
Orach Chaim 271  paragraphs 1-6.  If their is any desire I can
summarize what is there

Regards,
Eli Turkel

[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 May 92 13:39:17 -0400
From: [email protected] (Jeremy Nussbaum)
Subject: Re: Kiddush


The obligation in birkat hamazon has some of the same issues.  There
is a distinction made if you have eaten a small portion or if you have
eaten your fill; you may only be obligated d'rabanan if you haven't
eaten your fill.  Nonetheless, there is the notion that the rabbinic
obligation is of the same "class" as the Torah obligation, and either
one can fulfil the obligation of the other.  To a lesser extent, the
same issue arises with having a minor fulfil the obligation for an
older person, or having a woman fulfil the obligation for a man.
There is a question as to whether women have a Torah obligation in
birkat hamazon or not, and it is only fairly recently that it has been
universally agreed that men and women recite the exact same text for
birkat hamazon.  If there is interest in any of the above issues, I
can look them up at home and fill in the details and citations.






----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 59


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Bracha on Coffee, Chocolate and Orange Juice (3)
             [Shlomo H. Pick, [email protected], Hillel Markowitz]
        Juifs in Angers
             [Nicolas Rebibo]
        Portugal
             [Meylekh Viswanath]
        Questions on moving to Jerusalem
             [David Zucker]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 16:29 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Bracha on Coffee, Chocolate and Orange Juice


re: coffee and chocolate.  I refer you to the discussion in the Be'er
Heiteiv and Sha'arei Teshuva in Orach Chayim 202:19 (Here I admit that
once upon a time it was thought that these beans were ha'adama i.e.
probably kitniyot and not haeitz - and I apologize for the mistake in
the history, but the question of bracha is still there.)  The Be'er
Heitiv is referring to tea also and it should be ha'adama. Now let us
try to understand why: When drinking "mei silka" the bracha should be
haadama - and many posekim understand that as borcht, for although there
is a high percentage of water added, the vegetable is also used for
drinking and that is the normal or a normal way of consuming it so the
bracha is haadama.  Now what is the normal way of consuming for food the
tea leaf or the coffee bean?  Through a liquid form and in that sense it
is even better than mei silka which has two equal ways - this has only
one major way.  Not many people in the western world chew coffee beans,
they brew them in water and drink them.  That is the normal way of tea
and coffee and hence their bracha should be haadama and haeitz
respectively. Therefore "medina yeas levarech borei pri haadama ela
shenahagu levareich shehakol" (quoted from the abovementioned Beer
Heitev) [According to the Law, one should make the b'racha of "borei pri
haadama", but the prevelant custom is to make the b'racha of "shehakol"
- Mod].  In Shaarei Teshuva chocolate is mentioned and once again the
impression is a question of custom to say shehakol.  What is the normal
way that the cocoa bean is consumed - in a chocolate bar.  Now with
natural coffee, especially on Pesach, the assumption is that it is pure.
With chocolate there are other ingrediants.  But now we also have the
problem of what is ikar [primary - Mod.] and what is tafeil [secondary -
Mod.]?  According to the price you pay and the normal intent you want
the chocolate and all the other things are there just to get it so
you'll like it or be able to eat it, so either it is the normal way
and/or everything else is tafeil to the ikkar which is the cocoa bean -
borei pri haeitz!  (Most orange soda is synthetic and hence shehakol).
I never said that it is an ERRONEOUS minhag, I just said that the minhag
was shehakol.  There is also a nafka minah lehalacha [practical halachik
implication - Mod.]: With bananas there is a custom I know of and
practice to make the bracha of haadama over them before i would eat an
apple, as the apple is vadai haeitz and the banana is safek and so if i
made a bracha on the apple, maybe i was already motzei the banana.  So i
make a haadama on the banana first with intent not to poteir the apple
and then the bracha on the apple.  Now assuming this custom is correct
and I have had it confirmed when drinking coffee with fruit here one
would certainly have to make the shehakol before the haeitz!  (Just
checked the banana with a local poseik and with the banana it is a
chumra bealma as it is most probably a haadama (and there is no need for
intent not to motzei the apple as on apples and watermelon the haadama
for the watermelon would not work for the apples) but with the coffee or
tea or chocolate it not just a chumra but medin that one must say the
shehakol first or elso the haeitz or haadama will be motzei the coffee
tea or chocolate.)  I hope i have clarified this point and i invite
questions or comments.  Once again one must start with the sugya in
brachot and work thru the posekim and understand how they understood
it.

Concerning orange juice: I think that there is some misconception on
your part concerning brachot.  The case of grain and crackers is
relevant as there the bracha changes for the better due to the greater
importance of the product, like from wheat to bread or grapes to wine.
In truth the yerushalmi says that since the natural product of grapes is
wine the real bracha should be haeitz but because wine changed for the
better and is important, so there is a special bracha for it, but one
conclusively sees that if wine was not so significant the real bracha
should be haeitz.  The same thing with orange juice.  The Chazon Ish
already stated that the bracha on orange juice produced from oranges
grown especially for juice should be haeitz.  Today since most oranges
are used for juice then each cup of orange juice should have a haeitz
and many people I know do make that bracha.  Once again the custom is to
make a shehakol.

Yours, Shlomo Pick

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 May 92 02:41:14 -0400
From: [email protected]
Subject: Bracha on Coffee, Chocolate and Orange Juice

The question of berachot is not simply the object, buts its primary use
as well. For example, many say the beracha on a raw onion is shehakol
and haadama is made on a cooked onion. Similarly, the argument is made
that oranges that are grown for juice should require shehakol when eaten
and haetz when "drunk"

As to the coffee, I had not heard the suggestion about haetz before, but
it makes sense in the above context, except for the issue of quantity,
as Rick points out.  It is probably true that in the mixture where the
haetz is a small amount, then shehakol is required.  i wonder about the
chocolate.

-mf

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 12:13:04 -0400
From: [email protected] (Hillel Markowitz)
Subject: Re: Bracha on Coffee, Chocolate and Orange Juice

I believe that there is a posek (the Chazon Ish) who does hold
that Orange Juice is indeed haaitz and tomato juice is indeed
ha'adamah.  Apparently the issue is what is the primary purpose
of growing the fruit.  Since the purpose is growing the fruit for
making the juice, the brochos would apply.  The Mishna Brura
speaks of some plants where the fruit is only eaten cooked so the
raw fruit has a brocho of shehakol and the cooked fruit is
haaitz.  Rabbi Kaganoff (Darchei Tzedek - Baltimore) gave an
example of Cauliflower which used to be eaten only cooked and is
now eaten raw (as served by caterers).  When it was only eaten
cooked the brocho on the raw frui was shehakol.  Now that people
normally eat the raw fruit Ha'adamah applies.  THis means that,
for example, raw green beans would be shehakol.

I asked Rabbi Kaganoff (of Darchei Tzedek in Baltimore) and he said that
the reasoning for coffee is like the case of beer mentioned in Tosfos.
The general rule is that a beverage is shehakol.  Tosfos points out that
otherwise beer would be mezonos.

Chocolate is probably considered shehakol because it is totally
liquified as part of the processing in making the final item and thus
loses its identity as a product of the cocoa bean.

Hillel Markowitz - [email protected] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 08:15:52 -0400
From: rebibo%[email protected] (Nicolas Rebibo)
Subject: Re: Juifs in Angers

There is a synagogue, tel: 41.87.48.10
The local Rabbi (?) is Samuel Marciano, tel: 41.88.20.05

There is a kosher department (Yarden products) in the Supermarket
"La Roseraie".

Hope this will help,

Nicolas Rebibo  -  Oce Graphics France
Internet: [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 18:49:01 -0400
From: [email protected] (Meylekh Viswanath)
Subject: Portugal

I will be in Lisbon, Portugal the last week of August.  Does somebody
know of facilities for obtaining kosher food in Lisbon?  Are there
orthodox shuls, is there an orthodox community?  Any help appreciated.
You can write me directly if you want ([email protected])
Meylekh.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 May 92  16:50:00 EDT
From: [email protected] (David Zucker)
Subject: Questions on moving to Jerusalem

My name is David Zucker. I currently work as a biostatistician for the
Natl Heart, Lung, & Blood Institute, NIH, in Bethesda, but I will be
leaving in September to take a teaching post in the Department of
Statistics at Hebrew U. I would like to get some help from people on the
network in regard to finding a suitable place to live in Yerushalayim or
the nearby suburbs.  In particular, I would like to live in neighborhood
that has a high concentration of "Anglo-Saxons" and a fairly strong
religious atmosphere (I don't mean really charedi, but good, solid frum
- i.e., sort of American yeshivish type).  I am especially interested in
Maalot Dafna or Ramot Eshkol within the city, but I am also interested
in hearing about areas of a similar character in the suburbs.

To give people some perspective, here are a few words about myself.  I
am 30 years old.  I am originally from Baltimore, but now live in Silver
Spring, MD.  I am going to get married in July to a girl named Janis
Foner, who is 27, lives in Baltimore, and is originally from Flatbush in
New York.  We both are baalei teshuva.

Any help that anybody can give us in terms of finding an apartment would
be tremendously appreciated.  I am interested in both general
suggestions and information about specific apartments that we could move
into in around mid-September.  Info on specific apartments would
naturally be especially welcome.  Responses should be sent to me
directly at [email protected] or ZDU@NIHCU.

With regards and many thanks, David Zucker



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 60


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Aliya Directory and Request for Help
             [Avrum Goodblat]
        Klitex - national database for immigrant scientists and engineers
             [Joseph van Zwaren]
        SVARA
             [HEUZZ%[email protected]]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 May 92 05:23:02 -0400
From: Avrum Goodblat <[email protected]>
Subject: Aliya Directory and Request for Help

There is a new directory under israel at israel.nysernet called
aliya. In the directory is a file called aliya.m which consists
of recents aliya newsletters and a form to fill out from the
Israel ministry of science.

Information and requests for listservers are beginning to pour in.
Chaim, Warren and I are completely backed up with work. Currently
I am spending half my time (at least) on learning and setting up the
software, answering questions, and putting up or organizing information.

It has been strongly suggested to me that since I cannot support myself
this way, I should stop - yet it is just due to me not spending enough
time that that mail loop went on for as long as it did.

A good part of our time is spent in explaining to people how to use
listserves, what Jem and israel.nysernet are about, etc etc etc.

We could therefore use a volunteer whose sole job would be to 
answer simple questions via email and write up FAQ's when necessary
This job would take about 10 hours a week. We would provide an account
on Israel.nysernet, and help you learn what is going on.

This would allow Chaim and myself to work on licensing, organizational,
and fund raising issues. We would be happy to try to work out some way
to do this in conjunction with academic study. 

HELP!!!!
Avrum ;-)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 92 16:31:26 IST
From: Joseph van Zwaren <JO%[email protected]>
Subject: Klitex - national database for immigrant scientists and engineers

  KLITEX - The National Information System for Professional Olim

For further information, please contact:
        Mrs Victoria Vaksman
        K L I T E X
        Ministry of Science and Technology
        VAKSMAN@ILNCRD   or: KLITEX, P.O.B. 18436, Jerusalem 91183,ISRAEL

1. KLITEX at the Ministry of Science and Technology has been set up to be
  a match making service to help scientists and academicians find work
  in Israel.

  In addition the KLITEX system was developed to help make use of the
  skill and experience among the new wave of immigration and to highlight
  opportunities for the technical and industrial development of this country.

  The KLITEX system is a network of databases residing in the various
  organisations dealing with the absorption of scientists and
  engineers. Including, the Aliya desks at the different universities,
  the professional associations, the voluntary organisations,
  government agencies, and last, but by no means least, industry. The
  central node of this network is the Ministry of Science and Technology.

  Through this network, an oleh inputs his/her resume at one of the
  organisations and the data is shared among all the other participant
  organisations. This parallel processing and sharing of information
  is the real strength of the KLITEX system. (JEM particpants interested in
  using this service are encouraged to request an empty KLITEX CV form
  from VAKSMAN@ILNCRD)

  All the organisations can simultaneously receive requests from
  employers who have positions available, and independantly pull out
  the list of eligible candidates from the entire pool of information.

2. KLITEX PROGRESS REPORT APRIL 1992
   ---------------------------------
   Total number of queries from employers to date:   771
   Total number of CV entries to date: 3070.
   Average number of queries received from employers daily: 6
   Estimated 500 to 600 applicants have found work through the system, written
   notification and thanks has been received from 320 applicants who found work
   through the system.


 3.     ALIYA IN SCIENCE Newsletter    ALIYA@TAUNIVM                 

 Over the next 5 years, between 5000 and 20000 Immigrant scientists  
 are expected to come to Israel. This wave of immigration is a       
 challenge to the Israeli academia. What role can Israeli academia   
 play to help absorb these new immigrants?  How can positions be     
 found for all these scientists, positions becoming of their skills  
 & at the same time which strengthen the Israeli research community. 
 Where will the funding come from? How can one best help with the    
 absorption of this wave of Aliya.                                   
                                                                     
          This newsletter  disseminates information relevant to      
 Aliya in  Israel, among those who are interested in the subject.    
 The newsletter distributes information on important meetings and    
 events. It give news on what is going on.                           
                                                                     
 This newsletter will NOT distribute C.V.s of OLIM scientists, but   
 will concentrate on policies affecting ALIYA. Please contact        
 the KLITEX system (VAKSMAN@ILNCRD)  and is accessible at            
 different universities, volunteer organizations and government      
 agencies.                                                           
 If you want to receive the newsletter, please send me your email    
 address and name to   VAKSMAN@ILNCRD                                
                                                                     
                    Victoria Vaksman      VAKSMAN@ILNCRD             
                    Ministry of Science and Technology               
                    POB 18195   Jerusalem 91181   Israel             
    Tel: 972 - 2 - 277661 FAX: 972 - 2- 820591  Telex: 26188 RECO IL 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 11:21:00 IST
From: HEUZZ%[email protected]
Subject: SVARA

       Announcing the appearence of:

       S'VARA - a Journal of Philosophy, Law and Judaism

       Vol. 2, Number 2

       Table of Contents:

         Avi Sagi -- Svara and the Concept of Torah

         David Ellenson -- The Other Side of Svara

         Perry Dane -- The Oral Law and the Jurisprudence of a Textless Text

         Adena Berkowitz -- Thinking About Women in Abortion Controversies

         Israel Knohl -- Between Cult and Morality: Theological Transitions
                                                               in the Torah

         Josef Stern -- Maimonides' Parable of Circumcision

         Lewis Barth -- Circumcision and the Unity of God: A Comment on
                                                                      Stern
         Ruth Anna Putnam -- Must We Mean What We Do?

         SYMPOSIUM ON PROZBUL

         Prozbul: Was Hillel True to Tradition?

         Pinchas Shiffman -- Prozbul and Legal Fiction

         David M. Gordis -- Prozbul and Poseq

         David Kraemer -- Prozbul and Rabbinic Power

       Excerpts from editor's forward:

       As articles published in our first two issues reveal, we are
    committed to bringing to bear S'vara - reason or reasonableness - -on an
    understanding of the Jewish tradition. In this project we are united
    with all Jews and indeed all friends of the Jewish tradition who are
    committed to understanding the authoritative texts in reasoned
    discourse.

       The twin commitments - to text and to reason - lie at the foundation
    of all branches of Judaism. We seek in these pages to provide a forum
    for all orthodox, conservative, reform, reconstructionist, and secular
    scholars who share these commitments. Remarkably, our vision is becoming
    reality. In this issue alone, we have contributions from at least three
    orthodox scholars, two who identify with the conservative branch, and
    two who teach in reform institutions. Among our secular contributors,
    some are well schooled in the sources and others, less so. In the spirit
    of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, we try to generate
    collaboration between secular philosophers and long-time students of
    Talmud. It turns out that we can all communicate with each other, argue
    with each other about the sources, and seek in the pages of "S'vara" to
    find a shared understanding of what Sinai means today.

       This issue continues our discussion of the meaning and significance
    of the concept of s'vara in the realm of halakhic discourse with
    contributions by Avi Sagi and David Ellenson. Perry Dane provides a
    broader context for the analysis of that concept, with his disquisition
    on the oral law as a textless text. Our respect for bringing reason to
    the written word is illustrated by Israel Knohl's theological insights
    into passages in Numbers and Leviticus. Maimonides' treatment of
    circumcision receives the same respectful analysis in the pieces by
    Josef Stern and Lewis Barth. In an article illustrating the eclectic
    philosophical spirit of our journal, Ruth Anna Putnam inquires about the
    meaning of our actions, both in secular life and in performing mitzvot.

       We also bring to your attention a standard feature of S'vara, - our
    symposium on a talmudic sugyah. We have chosen the topic of prozbul for
    this discussion, because it dramatically illustrates the spirit of
    reasoned innovation by those who respect the tradition, as the
    discussants Pinchas Shiffman, David Gordis, and David Kraemer
    demonstrate.

       Finally, I wish to underscore the contribution by Adena Berkowitz,
    for we hope that her argument about the halakhic approaches to abortion
    will provoke responses and stimulate contributions on other questions of
    contemporary impact. This article reflects our commitment to addressing
    questions that are at least as pressing as the problem of remitting
    debts in the time of Hillel.

         We have received unsolicited praise from many sources. The most
    gratifying is the comment by R. Emanual Rackman, chancellor of Bar Ilan
    University:
                      The new publication "S'vara"...[is] a very important
                   force for our day to counter the reactionary trend that
                   would alienate some of our finest thinkers and deny much
                   food for thought to serious students of Torah.
                   (- "Jewish Week", Dec. 27, '91)
       This kind of support is deeply appreciated. At this stage of our
    development, however, we need subscriptions as well as praise.

       For information regarding subscriptions contact:

       In Israel:     Zvi Zohar, E-mail address: HEUZZ@HUJIVM1
                                    Telephone  : 02 - 619419
                                          FAX  : 02 - 619706

       In North America: Robert Jystad,
                                   c/o: [email protected]
                                  Tel : 212 - 854 - 2743
                                  FAX : 212 - 854 - 2214



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 61


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Czechslovakia
             [Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund]
        Eating Kosher In Cleveland
             [Yosef Branse]
        Music and Sefira (3)
             [Eli Turkel, Ellen Spolsky, Aryeh Frimer]
        Shaving During Sefira
             [Sid Gordon]
        Shuls in San Carlos, California
             [Jeff Finger]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 May 92 16:02:39 -0400
From: sg04%[email protected] (Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund)
Subject: Re: Czechslovakia

I do not believe there is anything in Bratislava.

However, last November I was in Prague.  During the week the Alte-Neu
shul is part of a state museum and there are no services.  [Just lots of
German tourist looking at the exhibits about the dead Jewish race -
which is what they were planning to turn this shul into].

Friday night they get control back and there are three minyans (Maariv,
Shachrit, Mincha).  About 40 mostly elderly people attend, plus a few
scattered Isreali and American visitors.  There also might be a ~10 year
old boy whose father is studying to become the next chief Rabbi of
Prague.

The restaurant next store at the Jewish center states that it has kosher
food, however, I was informed before I went that I would not find the
standards sufficient to be able to eat there.  I brought a lot of tuna
fish, dry fruit, and freeze dried vacuum-packed meat that stayed fresh
for 2 weeks without refrigeration. I survived on Czech beer (Budvar
(Budweiser) & Pilsen) which is superb!

Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund		 		  [email protected]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA			    harvard!bunny!sgutfreund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 May 92 01:21:33 -0400
From: [email protected] (Yosef Branse)
Subject: Eating Kosher In Cleveland

My wife, a Cleveland native, recommends several local eateries.  Some
are run by her cousins, but I won't tell you which ones in case your
tastes are different from hers.  (She hasn't been to Cleveland for a
quite some time, so some of this information may be a bit out of date.)
A number of places are located on South Taylor Road, a major Jewish
area. These include:

1) Kineret Pizza Restaurant. (Try the eggplant)
2) Peh [Hebrew letter] - King. There are 2-3 of these, all 
   at different spots on South Taylor Road, all under different
   kashrus supervision. You pays your money and you takes your
   choice.
3) Unger's Bakery.  "Wonderful, delicious, yummy breads" and a
   large selection of take out foods : cheese, canned goods, 
   gefilte fish, kugel, frozen pizza, etc.

Also: there is (or was in 1984 when we visited Cleveland) a 
student-type kosher hangout at Case Western Reserve University.

You would do well to call the Telshe Yeshiva - they could probably
give you uptodate information on eating places, kashrus supervision,
etc., or refer you to someone knowledgeable.

B'teavon!

Yosef (Jody) Branse             University of Haifa Library
Internet/ILAN:     [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 09:06:14 EDT
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Music and Sefira

     Dov samet writes that in Israel 'arutz 7' broadcasts all kinds of
music. At least in previous years they did not broadcast dance type
music during sefira. If anyone knows I am curious who actually runs
'arutz 7' and if they have any rabbis they go to for questions.

    Rabbi Feinstein does not allow the use of music during shiva.
However, this is part of a responsa in which he in general disapproves
of listening to music. Almost parenthethically he adds at least not
during sefira.  I have seen other responsa that allow music if it is
needed for ones livelihood. I was once asked a question by an ameteur
musician who had a concert he was supposed to particpate in during
sefira whether he was allowed since he was not doing this for money. If
any one has heard of similar questions I would be interested.

    I know of many people that do not go out publically to hear music,
e.g. concerts, movies, etc. but do listen to music at home or in the
car.  This is connected to the concept that there is greater joy if a
group of people are doing something together ` simchas meireus'

[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 09:03:44 -0400
From: Ellen Spolsky <F24084%[email protected]>
Subject: Music and Sefira

Aryeh Frimer mentions a problem that has bothered me for a while?  The
shulchan aruch does mention an issur on music because of aveilut
[mourning - Mod.] for the churban [destruction of the Temple - Mod.].
Even if this is only music connected to simcha (and I have heard also
that it may apply only to live music) how do we justify the almost total
disregard for this halacha, even in in the most makpid [careful, i.e. of
halacha - Mod. ] of circles?  I know of no one who would not go to an
ordinary concert (assuming no problem of kol Isha, etc.) for this
reason.
    Also, has anyone heard of a source for the minhag of not listening
to music or participating in any sort of public festivities (besides
weddings which is mentioned in the shulchan Aruch) during sfira?  This
is very widespread but I do not know of any halachic source for it.
Josh Amaru

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 92 03:25:09 -0400
From: Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Music and Sefira

    I was "unofficially" challenged by Dov Samet to cite sources on the
custom of not listening to music during Sefira. So here is a list of top
Poskim who discuss this Minhag:

Pri Megadim O.H. 551 (equates music to Dancing)
Igrot Moshe (Feistein) O.H. I:166; O.H. III:87; Y.D. II:137
Minchat Yitzchak (Weiss) I: 111
Kinyan Torah (Horowitz) II: 99
Yechaveh Da'at (Yosef) III: 30
Tsits Eliezer (Waldenberg) XV:33

   I do remember seeing one of the poskim say that during sefira and the
three weeks soft background music is permitted. I also heard that there
is a tradition in the Soloveitchik home permitting soft and classical
music in private. Others permit listening to a TV program even if there
is music if the music is only background, moodsetting but not central -
as it would be in a musical, opera, ballet etc. But I have found no one
who permits listening to Lively chassidic and ("lehavdil") rock.
  On Reshet 7, they discussed their playing music as a matter of
Parnassah (making a living, which is permitted) - but I am astounded at
the programs both on Reshet 7 and Reshet Aleph which play Chassidic
music and are geared to the orthodox and Charedi communities.
                    Happy Lag La'Omer (sic!)
                                 Aryeh


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 14:32:28 MET DST
From: Sid Gordon <[email protected]>
Subject: Shaving During Sefira

Someone mentioned shuls that don't give an aliya to people who shave
during sfira.  Someone else wrote: "Marrying and shaving are the only
things mentioned in the Sulchan Aruch."  What I'd like to know is, what
is the source for *not shaving* as opposed to just not taking a haircut?
(Of course I'm talking about people who shave all year round with an
electric razor.)  In my copy of the Shulchan Aruch, and the relevant
Mishna Brura, the only word used is "l'histaper" which, at least in
modern Hebrew, means cutting hair.  Is this word, when used in halachic
literature, commonly accepted to mean shaving as well?  I know a lot of
people who shave during sfira but don't have their hair cut.  Is this
distinction in error?  By the way, on a side note, does the prohibition
on cutting hair apply to women as well, married and unmarried?

/sid

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 May 92 14:03:49 -0400
From: Jeff Finger <[email protected]>
Subject: Shuls in San Carlos, California

I am reasonably certain there are no Orthodox minyanim between Palo Alto
and San Francisco.

-- Jeff Finger --



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 62


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Shul Practices (8)
             [Eli Turkel, Shlomo H. Pick (x4), David Kaufmann,
             Isaac Balbin, Dov Green]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 May 92 13:05:15 EDT
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Shul Practices


     The major question in giving a person an aliya concerns an atheist.
If one does not believe in G-d than obviously his bracha is meaningless
his receiving an aliya is equally meaningless. In this case the
synagogue has not fulfilled its obligation of Torah reading on shabbat.
This situation is worse than in the time of the Gemara when the only the
first and last aliyot recited a bracha. 
    The application of this principal to individual cases can be debated.
However, to my knowledge poskim agree that certain extreme cases cannot
be given an aliya.

[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 17:00 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Shul Practices

David [Kaufmann]'s preface seems to correct, but then he gets to the
disqualification of heresy and here he admits that such a person should
not get an aliya.  Now this is a major point, and I guess maybe the
gammit of hilchot de'ot according to central or even modern orthodoxy
should be discussed.  Is one who denies tora mesinai a herectic or not?
Are the 13 articles by Maimonides binding today?  Avi, this will
problematic, it will determine Halachik attitudes towards conservative
clergy, not to mention reform, etc.  And then of course, my assumption
based upon many posekim is that a public sabbath desecrator is the
equivalent to a heretic, vis-a-vis cooking for him on Yom Tov, touching
wine, birchat kohanim, etc.  Is the same for aliyot.  And I am aware of
the disagreement of what constitutes a public sabbath desecrator.  Just
for your information, the late Chief Rabbi Herzog in a responsum said
that anyone hearing of a public protest against sabbath desecration,
cannot be regarded any longer as a tinok shenishba.

  Shabbat Shalom - Shlomo Pick

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 May 92 14:17 O
From: David Kaufmann  <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Shul Practices

You raise some good questions. My understanding (and I need to research
all this further to verify) is that denial of Torah miSinai is a chet,
but not heresy in the sense that accepting another religion is, that the
13 articles are indeed binding, that conservative & reform clergy have
no standing (hence the need, for example, for a conservative convert to
undergo hatafas dam & mikveh again, even if he & the conservative rabbi
are shomer Shabbos).

I'm certainly in no position to define a Shabbos desecrator, and whether
one falls into the category of tinok shenishba or a sinner because of
desire as opposed to principle (which puts them in different
categories). Many respectable rabbis and congregations allow those who
drive to shul to daven there; other places (Williamsburgh, I'd guess,
and places in Israel) don't. This may be a case where both are correct.

Thanks for sending this along. Feel free to repost my reply.

David Kaufmann
INTERNET:	[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 14:49 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Shul Practices

Warren [Burstein] refers to knowing many o rabbis who work at c shuls
because they like food on the table.  That is an issue in and for
itself, for does putting food on the table permit stealing, drug
dealing, gambling or fooling G-d?
 Indeed, I may be creating a chazaka that all or rov c rabbis are
Koferim, but the chazaka seems to be based on their own admition as I
have learned from their own conservative list.  But for the sake of
argument, let us talk about a c rabbi who is known by his writings as a
person who doen't believe in torah mesinai.  My question is not to the
layman, it is to the Rabbi of the Shul.  I am simply inquiring for the
sources of the practice.  The practice exists, now I want to know the
Halachic theory, not to cause a scandal or worse in the shul.  Re
non-sabbath observers - should they get aliyot?  As far as sefira is
concerned, I should have added, that the minhag hamakom is not to shave,
and the overwhelming majority do not subscribe to the heter.  As far as
shoes are concerned, 25 years ago there weren't that many fake leather
shoes.

  Shabbat Shalom, Shlomo Pick

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 16:51 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Shul Practices

Shalom, I found your [Bruce Krulwich] explanation of how these practices
came about fascinating.  It reminds me of the socio-economic
explanations used Profs. J. Katz and Haym Soloveitchik to explain the
minhagim of the Franco-German medieval centers.  There are fundamental
differences but the approach is similar.
 However, two points.  It is apparent that your explanation assumes the
practice was wrong but there were extenuating circumstances.  Since then
the custom has become "sanctified".  In any case, what rational can
be used now to explain what was once blatantly wrong.  Even if the
practice came about by mistake, one must halachikly justify, just as
the rishonim attempt to justify ancient obscure customs, like reading
shma in the evening service hours before sunset (ma'ariv).  And I am
looking for the halakhic explanation.

Shabbat Shalom, Shlomo Pick

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 15:04 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Shul Practices

[Reply to Isaac Balbin]

One major assumption of mine, is that by their own admition, there
is a chazaka that conservative rabbis do not believe in any tora
mesinai.  I would then assume that any individual c rabbi would then
have to prove he is not part of the rov or chazaka.  At any rate,
what is the case where it is known that he does not subscribe to
accepted Jewish tenets, he believes that G-d is dead, etc.?
Indeed, I know that things in Golus are grayer and hence I am looking
for sources.  And that's why I am writing to you.  Is it possible for
you to get exact sources for all those you have alluded to.  I am also
familiar with the problem of Yom Tov and cooking, and all your research
of many moons ago, I am interested in getting.

Yeyasher Kochacha, Shabbat Shalom - Shlomo Pick

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 May 92 08:42:17 +1000
From: [email protected] (Isaac Balbin)
Subject: Re: Shul Practices

If I remember correctly, you can find a list of Tshuvos (including
Binyan Tzion, Mahari Assad (and of course Minchas Elozor to the
contrary) in Sheorim Metzuyonim Behalocho. That was a good starting
point. Look up Mechallel Shabbos in the index.  As for particular
Sheilos in this regard, there definitely are Tshuvos in Igros Moshe (see
Yad Moshe, as a goood index for this)



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 May 92 08:51:44 IDT
From: [email protected] (Dov Green)
Subject: Shul Practices

Shlomo Pick asks:

>>> The second question, may be that either the rabbi doesn't want 
>>> to lose his job, or better yet, if you don't allow them, they'll 
>>> drive to a conservative temple anyways, so it is better that they 
>>> come to the orthodox one.  My question is: Is this sound 
>>> (halakhic thinking)?  Are there better heiterim?  Or is there
>>> opposition to these heiterim?

It is regarding questions like this that the gemora asks: Lama Li Kra,
Svara Hu ? ( Baba Kama 40b, Ketubot 22a ) What do you need a text, use
your common sense.

Let's say that no one disagrees that the Rabbi has to teach this fellow
that it's forbidden to drive to shule. The only question is whether the
Rabbi tells him *now*, and the beginning of this fellow's encounter with
Judaism, and this effectively becomes the last law the Rabbi gets to
teach the person.  Alternately, the Rabbi waits and tells him this at
some time in the future when the Rabbi understands ( and it is going to
be a very subjective determination ) that the person has already
absorbed enough and is ready to make a commitment.

In general, we have to get out of this business of condemming pepople
for what they believe. There is an excerpt from Baruch Halevi Epstein's
autobiography ( author of the Torah Temimah ) being circulated around.
In it, he takes the Chatam Sofer to task for calling Aharon Chorin (look
it up in your E.J. ) ACHER and he takes the leaders of German Orthodoxy
to task for calling Avraham Geiger AGaG. His comments are filled with a
lot of ahavat yisrael & common sense.

On the other side of the spectrum, Rabbi Eliezer Shach opened the spring
semester at Ponevitch Yeshiva with an invective against the Zionists.
The speech received wide coverage in the Israeli media. He said
something like, "They don't observe Shabbos ( Shabbat ), but they
observe Yom Haatzmous ( Yom Haatzmaut )."

Is he talking about people who some 50-90 years ago rebelled from
tradition, or is he talking about second and third generation Israelis (
and olim from Russia ) who have never seen or heard about a traditional
Shabbat ? Who's to blame for these kids not observing Shabbat ? What
analogy is there in their non-observance of rituals of which they are
unaware and insensitized, to their celebration of something as natural
as their national independence day.





----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 63


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Biblical Language Courses During the Summer
             [Gregory Bloomquist]
        The Global Jewish Database (The Responsa Project)
             [Uri Schild]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 May 92 11:30:57 EDT
From: Gregory Bloomquist <[email protected]>
Subject: Biblical Language Courses During the Summer

Saint Paul University / l'Universite Saint-Paul (in Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada) is considering a program to teach biblical and related languages
during the summer.  In order to do so, however, we wish to build on what
is being done without competing with existing programs.

Accordingly, we would ask for your help in identifying existing courses
for the teaching of biblical and related languages during the summer.

EXISTING PROGRAMS: The recent Bulletin of the Council of Societies for
the Study of Religion listed the following courses in biblical languages
to be offered during the summer of 1992:

HEBREW (biblical)

LEVEL    PLACE                        DATES(92)          CREDITS     COST

  ?      Jewish Theo. Sem             May25-June25          ?          ?
         NYC                          June30-July30

  ?     Princeton Theo. Sem.          June 8-July31         6         1380
         Princeton, NJ

Basic    Wesley Theo. Sem.            June 22-July31        6          ?
         Washington, DC


GREEK (biblical):

LEVEL    PLACE                        DATES(92)          CREDITS     COST

Basic    Cen.Bapt.Theo.Sem.           June 1-25             3         390
         Kansas City

  ?     Princeton Theo. Sem.          June8-July31          6        1380
         Princeton, NJ

Basic    Wesley Theo. Sem.            June22-July31         6          ?
         Washington, DC

Basic    Providence College           June22-July31         ?          ?
         Providence, RI

(No non-US institutions are represented in the Bulletin's list.)

QUESTIONS: If you are able to do so, would you please respond briefly to
any or all of the following questions to the best of your ability?

(1) In addition to the schools listed above, what other schools offer
biblical and related language courses during the summer?  Are there any
in Canada?

(2) What language courses can or should be offered during the summer months?
    - biblical (e.g., Greek, Hebrew)
    - related, ancient (e.g., Latin, Aramaic, Coptic, Ugaritic)
    - modern, auxiliary languages (e.g., English, French, German)

(3) What is the best method for teaching these languages in the summer
(e.g., intensive, accelerated, inductive, etc.)?

(4) Who are the students who would likely come to such a program?

(5) What levels of languages should be taught (basic, advanced, BA
level, MA level, PhD level, etc.)?

(6) How many credits should one aim for (3 = 135 work hours incl.  max.
45 class hours; 6 = 270 work hours, incl. max. 90 class hours; 9 = 405
work hours, incl. max. 135 class hours; or some other configuration)?

(7) What would be the best part of the summer to offer such courses
(May, June, July, August) and why?

(8) What should the duration of the course be (three week, six week,
etc.)?

(9) What kind of tuition costs would students be willing to pay?

(10) Would there be a problem in offering the courses in an institution
that was not the student's home institution and having them accredited
at the student's home institution?

(11) Are there compelling reasons that can be suggested why one should
offer such summer courses?  Are there compeeling reasons why one should
*not* offer such summer courses?

Please send all responses to me personally, rather than to the list
where you read this.  If there is interest, I shall keep those
individuals who contact me informed about the progress of my findings.

Thanks very much for your time and for any and all help.

Greetings.

L. Gregory Bloomquist
Saint Paul University / University of Ottawa

         BITNET: GBLOOMQ@UOTTAWA
         Internet: [email protected]
         S-Mail: 223 Main St., Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 1C4 CANADA
         Voice:  (613) 782-3027 / 236-1393
         FAX:    (613) 567-2959 / 782-3005


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 May 92 12:09:52 -0400
From: [email protected] (Uri Schild)
Subject: The Global Jewish Database (The Responsa Project)


                         BAR-ILAN UNIVERSITY
                The Global Jewish Database (The Responsa Project)


     Bar-Ilan University has completed the transfer of its Global Jewish
Database to CD-ROM and developed an advanced retrieval program which runs 
on a PC.

This is the largest Jewish database in existence in the world and is of
interest to researchers, rabbis, scholars, students, etc.

We have created two CD-ROMs:

The "Taklit-Torah", which contains the following books - Tanach, Midrash,
Babylonian Talmud with Rashi's Commentary, Jerusalemite Talmud and Rambam. 

The "Taklit-Shoot", which contains the following books - Tanach, Midrash,
Babylonian Talmud with Rashi's Commentary, Rambam and 253 books of Responsa
covering a period of over a 1000 years.

The Responsa Project at Bar-Ilan University is in the process of adding new 
texts to the database, to be included in future versions of the CD-ROMs.

The following equipment is needed to run the system:

*   IBM PC/AT (or above) or compatible machine, RAM memory of at least 2MB,
    hard disk with available memory of at least 7MB, floppy disk drive
    (1.2MB or 1.44MB), VGA monitor (recommended with color). No Hebrew ROM
    required.
*   Mouse (Microsoft compatible).
*   CD-ROM drive.
*   DOS operating system, version 5.0 or later (English or Hebrew version).
*   Windows 3.0 or later.
Optional equipment:
*   Printer (No Hebrew needed).

We supply the following items:

*   CD-ROM containing database and retrieval program.
*   A diskette with additional program files.
*   Hebrew Alphabet stickers.

About the software:

*   Retrieval according to words, combinations of words, expressions, etc.
*   Metric conditions relating to words, sentences, paragraphs and
    documents.
*   A unique LINGUISTIC component for complete analysis of Hebrew - the search
    finds documents containing any syntactic form of a given word.
*   With one keystroke it is possible to survey, search and retrieve almost
    immediately sources relating to any wanted subject: legal precedents,
    different opinions relating to Halacha and jewish tradition.

Information about the system may be obtained in North- and South-America from:

Ofrer Inc.
1 Executive Dr.
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Tel: 201-947-5090
Fax: 201-947-1780 / 516-295-4196
e-mail: [email protected]

In the rest of the world (including Israel):

The Responsa Project
Bar-Ilan University
Ramat-Gan 52900
Israel
Tel: 972-3-5318411 (24 hours)
Fax: 972-3-344-622
e-mail: [email protected]

Support:

Our American representative, Mr. Aaron Lapid, is the former head of our 
software team and is eminently qualified for solving any problem that may
arise locally.

Additional support will of course be given by our Israeli development team.

Inquiries may be addressed to any of the above mentioned parties.

Bar-Ilan University is a non-profit organization. However, the services
described above are not free. The income received is exclusively devoted to
further development of the retrieval program and additions to the database.






----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 64


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Are We Ready to Cut-off Assimilated Jews
             [[email protected]]
        Chumrot
             [Shlomo H. Pick]
        Doorknobs
             [israel]
        Pesach, Chumrot, Bnei Barak
             [Yosef Branse]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 May 92 11:03:24 -0400
From: [email protected]
Subject: Are We Ready to Cut-off Assimilated Jews

I don't have the reference handy, but Shlomo [Pick] recently
asked some "Questions on Shul Practices".  He wondered why some
(most?) shuls give aliyot to guests who do not believe in the Divinity
of the Torah (conservative rabbis or others).

In response to this (and some other similar questions) Dov (Bruce)
Krulwich ([email protected]) in mail.jewish Digest Vol. 3 #51
wrote:

> ... pre-WW2 American Orthodoxy was having severe problems with
>assimilation ...  This resulted in "American Orthodoxy" adopting some
>leniencies that authorities of the time deemed necessary but which
>now exist largely for historical reasons.  ... it's crucial (IMVHO)
>to recognize positions that were taken for reasons that no longer
>apply and to make sure that our practice is in accordance with
>halacha.  Unfortunately it's very hard to stop a practice that's in
>place, and Shlomo's examples may very well fall into that category.
>Other examples exist in regards to Kashrus.

Is Dov claiming that assimilation is no longer a problem?  Is it ok to
deny an aliya to an assimilated Jew, even if he has a chiuv,
embarrassing him by implying he is not a Jew?  I don't think so.

The crux of this issue seems to be the halachik status of assimilated
Jews.  I don't think that now is a time to be cruel and break off
Orthodoxy from the rest of the Jewish People by calling assimilated
Jews "non-Jews".  Instead we should be loving, caring, and show
respect for our brothers -- that is the only way to bring us and them
closer to G-d and Torah.

Dov's kashrut analogy doesn't work for me.  The kashrut leniencies
made life easier for halachik Jews in a hostile environment.
Now-a-days it is easy to obtain kosher food and the leniencies are not
so useful.  The shul practice leniencies, if they really are
leniencies at all, still enable assimilated Jews to participate in a
halachik environment which, IMHO, is a desirable thing.

Steve Gale - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 14:12 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Chumrot

Shalom,

Although R. Tam's remarks about custom is well known, i.e. minhag
reversed is gehenem, still one should exer- cise great care in
criticizing them.  To wit, I refer to Shulchan Aruch, 442:6 (Orach
Chayim): "[People] have the custom to scrape the walls and chairs that
have touched chametz, and there is a basis for this custom..."  The
Saintly Chafetz Chayim comments (no. 28): "i.e.  one should not make fun
of this custom to say it is a foolish one or an extraordinary stringent
practice, but it has some basis from the Yerushalmi..."  The point is
that one should investigate and then comment - I hope I can practice
what I preach. 

 Shabbat Shalom Shlomo

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue May 19 12:06:37 EDT 1992
From: israel
Subject: Doorknobs

It seems to me that the entire doorknob 'controversy' certainly helps us
gain a better understanding of the statement in Pirkei Avot - A'seh
Lecha Rav - choose (literally:make) a Rabbi for yourself.  Certainly we
would not dreide those who follow chumrot - if they were the result of a
p'sak by a recognized Rav - just because they could have gotten a p'sak
l'kulah from some other Rav. What we must strive for is consistency in
our acceptance of Rabbinic authority. The Gemara (I don't remember
where.. please give me some help) discusses the observance of Halacha by
followers of Beth Hillel & Beth Shammai in areas where they differ prior
to the time of a P'sak that became binding on all of K'lal Yisrael. The
Gemara concludes that one could have followed either B.H. or B.S. as
long as one was consistent in this application. One who followed only
the Kulot of both Yeshivot met with the disapproval of the Gemara while
one who followed both chumrot is called a fool. In conclusion, we must
strive to learn Halacha and find a Rav whose p'sak we are willing to
abide by and who we will not be afraid to ask our questions, no matter
how trivial they seem to us. (This assumes that we choose a Rabbi who is
understanding of our situation & has the patience of Hillel to reassure
us that no questions are too trivial to be answered properly.)

Aaron Israel
[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 01:56:03 -0400
From: [email protected] (Yosef Branse)
Subject: Pesach, Chumrot, Bnei Barak

The ongoing discussion of chumrot, with its recent commentary regarding
Bnei Barak, brings to mind two incidents - one quite recent, another
from many years past.

Shortly before Pesach this year, a friend of my wife dropped by to
visit. She asked me if I could clarify something she'd been told at work
by her nonreligious colleagues.  They claimed to have seen a newspaper
report that the Rabbinate orders dairy farms to stop giving cows feed
containing chametz two months before Pesach. They were full of scorn for
this, seeing in it a ridiculous "chumrah" - apparently interpreting it
as a concern lest the chametz feed be transformed into chametz milk a
full two months later.  She was not well enough informed to be able to
answer them, and she asked me if I knew anything about this.
Fortunately, I had on hand a book called "Chametz Mashehu" by Rav Yoel
Schwartz, a slim book with a wealth of practical information on various
food and non-food items about which one needs to be concerned (or not)
during Pesach. I opened to the entry on "milk and milk products" and
read the following (my free translation from the Hebrew):

"In general, cattle feed contains a mixture of chametz. In Israel 
there are standing orders to replace the regular feed for feed without
a chametz admixture about TWO WEEKS [emphasis mine] before Pesach. In
case the feed is not replaced, there is a concern that the chametz 
will be mixed up with the milk, because on occasion the WORKERS' HANDS,
THE UDDERS AND THE UTENSILS [again, emphasis mine] are soiled with the
feed..."

There's more in this entry, but the part quoted is enough to demonstrate
the factual and, to me, very reasonable basis for the "chumrah".  The
lesson is to be wary of how ignorant or even hostile elements in the
communications media and the general public can generate and disseminate
inaccurate versions of Torah matters, in both halacha and hashkafa. It
also brought home the importance of knowing how to find the correct
information when the need arises - along the lines of "knowing what to
answer an epikores."

My second comment regards the point about the Bnei Barak tendency to
chumrot. Having lived in Bnei Barak for nearly two years after making
aliya, I can testify to the very "shtark" nature of the place and its
residents. But it is important to keep in mind that many of the people
who adopt "chumrot" in ritual matters are consistently "machmir" in
their dealings with other people, in business, social situations, etc.

I recall vividly one Shabbes morning in 1979. It was early winter, and
the skies threatened rain, so when I left for shul I carried a rolled-up
umbrella - not knowing at the time that umbrellas are muktzeh.  I
noticed some passersby giving me odd looks, which might have been
hostile, but nobody threw any rocks at me.  Then a young man, probably a
yeshiva bachur, came up and walked alongside me.  "Pardon me," he said
politely, "are you shomer Shabbes?" "Yes," I replied. "Well, you know,
an umbrella is muktzeh on Shabbes." No shouts, no intimidation -
"tochacha" as it should be. I accepted his offer to let me leave the
umbrella at his nearby home till the night.  I'm sure he could have
found grounds for insisting that I leave my umbrella in the street -
rather than carrying it the extra distance to his house - or for making
me feel like an ignoramus, but he chose the gentle approach, which may
have been opting for a chumrah in a matter of "beyn adam le-chavero."

The behavior of that bachur is also part of the Bnei Barak temperament,
and this should not be forgotten when one is tempted to look askance at
the "verfrummte" town.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 65


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Forgetfulness, Agnon and the Golden Calf
             [Bob Werman]
        Maimonides's Thirteen Principles
             [Steve Gross]
        Shira Trup (3)
             [Zev Hochberg, Yisrael Medad, Manny Lehman]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue,  26 May 92 16:06 +0300
From: Bob Werman <[email protected]>
Subject: Forgetfulness, Agnon and the Golden Calf

In Agnon's _Shira_, he states that forgetfulness is the result of the
Golden Calf.  Does anyone recognize this as a midrash?

Thanks.

Bob Werman - [email protected] - Jerusalem

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue,  26 May 92 
From: Steve Gross <att!homxc!sg>
Subject: Maimonides's Thirteen Principles

> David [Kaufmann]'s preface seems to correct, but then he gets to the
> disqualification of heresy and here he admits that such a person should
> not get an aliya.  Now this is a major point, and I guess maybe the
> gammit of hilchot de'ot according to central or even modern orthodoxy
> should be discussed.  Is one who denies tora mesinai a herectic or not?
> Are the 13 articles by Maimonides binding today?  Avi, this will
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You raise some good questions. My understanding (and I need to research
> all this further to verify) is that denial of Torah miSinai is a chet,
> but not heresy in the sense that accepting another religion is, that the
> 13 articles are indeed binding, that conservative & reform clergy have

  The above posters both mention Maimonides's Thirteen Principles, 
indicating that they are somehow "binding" on all Jews.  This is
a topic that has previously made rounds on the net, causing me
to do some research into the validity of this statement.  I'd like
to know if there are any sources that make the Thirteen Principles 
truly binding.

Let me quote Evelyn Garfiel, author of "Service of the Heart: A Guide
to the Jewish Prayerbook" (Jason Aronson, Inc., 1958, 1989).  Here
she is discussing the Yigdal prayer (pp 52-54):

  " In poetic form, it recites the 'Thirteen Creeds' of Maimonides,
   the 'Ani Ma'amin' (I believe) made familiar to this generation
   by the 'Song of the Warsaw Ghetto.'  It must be stated categori-
   cally that this 'Confession of Faith' as it has sometimes been
   called, has no legal, doctrinal standing in Judaism; that it is
   not, in any case, *the* Jewish creed.  It was written (in his
   Commentary to the Mishnah) by Maimonides when he was twenty-three
   years old, and he never referred to it again in all the rest of
   his writings.
    The need to formulate the Jewish religion in a clearly stated
   creed had apparently not been felt in the previous two millennia
   of its existence.  It was only in the late Middle Ages, when
   Aristotelian philosophy dominated the whole intellectual world,
   that Maimonides was impelled to try to set down the basic axioms
   of Judaism as he understood them, and in the light of the philo-
   sophy current in his day. [Like Moslems and Christians, Jews too]
   began to devise logically derived, clear-cut summaries of Jewish
   religious beliefs.  Maimonides was not the only Jewish philosopher
   who tried his hand at this kind of dogmatic formulation of Judaism.
   All during the 14th and 15th centuries, a number of fundamental
   Jewish Creeds were proposed by various Jewish thinkers.  Naturally,
   none of them agreed on the nature or number of the necessary be-
   liefs, since Judaism does not readily lend itself to doctrinaire
   oversimplification.
    During his lifetime and for many years afterward, Maimonides was
   bitterly opposed by many Rabbis.  They felt that something extraneous
   to the genuine Jewish tradition was being injected into it by this
   precipitation of Aristotelian philosophy and by these strange
   formulations of belief...Crescas, in some ways the most subtle and
   brilliant of the Jewish philosophers, Nachmanides (the Ramban),
   Abarbanel, and others all registered strong opposition to Maimon-
   ides Creeds.  Abarbanel's view is that "...it is a mistake to form-
   ulate the dogmas of Judaism...It was only by following the example
   of the non-Jewish scholars that Maimonides and others were induced
   to lay down dogmas."
    The Shulhan Arukh ... does not even mention the Thirteen Creeds.
   Someone - perhaps a printer, but no one knows exactly who - in-
   cluded the Creeds in an edition of the Prayer Book sometime after
   1400...
    A prospective convert to Judaism is not asked to accept these
   thirteen, or any others, creeds as a condition to conversion.  In
   fact, as Israel Abrahams puts it in his Companion to the Daily
   Prayer Book, "...no Jewish authority has ever practically employed
   these thirteen articles as a *test* of Judaism..."

Another excellent discussion is Rabbi Louis Jacobs's "Principles of
the Jewish Faith", a 470 page work (published by Jason Aronson, Inc.
1964,1988) that examines each one of Maimonides' articles in detail.
He also has a general introduction to creeds in Judaism, a historical
survey and general summary and conclusions.  References are liberally
given.  What Rabbi Jacobs is trying to do is to examine each one of
the 13 principles with a view to modern understanding and acceptance/
rejection.
  This work is too large to even begin summarizing points.  Suffice it
to say that Jacobs shows that there is not Jewish monolithic thought on
creeds, what they are, and whether Maimonides is definitive or not.
One interesting point I would like to mention;  in reviewing other
Jewish attempts to formulate creeds, Jacobs cites the Kabbalist
David ben Solomon Ibn Abi Zimra (c. 1479-1589) who, in a Responsa, cited
Abarbanel's "Rosh Amanah" by refusing to distinguish between parts of 
the Torah by speaking of them as 'principles' since, to him, the whole 
Torah is a 'principle.'

                               Steve Gross    (...att!homxc!sg)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 May 92 20:07:35 -0400
From: Zev Hochberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Shira Trup

In Vol 3.50,  Ben Svetitsky writes:

> I've never heard of using the Shira tune in the Torah reading of
> parashat Be-midbar.  I use it in Mas'ei, tying together the short verses
> in Num. 33.  And of course in Be-shalach, but only for (1) half-verses
> in the Shira that have the name of God in them, including v. 21 but not
> v. 19, and (2) the second half of 14:29 (but not 14:22).  Darned if I
> know why.

I have also not heard Shira trup in parashat Be-Midbar. However, Shira
trup is widely used in parshat Beha'alotcha, Be-Midbar 10:15-16, 19-20,
23-24, 26-27 (The *Al Tzva's*).  This seems similar to its use in
Mas'ei, for short, repetitive verses.

Does anyone know the pedigree of using shira trup for Be-Midbar 15:21,
Shirat Miryam? Is it a feminist influence? I've heard this in recent
years in _modern_ shuls - anyone familiar with the practice in shtiblech
and Yeshivas?  Note that the Shira apparently ends at the end of v.20,
as indicated by the return to normal typography, rather than the poetry
typography of the Shira.

Also, my recollection is that v. 17 does not get Shira trup, despite
including God's name.

Zev Hochberg   Internet: [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 May 92 15:21 IST
From: MEDAD%[email protected] (Yisrael Medad)
Subject: Shira Trup

The Baal Koreh of Shiloh, Rav Uriel Keising, formerly of Amsterdam,
informed me that he knows only of Chamishi in Be'haalotcha the reason
being that this is the first time in a year that Bnei Yisrael get up and
begin travelling again.

Yisrael Medad - <MEDAD@ILNCRD>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 07:57:58 -0400
From: Manny Lehman <[email protected]>
Subject: Shira Trup

Special Trop for Parshat Bamidbar. As far as I know that is a localised
Minhag not as wide spread as some of the others and certainly not
universal. There are, however, 2 other places in Sefer Bamidbar that ar
more widespread particularly (but not only) amongst Nusach Ashkenas
communities and one other that is again more localised.

Beha'alotecha ch. 10 (14 - 16), (18 - 20), (22 - 24), (25 - 27) Masse'ey
ch 37 for each "vayiseu me'<x> vayachanu be'<y>" that is not extended by
any further detail eg. passuk 10 (if the Matot and Masse'ey are read as
one), 11 to 36, 41 to 46 etc. Finally we have the Shira Ali Be'er enu in
Chukat for which a special tune is used in some communities.

In addition we have of course Shirat Hayam in Beshalach which is
universal at least amongst Ashkenazim. Finally we have the passuk in
parshat Devarim, ch 1, 12, beginning "Eicha" always leined on Shabbat
Chazon (ie Shabbar before Tisha Be'av} to the tune of Megillat Eicha.
Incidentally the same Megillat Eich tune is also used in several places,
quoting from memory its 5, in Megillat Esther.

I know of no source it appears to be a long established Minhag and I
guess, but don't know, that it is the German Minhag Kehillot, ie Breurs
in Washington Heights NY, Golders Green Beth Hamidrash (Munks) in
London, presumably Chorev in Yerushalayim who put the greatest emphasis
of maintaining this Minhag. Chassidic communities on the other hand
largely ignore it. Sephardi and Temani communities??

Manny Lehman, Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, Londan SW7 2BZ,
[email protected]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 66


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Eruv
             [Morris Podolak]
        Evolution
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Havdala (3)
             [Benjamin Svetitsky, Jem Steinberg, Manny Lehman]
        Sefirah
             [Joshua Rapps]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 May 92 05:32:24 -0400
From: Morris Podolak <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Eruv

David Ofsevit asked:
> "one of the conditions for establishing an eruv that it not be in a place
> where "600,000 people cross it in one day."  This strikes me as a meaningless
> number, since I doubt there are many places in the world where that many
> people cross in a day.  I believe that a busy multilane highway is considered
> to be at capacity if 200,000 vehicles (300,000 people at usual average
> occupancy) use it in a day.  What possible significiance can 600,000 have?
> (Maybe it has something to do with the number of males enumerated in the
> Torah, following the Exodus?)

The fact is that all of the major actions that are forbidden on shabbat
are derived from those actions used in building the tabernacle in the
desert.  One of the prohibited actions was carrying in a public domain.
It follows, therefore, that the camp of the Jews in the desert, where
the tabernacle was erected, was a public domain.  Since there were at
least 600,000 people present, there are some authorities who require at
least 600,000 people present before a street or other public place can
be considered a public domain.  Clearly this requirement makes it easier
to establish an eruv, since very few places are real public domains.
Indeed there is an opinion, often expressed in the halachic literature,
that today (after the era of the Jews in the desert) we have NO public
domains.  If you take away this requirement, then essentially any street
wider than about 8 meters is a public domain, and an eruv cannot be
established that would include it.  Although many authorities rule that
the 600,000 are not needed (i.e. they are strict about where an eruv can
be established), they admit that those who are lenient have a basis for
being lenient.  

Morris Podolak

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 May 92 08:12:58 -0400
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Evolution

Recently we have been witness to an advertising campaign for Pepsi-Cola
in Israel which featured the old cliche of an ape evolving into a
Pepsi-drinking Homo sapiens.  This evoked an angry response from some
religious circles, including the Badatz which has threatened to withhold
its hechsher from the product.  Now I DON'T want to reopen the issue of
which factors may influence kashrut certification.  I would, however,
like to know why these groups are so violently opposed to Darwinian
evolution theory, and how widespread these opinions are.

I learned years ago from Rav Soloveitchik that science is entitled to
its own methods for establishing truth, and that there are many ways to
resolve apparent contradictions between Torah and experimental fact.
Are there authoritative opinions that reject the latter entirely?

Ben Svetitsky    [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 May 92 16:03:31 -0400
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Havdala

Havdala at the end of Yom Tov, when the following day is a week day,
consists of wine and ha-mavdil only.  There is no candle, because
fire was not forbidden on Yom Tov anyway.  There are no spices, because
the spices are supposed to cushion the shock of the departure of the
neshama yetera [extra soul] which joins us on Shabbat, but not on Yom
Tov.

Ben Svetitsky    [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 May 92 07:40:34 -0400
From: Jem Steinberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Havdala

Mark Frydenberg asked about Havdala on Motzai Shabbat that falls on Yom
Tov.  Although a little late, I hope this helps for the future. The
order you gave was correct, to wit:

>1 light the festival candles ("l'hadlik  neyr  shel  yom tov")
>2 say the festival kiddush
>3 say "boray m'oray ha-aysh" and "ha-mavdil ben kodesh l'kodesh"
>4 say she-he-chiyanu

Instead of a Havdalah candle, the blessing is recited over the Yom Tov
candles themselves, since fire cannot be extinguished on Yom Tov, and
the Havdala candle would have to be allowed to burn out.

Blessing over spices: One reason offered for the blessing over the
spices is that a person is imbued with an "additional soul" on the
Sabbath, and the sweet-smelling spices are intended to comfort the
individual over the loss of the _neshama yeteira_.  Since there is no
_neshama yeteira_ on Yom Tov, no spices are needed.  When Yom Tov falls
on Saturday night, as it did this year, one also does not use spices,
since the upcoming Festive Yom Tov meals will provide comfort in place
of the spices (Mishna Berura, 491:3, see also Tosaphot on Pes. 102b and
Bei'a 33b.  See also Zohar at end of Tzav).

Rambam (Yad, Shab. 29:29) offers a more "rational" explanation, as is
his wont. "Since the soul grieves over the passing of the Sabbath, we
cheer it... with sweet smells" Assuming Rambam's om- ission of any
mention of the notion of _neshama yeteira_ is in- tentional, one may
explain that an individual mourns the loss of the Sabbath more than that
of Yom Tov (hence there is no need for spices at the end of Yom Tov),
but the onset of Yom Tov itself serves to ameliorate our sadness at the
departure of the Sabbath at least as much as smelling spices, as above.

Yehoshua (Jem) Steinberg



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 May 92 07:57:58 -0400
From: Manny Lehman <[email protected]>
Subject: Havdala

Havdalah on Motzai Shabbat which is Yom Tov. As already observed the
final Brachah is Lehavdil ben Kodesh leKodesh since the Kedushah of the
two days differ in a number of respects. In particular Shabbat involves
a Neshama Yetera (a special soul - however we wish to explain or
interpret that) Hence on Motzae Shabbat we use Bessamim - spices to
revive ourselves on losin thsat Neshama Yetera. On chag there is no
Neshama Yetero, hence Besammim are not used in Havdallah after YomTov as
no light is used since it is permitted to transfer flames from one
"device' to another ie from the gas to a candle though one must not
create a new fire ie strike a match, or extinguish a flame. When shabbat
runs into YomTov though the Neshama Yetera is presumably lost since we
are not going straight into the working week the shock is not as great,
hence besamim is not used. However there is a transition with regards to
the laws of fire hence we make the Bracha pf Me'ore Ha'esh. We always
had the Minnhag to use the candles that had in any case been lit by "the
lady of the House" and that makes sense since that will have been the
first thing to have been lit once Shabbat is over. Whether this is a
wide spread Minhag I don't know.

Manny Lehman, Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, Londan SW7 2BZ,
[email protected]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 May 92 23:34 EDT
From: [email protected] (Joshua Rapps)
Subject: Sefirah

I recall the Rav (R. J.B. Soloveitchik shelitah, who should have a
refuah shelaimah) saying that the following aveilut (mourning) periods
fell into the following categories:

sefirah, from 17 Tammuz to the end of Tammuz == aveilus of y'b chodesh
(the period of aveilut from the end of sheloshim, first 30 days of
mourning, till the conclusion of the year mourning period for a parent).
As far as shaving during sefirah, it was permitted when one reached a
state of goarin bo chaveirav, co-workers, friends notice and mention the
disheveled appearance, which would normally be after a few days.

Rosh Chodesh Av to 8 days in Av == The aveilus of sheloshim. Shaving and
haircuts are not permitted.

9 Av == shivah. Till Chatzot there are nihugim (actions) of aninut
(someone who is obligated to bury a relative which suspends the normal
every day routine of mitzvot till after the burial is complete) and the
first day of shivah which is Deorayssah. For instance, we do not put on
tefilin till after chatzot (mid-day). After Chatzot, Tisha B'Av assumes
the role of the latter days of shivah.

josh rapps - [email protected]




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 67


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Hallel on Yom Yerushalayim
             [Zev Kesselman]
        Maimonides's Thirteen Principles (2)
             [Shlomo H. Pick, David Kaufmann ]
        Music During Sefira:
             [Aryeh Frimer]
        New List: JU-DA - JUdaica and DAtabases
             [Uri Schild]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 May 92 10:25 JST
From: Zev Kesselman <ZEV%[email protected]>
Subject: Hallel on Yom Yerushalayim

>                                     The noted Rishon, Rabbi Menachem
>HaMeiri states explicitly that when a miracle of salvation occurs to a
>community they should say Hallel BUT WITHOUT A BRACHA. ALL the Chief
>Rabbis of Israel, with the noted exception of Rabbi Goren, rule that
>Hallel Shalem should be recited without a benediction.

	That's a pretty blanket statement, given the widespread practice
of  ** yes **  saying the bracha on Yom Yerushalayim, as opposed to Yom
HaAtzmaut.  Can Aryeh qualify, or is his Y.Y. practice consistent with Y.A.?

Zev Kesselman  -  Zev@Hadassah

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 May 92 15:10 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Maimonides's Thirteen Principles

Concerning Maimonides 13 principles and the idea that he only wrote them
once, I refer Mr. Gross to the recent book by Menachem Kellner's Dogma
in Medieval Jewish Thought: From Maimonides to Abravanel (Oxford,
1986).  He clearly demonstrates that Maimonides repeated his principles
both in the mishneh torah and in the guide not to mention some of his
epistles.  Moreover, I can refer you to some writings by I. Twersky who
shows that in at least one area, Maimonides changed Talmudic law by
formulating some of his principles as part of the Halacha - see Hilchot
Issurei bee'ah 14:2 where they are part of the process of accepting
proselytes, something not mentioned in the talmud.  Certainly, upon
reading Kellner's book, one gets a different feeling of dogma than the
one Mr. Gross suggested.  Moreover, in about 94 poems formulating dogma,
they all follow Maimonides formulation.  And that brings me to another
idea.  These poems, including adon olam which formulates the 1st 5
principles, are all popularly accepted.  Now it would appear that there
seems to be some popular consensus of what is creed in judaism, as why
did the masses accept them?  I don't refer to modern conservative or
reform Jews who don't read hebrew or understand it, I am talking about
those who do, and it would appear that the masses seem to accept davka
the Maimonidean formulation and not any other.  Moreover, throughout the
Middle Ages throughout the modern age, some dogma was formulated,
usually differing with Maimonidies on points but not in the general
ideas.  I think Kellner's book is the most comprehensive and most
up-to-date, and his arguments appear to be persuasive.  

Yours, Shlomo

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 May 92 15:12:04 -0400
From: David Kaufmann  <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Maimonides's Thirteen Principles

>  The above posters both mention Maimonides's Thirteen Principles, 
>indicating that they are somehow "binding" on all Jews.  This is
>a topic that has previously made rounds on the net, causing me
>to do some research into the validity of this statement.  I'd like
>to know if there are any sources that make the Thirteen Principles 
>truly binding.

Evelyn Garfield is not the most authoritative source. While Maimonides
faced a great deal of criticism over many of his works (Mishneh Torah,
in particular) by the time of the Shulchan Aruch, he was considered
one of the three major codifiers until that time. The Thirteen
Principles ARE taught to converts, at least those converting according
to halacha. I know of no orthodox authority who disputes their currently
binding nature. In short, Garfield is wrong to state: has no legal,
doctrinal standing in Judaism; that it is
>   not, in any case, *the* Jewish creed. 

See, for instance, pp 278-9 for Lamm's Becoming A Jew.

>Another excellent discussion is Rabbi Louis Jacobs's "Principles of
>the Jewish Faith", a 470 page work (published by Jason Aronson, Inc.
>1964,1988) that examines each one of Maimonides' articles in detail.

Jacobs is another unreliable source. These "historical" examinations
must themselves be looked at critically, for too often they are
polemics justifying an author's viewpoint, frequently a rejection of
observance.

Past discussions of philosophies, systemizations, etc., do not tell us
how those discussions concluded. Although the Mishneh Torah, for
example, was burned at one point, no competent (orthodox) rabbi today
would question its legitimacy or authority.

David Kaufmann - INTERNET:	[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 May 92 02:52:56 -0400
From: Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Music During Sefira:

          This Morning (25 Iyar - May 28th), Agudat Yisrael/Degel
HaTorah began its Radio campaign for the upcoming Israeli elections.
Contrary to the other parties - and contrary to the Agudah's previous
election Campaigns -  there was no Agudah "Campaign Jingle". They closed
their pitch by noting that since it was sefira they were not going to
play music. I generally don't use the actions of political parties as
Halakhic proof for normative behavior in Judaism, but I thought that in
light of the previous discussion on Music during sefira - this tidbit
would be of interest.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 May 92 03:03:57 -0400
From: [email protected] (Uri Schild)
Subject: New List: JU-DA - JUdaica and DAtabases

                JU-DA  ++++++++++++  JUdaica and DAtabases

   I am happy to announce the establishment of a new discussion list
called JU-DA. As the name indicates the intention is to establish a
forum for all persons interested in the creation and use of databases in
Judaica.  Thus for example software for OCR (Optical Character
Recognition) in Hebrew, Information Retrieval in Hebrew, special
problems relating to Classical Hebrew and Aramaic are all subjects to be
dealt with in this new list.

   It is NOT the intention to consider topics already dealt with in
various other lists like ivritex, judaica, ioudaios etc. It is most
certainly not our aim to consider general topics in Judaism, the Middle
East political situation, etc. Commercial information relating
specifically to our selected topics is, however, welcome.

   As editor of the list I intend to publish the (moderated) messages in
a newsletter as often as the material warrants it. News relating to the
Responsa Project at Bar-Ilan University and its database will also be
supplied.

In order to subscribe to the discussion list, send an e-mail message to
[email protected] as follows:

SUB JU-DA <full name>

Messages should be sent to the following e-mail address:

[email protected]

Uri J. Schild
owner-editor of JU-DA




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 68


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Chumrah
             [David Zucker]
        Hot water on Shabbat
             [Rober Gordon]
        Music during Sefira (3)
             [Elie Rosenfeld, Prof. Aryeh Frimer, Dov Samet]
        Responses to my inquiry about high schools
             [Susan Slusky]
        Rochester Kosher
             [Dov Green]
        Shaving During Sefira
             [Shlomo H. Pick]
        Ultimate Issues
             [Steve Prensky]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 May 92  11:11:38 EDT
From: [email protected] (David Zucker)
Subject: Re: Chumrah

Re Aaron Israel's reference to the idea that one who follows the chumras
of both Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel is a fool, I believe this is stated
in the Gemara early on in Messeches Eruvin (ie someplace around Dapim
12-14).  I think I have seen it in at least one other place in Shas as
well.

David Zucker, Silver Spring MD, [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1992 11:22:57 CDT
From: Rober Gordon <[email protected]>
Subject: Hot water on Shabbat

Can anyone advise me as to the halachik basis for using or not using hot
water on Shabbat?  I am referring specifically to water heated in a
storage tank and then piped to a faucet.  For the sake of analysis,
assume that the heat source (e.g. gas flame) has been turned off.  It
seems to me that the reason for not using such water is that new water
entering the storage tank is heated by the water already present,
resulting in bishul.  On the other hand, one may argue that the new
water was in contact with the tank from the start, by analolgy with
mingling of rain water and other water in a mikve, and the bishul is
irrelevant.  Are there any poskim who would allow use of hot water under
the condition that I have described?  What is in fact normative practice
today?  References would be very helpful.

Robert Gordon

[This topic has been somewhat discussed in the 1990 mail.jewish
discussions, issues 126,135,136,138. The 1990 archive is available on
israel.nysernet.org for anonymous ftp in the directory
israel/mail-jewish in the file mj90. I will try and upload the Index
files there later today or tomorrow, and will let you know in the
following mail.jewish. - Moderator]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 May 92 09:19:48 -0400
From: Elie Rosenfeld <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Music during Sefira

When I was in Yeshiva University (1978-1985), the YU radio station
continued to broadcast music during sefira, with approval of the
Yeshiva.  The view relied upon was that the ban is on live music, as
opposed to taped/recorded music.  Which, IMHO, is really very logical;
having a band playing in front of you is clearly a quantum leap,
simcha-wise, from merely flipping a switch and putting on your radio.
Plus, at the time the ban was enacted, live music was obviously the only
kind there was, so there is no a priori assumption to include recorded
music.

Elie Rosenfeld

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 May 92 09:45:04 -0400
From: Prof. Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Music during Sefira

        A Talmid of the "Rov" (Rabbi Joseph B. Solovetchik), Rabbi Prof.
Shmuel Sprecher, said that the Rov commented in Shiur that Classical
music was not Assur. The reason is that that an Aveil is Prohibited in
Simcha (Joy) - not Hana'ah (pleasure). I know for a fact that Rabbi Prof
Chaim Soloveitchik Listened to classical music during Shana of his
Mother's passing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 May 92 07:52:07 -0400
From: Dov Samet <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Music during Sefira

Thanks to Arye Frimer for providing the list of sources concerning music
during sfira. I don't have all the books in hand so I looked up only
three of them. The astonishing fact is that music and sfira was never
dealt with before the last generation! What reasons are given for the
issur? I couldn't find any in Igrot Moshe. In one place, where the
subject is music in general, R' Moshe forbids listening to instrumental
music on the radio, he adds (parenthetically, as Eli Turkle puts it)
that even those who are mekeilim and do listen to music should avoid it
on the sfira. No reason or previous source is given. In the other two
places in Igrot Moshe it is clear that R' Moshe is considering the isur
on music in the sfira as a prevalent minhag. Again no halachic
discussion. Yechave Da'at does the same. He simply mentions achronim who
forbid music in the sfira. No explanation. I guess the same is true for
the other achronim in the list, whom I havn't had a chance to go over.

(The Pri Megadim does not deal with sfira and indeed he is not mentioned
by the Igrot Moshe and Yechave Da'at. To say that he is equating music
to dancing is a sweeping generalization. The Pri Megadim says that
dances (rikudim u'mecholot) are not allowed from Tamuz 17 and Yisrael
who is working for a non jew in the bar (or pub, beit hamishte) playing
musical instruments, can do it for a living. The picture is quite clear
here. What the Pri Megadim has in mind is a situation called 'rikudim
u'mecholot', part of which is playing musical instruments. After saying
that these are not allowed he is refering to cases where a jew must
participate in them, when he is playing musical instruments. Forbiding
music during the sfira based on this Pri Megadim requires a good stretch
of imagination.)

This raises an interesting question. It is quite clear that what we find
in the achronim reflects the minhag in certain quarters and the halachic
argumentation is of little importance here. Which says that the aveilut
of the sfira is still very much alive and developing. The comparison to
the aveilut on the churban makes one wonder. Here the minhag is to
disregard it almost completely. (Remember R' Moshe on not listening to
music on the radio, or for that matter on a tape. How unbelievably
remote from practice.) What could be the reason for this?  After all,
the sources for aveilut on the churban are in the mishna, and the
churban was one of the most devastating events in jewish history. The
aveilut in the sfira is not mentioned even in the gmara and the event it
is based upon is not of the scale of the churban. Moreover, jews
observed the sfira aveilut without knowing why! From all over the world
the geonim are asked what is the reason to the minhag not to marry
during the sfira.

How is it then that such an important corpus of minhagey aveilut
degenerates in practice while another one, which seems to be less
important (even in the responsa of the achronim), is flourishing?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 May 92
From: Susan Slusky <mhuxt!segs>
Subject: Re: Responses to my inquiry about high schools

I received a great many e-mail responses to my inquiry about high schools
They contained interesting information about the particular high schools
in questions as well as food for thought on the general philosophy of
choosing a high school. I have sent acknowledgements to a number of 
the people who sent me mail. However, because of my sloppy tranferring 
around of files I have lost several responses and thus cannot thank
those people individually. So I 'd like to thank you all collectively.
It's wonderful to have such an abundant source of knowledge available.

Susan Slusky  -  att!mhuxt!segs

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 May 92 14:25:38 IDT
From: [email protected] (Dov Green)
Subject: Rochester Kosher

Someone from the Mincha Minyan at the kirya is going to be in 
Rochester, N.Y. next week. What's the latest on kosher eateries ??

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 May 92 14:49 O
From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013%[email protected]>
Subject: Shaving During Sefira

Concerning shaving vs. (shaving)[hair cutting - M.].  One would have to
demonstrate that in early sources the Rabbis of previous generations
were careful to use the terms separatly as two different ideas, as is
used in modern Hebrew.  I am not too sure that this correct.  It may be
the the term lehistaper includes one's beard or what is known as
giluach.  As proof I cite the Darchei Moshe on the Tur, Orach Chayim,
493:1 who seems to use the terms interchangeably, and hence, both would
be forbidden.  
	Yours, Shlomo

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 7:38:26 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email protected] (Steve Prensky)
Subject: Ultimate Issues

I would like to read the back issues of Dennis Prager's quarterly, Ultimate
Issues.  Is there anyone who has and is willingly to loan all, or part of 
volumes 1-7?  If so, please contact me directly.

Thanks.
Steve Prensky  -  <[email protected]>



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 69


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        B'nei Jeshurun in Cleaveland
             [Elise G. Jacobs]
        Demography
             [Dov Samet]
        Eruv (2)
             [Warren Burstein, Moshe Rayman]
        Evolution
             [Hillel Markowitz]
        Genetically Altered Food
             [Chaim Schild]
        Havdala on yom tov
             [Josh Klein]
        Maimonides's Thirteen Principles
             [Frank Silbermann]
        New Orleans
             [Zev Hochberg]
        Ontario
             [Laurent Cohen]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 May 92 23:14:37 -0400 
From: [email protected] (Elise G. Jacobs) 
Subject: B'nei Jeshurun in Cleaveland

Can anyone tell me what they know about Synagogue B'nai Jeshurun in
Pepper Pike, Cleveland?  Do they keep any kind of kashrus, for example?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 May 92 17:48:11 -0400
From: Dov Samet <[email protected]>
Subject: Demography

Does anybody know of a demographic analysis of Bnei Israel in Egypt
according to the numbers in Sefer Bamidbar?

Here is a somewhat surprising observation. The number of males over 20
is 603,550 (Bamidbar 2,32). In non-western countries today, population
under 20 is around 50% of the population. Assuming this proportion and
taking into account females we have a population of about 2.4 million.
The number of first-born males over one month old is 22,273 (Bamidbar
3,43). Rounding a little bit and including again females we have 40
thousand first-borns.  Therefore the ratio of first-borns in the
population is 1:60. This means that each woman gave birth, on the
average, to 60 children! Indeed, with such rate of birth the assumption
that population under 20 is only 50% may be a gross under estimation.
Thus the total figure of population may be much bigger and the
proportion of first-borns much smaller. We may conclude then that the
number of births per woman is even higher than 60! This sounds like a
prolonged miracle which almost trivialize the other miracles of the
time.  (Maybe this is why the Midrash says that the women of that time
were 'giving birth to six in one belly' [yoldot shisha bekeres achat]).
There is also some difficulty, because in the genealogical lists of that
time in the Torah we don't find anything resembling such fertility.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 May 92 05:25:27 -0400
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Eruv

Why is the requirement be for 600,000 people?  Why should it not
be for 600,000 men between the ages of 20 and 60?  I am sure there
must be commentaries that address this point, I'd appreciate being
directed to them.

[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 May 92 16:10:34 -0400
From: [email protected] (Moshe Rayman)
Subject: Eruv

Morris Podolak writes:

>Indeed there is an opinion, often expressed in the halachic literature,
>that today (after the era of the Jews in the desert) we have NO public
>domains.

The opinion expressing that there are no public domains today, refers to
the post talmudic period, or actually, to the time of the rishonim
(after 1100 C.E.), not to the "era of the Jews in the desert".  The
Talmud states in many places that Jerusalem, had it's gates not been
shut at night, would be a public domain.

This fact just points out the difficulty with this opinion.  If one
requires 600,000 to make a public domain, not only do we not have any
today; there never was a public domain in Halakhic history after the
times of Moshe Rabbeinu.  This clearly is against the above quoted
passage (unless we assume that Jerusalem of old had 600,000 people
roaming it's alleys every day).

Regarding eruv, it is still possible to believe in them, and reject the
600,000 people requirement.  All we must do is find some other reason
why the proposed area is not a biblically ordained public domain.

There are many technical requirements to qualify as a public domain.
The roads must be 16 cubits wide.  The roads must pass through the
entire area without turning or bending, the area cannot be surrounded by
Halakhically valid partitions, etc.  Many places can still qualify for
an eruv.  But not as many as if you accept the 600,000 requirement.

Moshe Rayman - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 May 92 10:02:47 -0400
From: [email protected] (Hillel Markowitz)
Subject: Re: Evolution

>I would, however, like to know why these groups are so violently
>opposed to Darwinian evolution theory, and how widespread these
>opinions are.

Many people feel that his particular theory has been used as the basis
of so much apikorsus and kefirah that it should be opposed on that basis
alone.  The main part of the theory is the implication that evolution
occurs "on its own" or through "random chance" rather than being a
method by which Hashem controls the world just like rain is the method
chosen to water the plants instead of creating garden hoses and faucets.

Hillel Markowitz    [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 May 92 08:32:41 -0400
From: SCHILD%[email protected] (Chaim Schild)
Subject: Genetically Altered Food

Paraphrased from the Boston Globe (article on genetic engineering):

And imagine the shock of an Orthodox Jew when he finds out that the
broccoli he is eating with his milk has been altered with a gene from
a cow.....

The issue is probably not that simple. Has anyone seen any comments
on such issues... how the Kashrut of food is affected by genetically
engineering...

Chaim

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 May 92 12:12 N
From: Josh Klein <VTFRST%[email protected]>
Subject: Havdala on yom tov

We'll make havdala on yom tov again for shavuot. Susan Hornstein pointed
out the acronym YaKNaHaZ for yayin, kiddush, ner, havdala, zman. In many
German Haggadot, the page for Kiddush is illustrated with a running
rabbit, with hunters in pursuit. YaKNaHaZ sounds a lot like "Jagen
hass", which means "hunt the hare" in German. The mnemonic is therefore
illustrated for even better recollection of the order in which we make
the brachot on motzei shabbat-erev yom tov. For Shavuot, I guess you
just have to remember, unless you have an illustrated machzor....

Josh Klein VTFRST@volcani

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 May 92 14:00:57 -0400
From: Frank Silbermann <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Maimonides's Thirteen Principles

Evelyn Garfield was cited as questioning the obligatory nature of
Maimonides' 13 Principles.  Also cited was Rabbi Louis Jacobs's
"Principles of the Jewish Faith".  David Kaufman gave some solid
evidence that these are accepted as binding by the vast majority of
today's authorities, so I would this to be a very a very prevalent
minhag (at the very least).

Another point David made is that past discussions of philosophies,
systemizations, etc., do not tell us how those discussions concluded.
Indeed, it was my impression that opposition stemmed not an opinion that
any of the ' 13 principles ought to be omitted from the dogma, but as to
whether the very act of enumerating them might lead some to conclude
that all beliefs not included are optional.  (Some opposed the American
Constitution's Bill of Rights on similar grounds -- that some might view
the list as being total and comprehensive).

As to whether those who claim that acceptance of all 13 Principles
is _not_ obligatory David adds:

> Evelyn Garfield is not the most authoritative source.
> Jacobs is another unreliable source. These "historical"
> examinations must themselves be looked at critically,
> for too often they are polemics justifying an author's viewpoint,
> frequently a rejection of observance.

I agree with the comment about the need to read historical examinations
between the lines, but how does it apply to Garfield and Jacobs?  It was
my impression that these people _advocated_ Jewish religious observance.

Frank Silbermann	[email protected]
Tulane University	New Orleans, Louisiana  USA

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 May 92 22:55:56 -0400
From: Zev Hochberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: New Orleans

Thanks to all who responded to my request for New Orleans info.
Unfortunatly, my vacation plans didn't work out, but I did collect the
following information:

[New Orleans info will be archived by end of day today both for anon ftp
in israel/mail-jewish/new-orleans, for email retrieval, and will be
forwarded to the moderator of the revived Jewish Travelers database now
available on israel.nysernet.org. Moderator]

Enjoy, 
  Zev Hochberg
  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 May 92 13:07:47 -0400
From: Laurent Cohen <[email protected]>
Subject: Ontario

Is there anybody on the net living around Ontario (Toronto-Buffalo). I
should be there june 22-29 any advice for jewish area/kosher
restaurant/shabbat?

Thank you, Laurent  Cohen


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 70


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Authority of the Mishneh Torah
             [Zev Hochberg]
        Demography
             [Elie Rosenfeld]
        Genetically Engineered Foods
             [Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth]
        Heter Iska
             [Josh Klein]
        Maimonides' 13 Principles (4)
             [Aryeh Frimer, R. Stein, David Kaufmann , Josh Amaru]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 May 92 23:29:08 -0400
From: Zev Hochberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Authority of the Mishneh Torah

In volume 3.67, David Kaufman writes:

> Although the Mishneh Torah, for example, was burned at one point,
> no competent (orthodox) rabbi today would question its legitimacy or
> authority.

I disagree. The _legitimacy_ of the Mishneh Torah is universal; its
_authority_ on the other hand is limited to Yemenite Jewry. The Shulchan
Aruch used the MT as a primary input; however, there is much in the MT
which the SA and Rama pasken'ed against, and which our practice
contradicts.  Only Yemenite Jewry accepted the halachic authority of the
MT.

As far as legitimacy, the MT was made a primary focus of Talmud Torah
lishmah, it seems, by Rav Chaim Brisker. Does anyone know the history of
this? Why was it done?  Interestingly, the Rambam writes, near the end
of the intro to the MT: "one first reads the written Torah, then reads
this, and knows from it the entire oral Torah, and needs no other book
in between."  Was the MT ever actually used in this manner?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 09:54:47 -0400
From: Elie Rosenfeld <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Demography

In regards to the 1:60 ratio of first borns to population in Bamidbar: I
heard the following from my father; I don't know if there is a "source"
for it.  Why now assume that many of the Israelite first born died in
the tenth plague, the plague of the first born!  After all, the Torah
never actually said that no Israelites died in that plague, as it did
say for many of the other ones.  It specifically said that IF they put
the blood on their door, they would live.  So there could have been many
households who did not follow this law, and thus lost their first borns,
thus greatly reducing the number of first borns per population.

Alternately, based on the Midrash that many Israelites died during the
plague of darkness (numbers given are that the survivors were only 1 in
5, 1 in 50, or even 1 in 500), it is plausible that of those who died
then, the first borns died in much greater numbers then the others, they
being in the leadership role and thus more likely to be culpable of
failings.

Elie Rosenfeld


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 08:02:28 -0400
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: RE: Genetically Engineered Foods

In response to Chaim Schild's comments on genetically engineered fruits and
vegertables (fleishig (ore even treif) broccoli??):

We posed a similar question to our Rav (Rabbi Kalman Winter of Silver
Spring, MD) this past Shabbos.  His "gut" response was that since the
genes are microscopic, he felt there might not be a problem.  Please
note, he did not give a psak, since he didn't have all the information
(neither did we) at the time; this is just his initial reaction.  I
suppose when this technology is promulgated, the matter would have to be
researched in detail by the poskim.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 May 92 12:05 N
From: Josh Klein <VTFRST%[email protected]>
Subject: Heter Iska

 Regarding Warren's posting on heter iska a while back, the only place
where I've ever seen the actual shtar [document] posted was in a branch
of the First International Bank of Israel in Rehovot. That branch
closed, but I don't think we can draw direct conclusions from that.
 The Rabbanut in Rehovot recently sent out a notice stating that, unless
the commercial establishment has a 'heter iska', it is forbidden to shop
in places where they give discounts for cash, or for full payment
(check, cash, card) at time of purchase (as opposed to payment over
several months by means of post-dated checks). The reverse is also the
case: you can't get goods for payments over time if the cash price is
less. Either way, apparently, it's an issue of interest, whether you pay
more or less. This is because the 'discount' is effectively reverse
interest, and thus forbidden. I guess if the storekeeper's rationale is
that payment by credit card costs him time and money (the card companies
get a cut of the deal, and the storekeeper has paperwork to do to get
his money), you can justify a discount if you pay by check or cash as
opposed to card. This doesn't seem to be the case if you pay by cash as
opposed to checks, though, since depositing checks is something that the
storekeeper is likely to do anyway. Anyhow, the notice concluded by
pointing out that heter iska forms are available at the rabbanut office,
so the problem can be solved fairly easily, at least in Rehovot.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 May 92 02:32:41 -0400
From: Aryeh Frimer <F66235%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Maimonides' 13 Principles

     Reb Shlomo Pick has raised some interesting questions regarding the
acceptance by Klal Yisrael of the 13 Principles of Maimonides. I don't
think anyone disagrees that the Rambam's position represents the
consensus view of Jewish theology. The Sefer Ha-Ikrim's "tiff" with the
Rambam was not on what a mainstream Jew believes, but rather whether one
who believes otherwise is to be considered an "Apikores"  (loosely
translated as apostate) - with all it's halakhic ramifications of being
ostracized by the Jewish community.  The Sefer Ha-Ikrim clearly felt
that there were very few beliefs that pushed one over the line.  I claim
no expertise in Jewish philosopy, but my impression is that the
consensus of Jewish philosophers disagree with the Rambam and maintain
that there is no "Shulkhan Arukh" when it come to Hashkafa.  This does
not mean that there are NO basic beliefs but the dispute is what they
are. Furthermore, within a given belief, there is great latitude.

                          Aryeh Frimer


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 11:57:30 -0400
From: [email protected] (R. Stein)
Subject: Re: Maimonides' 13 Principles

A very authoritative and readable work is "Maimonides Principles:
The Fundamentals of Jewish Faith" by R. Aryeh Kaplan zt"l.

The popularly listed principles are a summary of the information in
Maimonides commentary to Mishna Sanhedrin, Perek Chelek, which discusses
the fact that all Jews have a portion in the world to come except for
certain categories of people who have removed themselves from that
eligibility.

In the Yad Chazakah , Hilchos Teshuvah, the Rambam enumerates those who
are included in the categories of Min (non-believer), Apikores
(heretic), those who deny the Torah, etc, based on non-belief in the
very same principles.

It seems to me that this indicates very clearly that the principles do
have halachic status.  If one does not believe in Principle 1, he is a
Min, which has many ramifications in halacha. etc.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 11:27:02 -0400
From: David Kaufmann  <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Maimonides' 13 Principles

Commenting on Maimonides's 13 Principles and a response I wrote, Frank
Silberman asks:

I agree with the comment about the need to read historical examinations
between the lines, but how does it apply to Garfield and Jacobs?  It was
my impression that these people _advocated_ Jewish religious observance.

Louis Jacobs is not himself observant (sort of a British version of
conservative, as I understand it). Despite his brilliance and
scholarship, he does not believe what he studies.

David Kaufmann  -  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 08:50:44 -0400
From: Josh Amaru <F24084%[email protected]>
Subject: Maimonides' 13 Principles

Regarding the present discussion of Maimonides's Thirteen Principles:
Even if there does seem to be some sort of consensus of Halakhic Jews of
at least the last few hundred years regarding the acceptance of the 13
Ikarim,this does not seem to me to be the point.  Though the Rambam was
prepared to call anyone who does not accept the 13 principles a kofer
(or other parallel terms like min or apikoros) it is not at all clear
that the general acceptance of these principles (e.g. their inclusion in
the siddur) implies that someone who does not believe in one of them
falls into one of the above mentioned catagories.  Halakhically one
would have to at least perform a public denial in some way ( maybe in
this way one can interpret why M'challel shabbat b'farhesia makes one a
mumar).  It is certainly an open question as to whether this sort of
public action is necessary simply as a way of revealing the person's
belief or whether it has an intrinsic significance (though for the
Rambam himself it seems to be the former).
    Another question, perhaps more crucial, regards what these
principles mean.  Interpretations of concepts like tchiat Hametim or
biat Hamashiach are subjects of enourmous debate among Rishonim as well
as today.  I suspect that it is possible to deny each one of the 13
principles according to one interpretation and to affirm them according
to another.  Where does that leave us?
                                                       Josh Amaru


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 71


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Computer Calling for Shul Messages
             [David Sherman]
        Eating Meat on Yom Tov
             [Susannah Greenberg]
        Eruv
             [Steve Ehrlich]
        King of Kings
             [a.s.kamlet]
        March of Life
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 21:43:53 EDT
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

Hello all!

I have uploaded the Index files for mail.jewish to israel.nysernet.org.
There are five files:

Index: Covers Issues 1-125, 1986-1989
Index90: Covers Issues 126-160, 1990
Index91: Covers Issues 161-223, 1991-first half
IndexV2: Covers Volume 2, 1991-second half
IndexV3: Covers Volume 3 (to date), 1992-first half

I expect to go to Volume 4 in July. This will keep the full volume
archive below 1 Meg.

The New Orleans info has also been uploaded. All the anonymous ftp files
can be found in the directory israel/mail-jewish, with the current
issues being available in israel/mail-jewish/volume3. The Index
information, as well as the New Orleans info, but not the full
mail.jewish issues, are also available via the email archive server. To
get a file, e.g. IndexV2, send the message:

get IndexV2 from mail-jewish

to (and this address is important!!)

[email protected].

As you can see from this issue, I'm working my way back further in my
email mbox. Sorry to those of you who have sent in things quite a while
ago and I did not get around to sending them out. I'm trying to catch up
now.

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 10:58:04 EDT
From: [email protected] (David Sherman)
Subject: Re: Computer Calling for Shul Messages

> 	I have felt for a long time that announcing problems with an eruv
> or with kashrus is the one defendable use of using computers to call
> automatically.

Our shul started using "computer calling" for shul messages, mostly
about deaths of relatives of shul members, about a year ago.  The shul
(Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto (BAYT), located in Thornhill) has about
560 members, mostly young families.  The theory is that all members
should be informed of other members who have just lost a family member,
in case they should wish to attend the funeral or shiva.  And the shul
is too large for anyone to know who a given person's friends are who
would want to know.

I used to be one of the people that did the phoning: I had about 10
people on my "list".  It was always awkward: calling person A, whom you
may not know, to tell them that the father of person B, whom both you
*and* they do not know, has passed away.  When people get a personal
call, they also tend to think they're being asked or requested to attend
the funeral or shiva, when in fact it's an informational service for
those who would want to know and otherwise won't find out soon enough.

I didn't like the idea of the computer calling when it was first
proposed, but I find it works fine now.  It gets the message through.
The tape is repeated twice after first being played, so it comes through
on answering machines (where the first part of the call is taken up by
the outgoing message).

The calling system is also used occasionally to remind members of
upcoming special events in the shul.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 08:44:22 -0400
From: [email protected] (Susannah Greenberg)
Subject: Eating Meat on Yom Tov

I was wondering if people know of sources that require the eating of meat
on Yom Tov.  Does it apply to all of the meals or is it ok to have
dairy for some of them?  I am familiar with the "Aytzah" (advice) given (in the
Mishna Berura I believe) for Shavuos  that one should have the cheese
cake for Kiddush and then wash and have the Seudah.  That seems to imply that
one ought to have meat for all of the meals.  Otherwise people could just 
eat the cheese cake at the conclusion of the meal.
	Any help is appreciated.  Good Yom Tov.

					Susannah Greenberg

[Shlomo Engelson dealt with this question, as part of a discussion held
on Jewish Vegetarianism in mail.jewish during 1990. The article of
interest can be found in [Vol 1 (we didn't use vol numbers then)] #147.
Basically, his conclusion was the only absolute requirement to eat meat
would/might be during the time of the Temple, and related to the sacrifices
brought. So go ahead and have your dairy meal for shavuot, however it
may be required to have some wine during the meal (at least according to
the Rambam). Your Moderator]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue Apr  7 13:23 CDT 1992
From: att!ihlpt!stevee (Steve Ehrlich)
Subject: Eruv

Concerning not informing people on Shabbat when an Eruv is down:

I do not know if this is the unanimous view of the poskim, but I believe
that the proponents of this view argue that this is one of the few
instances in which the Halacah uses ignorance as deliberate public
policy. The reason has to do with what Ron alluded to: the concept of
"mesasek": (literally "dealing with").  The idea is that an action taken
based on mistaken facts *that are not readily ascertainable* is not a
transgression, The classic case of this is one who picks up a vegetable
from the ground that appears completely detached when then turns out to
be still attached. ("Savar Sheh Hu Tolush Venemtzah Mechubar") There is
in fact no transgression here since the person acted in good faith on
the only information available. This is in contrast to one who forgets
it is Shabbat and thinks its Friday. That is not "mesasek" but "shogeg"
-- there is a transgression since everyone around knows what day it is.

Regarding Eruv: If when Shabbat started the Eruv was up, then people are
within there rights to assume it still is. If it goes down on Shabbat,
there is no point in informing people of that since, by the principle of
"mesasek", they are now in fact doing nothing wrong.

(I do not know if there are other applications of "mesasek" outside of
Shabbat: E.g. Are we really *obligated* to tell people that there was a
labelling error on a product that really should not have an OU? etc. As
I recall, this principle is derived from "malecet machsevet" in Shabbat,
the concept of "deliberate activity", and so my guess is that it only
applies to Shabbat, but I'm not sure. )

We could also begin a discussion on the very concept of Eruvin
in major metropolitan areas...

Steve Ehrlich - att!ihlpt!stevee

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1 Jun 1992  18:44 EDT
From: cblph!ask (a.s.kamlet)
Subject: King of Kings

I had asked this on soc.r.j and didn't get an answer.  Maybe someone
here knows.

The term king of kings has been applied to living kings and attributed
by some cultures to their god.  Bob Werman cited Ezekial's reference to
Nebuchdnezar as melech melachim.

But we say melech malchai hamelachim hakadosh baruch hu

Where is the first appearance of the term melech malchai hamlachim to
mean G-d?

Art Kamlet   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus   [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 May 92 03:06:07 -0400
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: March of Life

A couple of years ago I was visited in Israel by the teenage son of
a colleague.  The kid was returning from the March of Life in Poland,
via Israel.  He told me of all the abuse they got in Poland.  At the
March from Auschwitz to Birkenau, there were skinheads and such from
all over Europe who came to throw eggs and jeer.  In city streets the
kids were followed by people cursing at them.  Old people would cross
the street to call them dirty zhids from up close.  In Cracow the kids
had to post guards at night in the hotel corridors.  On an official
level:  Not a single guide, in any death camp, ever mentioned that
Jews were killed here, too.

This is not 1942, this is today.  I need hardly point out the two
obvious reasons for continuing the March of Life: (1) Let our carefully
nurtured California teenagers see that it's a dangerous world out there.
(2) Let the world see that Poland, among other places, hasn't changed
much.

Next time Poland comes begging for foreign aid, remember this.  I
emphasize that I am not spreading a rumor, but reporting a tear-stained
first-hand account.

Ben Svetitsky    [email protected]





----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 72


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Chumras (update)
             [David Zucker]
        Chumrot Bayn Adam L'chavero
             [Sigrid Peterson]
        Heter Iska (2)
             [Jackie Goldstein, Stephen C Stein]
        Maimonides' 13 Principles
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Pace of Davenning
             [Barry (B.L.) Friedman]
        Philadelphia
             [Sigrid Peterson]
        The requirement of 600,000 for the Eruv
             [Jeremy Schiff]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 92  22:27:44 EDT
From: [email protected] (David Zucker)
Subject: Chumras (update)

An update regarding the notion (mentioned by Aaron Israel in an earlier
message on the net) that one who follows the chumras of both Bais Hillel
and Bais Shammai is a fool: I finally got around to looking this up and
it appears in Eruvin 6b (indeed early on in Eruvin, but not exactly
where I originally thought), Rosh Hashanah 14b, and Chullin 43b-44a.

David Zucker, Silver Spring MD, [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 92 23:41:04 -0400
From: Sigrid Peterson <[email protected]>
Subject: Chumrot Bayn Adam L'chavero

> I understand that many of our mitzvot bayn adam l'chavero 
> apply only with other Jews, to prevent gentiles not bound by these laws
> from taking advantage of us.  It might, however, be a chumrah to extend
> some of these rules to our dealings with gentiles, to the extent we can.

Or, in doing so you might actually be extending some of the rules
to your dealings with fellow Jews. This past February a fellow student 
and I had occasion to order Marcus Jastrow's Dictionary from a 
nationally known Jewish bookseller. We both wanted our copies as fast
as possible, and specified UPS Blue Label. She has a Jewish last name,
I do not, although we are both Jews. She got her Dictionary a week 
before I got mine. I called to inquire; *somehow* her order got the
specification for Blue Label shipping, mine did not.

I also have a Jerusalem Bible from Feldheim Publishers where I Samuel 
chapters 7-17 are replaced by other chapters from elsewhere. I have 
treated this TaNaKh as if exempt from usual courtesy, as I figured 
Feldheim treated me as exempt from normal courtesy. 

However, now I know from Silbermann that I *am* exempt from normal
courtesy and that it would be =abnormal courtesy= to treat me decently, 
in fact it would be a _chumrah_! What to do about my poor TaNaKh, 
except bury it in a genizah?

Meanwhile, Benjamin Svetitsky's story reminds me that in the light of
the Holocaust we are all Jews by Choice.

Sigrid Peterson
[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 05:16:33 -0400
From: [email protected] (Jackie Goldstein)
Subject: Heter Iska

Regarding Heter Iska - I also saw/see one at the First International
Bank of Israel -- In Raanana.  I am also rather sure that if we looked
in (at least some) other banks, e.g. Mizrachi, we could find them there
also.

Jackie

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 08:56:14 -0400
From: [email protected] (Stephen C Stein)
Subject: re: Heter Iska

It's not just the First International Bank in Rehovot.  Every branch of
Bank Leumi that I've ever been in has a framed heter iska somewhere on
the wall.  It's sort of standard equipment.





----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 02:13:26 -0400
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Maimonides' 13 Principles

The Mishnah in Sanhedrin lists among those who have no share in the
world to come: "One who says (ha-omer) there is no resurrection in the
Torah."  It is not belief (or disbelief) that is punished, but an actual
action, in this case, actual speech.  The Gemara there, establishing
that God's system of reward and punishment is midah ke-neged midah
(roughly, tit-for-tat), gives the example of the man who denied
(publicly!) Elisha's prophecy of the rescue of Shomron and was therefore
prevented from seeing that rescue.

I have heard many discussions of the case of a person who observes
mitzvot without believing in them.  Usually the tone of the discussion
is spiritual and philosophical, but I have never heard that disbelief
can disqualify a person from anything as long as he keeps it quiet.

Ben Svetitsky   [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 01:07:25 -0400
From: Barry (B.L.) Friedman <[email protected]>
Subject: Pace of Davenning

I would be interested in hearing from people who have managed to
influence their congregations to slow down the pace of davening to one
in which comprehension is possible.

There is a story told about two jews who are discussing the speed at
which they pray.  The first one tells his friend that to him, the words
of the prayer are like pickets in a fence and that he tries to say them
as fast as possible so that the spaces between the pickets should be
small so he can keep any extraneous thoughts outside the fence.  His
friend replied, "I too see the words as a kind of fence but I try to
increase the space between them to let the disturbing thoughts get out."

The problem of proper concentration (i.e. kavannah) in prayer seems to
have little in the way of halachic guidelines.  Maimonides mentions that
the sages of old prepared themselves for an hour before prayer, prayed
for an hour, and then spent an hour after prayer in contemplation.  He
does not, however, prescribe this as mandatory practice, perhaps due to
the weakening of the strength of people of later times and the increased
pace of life.

How has your group dealt with these questions, and have any positive
changes been a result?

Kol Tuv,

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 10:41:56 -0400
From: Sigrid Peterson <[email protected]>
Subject: Philadelphia

Anxiety over moving to Philadelphia in three months probably triggered
my earlier post this week [up above in this issue. - Mod.] , about lack
of service to non-Jews. I am writing in a different vein today, to ask
if there is any area in Philadelphia or in West Philadelphia (University
City) where there is an Eruv. If so, what are the specifics of where it
extends? Also, is there handicapped-accessible housing available within
the eruv? While it may not seem the most practical question to ask, I am
also most eager to know whether there are used book stores that handle
Judaica, and if so, where they are. Thanks. Private e-mail replies would
be fine.  

Sigrid Peterson [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 14:09:53 EDT
From: [email protected] (Jeremy Schiff)
Subject: The requirement of 600,000 for the Eruv


Regarding Warren Burstein's question why it is 600,000 people not 600,000
men between the ages of 20 and 60 that  define a "public domain", there is
a Tosfot near the start of Massechet Shabbat that raises this issue. I
remember thinking the answer was somewhat "dachuk" (forced), something along
the lines of since we don't know the real total number, we take the "lower
bound" given by the figure of 600,000.

The 600,000 has another halachic application that I know of. There is
a bracha to recite upon seeing a large number of Jews gathered together.
The bracha is Baruch....HaOlam Chacham HaRazim. The number of Jews has
to be, as you guessed, 600,000 or above, where we include everyone in the
count (just as for the eruv). I forget who's explanation of the wording
of the bracha I am about to give, but it's the one I remember.....there
is a unexplicable bond between the individuals that make up Am Yisrael that
is only known to HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Under 600,000 people you might say
that it's a coincidence these people are so unified (if only!); above this
number it is clear something beyond human comprehension is happening, and
a bracha of hodaah is in order. In short, 600,000 persons is a "people"
as opposed to a collection of individuals.

In May 1948 there were about 625,000 Jews living in the Land of Israel.
Close enough to be pretty neat, I think.

Jeremy Schiff


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 73


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Demography (3)
             [Hillel Meyers, Robert Israel, Naomi G. Cohen]
        Eruv
             [Moshe Rayman]
        Havdala-Besamim:
             [Hillel Meyers]
        Heter Iska
             [Warren Burstein]
        Mishneh Torah
             [David Kaufmann ]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 17:18:49 -0400
From: [email protected] (Hillel Meyers)
Subject: Demography

   In the discussion of the significance of 600,000 in Judaism.  I
remember hearing from my Mashgiach, Rav Tsuriel, in Yeshivat Shaalvim
that there are a total of 600,000 Jewish Neshamot corresponding Yetziat
Mitzrayim.  I asked, but we have at least 10-12 million people.  He
answered that we are all linked to the 600,000 Neshamot.  The Kabala
probably has much to say on this topic but I am not a student of Kabala,
so I can not explain anymore than this.

   Since we are all students of computers, the idea of soft or hard
links, linking objects between all sorts of tree structures, can be a
good analogy to this Kabalistic connection.

Hillel Meyers

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 12:36:53 -0400
From: Robert Israel <[email protected]>
Subject: Re:  Demography

     The hypothesis of a high fertility rate actually can't be a
solution to the problem.  A better way to estimate the "expected" number
of first-borns is as follows.  We have 603,550 males of 20 years and
older.  Assuming each of these was married and had children,
approximately half would have a son first.  So you would expect there to
be at least 300,000 first-born males, not even counting those whose
fathers were under 20 or deceased.  Now some of the 603,550 would not
have had children, but this should not suffice to explain the
discrepancy.  Put another way: fewer than one in 27 of the males 20
years and older have a surviving first-born son.  Presumably, a very
large number of the first-born sons, perhaps 9 out of 10, had died.  You
might attribute some of these deaths to the plague of the first-born, as
Elie Rosenfeld does in volume 3 # 70.  I find the plague of darkness a
much less satisfactory answer, as it would presumably have affected the
fathers as much as the children.  The more mundane possibility is a very
high rate of miscarriage and infant mortality, as a result of the
Egyptian oppression and persecution.  The high fertility rate would be
necessary to compensate for this.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 92 21:48:45 IST
From: Naomi G. Cohen <RVOLF01%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Demography

On the subject of Dov Samet's demographic calculations in connection
with first borns. Might I point out that he forgot families where girl
children were `first borns' as well as women who had a miscarriage
before having their first live boy. In both these cases, `baby boy' is
no longer a `bechor'. In view of the unfavourable conditions,
miscarriages were presumably not uncommon. And I also forgot: one must
add to the mathematical construction (or perhaps therefrom) also those
`behorot' who died as minors. The statistics will still be very
impressive, but considerably lower than an average of 60 children to a
family.  

Hag Sameach, Naomi G. Cohen, Senior Research Associate, Wolfson Chair of
Jewish THought, Haifa U.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 10:32:36 -0400
From: [email protected] (Moshe Rayman)
Subject: Eruv

Steve Erlich writes:

>                                       The idea is that an action taken
>based on mistaken facts *that are not readily ascertainable* is not a
>transgression, The classic case of this is one who picks up a vegetable
>from the ground that appears completely detached when then turns out to
>be still attached. ("Savar Sheh Hu Tolush Venemtzah Mechubar") There is
>in fact no transgression here since the person acted in good faith on
>the only information available. This is in contrast to one who forgets
>it is Shabbat and thinks its Friday. That is not "mesasek" but "shogeg"
>-- there is a transgression since everyone around knows what day it is.

I believe the difference between "shogeg" and "mitasek" is that a shogeg
is one who transgresses out of ignorance of the law.  One who forgets
that today is Shabbat, or forgets that a particular action is proscribed
and then transgresses, is a shogeg, and must bring a "korban hatat" (sin
offering).

A "mitasek" is someone who is well aware of the law, but is unaware that
a particular action actually violates that law.  In the classic case, he
was not aware that picking up this vegatable would violate the
prohibition of harvesting.  These cases almost always involve an
incorrect assesment of the facts of the case.  A mitasek does not bring
a sin offering.

If a person intends to do one thing, and then something else occurs
instead, the unintended action is not related (legally) to the person
who did it.  This is mitasek.  A shogeg intended to perform a proscribed
act, and performed it, but claims ignorance.  The action is related to
the person, so he violated the Shabbat.  THerefore he must bring an
offering.


>(I do not know if there are other applications of "mesasek" outside of
>Shabbat: E.g. Are we really *obligated* to tell people that there was a
>labelling error on a product that really should not have an OU? etc. As
>I recall, this principle is derived from "malecet machsevet" in Shabbat,
>the concept of "deliberate activity", and so my guess is that it only
>applies to Shabbat, but I'm not sure. )

The concept of mitasek does apply in other contexts (besides Shabbat),
however there is a well known law in the Talmud (source anyone?):

	Mitasek with regard to the prohibition of "helev" (forbidden fats)
	and "arayot" (forbidden sexual relations) is liable,
	for he has derived pleasure from them.

So, if someone ate forbidden fat thinking it was permitted fat, although
he is mitasek, he is still liable (to bring a sin offering).

Although most kashrut prohibitions do not obligate their transgressors
to bring sin offerings, still I think we can deduce that mitasek does
not apply to kashrut.

The laws of mitasek are complex.  There are differences between shabbat
and the rest of the law (Shabbat has a more liberal definition of mitasek
due to the concept mentioned above -melkhet mahashavet).

If you rearange the letters of "mitasek" you get "mistake". :-)

Moshe Rayman
[email protected]
(201) 829-2219


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 17:18:49 -0400
From: [email protected] (Hillel Meyers)
Subject: Havdala-Besamim:

   On the subject of Havdala that I read a week or two ago.  It was
mentioned that the Besamim is to provide a means of uplifting the spirit
since the departure of the Neshama Yetaira after Shabat.  A similar
concept of Neshama Yetaira is in existence when one is living or
visiting Eretz Yisrael.  The first night one sleeps in Israel a Neshama
Yetaira comes to stay with you.  When one leaves Israel this extra
Neshama departs from you.

   I had an idea a few years ago that EL-AL airlines in order to promote
the importance of Israel and Aliya should provide all passengers on
departing flights from Ben Gurion, a piece of Besamim.  This can be
given to each passenger with the wet wash cloth after the first snooze.
This would uplift the spirits of the passengers that have just recently
left Avera DeEretz Yisrael.

Hillel Meyers


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 15:45:08 -0400
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Heter Iska

On Shabbat Behar (which mentions the prohibition against interest,
Vayikra 25:36) a girl at my shul celebrated her Bat Mitzva, and there
was a letter hung on the bulletin board from Bank Hapoalim.  The girl
had written them a letter asking about interest and Halacha, and they
responded with an explanation of the heter, mentioned when the text
that is used today was composed, and included a copy of their heter.

[email protected] 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 92 14:31:50 -0400
From: David Kaufmann  <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Mishneh Torah

I did not mean to imply that the Mishneh Torah is the only or final
authority (I thought that was self-evident). However, in places where
the MT brings a halacha and the SA does not rule, (much of korbonos, for
example) I think most agree the MT is authoritative.

David Kaufmann
INTERNET:	[email protected]




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 74


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Demography
             [Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth]
        Heter Iska
             [Eli Turkel]
        Interest and Israeli Bonds
             [Robert Aaron Book]
        Music (2)
             [[email protected], Eli Turkel]
        Vienna
             [Marc Meisler]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 08:40:11 -0400
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: Re: Demography

I heard a vort similar to Hillel Meyers': The reason there were 600,000
neshamos at Har Sinai, together with all the other neshamot that had
been and were to be, was because there are 600,000 distinct
personalities which a human being can have (presumeably not all at once,
although more than one simultaneously have been purported).  The Torah
was given to ALL these personalities, and all these personalities said
Na'aseh V'nishma.  Therefore, no one can claim that had he been there
(even though he was) he wouldn't have accepted the Torah because it was
incompatible with his personality, because someone with his personality
WAS there and DID accept the Torah.

With regard to the number of firstborn, "puk chazi bashuk" (go check in
the marketplace).  I daresay if you look at modern demographics among
Jews (even if you only select families who would perform the Mitzvah)
and see the fraction of Pidyonei Haben relative to the total male
population, you'd find a ratio similar to that in the Torah (even
though, I'm a bechor, my son is a bechor, and my two nephews are
bechorim; oh well, there's always an exception that proves the rule).

Chag Sameach to all.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 16:26:29 EDT
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Heter Iska

    Several people have mentioned that Israeli banks rely on a heter
iska. I have never understood this reliance on a heter iska. My
understanding is that a heter iska transforms a loan into a business
deal with a possibility of gain or loss. This makes sense if one is
borrowing money for business reasons. However, if someone borrows money
to go on a pleasure trip or any other reason that does not involve a
possible gain or loss of money I don't understand how the heter iska
works. In addition I am not sure what good it does to post the heter
iska on a wall when obviously the vast majority of clients have no idea
what a heter iska is or that it affects them.  This question is futher
complicated by the controversy if the prohibition to take interest
applies if either the lender and/or borrower is an institution rather
than a private individual.

[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 16:09:18 -0400
From: [email protected] (Robert Aaron Book)
Subject: Interest and Israeli Bonds

Given the present discussion of interest with respect to Israeli banks,
I thought I would ask about something which I've been wondering about
for a while: What is the justification for selling (interest-bearing)
Israel bonds to Jews?  In the case of many Diaspora Jews, the purchaser
of the bond reagards it as a donation, and has no intention of ever
redeeming it, so there would be no problem.  However, what about people
for whom this is not the case?  If I understand correctly (which I may
not), the heter for banks is based on entering into a "business
partnership" and sharing the profit, but i don't see how this would
apply here.

--Robert Book  -    [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 00:34:34 -0400
From: [email protected]
Subject: Music

	The question of music (not during sfira or availoos [mourning -
Mod.]) is brought down in gemora gittin.  The posuk of "al tismach el
gill ca amim" is the basis of the issur. From memory, it seems that the
marshal (yam shell shlomo) among other achronim and rishonim, in fact
asser music in these times.(after the churban.)  Very concerned about
this my chavroosah (at the time a famous Jewish musician) asked Rav
Gustman zt"zl what heter there is, if any at all, to listen to music
(not during sfira or availoos)
	The reply was that nowadays there is no more "chachmas ha musica",
(as he proved to us with a very true example).  He also added that listening
to music is also mainly for "calming the nerves" and not for simcha (as 
brought down in the possuk.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 92 16:37:24 EDT
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Music

     Ellen Spolsky states
> I know of no one who would not go to an ordinary concert for this reason.

    I remember visiting Bnei Brak and seeing posters for chazzanut with
seperate sessions for men and women. Next to it was a poster with the
signature of many of the major rabbis of Bnei Brak outlawing listening
to the chazzanim even on chal hamoed because of the mourning over the
destruction of the Temple.

[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 92 01:15 GMT
From: Marc Meisler <[email protected]>
Subject: Vienna

I have a friend who will be in Vienna and is looking for information on any
kosher restaurants there.  If anybody knows of any, it would be much 
appreciated.  Private e-mail responses are fine.  Thanks.

Marc Meisler [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 75


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Demography (4)
             [[email protected], Warren Burstein, Yechezkal Shimon
             Gutfreund, Eli Turkel]
        Interest and Israeli Bonds (2)
             [Alexander Herrera, Art Kamlet]
        Music
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Overseas Travel
             [Meir Loewenberg]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 22:50:25 EDT
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <[email protected]>
Subject: Administrivia

Hello all, I hope you all had a very good Yom Tov. 

With June here, the question of a Third Annual Mail.Jewish Picnic
arises. My schedule is such that definitly do not have the time to
organize it this year. I would, however, love to attend one. If there
are any volunteers to organize such an activity in the New Jersey/New
York/Pennsylvania area, I can give you some pointers on what I have done
in the past, and Sam Saal, who has also helped in the past but is also
badly overworked has agreed to act as a sort of consultant (I think). So
if you would like to volunteer, please let me know.

The other sort of annual summer event is that people, esp in the
academic side of the community, may lose thier logins. If you know that
this is happening, please try and cancel your subscription before you
lose your account. To do so, just send an email message to:

[email protected]

which contains the line:

signoff mail-jewish

If you have any problems with signing off the list, then send me mail. 

IF AN ADDRESS BOUNCES FOR OVER TWO WEEKS, I MAY DROP THE ADDRESS. If you
get no mail.jewish issues for a period of greater than a week or two, it
is good reason to suspect that you have been dropped. If it was due to
temporary email problems that then clear up, let me know and I will
resubscribe you.

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 00:10:20 -0400
From: [email protected]
Subject: Demography


	The Stiepler Rav writes (in chayai olem, I believe).  70 people
went down to Egypt, 210 years later 600,000 men left.  Out of the 70, 16
did not bear any more children, 12 tribes and Yosef = 13.  3 women
Yocheved,Serach, and Dina = 16.  Out of 54 people in a span of 210 years
600,000 men aged 20-60, another 40% (not far off of the estimate given
last week!) under 20-over60, double for females approximately 2 million.
That means that 54 people had 40,000 people coming from them in a space
of 210 years!!  This unbelievable, incredible blessing was promised to
Avraham avinu, that promise was given only until the exodus from Egypt,
had this blessing continued another 210 years, till the time of Devorah
the prophetess, we would have numbered 40,000 million!!!
	This was heard in a shiur given by Rabbi N. Alpert, whose main point
was to emphasize the "emunah of the bracha of G-D in Egypt".


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 92 15:49:34 -0400
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Demography

About the various explanations concerning the reduced number of
first-borns, I recalled Rashi on Shmot 12:30

    "for there is no house in which there is not a corpse" - If there is a
    first-born, he died.  If not, the eldest of the house is called
    "bechor"... (meaning that someone else died)

Rashi has another explanation, but according to the first one, how is
it that halacha defines "bechor" such that there are many families
with children in which none is a "bechor"?

[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 09:45:17 -0400
From: sg04%[email protected] (Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund)
Subject: Re: Demography

Another interesting point is that Rashi points out a discrepency
in the count of the Leviim. Taken by family (Kahas, Gershom, Meriri)
one gets a total of 22,300. But in the total stated in 3:39 it
says 22,000. Rashi states that the extra were Bochor's. That
gives a ratio of 1:73 for Shevet Levi. Which would seem that
Levi had a higher birth rate than the other Shevetim. This
seems to go against the idea that the other Shevatim had higher
birth rates because of the harshness of the slavery.

Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund		 		  [email protected]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA			    harvard!bunny!sgutfreund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 08:30:34 EDT
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Re: Demography

     The following is a paraphase and translation from the commentary
"Oznaim Latorah" on parshat Bamidmar 3:39

     The Ramban on pasuk 14 questions why the population of the Levites
is so small compared to the other tribes and gives his answer. However,
the Oznaim Latorah disagrees and feels that in fact the tribe of Levi
was even more fruitful than the other tribes. According to the Gemara in
Bechorot there were 22,300 males in Levi above the age of one month.  Of
these only 300 were first born males. According to this for each
firstborn there were on the average 73 1/3 non-firstborn children. In
this calculation women were not accounted for either in the first born
nor in the total population (This assumes that the proportion of male
firstborn was the same as the proportion of males in the entire
population. As previously pointed out it also ignores first born who had
died or who were born by Caeserean section- my note). However, the other
tribes were counted only from 20 year olds until the age of sixty.
There was a total of 603,550 males. He then quotes Rabbi Gordon of Telz
who assumes that the number of males below 20 or above 60 was equal in
number and so the entire male population of the 12 tribes excluding Levi
was about one million two hundred thousand. Of these 22,000 were first
born males giving an average of 55 nonfirst born males per firstborn
male. Hence, the fertility rate of the Levites was greater than that of
the other tribes.


[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 11:09:33 -0400
From: [email protected] (Alexander Herrera)
Subject: Interest and Israeli Bonds

[email protected] (Robert Aaron Book) writes:
> for a while: What is the justification for selling (interest-bearing)
> Israel bonds to Jews?  In the case of many Diaspora Jews, the purchaser
> of the bond reagards it as a donation, and has no intention of ever
> redeeming it, so there would be no problem.  However, what about people

The last time I heard an appeal for Israel Bonds, a point was driven
home that is very important to note: Jews who hold Israeli Bonds after
the maturity date are not helping Israel. They are unwittingly helping
the bank. Israel does not profit. The bank does by using the money
interest free. If you want to help Israel in this way, cash them in for
new ones.

Alex Herrera - uunet!mdcsc!ah

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon Jun  8 09:55 EDT 1992
From: cblph!ask (Art Kamlet)
Subject: Interest and Israeli Bonds

I hope everyone who buys an Israel Bond does redeems it and reinvests
it an another bond.  As I understand the arrangement, the Chase
Manhattan Bank acts as agent for the State of Israel, and when the
bond matures, the State of Israel pays the Chase Manhattan Bank.

Anyone who does not redeem a bond is helping the Bank, not Israel.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 02:35:31 -0400
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Music

Sefirah and three weeks aside, one might ask whether there is a general
prohibition against listening to music because of mourning for the
Temple all year round.  The Gemara towards the end of Sotah discusses
several customs of mourning.  Regarding music, the upshot (according to
several rishonim) is that one may not listen to live music while eating
a dinner at which wine is served.  I doubt this affects anybody on a
day-to-day basis, except for weddings and other seudot mitzvah--which
are exempted from the restriction.  Still, like leaving a corner of your
house unfinished, it should be kept in mind.

I recall that wedding customs in Jerusalem include a limitation on the
number of musical instruments.  Can someone supply details?

Ben Svetitsky     [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 92 14:53 O
From: Meir Loewenberg <F46022%[email protected]>
Subject: Overseas Travel

Overseas travelers will find relevant information on kosher hotels,
restaurants, etc., in a small brochure issued annually by SWISSAIR,
available free of charge from your travel agent.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 76


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Corrected Request for Ultimate Issues
             [Steve Prensky]
        Heter Iska (2)
             [Howie Schiffmiller, Ezra L Tepper]
        The UJS Email Connection.  (New list.)
             [Immanuel Burton]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 7:38:38 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email protected] (Steve Prensky)
Subject: Corrected Request for Ultimate Issues

Apologies to to all those who may have responded to my request for back
issues of Ultimate Issues and had their messages bounce.  There was a
typo in my Internet address.  It should have been:

		   <[email protected]>.  

Please try again.

Thanks.
Steve Prensky



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 02:51:32 -0400
From: [email protected] (Howie Schiffmiller)
Subject: Heter Iska

As I understand the "heter iska", it creates a situation whereby the
money received by the debtor is half pikadon (trust) and half halva'ah
(loan). A certain fee must be paid to the debtor (by the creditor) up
front for holding his money in trust; otherwise ribit [prohibition
against lending with interest - Mod.] is violated as the debtor would be
receiving a loan as compensation for being in trust of the creditor's
money. The money in trust is yours (the debtor's) to invest, with the
proviso that profits and losses are shared with the creditor. Here comes
the good part. In order to prove your losses or gains, you must either
swear or bring eidim (witnesses) as to the financial status. In the
event that you do not want to do this, you pay the creditor a fee which
he accepts in lieu of the above proofs. This fee is the "interest".
(Some poskim say that this fee must be paid all at once; however, anyone
who receives daily interest or makes monthly mortgage payments is
apparently not concerned with this shitah). Thus there's no problem if
you choose not to invest the money (as in pleasure trips), as you're
paying "interest" as a way of avoiding proving that you didn't lose
money. Now if someone came to Bank Leumi with eidim, it would be
intersting to see if they'd absolve him of his interest payments, but
(fortunately) I don't think that occurs too often.

As far as the Israeli bonds go, some reasons poskim discuss to possibly
permit this without a heter iska include:
 1) The Jewish state is a corporation made up of a lot of individuals.
Within each bond you're collecting less than a prutah of interest per
Israeli citizen (unless you have a VERY large bond).
 2) If you buy through a broker, there is a minority shitah that Ribit
al yeday shaliach (ribit through an agent) is not forbidden.
 3) Some Arabs are citizens of Israel. Perhaps they are paying the
interest.
There are other sevarot as well.  Lema'aseh, however, I think Israeli
bond brokers use a heter iska.

There is an article with a summary of some halachot of ribit in one of
the RJJ Contemporary Halacha journals.

Finally, see a very intersting Torah Temimah in Parshat Behar about why
we rely on a heter iska at all. After all, we do not normally try to
find "loopholes" to get around observing halachot. The answer he gives
is found controversial by some to the extent that I've HEARD (and not
first-hand either), that the Torah Temimah is banned in certain
Yeshivot. (I'm sure the fact that he claimed his uncle read newspapers
didn't help the matter any ... )

Howie Schiffmiller -- [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 00:28:09 +0300
From: Ezra L Tepper <[email protected]>
Subject: Heter Iska

A number of contributors to mail.jewish raised the subject of Heter
Iska. In order to properly understand how this works (in most cases,
such as banks and Israeli bonds), there are two points to remember.

  a. Since banks are not individuals and, moreover, the money that one
receives has no known _ba'al_ (owner), and large banks in Israel such as
Bank Leumi and Bank Hapoalim are, themselves, not owned by individuals
but public bodies that have no owners (the Jewish Agency and the
Histadrut, respectively), according to all opinions (or perhaps nearly
all) even if one would obtain a loan bearing interest, any prohibition
would at most be a rabbinical one (if at all).

  b. In cases of serious loss, the rabbis are able to arrange for
subterfuges (_ha'arama_) to overcome the difficulties caused by their
own prohibitions. Similar arrangements were made regarding the sale of
_chametz_ before Pesach or the use of an _eiruv_ (enclosure) to permit
carrying in places in which carrying is forbidden under rabbinical law.

Eli Turkel writes (3#74):
>My understanding is that a heter iska transforms a loan into a business
>deal with a possibility of gain or loss. This makes sense if one is
>borrowing money for business reasons. However, if someone borrows money
>to go on a pleasure trip or any other reason that does not involve a
>possible gain or loss of money I don't understand how the heter iska
>works.

The answer here is not that the _heter iska_ does not "transform a loan
into a business deal," but more accurately, the _heter iska_ hanging on
the wall of the bank, signed by the bank directorate, specifies that any
money given by the bank to a customer is given to him in the following
way: half is a loan (noninterest-bearing) and the second half is a
deposit belonging to the bank. The recipient is given the money to
invest _in any way he sees fit_ in partnership with the bank and the
profits or losses are divided according to a formula specified. (Note
that the text of the _heter iska_ says that even though the forms signed
by the recipient at the bank may use the term "loan" or "interest," the
meaning understood by the parties is that the money was given half as an
interest-free loan and half as a deposit and that the word "interest"
refers to profits. As I understand it, this agreement is binding and
enforceable both by Jewish and secular courts in Israel.)

Now Eli asks, how does this work if one takes the money for bankrolling
a pleasure trip. The explanation here is that the bank does not specify
how the person receiving the money is to invest it. (Just as people
depositing money in the bank do not worry about how the bank invests
their money.) So clearly, one cannot use the money for a business trip.
However, since most people have some investments going for them, equity
in a home, pension funds, stocks, the recipient -- being an honest man
-- "redeems" the bank's deposit by "transferring" the requisite amount
to his ongoing investment portfolio. Since the bank completely "trusts"
the recipient as to how he invests its part of the money, this intent of
transfer can be carried out without any documentation or lawyers fees.
When time comes to return the money to the bank, the recipient then
"buys back" the bank's share of his home -- or whatever -- and returns
the whole sum plus the fraction of profits accrued (as calculated per
the agreement).

This is the bare outline of how _heter iska_ works and it may raise
additional questions. In order not to write a book on the subject (which
in any case I am not qualified to do), I'll end here and try to answer
further questions which may come up.

Ezra Tepper <[email protected]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 10:44:44 -0400
From: Immanuel Burton <[email protected]>
Subject: The UJS Email Connection.  (New list.)

A new email list is being set up for Jewish students, with the aim of
discussing relevant issues and activities.  Initial announcements were
made to the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) in Britain, but we are
looking to spreading further afield.

The list is being moderated by myself.  Mailings will take place on a
"when- there's-enough-material-to-justify-it" basis.  Submissions for
mailings should steer clear of contraversial issues.

If you would like to join, please send me an email message with the
appropriate details.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 77


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        HIGAYON
             [Moshe Koppel]
        The Israel Project at Nysernet
             [Am. Jewish Inf. Network]
        Vestos
             [Michael Lipkin]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 12:23:38 -0400
From: [email protected] (Moshe Koppel)
Subject: HIGAYON

A while back I posted a formal invitation for something called the
'Higayon' conference which is set to take place in Yerushalayim after
Sukkos (Oct. 26-28). Here's a reminder and update.
The conference is a forum for scientists, mathematicians and the like
to air 'chiddushim' which they have come up with using modern concepts
not typically found in standard discussions of Talmudic matters. I
have often heard interesting interpretations of 'sugyot' using very
neat ideas from game theory, combinatorics etc which are of little
interest in professional scientific forums and totally in outer space
as far as Torah journals are concerned. This conference (and HIGAYON
journal more about which below) are an attempt to fill this gap.
As significant as what the conference includes is what it does not
include. It does not include discussions concerning halacha and
technology and it does not include attempts to prove that the secrets of
the universe are hidden in the Torah. Just explaining difficult sugyot
(or 'meta-sugyot') by borrowing some helpful concepts, that's all.
The conference is sponsored by Yeshiva University and Bar-Ilan
University and looks like it'll be a real extravaganza. An
international lineup of stars has already been assembled. There remain
a couple of open slots for submissions but get them to me soon (Rosh
Chodesh Elul at the latest).
If you can't make it to the conference there exists an ongoing forum
for these ideas, namely the journal HIGAYON. HIGAYON includes both
Hebrew and English papers (mostly Hebrew) and comes out
whenever I get enough good papers to publish. The second volume will,
I hope, come rolling off the presses this summer. It includes a
combinatoric analysis of a difficult Mishna in Masseches Kinnim, a
formalization of geometric aspects of 'egla arufa', a demographic
interpretation of the problem of bekhorim in the midbar (as discussed
in mail.jewish; it solves the whole problem without resorting to
voodoo), speculation on the non-axiomatizability of halacha,
unpublished manuscripts of the Nazir (R. Dovid Cohen) regarding
hermeneutics and logic, and other such hysterically popular topics.
An added incentive for submitting papers is the Brachfeld prize worth
$2000 (!) for the best formalization of a sugya or family of sugyot
using mathematical ideas and notation. To qualify for the prize a
paper must be reasonably comprehensive (the phrase "30-40 typed pages"
is rattling around in my head for some reason) and should get to me by
Rosh Chodesh Elul. The prize will be awarded at the conference.
Direct all inquiries and submissions to  [email protected]
or  Moshe Koppel  Dept. of Mathematics  Bar-Ilan U.  Ramat-Gan,ISRAEL


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 13:10:01 -0400
From: [email protected] (Am. Jewish Inf. Network)
Subject: The Israel Project at Nysernet

Everything you ever wanted in Jewish Networking under a single roof!
israel.nysernet.org is a project whose purpose is to provide a central
location for access to Jewish lists and conferences that originate all
over the world and to provide access to text files and programs of
interest to Jews everywhere.

Israel.nysernet.org currently hosts 11 active public lists plus a number
of private lists.  The following are the public lists.  New lists are
added constantly with approximately two dozen expected by summer.

[email protected]	          soc.culture.jewish newsgroup as a list for
                                  those who cannot get newsgroups.
[email protected]	  Sefardic Electronic Archive.  Discussion of
                                  Sephardic studies and affairs.
[email protected]	          Discussion of Jewish electronic networking.
[email protected]       Support for moderators of Jewish lists.
[email protected]           Jewish Activism List.
[email protected]	  Israel press clippings via the Israel 
                                  Consulate in New York.  A summary of the
                                  current Israeli press and broadcast media.
[email protected]	  Discussion of halacha and related issues.
[email protected]	          United Jewish Appeal Mailing List
[email protected]	  A Byte of Torah.  A weekly discussion of
                                  the parshat hashevuah.
[email protected]        Hillel discussion list

To subscribe to these lists send a message to [email protected]
with one line in it saying:  SUB listname your full name.  So for Moise
Pipik to subscribe to Israel Line he would send a message saying:
SUB israeline Moishe Pipik.  These lists are also available via nntp
as newsgroups with domain israel.  For more info contact Warren Burstein
at the address below.  In addition to the above lists, there are 16 
lists of Jewish interest which are run on other machines but which are
known to the israel.nysernet.org listserver.  This means that if you want
to contact a Jewish list but don't know where to contact it, you can 
send a message to our listserver and if we don't run the list the listserver
will forward your message to the appropriate machine.

                           File Archives
All of the files are in the israel directory and are available by ftp.  
The following is a list of subdirectories under israel.

israel/
  aliya                 job bank for new immigrants to Israel
  beis.chabad		archives of KesherNet's Beis Chabad list
  baltuva		archives of the baltuva mailing list (baltshuva)
  cj-l                  archives of the Conservative Judaism list
  graphics		Jewish graphics: clip art and gifs
  hebrew-calendar	programs for Hebrew calendars, sefirat haomer
  hebrew-emacs		patches for GNU emacs to edit Hebrew
  hebrew-fonts		fonts for various formats
  hebrew-progs		assorted programs for Hebrew
  hillel                archives of the hillel mailing list
  kosher                the Kosher Traveler's database
  L-chaim		archives of KesherNet's L'Chaim list
  list			archives of mailing lists
  listserv		documentation for the listserv program
  macintosh		Jewish software for the Macintosh
  mail-jewish		archives of the mail-jewish mailing list (Traditional)
  mail.liberal-judaism  archives of the liberal Judaism mailing list
  msdos			Jewish software for MSDOS
  riskin                database of devrei Torah by Rabbi Riskin
  tanach		an online Tanach
  uja			archives of the uja mailing list
  unix-c		Jewish software for unix: C source.
  uploads		This is where all uploads to the archive should go

If you have files of Jewish/Hebrew interest please upload them to the
israel/uploads directory and send mail either to [email protected]
or [email protected] with a description of the uploaded file.

For information about setting up a listserv or an archive directory on
this system, send mail to [email protected]

Israel.nysernet.org is administered by Warren Burstein and Chaim Dworkin
under the direction of Avrum Goodblatt and is affiliated with the American 
Jewish Information Network and the Israel-based Global Jewish Information 
Network.  Future goals of the Israel Project at Nysernet include provision
of freenet-style access to individuals and Jewish organizations worldwide 
via the Global Jewish Information Network.

For more information contact:

israel.nysernet.org
    Avrum Goodblatt, Director                  [email protected]
                                               [email protected]
    Chaim Dworkin, North American Coordinator  [email protected]
                                               [email protected]
    Warren Burstein, System Administrator      [email protected]
                                               [email protected]

American Jewish Information Network
    AJIN Board of Directors                    [email protected]
    Alan Stein, Chairman                       [email protected]

Global Jewish Information Network  
    Dov Weiner, Director                       [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 11 Jun 92 14:42:17 EDT
From: Michael Lipkin <[email protected]>
Subject: Vestos

[Note: I'm currently trying to understand what I should do with "ads"
that people may send me for inclusion in mail-jewish. In general, any
commercial advertising I will not accept. The following is being offered
by a non-profit organization and the "cost" of the software is tax
deductable. This indicates to me that we have a non-commercial
application here. In addition, this product may have wide interest to
members of the list. I welcome anyones comments on this issue. Thanks,
your friendly moderator, Avi]

                                VESTOS

VESTOS is a computer program for Taharas Hamishpacha calculations.

Designed to run on IBM PC or compatibles it...

     -  calculates and explains the days of abstinence based on
        the user's personal data.

     -  allows the user to customize the program to conform to
        selected halachic opinions.

     -  includes an integrated civil and Jewish calendar (with Hebrew
        display on EGA or VGA monitors).

     -  allows for password protection of the data.

     -  is simple and easy to use - comes with complete manual.

     -  was reviewed and approved by Rabbi Hillel David and other
        prominent Rabbonim.

VESTOS is distributed by Torah Software a non-profit organization.

VESTOS can be ordered by sending a check for $36.00 (tax deductible)
to:

                        Torah Software
                        95 Rockwell Place
                        Brooklyn, NY 11217

For questions or credit card orders call (718) 522-0222
                                         (718) 260-4375 (FAX)




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 78


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Eruv
             [Eli Turkel]
        Evolution (2)
             [Manny Lehman, Frank Silbermann]
        Music
             [Anthony Waller]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 08:38:48 EDT
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Eruv

    I wish to correct a previous comment of mine. On an old comment I
mentioned that some rabbis in Cleveland had objected strenuously to the
eruv and had said that they would not accept people who relied on the
eruv as witnesses for a wedding. Uopn consulting some more with 'locals'
I was informed that these statements were made during the battle over
the eruv. Now that the eruv exists for several years the controversy has
died down and the opponents of the eruv no longer make a big deal over
it.

[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 92 10:47:48
From: Manny Lehman <[email protected]>
Subject: Evolution

A topic such as Evolution cannot be adequately addressed in mail-jewish. 
Any reasoned discussion requires carefully consideration and 
development. Even a discussion limited to the points made by Ben 
Svetitsky in # 66 would be far too long. But his remarks and questions 
do deserve some response. So I will do by best to address, however 
briefly, the points he makes and the queries raised.

1. There are good scientific (in the accepted sense) reasons to 
oppose, that is reject, Darwinian theory. See, for example, the book 
Challenge by Carmel and Domb published by Feldheim. Im not 100% sure 
of the title but both authors live in Bayit VeGan and Professor Domb can 
also be reached at the Jerusalem College of Technology (Machon Lev) 
where he is Academic President. Im certain he would be happy to talk to 
Ben and discuss these, and other matters, with him in detail.

The reactions of the groups to which Ben refers is an emotional gut 
reaction which sees Darwinian evolution theory as striking at the very 
roots and heart of Jewish faith and belief. It clearly denies the 
creation by G-d of the Universe and of mankind. With this denial it also 
rejects the relationship of and obligation of mankind to G-d and, in 
particular, the special covenant between the Jews and G-d established by 
promises of G-d to our forefathers, the Avot, and sealed with the giving 
of Torah on Sinai. This absolute denial can only be met with absolute 
rejection. Naturally, on the basis of da ma laanot leapikores, and 
without questioning the philosophical validity of the gut reaction, one 
must also be prepared to provide more scientific arguments to those 
prepared to listen and consider.

2. Science never, but never, establishes truth. What it does is to 
create, develop and refine models (of the real world). Such models will 
be more or less precise. There will be measurable correspondence to some 
degree of precision at a finite number of points. But the finite and 
discrete models to which we humans are restricted can never correspond 
in totality to the unbounded and continuous reality they reflect. 
However closely observation of the models and measures of their 
properties correspond to observation and measures of the real world 
being studied, the models remain just that. Moreover, the models that 
are essentially approximate and can, inherently, never be a true 
representation of reality. Truth does not enter into it. Absolute truth 
relates to physical experience, phenomena and events not to mathematical 
models, axioms and descriptive texts.

3. Ben appears to be suggesting that Darwinian Evolution Theory is 
experimental fact? No such thing. Start with Carmel and Domb and proceed 
from there.

4. Let me just explain briefly how I see the resolution of any conflict 
that might, erroneously, be assumed to exist between theories of 
evolution in general and the theory of G-dly Creation, Maasei Bereshit, 
as presented in the Torah and subsequent writings. I, quite 
deliberately, talk about a Theory of Creation as I wish to compare 
apples with apples not apples with pears, oranges or anything else.

In short, our Jewish Theory of Creation takes as its axioms (and all 
theories are based on axioms, explicit or implicit) that there is G-d 
and there were a series of Acts of Creation. What is not expressed 
explicitly in the Torah is whether such creation was ad hoc or whether 
G-d worked according to a plan as would, lehavdil, any human developer. 
I believe it can be argued philosophically that G-d must have had a plan 
- almost by definition. Moreover G-d required a plan whose reflection 
could be deduced from the reality of the Universe by man. In the absence 
of a detectable plan man would not have the bechirah, free will, to 
believe or disbelieve in G-d, in Creation and in Torah min Hashamayim. 
Any reasonable appropriate theory, Darwin, Big Bang, etc., etc. 
constitutes a possible plan, as does Creation a la Maaseh Bereshit. You 
pays your money and you takes your choice (pardon the Anglicism). But, 
given a universe created from a complete plan (as I would expect any G-d 
made plan to be) there is no way in which we can detect at what point in 
time the planning stopped and reality, that is history, began.This is 
true whatever theory I choose to believe forms the footprint or 
reflection (model) of G-ds plan for the Universe and the Laws that 
model its running. Philosophically, if I believe, as I do, that the 
world was created to enable man, individually and collectively, to 
exercise bechirah, free choice, than the break point, the beginning of 
reality, the moments of Creation would be at or just before the 
appearance of man on the scene.Note, by the way, that this view (theory) 
preserves the special relation between G-d and man since it can 
visualises an individual, but architecturally related, sub-plan (after 
all there was only one architect) for each maamar of creation. Naaseh 
adam bezalmeinu, let us make man in our own image, implies that mankind 
had its own sub-plan, therefore, its special relationship and the 
obligations that follow.

Manny Lehman

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 13:49:25 -0400
From: Frank Silbermann <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Evolution

In Volume 3 Number 69, Hillel Markowitz speculated on the reason some
religious circles are so violently opposed to Darwinian evolution theory.
He noted two points:

1) the main part of the theory is the implication that evolution
occurs "on its own" or through "random chance" rather than being a method
by which Hashem controls the world just like rain is the method chosen
to water the plants instead of creating garden hoses and faucets;

and

2) Darwin's theory has been used as the basis of so much apikorsus and
kefirah that many people feel it should be opposed on that basis alone.

As to the first point, science in general concerns itself with the
material rather than the spiritual (e.g. how and when rain falls, rather
than _why_ matter was created to behave as it does) There is nothing
unique about Darwin's theory in this respect.

As to the second point, surely the truth of a theory is independent of
whether fools use it as an excuse to do evil.  Surely the protestors
against the Pepsi ads must have a firmer basis this.  Do we burn our
works of philosophy because they inspired Baruch Spinosa?  Are we to
oppose the Kabbalah because of the Shabtai Zvi heresy?  Should we ban
direct study of the Tanach, because of the Karaites?  Before long, we`ll
be left with nothing but the Shulchan Aruch!

Interestingly, HaRav A. I. Kook advocated a much different approach.  In
his essay "Fragments of Light: A View as to the Reasons for the
Commandments" (translated by Ben Zion Bokser, p. 306, ISBN
0-8091-2159-X) he writes:

	The relationship of the doctrine of evolution -- in all its
	ramifications -- to Judaism, and its fundamental concepts
	in our time, is similar to the ancient confrontation
	of the teaching about the eternity of the universe with
	Judaism in the time of the spiritual polemic with the Greeks.
	Here we need to follow resolutely the scientific method
	of Maimonides, although the methods of reasoning have changed
	with the changing times.  With all the scientific defects
	in the theory of evolution, which is presently at the inception
	of its development and in its early stages, let us take courage
	to base the triumphant affirmation of Judaism on the basis of
	its assumptions, which, on the face of it, seem so antagonistic
	to us.  

Frank Silbermann	[email protected]
Tulane University	New Orleans, Louisiana  USA


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 92 15:11:38 IST
From: Anthony Waller <P85014%[email protected]>
Subject: re: Music

Re: Vol 3, Number 75, Music

  I have attended several "haredi" weddings in Yerushalaim where the
only music is provided by a vocalist and a drummer.  Yet another
"humra"....the more the merrier.... but it still doesn't beat changing
door handles for Pesah! :-)

Anthony Waller             BITNET:    [email protected]
Bar-Ilan University        INTERNET:  [email protected]
Israel.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 79


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Charging oneself interest.
             [Immanuel Burton]
        Chumrot
             [Yaakov Kayman]
        Sheimos
             [Rick Turkel]
        With whom may you walk?
             [Mark Katz]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 08:21:56 -0400
From: Immanuel Burton <[email protected]>
Subject: Charging oneself interest.

The recent discussion on interest and Israeli Bonds reminded me of a
question I once had but which I never resolved.  This question is as
follows:

If I am trading as a sole trader and have a bank account in the name of
my company, and I as an individual lend money to the company, am I
allowed to charge my company interest?  Essentially this may boil down
to charging myself interest, as the company is owned solely by me.

Secondly, when giving someone a loan, may one charge a one-off "handling
fee" which is not expressed as a percentage of the loan?  I have always
understood interest to be a rate, i.e. a percentage increase of the
amount outstanding with unit time.  If, when giving a loan, one says
that one wants an extra five pounds for the bother of going to the bank
to withdraw the money, has one broken the Halacha by stating such a
condition?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 09:36:28 EDT
From: Yaakov Kayman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Chumrot

[From the depths of my email file, sorry Yaakov about the delay]

I'd like to reply to Art Kamlet's note about "chumrot," and specifically
to the point of whwether or not we should be "lenient" by withholding
information about a particular halakha (Jewish law) from those who might
violate it.

The sefer (religious work) "Orchot Tzaddikim,"

    ("ways of the pious" would be a good translation, though my neighbor
    Tuvia Rotberg, owner of Tuvia's Judaica and Jewish book store in
    Monsey, NY (plug deliberate -- a truly good store, owned by a truly
    good person), has informed me it will be available in English only
    in the future)

quoting the Gemara Yevamot (sorry, I've forgotten the page number), says
that "just as we are obligated to rebuke someone who we know will listen,
so we are obligated to refrain from rebuking someone we know will not
listen."

The key word here, which is the point I wish to make, is "know." We are
not permitted to refrain from pointing out the law to someone unless we
are certain that they will nonetheless violate it. We have no right to
assume that any Jew is beyond hope, beyond the pale of wanting to live
his or her life according to the Torah that G-d gave us alone as our
legacy.

Yaakov Kayman      (212) 903-3666       City University of New York

BITNET:   YZKCU@CUNYVM        "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky his flock
Internet: [email protected]     about whom the wolves complain"



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 10:35:12 EDT
From: rmt51%[email protected] (Rick Turkel)
Subject: Sheimos

A friend asked me to post an inquiry on the proper disposal of sheimos,
texts containing God's name.  I have always seen them buried in a
cardboard box, but he says he heard of a source which contradicts this.
The burial of a dead body is to return it to the earth; that of sheimos,
his unspecified source stated, was supposed to include some attempt to
avoid their decomposition, e.g., minimally in a kli cheres (ceramic
container) or even plastic.  Does anyone have any more detailed
information on this?

        Rick Turkel     ([email protected])      ([email protected])

                                Ein navi be`iro.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 01:49:46 -0400
From: Mark Katz <[email protected]>
Subject: With whom may you walk?

My chavrusa/rebbe asked me to post this to Jewish.Mail

The Gemoro in Pesachim (111.1) states that 
  "a man should not walk between any combination of three things -
    a woman, dog or palm tree"

This halochoh is not brought down in the Rif, Ramban or Rosh. Apparently
the only sefer to refer to it, is the Kitzur written just over 100 years ago.

1. Why is it omitted by all the early Rishonim

2. Why is it omitted from the later Achronim (Mishne Brurah, Chaye Olam
   etc)

Any help would be gratefully acknowledged

Yitzchok Katz, London




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 80


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        G-d's name on disk
             [Robert Israel]
        Interest Matters
             [Michael Shimshoni]
        Music at Jerusalem weddings
             [Yosef Branse]
        Plan for Creation
             [Aaron Israel]
        Sheimos (2)
             [Ben Dickman, Eli Turkel]
        Shtar Iska
             [David Chasman]
        With whom may you walk?
             [Ben Dickman]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 13:47:10 -0400
From: Robert Israel <[email protected]>
Subject: G-d's name on disk

Does anyone know the halacha on erasing divine names as it applies to
computers and electronic media?   This is particularly apropos now that 
israel.nysernet.org has Tanach available for ftp.

There are a number of issues that arise.  (1) On the display screen, we
can have a visual representation of the letters.  I'm fairly confident
there is no problem here, because this is just as ephemeral as a shadow
- even though it appears constant, it's actually fading and being
rewritten 60 times or so per second.  Data in RAM is also non-permanent.
(2) On disk, we don't have actual representations of the letters, but
rather codes which can be used as instructions for displaying the
letters, but also could be used in other ways.  On the other hand, this
is a permanent medium.  I don't _think_ there's a problem here.  But
there is a responsum of Rav Moshe Feinstein, dealing not with computers
but with audio recordings.  If I recall correctly, it says that, while
it isn't, strictly speaking, forbidden to erase these, nevertheless it
should be avoided.


Robert Israel                                [email protected]
Department of Mathematics - University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 92 10:41:21 +0300
From: Michael Shimshoni <[email protected]>
Subject: Interest Matters

Immanuel Burton asked:

>Subject: Charging oneself interest.

The usual advice certain circles give is to ask one's Orthodox Rabbi.
As I miss both of these qualifications, I suggest that my following
replies should be taken with care.

>If I am trading as a sole trader and have a bank account in the name of
>my company, and I as an individual lend money to the company, am I
>allowed to charge my company interest?  Essentially this may boil down
>to charging myself interest, as the company is owned solely by me.

I also miss the qualification of one knowledgeable in business matters,
but I always thought that if one has a company even if it is "solely
owned" by oneself, there is some legal difference between that company
and one's own money.  Sometimes one is not liable personally for all
possible debts of the company if it defaults.  There may be other
reasons, because if there were none why bother to have a company.  IFF I
am right on that, than there is no difference if one charges interest to
that company or any other company, and if one is forbidden so is the
other.

>Secondly, when giving someone a loan, may one charge a one-off "handling
>fee" which is not expressed as a percentage of the loan?  I have always
>understood interest to be a rate, i.e. a percentage increase of the
>amount outstanding with unit time.  If, when giving a loan, one says
>that one wants an extra five pounds for the bother of going to the bank
>to withdraw the money, has one broken the Halacha by stating such a
>condition?

Torah interest is not necessarily a rate or percentage.  As far as I
know one is not even allowed to just thank the lender for the loan, as
this is considered "ribit devarim".

Michael Shimshoni

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 23:34:22 -0400
From: [email protected] (Yosef Branse)
Subject: Music at Jerusalem weddings

According to my wife, who studied in Yerushalayim before our marriage,
the minhag regarding music at weddings is a restriction on the number of
musicians - a maximum of one - rather than instruments. Thus, one person
performing on several instruments is OK.

She added that the minhag includes only certain areas of the city, but
didn't know the exact boundaries. I know that it covers more than just
the Old City, because at our own wedding, held at the Beis Yaakov near
the Biblical Zoo, entertainment was provided by a one-man band.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed Jun 17 11:15:14 EDT 1992
From: Aaron Israel <[email protected]>
Subject: Plan for Creation

In reference to Manny Lehman's comment ..."What is not expressed
explicitly in the Torah is whether such creation was ad hoc or whether
Hashem worked according to a plan....", I feel that the Midrashic
statement of 'Histakel B'Oraysa u'vara Alma' ([Hashem] looked in the
Torah and created the Universe) conveys the perspective of the Torah
world toward creation.  The blueprint for creation of the world was the
Torah & the existence of this blueprint is one of the axioms of the
Torah world.  Pirkei Avos tells us that Hashem took ten sayings
(Ma'amarot) to create the world. This refers to the ten unique stages in
which the world was created.  Each stage must be preceded by that which
came before it in order to survive.  This also leads us to the
conclusion that Hashem must have had a plan to create the universe.

Aaron Israel - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 18:24:04 -0400
From: [email protected] (Ben Dickman)
Subject: Re: Sheimos

At my mother's funeral, our Rav (a top posek) took along the Shul
sheimos.  There were several large cardboard boxes of sheimos.  Some
envelopes were thrown into the spaces.  There was no apparent attempt to
preserve or package anything in a special way.

        Ben Dickman   [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 13:34:55 EDT
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Sheimos

    The custom is to bury worn out seferei torah or tefillin
(dvor shebekedusah  - holy things) in a grave togther witha person.
On the other hand we find in the cairo geniza that letters etc. were
kept in the attic of the shul.

[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 20:59:07 EDT
From: [email protected] (David Chasman)
Subject: Shtar Iska

I am looking for an English text of the "Shtar Iska" for making
loans with interest.  In addition, I found a hebrew version in the
back of a Kitzur Shulchan Aruch - but, does anybody know of a good
source for a hebrew text with all Roshei Teivot expanded ?

--David Chasman

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 18:24:04 -0400
From: [email protected] (Ben Dickman)
Subject: Re: With whom may you walk?

Gemoro in Pesachim (111a):
  "a man should not walk between any combination of three things -
    a woman, dog or palm tree"

Not every Halakha is brought down in Shulchan Arukh, nor in any other
sefer.   Halakha cannot be circumscribed by written materials, because
it is Oral Torah, and depends on who is asking the shailah (legal question),
who is answering, and on many details that have to be clarified orally
between the questioner and the Rav.  So much for generalities.

It is currently the minhag, at least, for a man not to walk between two
women.  (It predisposes one to forgetting, if I remember correctly :-) )
I haven't had occasion to ask about palm trees or dogs.

	Ben Dickman   [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 81


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Divine names in binary (2)
             [Elhanan Adler, Moshe Rayman]
        Evolution (2)
             [Pinchas Nissenson, Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Heter Iska
             [Yisrael Medad]
        Walking between two women or two dogs
             [Mike Gerver]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 00:11:42 -0400
From: [email protected] (Elhanan Adler)
Subject: Divine names in binary

On disk all textual data is represented in numerical form, which your
particular display hardware changes to characters. For example, there is
no such thing as a binary "yod" - in Israel a "yod" could be either
ASCII 105 ("oldcode" Hebrew 7-bit), ASCII 137 (PC-8 bit Hebrew) or ASCII
233 (DEC 8 bit Hebrew) and there are at least 2 or three other
"standards" (!) I am aware of.  Any of these seen on a terminal or
printer using a different standard would produce other characters.
Indeed, on my terminal, when in 7-bit Hebrew mode I can cause all the
Hebrew to flip to lower case Roman and back with the touch of a key. I
can't see how such a series of numbers could be construed as having any
sanctity.

Elhanan Adler
University of Haifa Library, Mt. Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel
Israeli U. DECNET:HAIFAL::ELHANAN 
Internet/ILAN: [email protected] or: [email protected] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 09:17:50 -0400
From: [email protected] (Moshe Rayman)
Subject: Divine names in binary

The issue of erasure of a name of G-d stored on disk, see mail.jewish
1991 #169, #174, and particularly #179.

[Thanks Moshe for checking out the Index and finding this. Mod.]

Moshe Rayman - [email protected] - (201) 829-2219


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 18:23:53 -0400
From: Pinchas Nissenson <[email protected]>
Subject: Evolution

 I was more than surprised to see the literary interpretation of
creation by HASHEM. That approach to G-D is very similar to Christian
interpretation of G-D as a man. It implies that somebody is actually
constructing the universe as one would have constructed a house.
 If we consider HASHEM as a universal force where gravity,
electromagnetism and so forth are relatively simple manifestations of
this force, then we find that the BIG BENG is actually surprisingly
close to the description given to us in Bereshit.
 Darwinian theory of evolution as far as I am aware does not claim
creation, but only shows that G-D's creations are capable to adaptation
under certain conditions. It would have surprised me if they were not
able to do so. One has to remember that the Torah was given to us when
the level of our knowledge about the universe and natural sciences was
next to nil.  Therefore it was written in rather simplified language.
Still one can not stop marveling the way it has conveyed to us so much
information about the world.  The biggest problem with Darwin's theory
is that it was used by secular people to remove G-D as a moral authority
and as a result they removed the moral responsibility with it.
 It left us a world where men does not answer to anyone.  We can destroy
the environment, the family and the society without having to give din
and heshbon to G-d.

There are a few very good books on the subject
"God and the New Physics" by Paul Davies
"The Intelligent Universe" by Fred Hoyle
"Godel, Escher Bach" by D. Hofstadter

All of them are written by people who while claiming to be atheist come
to a startling (to them) conclusion that there was a creation.  I would
like to add that our attempts to understand G-D remind of a two
dimensional ( flat ) creature trying to understand what happens when we
put a cup of hot coffee on the table ( his universe ) and then take it
away.

 Phone: (403) 220-5441  FAX: (403) 282-9361


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 16:13:18 -0400
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Evolution

I enjoyed Manny Lehman's article about evolution and Torah, especially
the the resolution he offers of the apparent conflict between the two.
In the early paragraphs, however, he makes some points with which I
disagree.

First, the issue of whether evolution theory is correct is largely
irrelevant to the question at hand.  If it is incorrect, then some other
theory will be correct, and that theory will have to be consistent with
observation.  Those who follow the Torah and teach it to the world must
make peace with whatever science dishes out.

To make this point more immediate, let me shift my focus from evolution,
about which I have read only the popular literature, to cosmology, with
which I deal on a professional level.  The Hubble Law governing galactic
redshifts, and the dramatic discovery of the cosmic background
radiation, are not things you can sneeze at.  Every day, astronomers and
astrophysicists fill in more pieces of a detailed cosmological theory
with hard facts.  You'd better be ready to accept the Big Bang as a
physical fact consistent with the Torah.  I can only assume that those
who reject evolution for merely philosophical reasons will do the same
with the Big Bang.

Second, I do not accept the thesis that science does not establish
truth.  Various writers, philosophers not scientists, have filled the
literature with concepts like "paradigm" which are irrelevant to working
scientists.  They totally miss the point that science establishes truth
by looking at facts that are in front of our eyes.  Priestley PROVED
that oxygen, not phlogiston, is consumed in combustion by weighing his
bell jar.  Maxwell (and others) PROVED the existence of atoms by the
development of kinetic theory, by the study of Brownian motion, and so
forth -- an irrefutable statement about objects only an Angstrom in
diameter.  Today, we are proving propositions about objects far smaller,
and about times far before our own.

I agree that truth is not established by proving theorems about axioms.
That is why mathematics is merely a tool, and why scientists (including
theoretical physicists) are wary of applying its methods.  Science
confronts experiments, and experiments are its test and its
justification.

Again, I enjoyed Mr. Lehman's essay at reconciling Torah and evolution.
But I think one needs not adopt so rigorous an approach.  Not to drop
names, I heard the Rav Soloveitchik say many times that the Torah is not
a science book.  The mass of Aggada and Midrash based on Ma'ase B'reshit
is enormous, and it lies at the base of what makes us Jews, what makes
us follow halacha.  There is no need to reconcile it with scientific
fact.

Ben Svetitsky     [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 02:36:23 -0400
From: MEDAD%[email protected] (Yisrael Medad)
Subject: Heter Iska

Regarding the discussion over Heter Iska, I might have missed the
refere3nce but I wish to bring to everyone's attention that JD Bleich,
noted Halachic authority, published an article on Heter Iska in the
Fall 1991 TRADITION Journal (Vol. 26, No. 1) whcih includes an English
translation of the Shtar Heter Iska (in part reply to David Chasman,
# 80).

Yisrael Medad - <MEDAD@ILNCRD>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 00:48 EST
From: [email protected] (Mike Gerver)
Subject: Walking between two women or two dogs

Twenty years ago, when Chaim Drizin was the rabbi at Chabad House in
Berkeley, he remarked that this statement in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch
(that a man should not walk between two women or two dogs) was an
example of why he did not recommend that recent (or not quite) baalei
teshuva use the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch as a source of information on
halacha. Not that the halacha was not valid, but that expressing it that
way, out of the context of the Gemara it came from, sounded insulting to
women, and would give people the wrong impression about Judaism.

Mike Gerver, [email protected]





----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 82


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Halakhik - Transliterated Spellings
             [Moshe Rayman]
        Plan for Creation
             [Manny Lehman]
        Ribit
             [Eli Turkel]
        Science and Halakha
             [Norman Miller]
        Shabbat and Occupations
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]
        Walking Between Women or Dogs (2)
             [Ezra L Tepper, Michael Zvi Krumbein]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 12:42:55 -0400
From: [email protected] (Moshe Rayman)
Subject: Halakhik - Transliterated Spellings

I think the correct spelling of "halakhic" is with a "c".  the "ic"
ending is english (i.e. gothic), and should be with a "ic" ending.  The
word spelling halakha, follows a standard academic transliteration
scheme.

[Thanks, Moshe. I have made that change to my local spelldict, and will
try to remember to run ispell before sending things out. I would
appreciate any of you out there that are familiar with standard
transliteration spellings to point them out to me and the list. Thanks,
your Moderator]

Moshe Rayman - [email protected] - (201) 829-2219

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 09:31:25 -0400
From: Manny Lehman <[email protected]>
Subject: Plan for Creation

Of course I agree with Aaron Israel. What I said was that "...is not 
expressed EXPLICITLY.. (new caps). I also said that it is my belief that 
not only that there was a plan but there had to be one if man was to 
have the bechirah (free will) to believe or disbelieve in G-D and 
Creation.

Aaron is correct in drawing our attention to the Midrash that states 
categorically that, in fact, the Torah is the underlying plan. I merely 
add the observation that planning is, or may be, a multi-stage process 
and that we may assume that intermediate to the Torah as a plan and 
actuality taking over, we may, kavyachol (in human terms), visualize a 
planning or development process of which any "scientific" theory of 
evolution is a model. How the process "actually" occurred is, of course, 
kavyachol, in the "mind" of G-d and therefore something that we, as mere 
humans, can never fathom.

Manny

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 09:09:35 EDT
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Ribit

According to Rabbi Feinstein the prohibition of ribit (interest) does
not apply if the borrower is a corporation but does apply if the lender
is a corporation. Hence, for Israeli bonds where the state of Israel is
the borrower there is no prohibition since there is no individual
responsibility. According to this opinion one can lend money to an
Israeli bank but not borrow. I have heard stories that some Israeli
rabbis have the exactly opposite opinion in terms of corporate borrowers
and lenders but I have not seen it in print.

In terms of using the loan from an Israeli bank for a pleasure trip I
still feel it is on shaky grounds. Since there is no possibility of a
loss it hard to justify paying the bank because I don't want to prove my
losses. In particular what would happen if I went to the bank and proved
I used the money for a trip and so had no losses. In addition in many
bank loans one does have to tell the bank what the money is being used
for.  In Israel most loans are for overdrafts on ones account which are
immediately turned into loans with interest. In this case one 'borrows'
the money without even knowing about it. I find it far fetched to assume
that every person with an account automatically agrees to this
partnership in his gains and losses.

I once heard in the name of the Chazon Ish that he said that in his day
there were two mitzvot that people religious people ignored. One was
shemitta and the other was ribit. He said he would fight about shemitta
but that ribit was a hopeless cause. I also heard a story about Rabbi
Auerbach in Israel, that he once went into minus on his bank account and
the bank charged him interest. He sat down with the bank manager and
explained to him the problems with ribit but to no avail. I don't
guarantee the authenticity of either story.

[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 15:36:36 -0400
From: [email protected] (Norman Miller)
Subject: Science and Halakha

I agree entirely with Ben Svetisky when he argues that it's unnecessary
to reconcile halakha with scientific fact.  Or, I would add, with
science.  A question remains: even if reconciliation is a waste of
time, what of _integration_ in the sense that David Hartman (Maimonides:
Torah and Philosophic Quest) uses the term?

Norman Miller 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 92 15:50:33 -0400
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Shabbat and Occupations

A year or two ago, we had some discussion here on the problems with
pursuing certain occupations---police, electric company, etc.---in
Israel if you are Shomer Shabbat.  The idea was put forth that perhaps
observant people are supposed to avoid such employment, and hence that
the State could not really run without Shabbat violation.

This afternoon, I was at a shiur given by R. Naftali Bar-Ilan of Rehovot
(the current Netsiv, if you will) on precisely this subject.  He emphasized
the importance of ever more observant people entering such occupations---
everything from security guard to social worker---in order
to create an adequate body of halakha covering such questions.  In other
words, if nobody is ever faced with the problem, the problem will never
be solved.

In any case, the problem is NOT in its infancy.  There have been many studies,
and many decisions.  One source he referred to was Volume 2 of Techumin,
which I guess appeared 9-10 years ago.  The general drift of today's lecture
was that just as doctors have long benefitted from precise psakim regarding
what can and cannot be done on Shabbat, such systems are being set up for
other occupations.  The detailed example he discussed was police work, where
a detailed classification of various police tasks has been made.  The Rav
himself has been interviewing people in various occupations.

He mentioned writing as an example of a frequent, necessary task, and said
that people should explore the use of electronic mail (!) as an alternative
to written messages.  The main obstacles in this case appear to come not
from halakha, but from the question of the legal validity of an electronic
document.  (I emphasize that the discussion concerns cases of pikuach nefesh
only.)

Ben Svetitsky   [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 20:49:26 +0300
From: Ezra L Tepper <[email protected]>
Subject: Walking Between Women or Dogs

As I remember the issue as discussed in the yeshiva, walking between two
women or two dogs was a ceremony of necromancers.

Two interesting questions now arise:

a. Do modern day necromancers have this same practice?

b. And if they don't, let's say that they now only walk between cats, does
   that leave the women and dogs off the hook, halachicly speaking that is?

Perhaps one of the newsgroups on USENET specializes in such knowledge. Maybe
someone could inquire and pass through question a. for their consideration.

Ezra Tepper <[email protected]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 10:57:04 -0400
From: Michael Zvi Krumbein <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Walking Between Women or Dogs

Walking behind a woman, by itself, is mentioned in the standard places,
where avoiding improper contact between the sexes and improper thoughts
are discussed. (RaMBaM Noshim, S.A. Even HoEzer)

[email protected] Michael Zvi Krumbein


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 83


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia Correction
             [Tom Rosenfeld]
        Interest (2)
             [David Sherman, David Sherman]
        Jewish Clowns
             [Alexander Herrera]
        Rachmanim b'nai rachmanim
             [Zev Hochberg]
        Women and Hagbah
             [Neil Parks]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 10:47:36 -0400
From: [email protected] (Tom Rosenfeld)
Subject: Re:  Administrivia Correction

Avi, you misspelled israel in your message...

> lose your account. To do so, just send an email message to:
> 
> [email protected]

-tom
[Thanks, Tom. Please note, the correct listserv address is:
[email protected]]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 09:49:24 -0400
From: [email protected] (David Sherman)
Subject: Re: Interest

Michael Shimshoni writes:

> I always thought that if one has a company even if it is "solely
> owned" by oneself, there is some legal difference between that company
> and one's own money.  Sometimes one is not liable personally for all
> possible debts of the company if it defaults.  There may be other
> reasons, because if there were none why bother to have a company. 

Legally, this is correct: a corporation is a separate legal entity
from the individual shareholder.  Indeed, the shareholder is not
normally liable for the corporation's debts (except to the extent the
shareholder may have signed a personal guarantee).  However, it's not
clear what the application to halacha is of this secular legal concept.

Case in point: certain major supermarket chains in Toronto, although
incorporated, are considered "Jewish-owned" for purposes of the
halacha relating to buying chometz owned by a Jew on Pesach.
(Interestingly, the deadline we have been told is "30 days after
Pesach".  There appears to be a halachic presumption that after 30
days the stock has been turned over and what we're buying was not
owned by the supermarket during Pesach.)


David Sherman  -  Tax Lawyer
(I profess no expertise whatsoever in halacha)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 92 22:31:01 -0400
From: [email protected] (David Sherman)
Subject: Re: Interest

> I once heard in the name of the Chazon Ish that he said that in his day
> there were two mitzvot that people religious people ignored. One was
> shemitta and the other was ribit. He said he would fight about shemitta
> but that ribit was a hopeless cause.

Has anyone tried a halachic re-analysis of the issue based on the
concept that nominal dollars/shekels/anything else aren't the same as
real amounts?  If the society has 10% inflation, and I lend you $10 and
get back $11, I'm only getting back the same value as I lent you.  Of
course, commercial rates of interest normally reflect both inflation and
some real return, so this isn't a complete answer; but I wonder whether
one can use the built-in inflation issue to demonstrate that a loan of
(say) dollars, when paid back in more dollars, is not "interest" as
halachically defined.  On this reasoning, only a loan of something with
intrinsic value (say a one-ounce gold coin) that was to be repaid with
something of higher intrinsic value would constitute interest.

I don't profess any knowledge whatsoever of the halacha involved; but as
a tax lawyer I'm trained to look for alternative ways of complying with
the wording of the legislation (l'havdil) while meeting one's own goals.
So I throw out this suggestion for consideration.

David Sherman
Toronto


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 92 17:53:37 -0400
From: [email protected] (Alexander Herrera)
Subject: Jewish Clowns

I was a professional clown for many years. I performed magic, told
stories and played games. I often performed at children's
hospitals, retirement homes and convalescent hospitals as well. It's
fun, but I now want to change my clown character in order to stay
within the bounds of Jewish Law. I would like to know a few things:

1. What does a Jewish clown look like? Do they wear make up. What kind
of costuming do they wear?

2. If magic is not allowed, what does a Jewish clown do to entertain an
audience?

3. I have been told that the Talmud says that a clown has automatically
earned a place in the world to come. I would like to know where it says
that, and what you think of it.

4. Do you have any memories of Jewish clowns?

You probably think I am being silly. Please take this request
seriously. I love entertaining as a clown. I do it well, and I would
like to do it correctly from an Orthodox point of view.

I must relate this one story. A few years ago, I voluteered to
entertain the crowd at the local Israel Fair. Chabad had a mitzvah
booth there and they were encouraging Jews to lay tefillin. I had
wanted to learn how to lay tefillin, so when I heard about it, I ran to
the booth as fast as I could run. It was quite a sight as I came
puffing and panting up to the mitzvah booth. I wore shoes big enough
for an elephant, a red checkered suit, a big wide blue tie and a
burgundy bowler hat covering a wild red wig. They looked at me like I
was from outer space! Then they scratched their heads, took a long look
and said OK. They pushed back my wig, rolled up my sleeve and we did
it! Even though I sometimes differ with them, I've had a lot of respect
for Chabad ever since.

Alex Herrera  -  uunet!mdcsc!ah

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 92 20:52:55 -0400
From: Zev Hochberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Rachmanim b'nai rachmanim

Anyone know the source of the idea that ambiguous claims of Jewishness
are verified by observing behavior, to see if people act like "Rachmanim
b'nai rachmanim?" [merciful ones, children of merciful ones - Mod.] Does
"b'nai rachmanim" refer to Avraham Avinu?  Then why the plural?  Is this
concept ever applied halachically or is it "just" drash?

Zev Hochberg
Internet: [email protected]
Bitnet:   hochbrgz@nyuacf


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 92 01:09:27 -0400
From: [email protected] (Neil Parks)
Subject: Re: Women and Hagbah

[Prof. Aryeh Frimer writes in V3#57:]

>     I am presently working on an extensive paper (for "Tradition") on
>Women's Prayer Services. The Mishneh Berurah at the end of Orach Chayim
>Siman 88 cites a custom that Menstruating women abstain from looking at
>a Sefer Torah when it is raised for Hagbah. (I should note that Rav

>    I would greatly appreciate if people would do an informal survey in
>their communities and notify me whether this is indeed the case. Please
>inform me whether the community is Modern Orthodox, Agudah, Haredi.

I wish you the best of luck in getting answers to your survey, but
speaking just for myself, I am reluctant to ask any women such a
personal question.

However, you might be interested in some other customs I have run across
concerning women and the Sefer Torah.

At the Taylor Road Synagogue/Beachwood Branch in Cleveland, OH, many of
the women reach across the mechitzah to touch the Torah as it is being
marched around the shul.  (Again, I would hesitate to ask them whether
they vary that practice based on time of the month.)

At B'nei Torah in Indianapolis, when they take out the Torah, they march
through the center aisle of the men's section toward the back of the
shul, and then come forward through the center aisle of the women's
section.

I would say both of these shuls qualify as "modern Orthodox", if you
must put a label on them.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest
**************************

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 84


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Cleveland Kosher Food
             [Neil Parks]
        Jewish Clowns
             [Hillel Markowitz]
        Orlando update
             [Joe Weisblatt]
        Ribit
             [Eli Turkel]
        Showering on YomTov - what's the story?
             [Joe Weisblatt]
        Women and Hagbah
             [Aryeh A. Frimer]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 00:27:01 -0400
From: [email protected] (Neil Parks)
Subject: Re: Cleveland Kosher Food

>1) Kineret Pizza Restaurant. (Try the eggplant)
>2) Peh [Hebrew letter] - King. There are 2-3 of these, all 
>   at different spots on South Taylor Road, all under different
>   kashrus supervision. You pays your money and you takes your
>   choice.

There is only one P-King.  It is on Taylor Road, as is Kinneret.

A new kosher restaurant has just opened on Warrensville Road in
University Heights, a block south of Cedar Center: Empire Kosher
Chicken.  It provides cafeteria or take-out service.  There is fried
chicken, barbecued, roasted, and a wide variety of side dishes and some
desserts.  There are a few entrees other than chicken available also.

All the kosher restaurants in Cleveland are supervised by the Orthodox
Rabbinical Council.

Neil Edward Parks  --  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 92 09:18:05 -0400
From: [email protected] (Hillel Markowitz)
Subject: Re: Jewish Clowns

I have seen Orthodox magicians entertain at Yeshivas and the main thing
was that they presented it solely as illusions and entertainment.
Apparently it is the idea of presenting it as real that is forbidden.
As long as everyone knows that it is a fake, then it is OK.

Perhaps even some tricks that the magician "fumbles" would be good as
the children seem to love catching the clown in a "mistake".  An example
is palming a sponge ball and letting them catch it but at the end it
"diappears" from where the children were positive it was.

As far as the make up and costume, I understand that it is OK as it is
for the entertainment and is not dressing "like a woman".

All this is from memory only of a few years ago, so as always, CYLOR.

Hillel Markowitz  --  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1992 23:44:54 -0400
From: [email protected] (Joe Weisblatt)
Subject: Orlando update

As an update to recently posted Orlando info. - my family was in Orlando
last week (6/7-6/10).  On Tuesday my wife went in to the Hyatt to get
some of the pre-packaged sandwiches which we thought were available in
the "market/deli" in the lobby.  No such luck.  The woman in the store
told her the restaurant had closed and sandwiches were no longer
available.  She offered some packaged goods with a hechsher (kosher
supervision), but significantly less than one would find at a grocery
store.  (That is less selection, not less hechsher :-))

On the positive side, the Publix grocery down the road has a significant
amount of store brand stuff with OU supervision (cookies/crackers,
peanut butter, jelly, etc.) plus a significant Empire Frozen Poultry
selection.

joe weisblatt ([email protected])

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 92 08:32:07 EDT
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Ribit

     David Sherman writes

> Has anyone tried a halachic re-analysis of the issue based on the
> concept that nominal dollars/shekels/anything else aren't the same as
> real amounts?  If the society has 10% inflation, and I lend you $10 and
> get back $11, I'm only getting back the same value as I lent you.  Of
> course, commercial rates of interest normally reflect both inflation and
> some real return, so this isn't a complete answer; but I wonder whether
> one can use the built-in inflation issue to demonstrate that a loan of
> (say) dollars, when paid back in more dollars, is not "interest" as
> halachically defined.  On this reasoning, only a loan of something with
> intrinsic value (say a one-ounce gold coin) that was to be repaid with
> something of higher intrinsic value would constitute interest.

   While this suggestion makes sense unfortunately it is explicitly not
allowed by the Gemara. The Gemara discusses cases where one borrows
wheat and returns wheat and the price of the wheat changes during the
loan period. The bottom line is that if one returns more money than one
borrowed it is "ribit" even though the 'value' of the money is the same.
This was an important issue several years ago when Israel had an
inflation rate of ten percent per month, hence if one was repaid for
even a short loan one lost money in real terms.

Eli Turkel

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1992 17:45:44 -0400
From: [email protected] (Joe Weisblatt)
Subject: Showering on YomTov - what's the story?

Showering on YomTov - what's the story?
  (As our moderator has pointed out to me, this was briefly discussed in
  Volume 1 #109,112,113, but I found those posts to be short on halakhic
  specifics, i.e. issues involved and sources addressing those issues in
  a modern day context.)


I was wondering if someone could provide sources as to if and why
warm showers are probibited/permitted on Yom Tov in our modern day homes.

The assumptions underlying my use of "modern day homes" are:

1) thermostatically regulated hot-water heaters through which water
   flows by water pressure, i.e., use of hot water at the tap
   corresponds to an equal amount of fresh cold water entering the
   boiler.  (This is to differentiate from "gravity" systems where the
   intake can, I believe, be turned off, thereby alleviating at least
   one possible problem.)

2) modern water supply systems where all water entering the house is equally
   suitable for drinking/cooking.

3) towels which, today, would make the possibility of inadvertently wringing
   out water while drying oneself very remote at best.

The footnotes in "Sh'mirat Shabbat Ke'Hilchata" on the issue of bathing
on Y"T indicate that this is "Tzarich Iyyun" (in need of further study)
and he seems to give references which would indicate permissibility.
I do not have the resources for following through the references he provides.

Hot Water on YomTov - what are the restrictions if any?
  Ignoring the complications of bathing, shouldn't the use of hot water
  from modern-day hot water heaters be permissible for just about any minor
  need on Y"T - washing dishes being the example that comes to mind.

Just as a humorous aside, I'll add my favorite Yom Tov irony -
    people lighting cigarettes off of Yartzheit candles.

--> joe weisblatt ([email protected])


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 92 08:57:11 -0400
From: [email protected] (Aryeh A. Frimer)
Subject: Re: Women and Hagbah

	I want to thank all those who responded to my query regarding
women's custom in shul during their menstrual period. For those
interested in the outcome, it is clear that the vast majority of all
women from all "eidot" (communities) do not abstain from any synagogue
or prayer practices. There are some exceptions, particularly in Iranian
and some sefardic communities. The following Gedolim have indicated that
women no longer refrain from looking at the Sefer Torah during Hagbah:
Rav Moshe Feinstein Zatsal and Yibadel LeHayim Tovim (May they live a
long good life) Chief Rabbi (of Britain) Jakobowitz, and Noted Israeli
Posek Rabbi Eliashiv (communicated to me via Rabbi Shlomo Pik). Hence,
there no longer seems to remain any remnant of the customs mention by
the Rama at the end of Orach Hayim 88. I should note that Rav Ovadiah
Yosef also argues that there are no restrictions re' synagogue and
Prayer practices for a Niddah - but he rules like Rabbi Yosef Karo
against the Rama.  It is ironic therefore that is specifically in some
of the sefardic communities that remnants of the earlier stringent
custom remain.






----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 85


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Inflation and Interest.
             [Immanuel Burton]
        Mega Hearing Aid For Orthodox Jews
             [Joe Abeles]
        Music
             [Eli Turkel]
        Torah Temima
             [Eli Turkel]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 92 09:30:33 -0400
From: Immanuel Burton <[email protected]>
Subject:  Inflation and Interest.

According to the Chazom Ish, money remains at a static value.  It seems
that the stronger or weaker buying power of money is because of the
change of value of the commodities.

This would therefore suggest that to pay back more than one borrowed in
order to make up for the effects of inflation would constitute interest,
and is therefore not permitted.  Maybe one could get round this by using
a Heter Iskah.

(Reference:  Torah Guide for the Businessman,
             by Rabbi S. Wagscal.
             Published by Feldheim Publishers.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Jun 92 09:13:32 U
From: Joe Abeles <[email protected]>
Subject: Mega Hearing Aid For Orthodox Jews

Below is an excerpt from something which may be of sufficient interest to be
posted in m.j.:

  From "New Technology Week", published by King Communications Group, 627
National Press Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20045 comes:

MEGA HEARING AID FOR ORTHODOX JEWS

Simple pipe systems were the means of communications in many ships up
through WW II.  In most instances, electronic systems have replaced them
as a means of exchanging information.  But the pipe technology may soon
see life again -- this time with novel hardware packaged as a public
address system for the synagogues of orthodox Jews.

The practices of Orthodox Jews prohibit the use of electricity on the
sabbath and the conduct of work.  The faithful must follow strict tenets
that even prevent them from turning a light switch on during this
24-hour period that begins every Friday at sundown.  These limitations
mean that rabbis preaching to congregations must have strong voices --
and hopefully a synagogue with good acoustics.  Even with the right
conditions hearing a sermon in the back of a crowded synagogue is not
always easy.

But now, Defense Research Techology, Inc. of Rockville, MD thinks it can
bring amplification to Orthodox congregations without breaking any
religious rules.  The solution: a sophisticated amplification unit
powered by compressed air -- a concept based in part on research
conducted by the Army's Harry Diamond Laboratories and on development
work done by the company itself.

The brainstorm of DRT President Tadeusz Drzewiecki and Michael
Phillippi, the creation of the ampilfication system is driven by more
than a desire to ease worshippers' neck strain and spare the vocal
chords of rabbis.  Rather it is viewed as another platform for
exploiting the company's growing expertise in fluidics.  The value of
the orthodox synagogue niche market is estimated by program manager
Phillippi at $40 to $80 million worldwide.

This may be only the tip of a larger market for DRT, a tiny privately
held enterprise with gross revenues in the range of $2 million annually.
The defense engineering and consulting company also sees applications
for the technology in a number of industrial applications where
radiation, chemical, or fire hazards exist.  Potential uses include
active communications as well as sound-based equipment operations
monitoring.

For the moment, however, synagogues are DRT's "monster market," says
Phillippi.  Will the system be accepted by Orthodox congregations as
being compatible with their religious traditions, you ask?  The answer
is 'yes.'  The Institute of Science and Halacha in Jerusalem, Israel,
has blessed the amplification system, which has no moving parts, valves,
or diaphragms.  The mechanism also is expected to win the approval of
the Rabbinical Council of America.

"It is still under study by our law commission, but the possibility of
it being accepted being very good," says Rabbi Binyamin Walfish,
executive vice president of the council.  "There is no question [that
the amplification system] would be a great help in many ways."  Indeed,
not only would it help orthodox congregations hear better, but it also
would enable rabbis and memebers of Orthodox congregations to more
readily participate in the services of reform and conservative Jews
whose synagogues are typically equipped with electronic amplification
systems.  Walfish says the system would be useful to Orthodox rabbis
conducting services in old-age homes where numbers of people have
hearing loss.

Based on the principles of fluid dynamics, the system on the outside
looks like a typical address system -- with microphones on a podium and
speakers mounted in boxes.  But there the similarity ends.  Instead of
using an electrified microphone, the DRT amplfier uses a hollow pipe
capped with a foam microphone windscreen.  Voice soundwaves are funneled
and compressed through a tapered tube with a final diameter of 0.047
inches.  At that point, the sound pressure is emitted into a high
velocity air jet that pushes the signal through a fluidic amplifier
where the pressure is amplified 100 times.

Depending on the sound volume requirements, the air stream carrying the
sound signal is amplified several more times before being piped to
exponential horns where it is broadcast at highly amplified levels to an
audience.  These horns are virtually identical to the large metal
speaker horns seen in commercial public address systems, except that
they are driven by air instead of electrically stimulated magnets.
Typical sound pressure is110 to 120 decibels as compared in normal
speaking volume of 65 decibels says Phillippi.

The key to the technology is a compact amplfication device known as a
laminar proportional amplifier, which was first invented at Harry
Diamond Laboratories in the early 1970's.  The adaption of this
technology for this kind of amplification was initially described by
DRT's president in 1980 in a paper published by the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers.  Consisting of a stack of paper-thin
stainless-steel plates stamped with specially-patterned guideways, the
five-stage fluidic circuit amplifier driver is relatively compact and
yields signal gain with limited distortion.

The technology does, however, have its limitations.  Right now, the
amplification system is oriented towards voices and tends to lose higher
frequency tones.  Thus it is not suitable for musical applications.
And, although the system is capable of driving numerous speaker horns,
at present they must be within 35 feet of the microphone.  Trying to
place speakers further out results in loss of volume and increased
amplification requirements Boosting volume is possible, but it also can
lead to significant distortion in voice quality.

Drzewiecki and Phillippi are confident that they can refine their system
to increase volume, boost transmission distances and further reduce
distortion.  This latter issue says David Klepper of the acoustics
consulting firm of Klepper, Marshall and King should be possible with
improvements in the design of their amplification components and in
their manufacturing process.

Further development work on DRT's fluidic amplifier awaits a new
infusion of capital.  The company has spent around $250,000 so far in
developing the system.  Phillippi estimates that it will take another
$250,000 to move the design into production.  Initial costs could be
around $10,000 to $20,000 per synagogue, wich on its face might appear
to be prohibitive.  But Walfish says when you consider that it is a
one-time investment, the cost to a congregation is acceptable.

DRT has already been approached by two Baltimore investors, who want to
license the technology and manufacture the system in Israel.  DRT vice
president Walter Probka says a decision on whether to license the
technology or whether the company will manufacture the technology itself
has not been made yet.  If the technology is licensed, however, the
scope of the license will be limited to use of the technology for
amplification units for synagogues.

"We are not about to license it all away," says Probka, emphasizing that
there are other potentially lucrative industrial applications.
Technology for communications and monitoring in hazardous environments
are quite promising, he says.  But the technology also might be
effective as a noise cancellation tool in jet engines.  The technology
potentially may be a light-weight solution to noise reduction at the
engine in place of systems installed in aircraft cabins.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 92 08:18:38 EDT
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Music

There was an excellent article a while ago by Rabbi Kahn in the
RJJ Journal on Halacha in Contemporary Society. Unfortunately I don't
have the journal with me. He discusses in detail the problem of listening
to music all year long and during the 3 weeks and sefira.
 
In terms of Jerusalem the prevelant custom is to have only one 
musician. In fact there are halls right outside of Jerusalem so that
Jerusalemites can have weddings without this limitation. I have heard 2
reasons for this custom (which is under 100 years old). One is related
to the general prohibition of music because of the destruction of the
Temple. A second reason I heard is because of a plague in Jerusalem and
the rabbis of that era pledged not to listen to wedding music if the
plague ended right away, which it did,
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 92 08:18:38 EDT
From: [email protected] (Eli Turkel)
Subject: Torah Temima

I have heard from good sources that the Torah Temima was banned in
Lackwood under Rav Aharon Kotler. I think the objections had nothing to
do with opinions about ribit but were more general in nature. To the
best of my knowledge today the Torah Temima is considered a classic text
and is accepted by (almost) everyone. However, he did write a second
book about his life in the yeshiva in Voloshin

It was translated into English by Artscroll under the name "My uncle
the Netziv". It was later withdrawn from circulation supposedly due to
the fact that he pointed out that there were some secular studies in 
Voloshin under duress from the Russian government. Some circles objected
to this claim.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest
**************************

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 86


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Interest
             [David Sherman]
        Malchut in Modern Halakha
             [Jerome Parness]
        Morid hatal and Nusach Ashkenaz
             [Victor S. Miller]
        Showering on YomTov - what's the story?
             [Isaac Balbin]
        Stage magic
             [Mike Gerver]
        Wedding Question
             [David Chasman]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 92 21:25:35 -0400
From: [email protected] (David Sherman)
Subject: Re: Interest

Eli Turkel writes:

>      David Sherman writes
> > Has anyone tried a halachic re-analysis of the issue based on the
> > concept that nominal dollars/shekels/anything else aren't the same as
> > real amounts?
> 
>    While this suggestion makes sense unfortunately it is explicitly not
> allowed by the Gemara. The Gemara discusses cases where one borrows
> wheat and returns wheat and the price of the wheat changes during the
> loan period. The bottom line is that if one returns more money than one
> borrowed it is "ribit" even though the 'value' of the money is the same.

Could you provide the source for this in the Gemara?  I'm interested in
looking it up.

The example you give, with wheat, isn't what I was suggesting, I think.
Wheat has an intrinsic value.  Dollars or shekels have no intrinsic
value.

David Sherman


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 92 12:25:53 -0400
From: Jerome Parness <[email protected]>
Subject: Malchut in Modern Halakha

	I have been researching the problem of the nature of the
reestablishment of a kingdom in Israel, should Mashiach arrive bimhaira
beyamainu [ speedily in or times - Mod.]. From the wording of the psukim
in Devarim, it would seem that the nature of the Mitzva of establishing
a monarchy is entirely voluntary. Indeed, the perush Ha'emek Davar
states so explicitly. I recently heard a tape of Rav Soloveichik on the
topic of the halakhic approach to power, in which he states explicitly
that a monarchy is to be established by two criteria only - 1) the
Jewish people desire a king and 2) there is an obvious need for the
concept of a monarch in order to maintain social or international order.
Yet, in most of the sfarim which enumerate mitzvot, i.e., the Minchat
Chinuch, the Sefer Hamitzvot, the language of the mechabrim [authors -
Mod.] does not seem to lend itself to the interpretation that malchut or
monarchy is any longer a question of desires or wishes of the Jewish
people. It would seem that with the establishment of a religious Jewish
state, a monarchy would have to be established. When we daven "hadesh
yameinu K'Kedem" [renew our days as of old - Mod.] what are we praying
for - the reestablishment of religious life under the aegis of the Kohen
Gadol and the Beit Hamikdash, or the monarchy as well?
	This problem of interpretation has two very significant
corollary questions. One, in the days of the messianic era will monarchy
be required?  Two, once established, can the monarchy be legally
disbanded by referendum or historical/political decisions that the
monarchy is no longer necessary to fullfil requirement 2) above? There
is such a body of halakhic literature on 'Mored b'malchut' [rebeling
against the monarchy - Mod.] that the latter would seem unlikely, yet
intellectually, I am not convinced that this is entirely true -
vetzarich iyyun!
	If anyone would like to enter into further discussion of this
halakhic problem, or have any interesting sources for me to follow up
on, please answer on this network.
	Thanks for the opportunity to bring this matter to your halakhic
discourse.

Jerry Parness

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 92 11:39:03 -0400
From: Victor S. Miller <[email protected]>
Subject: Morid hatal and Nusach Ashkenaz

I just returned from my first trip to Israel (long overdue).  While I
was there I davened in a few minyanim (all Nusach Ashkenaz), and was a
little surprised (which lessened after the first), to find that all of
them said "Morid hatal" in the Shemona Esrei.  Now I know that this is
said in Nusach S'fard (both "standard" and Chassidishe), but had never
seen this in Nusach Ashkenaz.  One of my friends there informed me that
this was standard throughout Eretz Yisrael.  This got me to wondering:
why don't we say this in Galut?  After all, I had always thought that
"Morid hageshem" (or is is gashem -- that's another question: is there
an etnach there or not?) was said FOR "medinat Yisrael".  If that's the
case, why doesn't Nusach Ashkenaz in Galut say this too?  The only
explanation that I could thing of (and this is pure speculation), is
that this is said for a similar reason that no one in Israel wears
tefillin on chol hamoed: the students of the Vilna Gaon set the standard
minchag in Israel as far as Nusach Ashkenaz.

		Victor Miller

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 92 13:16:27 +1000
From: [email protected] (Isaac Balbin)
Subject: Showering on YomTov - what's the story?

  | The footnotes in "Sh'mirat Shabbat Ke'Hilchata" on the issue of bathing
  | on Y"T indicate that this is "Tzarich Iyyun" (in need of further study)
  | and he seems to give references which would indicate permissibility.

[Disclaimer: I am not a Posek [halchik decisor] so do not take this as a Psak]

I believe I am one of those who wrote on the topic way back then.  I
have studied this issue, and cannot for the life of me understand why it
should be assur [forbidden] today. I have raised the issue with many
Rabbonim and argued the point. I am usually met with silence.  The issur
is based on the premise that most people don't shower each day! One Rov,
turned around and said "Yankel, Yitzchok thinks that people shower
everyday---Du host zich gemacht a shower haynt? [did you shower today]?
Yankel answered, Na! and the Rov said he showered, maybe every second
day ---certainly in winter" Another person mentioned to me "Pook Chazee"
[go out and look] He went on to challenge me to get on the
Tel-Aviv->B'nei Brak bus and conclude that most people on the bus
showered daily.  Well, when you have 3 days of Shabbos/2 days Yom Tov in
Chutz La-retz, it is positively painful not to shower. Yes, I know many
people wipe themselves down. I would argue that it is Shave LECHOL
Nefesh [a universal standard] to have a shower within 3 days.

  | Just as a humorous aside, I'll add my favorite Yom Tov irony -
  |     people lighting cigarettes off of Yartzheit candles.

I have challenged the Rabonnim who seem to think that smoking is Shave
Lechol Nefesh, and yet showering is not.  I have seen tenuous
explanations as to why smoking might still be considered Shave Lechol
Nefesh---but these explanations would most certainly apply to Showering.

There are ancillary problems with showering---eg the type of soap you
might use. And squeezing water *out* from your hair (as opposed to into
a towel). I would argue that these problems exist when you wash "parts"
of your body as well.  The irony is that you can wash your body in
parts, but not as a whole!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 92 00:00 EST
From: [email protected] (Mike Gerver)
Subject: Stage magic

Alex Herrera asks whether magic (i.e. conjuring, stage magic) is
permitted. This question came up at a shiur given by Rabbi Don Brand at
Young Israel of Brookline a few years ago, and his answer was that stage
magic is NOT "kishuf" which is forbidden by the Torah, and is certainly
permitted. A mutual friend of ours, a talented amateur magician who used
to perform on Purim and other occasions every year, stopped doing it
because he was worried about it being forbidden; Rabbi Brand thought
that this was unfortunate, and said that if he had been asked, he would
have told him there was no problem.  Since there is no such thing as
real magic, what IS the Torah forbidding?  Rabbi Brand's answer was the
sort of thing Uri Geller does, i.e. doing stage magic but claiming that
it is real magic (or psychic powers, or whatever you want to call it).
He said that this is considered "kishuf" and is forbidden by the Torah,
but as long as it is understood that the magician is just doing
conjuring, and is not making serious claims of having paranormal powers,
there is no problem.  Naturally, Alex Herrera should ask a competent
Orthodox rabbi.

Mike Gerver, [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 92 00:41:00 -0400
From: [email protected] (David Chasman)
Subject: Wedding Question

I have a friend who has been invited to a wedding where one of the
parties was converted by a conservative rabbi.  Is it or is it not
proper for him to attend the wedding?

Although the orthodox community does not recognize conservative rabbis,
what is the Orthodox Halachic status of people who have already been
converted by conservative rabbis.

David


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest
**************************

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 87


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Interest
             [Meylekh Viswanath]
        Malchut in Modern Halakha
             [David Kaufmann ]
        Milk/Meat and Ovens - what seperations are needed?
             [Joe Weisblatt]
        Torah Temimah
             [Aryeh A. Frimer]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 92 11:20:52 -0400
From: [email protected] (Meylekh Viswanath)
Subject: Re: Interest

>     David Sherman writes
>
>> Has anyone tried a halachic re-analysis of the issue based on the
>> concept that nominal dollars/shekels/anything else aren't the same as
>> real amounts?  If the society has 10% inflation, and I lend you $10 and
. . .
>
>to which, Eli Turkel replies:
>
>   While this suggestion makes sense unfortunately it is explicitly not
>allowed by the Gemara. The Gemara discusses cases where one borrows
>wheat and returns wheat and the price of the wheat changes during the
>loan period. The bottom line is that if one returns more money than one
>borrowed it is "ribit" even though the 'value' of the money is the same.

I don't see how the gemara that Eli Turkel brings up resolves the matter.
There, it is clear that the gemara is discussing a case where relative
prices have changed.  Hence, even though the same amount of wheat is 
returned, a different amount of purchasing power is returned.  The case
that David is talking about is one where the absolute price level has
changed.  For example, if the government declared that all currency notes
(and coins) are, henceforth worth 200% of their face value.  (Or,
Milton Friedman's well-known case of a helicopter dropping an amount
of currency notes equal to that already existing).  In such a case, all prices
would change proportionally--all prices would double.  In such a case,
would the gemara consider it ribis if double the original loan amount were
repaid?  (If the government's forthcoming decree were public knowledge,
would the gemara object to repayment of double the loan amount being
specified in the loan contract itself?)

To make this more reasonable, suppose the government, in addition to the
above decree, simultaneously altered all relative prices by a small
random amount, such that the absolute price level remained double the
previous level.  What would the gemara's conclusion be in such a case?
(This is much closer to the actual situation.)  It is true, however,
that most people, at a superficial level are not conscious of absolute
price level changes.  Hence, I think the gemara would in the original
case (where no relative prices are changed) allow double repayment, but
where there was sufficient amount of relative price change going on
simultaneously, forbid it, mishum avak ribis.

As David notes, market interest rates incorporate more than the
inflation rate (i.e. the percent change in the absolute price level),
they also incorporate a reward for waiting (also called the real
interest rate).  Since this latter would seem to be definitely forbidden
by the Torah, standard interest payment practices would be problematic.

Furthermore, even if the real interest rate were set at zero, there may
be a problem with fixed-rate loans.  This is because the fixed-rate loan
could only include expected inflation.  The actual inflation rate could
be more or less.  In such a case, the actual amount of purchasing power
returned would be random.  Would this be a case of asmakhta, and hence
forbidden?  Not only that, if purchasing power is the iker, we could end
up having ribis even if the same number of nominal dollars were
repaid--if deflation occurred!

Considering that the Torah in 2 out of 3 places associates ribis with
injustice, it is arguable that mideoraysa, purchasing power is indeed
the iker.  If, in fact, the times during which the gemara discussion on
ribis took place were times of relative absolute price level stability,
this would explain why they did not distinguish between absolute and
relative price levels.

Meylekh Viswanath ([email protected])

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 92 10:00:27 -0400
From: David Kaufmann  <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Malchut in Modern Halakha

In answer to the question will monarchy be required in the days of
Moshiach, the answer according to Rambam is yes (see Hilchos Melachim
chapters 11 & 12), since Moshiach by definition will be a king. Since
Rambam discusses the coming of Moshiach and its consequences
(establishment of kingship, rebuilding of Temple, universal peace,
dedication to Torah, etc) as matters of already determined halacha,
neither referendum nor other factors will or can abrogate the Divinely
ordained re-established Davidic monarchy.

David Kaufmann INTERNET:	[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1992 17:45:44 -0400
From: bcr!taichi!jjw3 (Joe Weisblatt)
Subject: Milk/Meat and Ovens - what seperations are needed?

I've seen several opinions lately, from "oven must be clean and have
'sat' 24 hours between change in use from one to the other" (I believe I
saw this quoted from Igrot Moshe in a Yeshiva University "Kashrut"
publication.)  to "oven must be kashered".  Before Shavuot someone
called me who had heard someone else exclaim "Oh, I have to do all my
cooking at so-and-so's house because s/he has a Milchig oven."  (That
seems a tad extreme, but if you can change door-handles for Pesach, I
guess there's no reason not to have a "Shavuot kitchen" to make
cheesecake.)

I know about covering one type of food when a full transition is not
needed, (though what is meant by "covering" could be subject to
interpretation), but I am more interested in the full transition.

I'd also be interested in the broiler/oven relationship - e.g. is it
possible to have a meat broiler and a dairy oven?

Looking forward to hearing the net.halakhic.wisdom

Joe Weisblatt ([email protected])

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 92 15:34:20 -0400
From: [email protected] (Aryeh A. Frimer)
Subject: Re: Torah Temimah

	Eli Turkel has mentioned two books written by R. Boruch Epstien,
The Torah Temimah on Chumash and The Mekor Boruch, an Autobiography. He
is also the author of a "Tosefet Beracha" on Chumash which he wrote in
his later years and contains a wonderful collection of insights and
explanations wonderfully suited for Divrei Torah. Highly recommended!
				Aryeh Frimer


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest
**************************

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 3 Number 88


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Boys <--> Girls in Yeshiva
             [Michael Lipkin]
        Morid Hatal (3)
             [Hillel Meyers, Neil Parks, Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth]
        Showering on Yom Tov - What's the Problem? (2)
             [Mike Kramer, Sigrid Peterson]
        Siddur of the Shelah
             [HG Schild]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 92 12:08:37 -0400
From: [email protected] (Michael Lipkin)
Subject: Boys <--> Girls in Yeshiva

There is a wonderful article in the current edition of Jewish Action
(the OU magazine) about the growing right/left schism in suburban
orthodox day schools.  The article deals mostly with the socialogical
ramifications of break away schools and the related halakhic issue of
Hasagas Gvul.  Very often, it seems, such schisms are focused on the
issue of seperation of boys and girls.

I'd like to know if there is a Halakhic basis for separating the sexes
in Yeshiva.  If there is, what are the sources?  What are the recent
P'skei Halakha on the issue?

Michael Lipkin <[email protected]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 92 20:33:27 CDT 
From: [email protected] (Hillel Meyers)
Subject: Morid Hatal

Victor Miller observed the custom of saying Morid Hatal in Israel and
the lack of that custom in the Golah.  I would like to point out that
there is an added benefit to saying Morid HaTal. If one forgets to say
Moshiv Haruach, he has to go back and start Shemone Esreh over again.
BUT if instead of saying Moshiv Haruach, he said Morid Hatal, then he
need not start Shemone Esreh over again.  It is for this reason, and I
also use the Rinat Yisrael siddur, that I say Morid Hatal in the summer.

Hillel Meyers    [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 92 22:56:44 -0400
From: [email protected] (Neil Parks)
Subject: Re: Morid Hatal

Although most Askenazic siddurim that I have seen do not have "morid
hatal", I have heard some people say it.

>"Morid hageshem" (or is is gashem -- that's another question: is there
>an etnach there or not?) was said FOR "medinat Yisrael".  If that's the

Grammatically, the expression should be "morid hagAshem" with a kamatz.
But the Artscroll siddur has "hagEshem" with a segol.  The reason is
that the segol consists of three dots with open space between them,
while the kamatz is the same three dots connected by lines and therefore
"closed".  To express the wish that Ha-Shem should "open" the heavens
and grant rain abundantly, some people have the custom of pronouncing
the word with the "open" vowel.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 92 18:04:27 -0400
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: RE: Morid Hatal

Morid Hatal (actually Morid Hagoshem):  I believe most Poskim in Eretz Yisroel
hold that it is Morid Hageshem, while Rav Moshe Feinstein, ztz"l holds that it
is Morid Hagoshem.  I grew up in a chassidishe shtibbel where it was Moyrid 
Hagooshem.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 92 10:39:54 EDT
From: [email protected] (Mike Kramer)
Subject: Showering on Yom Tov - What's the Problem?

A couple of off-the-cuff responses to some issues under recent
discussion. I am not in a position to double check the details but here
are my impressions from past "research":

The Gemara in Shabbos has a long discussion on being able to take a bath
in water that was warmed up before Shabbat. The Rabbis enacted a Gezaira
termed "Gezairat HaBalanim" (Balanim=bath-house keepers) that forbids
people from immersing ones entire body in warm water even if the water
was properly heated (i.e.  heated before Shabbos or warmed up on Yom Tom
for bathing purposes). The reason for the Gezaira is that the "balanim"
would use water warmed up before Shabbat to serve their customers, and
then when the water ran out they would improperly warm up new water on
Shabbat. (Seems like bathing was a real highlight of the day in those
times).  Gezairat Habalanim was enacted in those times and like most
Gezairot it stays on the books. Not only that, but it seemingly was
enacted as a "lo ploog" (lo ploog=across the board) both on Shabbat and
YomTov, even though it would not seem to apply to Yom Tov.

Bottom line: Gezairat Habalanim forbids one to immerse one's whole body
in warm water at the same time.  I seem to recall that there are two
options for Yom Tov: 1) Take a cold shower (this option would be
available on Shabbat too) 2) Turn on the hot shower, but wash yourself
"organ by organ" ("eiver eiver") i.e. never immersing one's whole body
simultaneously under the water (this option is only available on Yom Tov
unless you have a boiler that has been altered to dispense hot water
halachically on Shabbat - c.f. Chimum Mayim B'Shabbat", pub. by the
Institute of Science and Halacha.)  Of course, one still has to contend
with the other halachic issues of choosing a proper shabbat soap and
drying oneself without "schita" (wringing out water).  As always, check
your local posek!

Mike Kramer

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 92 12:15:08 -0400
From: Sigrid Peterson <[email protected]>
Subject: Showering on Yom Tov - What's the Problem?

The distinction I have been following has been that showering/bathing is
permitted, but "anointing" -any decorative cosmetic extensions are
assur, shaving, using a rinse on my hair, etc.  After all, babies do not
know that it is Yom Tov when they spit up, etc., and showering may be a
necessity.

Now that it is being discussed on mail-jewish, I questioned "where did I
learn to make this distinction?" One source is Rabbi Hayyim HaLevy
Donin, _To Be a Jew_. Regarding Yom Kippur observance he writes:

	   The Oral Torah teaches us that in addition to prohibiting
	eating and drinking, "to afflict your souls" also involves,
	though with less severe sanctions, prohibitions against washing
	and bathing, anointing one's body, wearing of shoes (applies
	only to shoes made of leather), and sexual relations.

	   The washing that is forbidden is that which is done for
	pleasure, or to help one feel more comfortable and pleasant
	(_shel ta'anug). But that which is done to wash away dirt, or
	upon rising in the morning, or after taking care of one's needs
	is permitted (_k'darko tamid).

	   Op.cit. (New York: Basic Books, 1972), p. 248

Regarding arguing with Rabbis who meet questions with silence, I cannot
help, other than to suggest they may just not want to argue on the
points you are raising. On those who are willing to discuss what is a
universal standard, I'd suggest that a universal (or local custom)
standard is established by how often a hospital finds it necessary to
bathe patients. Having spent three months in a hospital, I know that
short-staffed or not, they bathed patients every second day, and
immediately if necessary through various mishaps. Or perhaps there can
be no universal standard. A politician running for office may shower
three times a day; an elderly person living in an air-conditioned
apartment, needing help to shower, may do so twice a week.

It's heresy for this group, I know, but sometimes I like the "_psak_" of
Amos Oz, a phrase his characters often use, "suit yourself."

Sigrid Peterson
[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 92 12:23:03 -0400
From: SCHILD%[email protected] (HG Schild)
Subject: Siddur of the Shelah

Does anyone know where I can obtain a copy of the siddur of the Shelah
HaKodesh?  Has his biography been written recently ??

HG Schild - schild%[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 4 Number 1


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Interest (3)
             [Mike Kramer, Hillel Markowitz, Moshe Rayman]
        Magic
             [Mike Kramer]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 92 20:51:45 EDT
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

Hello all!

As the first half of 1992 is completed, I have incremented our volume
number, so this is Volume 4 Number 1. Volume 3 had 88 Issues, and as a
single mail file is somewhat under 1 Meg in size. The last check I made
of the subscriber list put us just over 500 members on the list. One of
our newer members comes from a country that was once full of Torah and
Yahadut, but now sources of Torah are few in Poland. From all of us on
mail.jewish, welcome Shalomoh to the electronic world of Torah! Shalomoh
has a submission that will be appearing in one of the next several
issues. The issue of science and Judaism is one that we are beginning to
discuss. Melekh Vishiniak has submitted a short article on that topic.
It will be a single issue shortly. It will be longer than most issues I
put out, so I will make sure I put it up for both anon ftp and email
server to try and get if your copy appears truncated. I will also try
and complete the volume 3 Index and put that up for retrieval.

There are already almost 20 submissions waiting for me to put together
and get out to you all, so I think Volume 4 will begin with a rush. So
its to work for me now!


Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 92 10:39:54 EDT
From: [email protected] (Mike Kramer)
Subject: Interest

A couple of off-the-cuff responses to some issues
under recent discussion. I am not in a position to 
double check the details but here are my impressions
from past "research":

Issur Ribbit (interest) in a modern economic system:

There was a comprehensive article written on the subject in a previous
issue of "Contemporary Halacha" (known colloquially as the RJJ Journal).
The article was written by Dr. Aaron Levine who has written widely on
the Economy and Halacha and he deals with all the issues that have been
raised here in a very systematic way. One personal note is that I found
the article hard to understand; maybe if I were more of an economist I
would have found it easier reading. In any event he deals with these
issues head on and someone with an interest in following this up will
find the article indispensible.

Mike Kramer

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 92 10:02:49 -0400
From: [email protected] (Hillel Markowitz)
Subject: Re:  Interest

I checked with Rabbi Kaganoff of Baltimore who had given an oral shiur
on the subject and he stated that the halacha does not consider
inflation.  More than this, the repayment should be in the currency of
the country.  THus, if you are Swiss and borrow dollars, you should
repay the value the dollars had at the time you borrowed them in Swiss
Francs (as an example).

He also said that it is a question as to whether the currency of the
state of Israel is Dollars or Shekels because of the way they are used
(i.e. stores accept dollars and prices are in dollars).

This is from memory and a paraphrase so as always CYLORE (Rabbinic
Expert).

Hillel Markowitz    [email protected]




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 92 16:34:40 -0400
From: [email protected] (Moshe Rayman)
Subject: Interest

In general, one has to pay back the exact amount borrowed in the units
that he borrowed.  If one borrowed $100.00 he must pay back $100.00.  If
one borrowed a bushel of wheat, he must repay a bushel of wheat.  This
is the Torah law.  This holds true even if the "value" of the said
commodity changes.  For instance, it a bushel of wheat is worth $100
dollars at the time of the loan, then he must repay a bushel of wheat
regardless of the market value of the wheat.

This is the Torah law.  We see that as far as commodity loans are
concerned, market value is irrelevant.  The general reason given is that
as far as commodities go, we do not look at market value.  We only look
at the absolute value/amount.

The Rabbis forbade the lending of commodities, out of fear that their
market value may increase.  Even though such an increase does not
constitute interest, it "looks like" interest (mechzi kiribit).  Such a
loan is prohibited even the values remain constant.  This prohibition
applies only to commodities.

All objects, except for the local government approved legal tender, are
considered commodities (perot).  This includes apples, oranges, foriegn
currency (in most cases) etc.  Bonds, stocks and other monetary
instruments are the subject of dispute amongst the poskim.

Currency, even if it's value changes, is exempt from this rabbinic
prohibition.  Because Halakha views the value of money as constant, and
the value of commodities as variable.  So if a widget costs X dollars
today, and Y dolloars tommorrow, we say that the value of the widget
changed, not the value of the dollar.

This is the general rule.  However there are exceptions.  Should the
government add value to a particular currency, and prices drop, in
proportion to the change, we say that the money changed value, not the
commodities.  In Talmudic times, this law applied when the King would
decide to increase (decrease) the weight of metal in a coin.  In such a
case, all debts need to be pro rated from the old currency to the new
currency.

Contemporary poskim applied this principle to artificial devaluations
"pihut", which were common in Israel during the previous decade.  This
exception is logical.  In this case the value of the money really did
change.

The question we must ask is why do we always assume that the commodities
change value, and not the currency.  Is this a a steadfast rule, or is
it just a rule of thumb?  Is it some "Halakha l'moshe misinai" (Mosaic
tradition), or is it a sevara [logically derived rule - Mod.]?

Assuming that the currency changes value is the simplest way of looking
at things.  This way, if the price of bread goes up, and the price of
milk doesn't, we assume that the bread changed.  Because if the money
changed value, then we have to assume the milk did too.  However, if
general constant trends in inflation can be evaluated, perhaps some of
the value change could be ascribed to the money.

Most authorities who have written about this (there are a ton of ribis
monographs out there; bris yehuda, ta'am ribis, toras ribis, cheker
halakha) assume that only government inspired artificial currency
devaluations can change the value of money.  We do not take all the
various economic indices (cost of living, cunsumer price, madad for the
net.israelis) into account.

There was an article written in a "Torah Sheba'al Peh" journal a while
back who argued that we should take all of these things into account.

If anyone wants, I will try and find the source.

Moshe Rayman - [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 92 10:39:54 EDT
From: [email protected] (Mike Kramer)
Subject: Magic

Magic vis' a vis' the issur of kishuf:

Mike Gerver quotes Rabbi Brand as making the distinction between stage
magic and "power magic". This is a sensible position that seems to be in
line with the predominent paractice in our communities. However, it is
not so clear that it is a universally held psak. This postion is first
enunciated by the "Radvaz" (good summary review article in Encyclopedia
Talmudit under either "Achizat Eynayim" or "Kishuf"), who concludes that
it is nevertheless prohibited due to "Genayvat Daat Habriyot" (!) (I
find it difficult to translate that phrase but literally Genayvat Daat =
fooling someone) There are those who disagree with the Radvaz and say
that stage magic is also considered "Achizat Eynaim" and is prohibited.
Rav Ovadia Yosef also discusses it in "Yechave Daat" and I do not
remember his exact conclusion, but he also comes out somewhat negative
on magic shows.

I therefore believe that Rabbi Brand is describing the current practice
in our communities and it is probably based on the Radvaz's position
(and removing the Genayvat Daat restriction since people are coming for
entertainment).  Nevertheless, I have not found this complete leniency
ever enunciated in the tshuva (resposna) literature.  Has anybody seen a
responsa that does so?

Mike Kramer



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 4 Number 2


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Addendum to Wedding Question (Non-Orthodox Conversion)
             [David Chasman]
        Budapest and Vienna
             [Marc Meisler]
        Improving One's Hebrew
             [Howie Pielet]
        Malchut & Democracy in Israel -- Halachic Viewpoint
             [Stiebel Jonathan]
        Malchut/Morid Hatal/Wedding
             [Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth]
        Shelah
             [Avrum Goodblat]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 92 08:46:42 EDT
From: [email protected] (David Chasman)
Subject: Addendum to Wedding Question (Non-Orthodox Conversion)

After receiving a response to my initial posting, I would like to extend
my question:

(1) What are the exact requirements for a conversion - i.e. what statements 
    and actions must be carried out.

(2) What is the HALACHIC role of the rabbi (or is it a beit din) in all 
    of this.  For example, let us assume that the convert properly accepts
    the mitzvot from an orthodox halachic position.  In this case, is the
    converstion valid - or is it invalid because the rabbi is an invalid
    witness.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 92 03:00 GMT
From: Marc Meisler <[email protected]>
Subject: Budapest and Vienna

I recently requested information regarding kosher establishments in
Vienna and passed that on to my friend.  I now have another friend who
would like the same information plus information on kosher restaurants
in Budapest.  If anyone could send it to me I would greatly appreciate
it.  I'm sorry to make the request for Vienna twice but I deleted the
information thinking I wouldn't need it again.  Private e-mail responses
are fine.  Thanks a lot.

Marc Meisler  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed,  1 Jul 92 08:52:31 CST
From: [email protected] (Howie Pielet)
Subject: Improving One's Hebrew

What methods have participants found effective for improving speaking
and writing Hebrew language skills?  Are there tapes that go beyond
tourist level?  What printed or electronic dictionaries would be good
for reading an Israeli newspaper, for reading a personal letter, or for
reading technical engineering material?

Howie Pielet        [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 92 09:21:27 -0400
From: [email protected] (Stiebel Jonathan)
Subject: Malchut & Democracy in Israel -- Halachic Viewpoint

I had the opportunity to be in Beit El last Shabbat where I heard R.
Melamed (director of Arutz 7) talk about this very topic.  He stresses
that the sources are very sparse.  Essentially because we were not
independant, the Halachic material did not develop. Likewise, the
traditions were largely lost.

The king should be appointed by a Prophet and the Sanhedrin.  He should
be desired by the people.  (Note: David ben Yishy did not become "King"
until he was accepted by "all" of Israel.)  He may not be a non-Jew.  So
says the Rambam on the psukim in Devarim. From this (that he may not be
a non-Jew) we learn that the prophet is not necessary.  Some even say
that the Sanhedrin is not necessary.  (Two godolei hador disagree on
this point.)

No political appointee may be a Convert or a Woman.  What about Shamaya
v'Avatalion?  This is said only when there is no one as skilled as they
are.  Devora the judge?  She had no political authority; she ruled
because she gave prophesy.  Sholomzion HaMalca? Perhaps Halacha didn't
give her the "right" to rule.  Simply because it happened doesn't mean
that we should make ideology of it.  (ie.  think it is halacha.)
Perhaps, it is also merit based?

A goy may *not* be appointed to any position of power over Israel
including director of a department in the water company.  (Example
brought from Rambam.) They may not be allowed to live together in Eretz
Yisrael in a neighborhood.  How big is a neighborhood?  3 houses. (R.
Aviner made a similar point.)

Lman d'amar (according to the one who says that) we don't need a
Sanhedrin, there is thought that perhaps popular will is sufficient.
But, could people accept on themselves dinei nefashot?  Perhaps, popular
will can be enough for monetary matters.  Likewise, partnerships with
Goyim can be done in business, only.  (He brings that according to the
Hazon Ish, selling Israel during Shmita is running from the Bear to the
Lion -- light prohibition to a strict one.)

(He noted later on the radio that the majority of clal Yisrael who voted
chose Shamir [60:56], not Rabin.  This is obviously a Halachic problem
when the government is supported by less than 50% of the Jewish voters.
More so, that the ruler is determined by goyim.)

Yet, he concludes, it is necessary for the government to rule in dinei
nefashot (in order to maintain order in society).  It is necessary to
allow the goyim to vote (mpnei darkei shalom).  But, we shouldn't make
ideology of it.  It is *not* the ideal Halachic state. He continues, if
we could perform transfer (as detailed in the Rambam) by agreement as
part of a political settlement, it is the preferred solution in halacha.

The king would be inherited by his son.

He rules that control by non-Jews of any part of Eretz Yisrael is
opposed by Halacha.  They should live (only) as Gerim Toshavim as
described in the Rambam.

R. Aviner Adds:
Halacha does not have a preference for democracy per se, rather wants
justice, support of the people for leader, and Torah.

>voluntary, desire, need, disbanding

I also understand establishment of a king to be voluntary.  I have seen
a source that holds it to be bedi avad (undesirable, but tolerable).  I
have seen it paralleled to the permission to eat meat.  (Note the
similarity of the phrasings.)

As mentioned, he must be accepted by the all (rubo k'kulo -- the
majority) of clal yisrael. (Probably those living in Israel.)  This
establishes the dynasty.

R. Aviner notes:
Idealistic Anarchy is perhaps a state liked by the Torah.  (Where no
police are necessary.)

I understand from R. Aviner and R. Melamed that a Monarchy could not be
disbanded by popular will.

Jonathan Stiebel  --  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 92 18:04:27 -0400
From: [email protected] (Dr. Sheldon Z. Meth)
Subject: RE: Malchut/Morid Hatal/Wedding

My two prutos on several issues discussed in V3 #86:

Malchut: I believe once Malchus Beis Dovid was established, it is
irrevocable.  There are numerous pesukim in Nach which talk about the
eternal nature of the Davidic Kingdom.

Morid Hatal (actually Morid Hagoshem): I believe most Poskim in Eretz
Yisroel hold that it is Morid Hageshem, while Rav Moshe Feinstein, ztz"l
holds that it is Morid Hagoshem.  I grew up in a chassidishe shtibbel
where it was Moyrid Hagooshem.

Wedding: A goi not converted by a _competent_ Orthodox authority is a
goi.  Period.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 92 09:13:44 -0400
From: Avrum Goodblat <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Shelah

In regard to the Shelah - Miles Krassen has possibly completed his
doctorate which deals extensively with the Shelah and could probably
help with Shelah-related questions. I believe he is in Philly at UPENN.






----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 4 Number 3


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Boys <--> Girls in Yeshiva
             [Yaacov Haber]
        Care for babies on Shabbos and Yom Tov
             [Bruce Krulwich]
        Morid Hageshem (2)
             [Joshua Rapps, Aryeh A. Frimer]
        The first major ERUV in London
             [Mark Katz]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 92 23:43:34 EDT
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

I found where I was putting the subject line volume number, so that is
(hopefully) going to be corrected with this mailing. There is just lots
of great stuff coming in, so brace yourselves for a good bunch of issues
next week. I'm taking a July 4th vacation, so except for a maybe one
that will go out tomorrow (Friday July 3) there will not be any mailings
untill Monday July 6. Also to those that sent me email, I'll get to
stuff on Monday evening.

Also, I miss-spelled Melekh Viswanath's name in the last Administrivia,
so here I hope it is corrected.

Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 92 19:32:07 -0400
From: Yaacov Haber <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Boys <--> Girls in Yeshiva

> I'd like to know if there is a Halakhic basis for separating the sexes
> in Yeshiva.  If there is, what are the sources?  What are the recent
> P'skei Halakha on the issue?

This is not an Halachic answer; but it's interesting how far back this
goes. Chazal say that Abraham taught the men while Sarah taught the
women. No mixed classes!

I give classes to mixed audiences, most of these people are not
observant of the Mitzvos. There is a Rav that had some complaints so I
asked him what was the source of the Issur. He told me the above.

In fact there is a Beis Shmuel in Even Haezer which seems to indicate
that it's better not done. (most other sources deal with prayer)

Rabbi Yaacov Haber, Director, Australia Institute for Torah, 362a Carlisle St
Balaclava, Victoria 3183, Australia  (16 hours ahead of New York)
phone: (613) 527-6156 - fax:(613) 527-8034 - Internet:[email protected]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 92 10:46:54 -0400
From: [email protected] (Bruce Krulwich)
Subject: Care for babies on Shabbos and Yom Tov

In a recent MJ message Sigrid Peterson wrote:

        After all, babies do not know that it is Yom Tov when they spit up,
        etc., and showering may be a necessity.

In general the situation regarding care for babies on Shabbos and Yom
Tov is different, because babies are much more easily considered to be
in the category of "choleh she'ein bo sakana" [sick where there is no
risk to life].  This means that there are many things that can be done
for babies (albeit often not fully normally, but still done somehow)
that cannot be done for adults in similar situations.

One example: Spreading creams or lotions on Shabbos is a d'oraisa [from
the Torah] prohibition of memarayach [smoothing, or spreading].  For an
adult, a minor rash is not considered serious enough to use creams or
lotions, even indirectly.  For a baby, however, a diaper rash can (I was
told) be treated by spreading the Decitin (or whatever) indirectly,
ideally by applying it directly from the tube onto the rash, or if
necessary by using another object (not your hand) to spread it.

** Exact applications of this idea require talking to a Rav.  This example  **
** is based on what I've been told, but others should talk to their LOR.    **

In general, therefore, it is not possible to generalize from babies to
adults in terms of what is permitted on Shabbos or Yom Tov.

Dov (Bruce) Krulwich
[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 92 11:50 EDT
From: [email protected] (Joshua Rapps)
Subject: Morid Hageshem

With regard to Hageshem vs. Hagoshem, let me preface my remarks with the
grammar rule that at the end of a pasuk or expression, a leading segol
('eh' sound) changes to a kamatz ('aw' sound). The word geshem at the
end of a pasuk or expression, where there is a pause, would become
goshem, eved would become aved, etc.  In looking at the context of the
bracha we begin the second bracha of Shemoneh Esray with:

"Ato Gibor ... Rav Lhoshiya"

The next part of the Bracha mentions the attributes of HKB'h that show
his gevurah (strength, greatness). In the winter time we begin the list
of his gevurot with morid hageshem, mechalkel chayim bechesed, etc.  In
the summer time for those of us that say morid hatal we begin the list
of gevurot with morid hatal, mechalkel chayim etc.  Those that do not
say morid hatal begin the list with mechalkel chayim.

In short, saying hageshem or hagoshem depends on what part of the bracha
you want to associate the morid hageshem with, the ato gibor or the
attributes.  If Morid Hageshem begins the list of attriubutes, of HKB'H
then it is punctuated with a segol as it is one of many attributes.
There is no pause between hageshem and mechalkel chayim.  As opposed to
being the concluding part of ato gibor in which case it would have been
hagoshem, since the segol changes to a kamatz at the end of a
sentence/expression, requiring a pause to distinguish between the
general statement of ato gibor and the list of attributes.

josh rapps  --  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 92 09:34:26 -0400
From: [email protected] (Aryeh A. Frimer)
Subject: Re: Morid Hageshem

Regarding morid ha-Geshem:
	The correct pronunciation is with a segol and not with a Kamatz.
A Kamatz would be appropriate were "Geshem" at the end of a sentence.
However, it appears in the middle of a list of GVUROT (examples of G-d's
strength).  Proof of the fact that Mashiv Ha-Ruach u-Morid ha-Geshem is
in the middle of a long list comes from the following halacha: normally
one who deletes an addition to the Amida must return to its appropriate
spot and repeat the verse properly. However, if one forgets
"mashiv....geshem", one can add it anywhere in the second bracha (before
the closing benediction) because it is a long list.
	A great deal of research has been done on this question and
several year's ago someone even published 3 or 4 kuntreisim (pamphlets)
on the issue.  Siddurim before the 18th century all had "Geshem" not
Gashem. Rav Moshe is strongly bound to what he thought was the minhag,
but we know now that the text was CHANGED around 150 years ago!
	Similarly those who use the Ashkenazic pronunciation should say
"morid ha-tal" (patach) not tall (kamatz).
			Aryeh Frimer


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 92 11:27:28 -0400
From: Mark Katz <[email protected]>
Subject: The first major ERUV in London

For many years, some people in North West London (England!) have wanted
to set-up an Eruv. It has met with the expected vociferous arguments on
both sides of the religious fence and 'communal politics' seem to have
become confused with Halocho. An article appeared in the Daily Telegraph
- one of the larger (non-Jewish) National newspapers

As a result of a powerful marketing campaign by orthodox professionals
(No, I was not one of them), backed up by support from the present and
ex- Chief Rabbi, a major hurdle was overcome yesterday when the local
authority gave permission for it to be erected. It still has to be
cleared by the Planning committee, but this may be only rubber-stamping.

It will be 6.5 square miles, an 11 miles perimeter and need 60 poles to
deal with natural gaps - it also crosses a major trunk road (the North
Circular)

We now wait for the religious battle to begin.....

Yitz Katz





----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 4 Number 4


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Hello and Request for Help
             [Shelomoh Slawomir ZIENIUK]
        KOL-ISHA - New Mailing List
             [Natalie Cohen]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 92 16:19:40 -0400
From: Shelomoh Slawomir ZIENIUK <SHELOMOH%[email protected]>
Subject: Hello and Request for Help

SHALOM UVRACHA ACHIM YEHUDIM AMERIKANIM!

TODA RABA for Your v. interesting discussions in the Halacha I've
started reading recently. A special |thankyou| to Adon Avi, who's helped
me get the access to mail.jewish much.

I do admire Your vast spiritellectual (spiritual & intellectual)
horizons bound for the persistent re-studying of the Torah (tsivvah lanu
Mosheh, morashah q'hillath Yaaqov:), as compared with my total lack of
proper Jewish education -- having been brought up in anti-religious
conditions. Nonetheless, no matter how difficult & tiring is this highly
pleasant self-satisfaction of adequate Jewish self-education gonna be, I
do desire to improve that miserable status quo of my own Yidishkeit.
After all, the Rabbi of Kotsk expressed that striving is better than
having. Moreover, the Treatise Shabbath 119:2 reads that Haolam stands
upon the breath of children hurrying up to school. So, every day I try
my best to be optimistic about the non-irrevocable educational loss. As
a matter of fact the sayings go (not arguing on the personal moral
status of the one who pronounced it first): (1) it's never too late, &
(2) better late than never.

Thus, after this elongated preamble of mine, BEVAKASHA forgive
me beforehand, all of You Honourable Brothers, I daresay ask You below
so lay & unscholarly & misformed queries that they don't deserve the
label |query| at all. The tetrad is as follows:

     (A) May my Tallith & Siddur become Lo-Kosher (HaShem forbid!) if so
         unhappily does it happen that they've been touched by a Goy?
         (N.B.: I rent a room at a Roman-Catholic Pole's <him possessed,
         unhappily again, by a sort of anti-Semitic bias> & I can hardly
         recite T'fillim out of my Siddur without the man not seeing the
         book. As You may assume, it's a big torment for my Nefesh to
         cease my T'filla whenever he comes into my room -- which is
         rather frequent as well as unpredictable, alas -- lest he see
         the Siddur & have a touch.).

     (B) Does the Mezuza still preserve its Kashrut status after the
         Tetragrammaton Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey in the parchment has been
         replaced by either (i) the Digrammaton Yod-Yod, or (ii) one of
         the Monogrammata: Hey or Alef, or (iii) the Trigrammaton Hey-
         Shin-Mem?

     (C) Is it improper -- which I actually practise -- to turn while
         praying to the geographical direction of Y'rushalayim (which
         translated into a compass located in Warsaw, Poland means more
         or less South-South-East)? I've read the Karaim do that this
         way. If I turned to the direction East (as shown by my Luach
         Mizrach hanging on the Eastern wall of my room), then I'd
         pray with my face towards Moscow, New Delhi, Beijing, Tokio, &
         lots of other cities specializing in idolatry for ages now!
         I'm at a loss what to do.

     (D) Should my watch be always wuound acc. to the Y'rushalayim time
         (UTC + 0200 hrs = IST - O100 hr), & me finding the local time
         in the Galluth but by means of deduction/addition -- instead
         of finding out the present hour-minute in Y'rushalayim by the
         recalculation from the locally binding Diaspora time as shown
         directly by the hr & min digits? (N.B.: Im eshkachekh
         Y'rushalaim tishkach y'mini: <T'hillim qof-lamed-zayin:hey>).

Should You help me, Y'hudi polani asher sh'mo Sh'lomoh, find out some
Halachic way-outs to my queries, I would be very grateful. Besides, I'd
be glad if You could mail me by post any spare materials You don't need
them any longer (in English, Russian, Esperanto, or Polish) that could
help accelerate my Long Way to the Mal'khuth of CONSCIOUS BETTER-QUALITY
Yidishkeit --

YeVAREKheKhA 'ADhONAY MITsTsIYYON          UR'E BetUV Y'RUShALAIM
KOL        YeME        ChAYYEKhA:          UR'E-VANIM L'VANEKhA
ShALOM             |AL-YIshRA'EL:
(TeHILLIM QOF-KAF-ChETh:HE WeWAW)

                                           Shalom-Shalom!
                                           -- Shelomoh.

P.S.: Here comes my univ. add:
      helomoh Slawomir ZIENIUK (student, 5th yr, Eng.),
      c/o Institute of Applied Linguistics (ILS),
      University of Warsaw (UW),
      ul. Browarna 8/10, II p.,
      PL-00-311 WARSZAWA (=WARSAW),
      Poland, Eastern Europe.

      E-mail add: Shelomoh@PLEARN



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 92 18:21:19 -0400
From: Natalie Cohen <[email protected]>
Subject: KOL-ISHA - New Mailing List

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

	   NEW KOL-ISHA LIST NOW ACCEPTING SUBSCRIPTIONS.

   The Kol-Isha mailing list is taking its first subscriptions.
Kol-Isha, which is a moderated list available through the courtesy of
israel.nysernet, deals with halachic questions and issues concerning
women's roles in traditional Judaism. Our first postings will go out on
July 6th.

   Kol-Isha encourages Achdut Yisrael (the unity of Israel) and so is
open to a member of any group. We urge you to subscribe to the list. We
have only two guide-lines:

	First, we ask that you respect the role of halacha in the
	lives of Orthodox women. For women who are committed to
	Orthodox observance the question of whether halacha is valid
	is a moot point.

	Second, we ask that you contribute to the discussion by
	engaging in the asking of new halachic questions. We accept
	the divinity of Torah and the timelessness of halacha. We also
	believe that times have changed to the point where where new
	halachic interpretations are inevitable. 

We expect Kol-Isha to be both educative and productive. Therefore we ask
you to stay within our guidelines. We do not want to get pulled off our
topic into circular debates between those who have no use for halacha
and others who have no use for halachic innovation. It may be necessary
to go to a closed list in the future if our guidelines are not conformed
to. Given our strong feelings about Achdut Yisrael, that would be
terribly unfortunate.

   To receive kol-isha, send a message to [email protected],
saying:

		subscribe kol-isha "Jane Doe"

		Substitute your name for "Jane Doe"

Do not specify a Subject: line in the message, and do not include any
other lines (e.g. do not include your signature).  Specify your real
name, not your computer address.  Don't say "please" or "thank you" as
this will only confuse the computer. Do not put any punctuation marks
(including quotation marks) in your message.


Natalie Cohen
Moderator, Kol-Isha
[email protected]

	   Whoever is confident that G-d has created every stalk
	   of rye and every drop of water, tastes the flavor of
	   Paradise in everything he eats or drinks.

			Isaac Bashevis Singer, A"H
	    The Reaches of Heaven: A Story of the Baal Shem Tov




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 4 Number 5


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Judaism and Science
             [Meylekh Viswanath]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1992 12:49 EDT
From: [email protected] (Meylekh Viswanath)
Subject: Judaism and Science

                  Judaism and Science
                           by
                  Meylekh Viswanath

     The question of the mutual compatibility of science and religion is
a continuing source of controversy in the Jewish community.  Two
opinions are commonly expressed on this subject: (1), that they are
incompatible and (2), that they are not incompatible, simply because
they deal in matters that pertain to two separate domains.  In this
article, we will argue that they are indeed compatible, but we will
suggest a different reconciliation from the one normally offered.  We
will argue first that scientific inquiry is not incompatible with
Judaism, and second that scientific inquiry is necessary for a more
complete fulfillment of the commandments.

     The essence of the first argument is based on the use of axiom
systems, both by science and Judaism.  All logical systems, including
science, are based on axiom systems.  However, it needs to be emphasized
that in common with science, Judaism too works with an axiom system; in
the words of Rav Soloveitchik (Halachic Man; JPS 1983): When halakhic
man approaches reality, he comes with his Torah, given to him from
Sinai, in hand.  He orients himself to the world by means of fixed
statutes and firm principles.  The main difference between Judaism, on
the one hand, and science, as it is commonly practiced, on the other, is
that Judaism does not allow the axioms to be changed; science in
contrast frequently changes its axiom system.  The usual source of
confusion for most people is in the perception that science provides
clear cut answers to questions--that it 'proves' propositions.  In other
words, people believe that science is objective whereas religion is
subjective.  This is false: science cannot say unambiguously that a
certain hypothesis or theory is true; it can only accept one hypothesis
over another, depending upon the rules laid down.


The Subjective Nature of Scientific Truth:

     How does science decide on the acceptability of one theory versus
another?  Suppose we start with an axiom system consisting of axioms n1
through n2; within this system, we build a theory A, and another theory
B.  We now collect observations and compute the probability of making
those observations under the alternate assumptions that theory A is true
and theory B is true.  (It needs to be clarified that these
probabilities are always nondegenerate, i.e. never 0 or 1, in real
life.).  Now we have to decide which theory is to be accepted, based on
the observed data.  Usually we have a rule that helps us make this
decision.  This rule is constructed in the following manner.  Call
theory A the null hypothesis (arbitrarily).  Then we pick the rule such
that the probability of rejecting theory A (the null hypothesis) given
that theory A is true is equal to some arbitrary number (say .05).  Of
course, when we try to reduce the probability of rejecting theory A when
it is really true, we end up with a much higher probability of accepting
theory A when theory B is the correct theory.  We have an unavoidable
tradeoff.  The rule that we end up with is usually based on some
convention (such as the 5 percent rule that is used in most social
sciences).  Similarly we have arbitrariness in which theory to take as
the null hypothesis and which to take as the alternative.  Usually the
currently accepted theory (even if it is not consistent with all
available facts) is taken to be the null hypothesis.  But this is
arbitrary.  Because of this arbitrariness, it is possible for both
theories A and B to be acceptable!  That is to say, we can have a
situation where, given a set of observations, we would accept Theory A
against Theory B, if Theory A were the null; but if theory B were to be
considered the null, we would accept theory B over theory A!

     Let us examine the situation a little further.  A theory, as we
specified earlier, is nothing but a set of propositions from which
logical inferences are made according to agreed methods.  Consider what
happens if we test theory A (consisting of statements A1 to A2) against
an unspecified alternative.  Suppose we reject it (as is often the case
with an unspecified alternative).  What we are really rejecting,
however, is the union of the statements A1 to A2 and the axioms n1 to
n2).  If the dimensionality of this set is K, we have 2K choices of sets
of statements to reject.  Which of these choices we make is arbitrary.
However, the choice that is ultimately made is, nevertheless, important
because it influences our future search for a successor theory (i.e. an
alternate theory C, consisting of statements C1 to C2).

     Or closer to the truth, the beliefs and preferences of those who
are influential in the profession determine which path we take (i.e.
which of the 2k sets of statements we reject).  We may very well make
"progress" on this path, in the sense that we have an internally
consistent way of understanding real world phenomena.  However, this
"progress" is no proof that we would not have made equal "progress" on
another path.  In fact, since the set of paths (collections of axioms,
statements etc.) is of finite dimension and the world (collection of
phenomena) is of an incredibly high dimension (even given the presumed
order/pattern of phenomena), it is entirely likely that there are a very
large (possibly an infinite) number of internally consistent theories
that are also consistent with the data.  Since we have chosen one path
that results in "progress", we do not have much incentive to go and look
at an entirely different path (i.e. set of axioms, statements) to see
where that would lead us.


An Example of the Non-uniqueness of Scientific Truth:

     At this point, a concrete example will be useful.  (Much of the
following discussion has been abstracted from Rudolf Carnap,
Philosophical Foundations of Physics, 1966, Basic Books, NY.)  In order
to introduce this example, it is necessary to discuss Euclidean
geometry, the geometry that most of us learned in high school.  Euclidean
geometry is characterized by a number of axioms; we are interested in
the axiom of the parallel.  Before we can state this axiom, we need to
make some definitional statements.  (1) A line cannot be finitely
circumscribed--it extends without end.  (2) The shortest distance
between any two points is always a portion of a straight line.  (3) Two
straight lines on a plane are defined as parallel if they have no point
in common.  We can now state the axiom of the parallel as follows: For
any plane on which there is a straight line L and a point P that is not
on L, there is one and only one straight line L', on the plane, that
passes through P and is parallel to L.  Now this axiom seems so
obviously true that, until the beginning of the last century, no one
doubted its truth.  However, we will see that this axiom need not always
hold.  Consider a spherical surface, such as the surface of the earth.
On such a surface, the shortest line between two points is a portion of
a great circle.  Great circles are the curves obtained by cutting the
sphere with a plane through the sphere's center.  The equator and the
meridians of the earth are familiar examples.  It is clear now that in
this world, the axiom of the parallel does not hold--for any plane on
which there is a straight line L and a point P that is not on L, there
is no straight line L' that passes through P and is parallel to L.

     Consider now the following scenario proposed by Hermann von
Helmholtz, a German physicist of the 19th century.  Imagine a
two-dimensional world in which two-dimensional beings walk about and
push around objects.  These beings and all the objects in their world
are completely flat.  They live, not on a flat surface, but on the
surface of a sphere.  The sphere is gigantic in relation to the size of
its inhabitants, who are like ants on the earth.  It is so large that
they never travel all the way around it.  The question is, can these
creatures, by making internal measurements on their two-dimensional
surface, ever discover whether they are on a flat surface or a spherical
surface?  Three- dimensional creatures could, of course, see this at a
glance, but Helmholtz argued that the two-dimensional beings could also
determine it.  Consider the following experiment (this is a modified
version of the argument actually offered by Helmholtz).  Draw two lines
perpendicular to a given line, and extend them an equal distance in the
same direction.  If the distance between the far ends of these two lines
is equal to the distance between their starting points on the original
line, the surface must be flat; if not, the surface is curved.

     The French mathematician Poincare, however, suggested around the
turn of the century that this scenario of the two-dimensional beings
should be more closely examined.  He showed that that the question of
whether their world was flat or spherical cannot really be determined
conclusively at all.  Continuing with the example, suppose the two-
dimensional creature discover that, when they measure the end distance,
it turns out be different from the beginning distance.  Among these
creatures are two physicists.  Physicist 1 maintains that the region on
which he and his fellow-creatures live is part of a spherical surface
S1; his colleague, Physicist 2, says that the region is a flat surface,
but that bodies expand and contract in certain predictable ways as they
move around.  For example, they get longer as they move toward the
center of their world, shorter as they move away from the center.
Physicist P2 maintains that the apparent phenomenon of the end distance
in the experiment being different from the starting distance is no more
than another manifestation of this regular expansion and contraction.
How can they decide which of them is right?  The answer is that there is
no way of deciding!  Physicist 1 contends that their world is part of
the surface of a sphere and that bodies do not suffer contractions and
expansions except, of course, for the two- dimensional analogs of such
phenomena as thermal expansion, elastic expansion, and so on.  But
Physicist P2 describes the same world in a different way.  He thinks it
is a plane but that bodies expand and contract in certain ways as they
move over the surface.  We, who are in a three-dimensional space, can
observe this two-dimensional world and see whether it is a sphere or
plane, but the two physicists are restricted to their world.  They
cannot in principle decide which theory is correct.  For this reason, we
should not even raise the question of who is right.  The two theories
are no more than two different methods of describing the same world.  In
fact, there is really an infinity of different ways that physicists on
the sphere could describe their world, and it is entirely a matter of
convention--or faith--as to which way they choose.


The Dependence of Observation on Theory:

     The point made in the above example is that current established
theory is only one possible framework for interpreting the facts.  This
is true, for example, of the theory of evolution.  Since it "works," we
have no incentive to look for another theory.  However, suppose now that
we have an Orthodox Jew, who believes on religious grounds that a
non-metaphorical interpretation of Bereishis is in order.  For example,
he may believe that there have been no more than 5752 revolutions of the
earth around the sun, since the universe was created.  If so, he would
take such a statement as an axiom, which he would not be willing to
submit to any tests of falsifiability.  However, he needs to come up
with a set of other statements that are not logically inconsistent with
his original statement, which would also 1) not contradict observed
phenomena; 2) provide an explanation for observed phenomena; and 3) make
further predictions regarding the world.  This would constitute a theory
that would be an alternative to the theory of evolution.  The third
requirement for this theory would satisfy the falsifiability criterion
that Karl Popper requires to classify a theory as an empirical theory,
as opposed to a metaphysical one.  A theory satisfying the three
criteria above would be a perfectly valid scientific theory, as
acceptable to a true scientist as the theory of evolution.

     It is well known that one's language and culture determine how one
views reality (i.e. interprets phenomena).  (This is a particular case
of a more general point--in Karl Popper's words, "observation is
observation in the light of a theory.")  For example, among South Indian
Brahmins, an individual's father's brother's daughter is quite different
from his mother's brother's daughter: he is permitted to marry the
latter while the former is forbidden to him.  Correspondingly, there are
two different words for the two kinds of cousins, but no single word
that includes both kinds of cousins.  But for an American, they are both
simply cousins.  Similarly, it is almost a cliche that there are 40 or
so words in the Eskimo language for snow.  We, in more temperate climes,
would certainly not perceive so many different kinds of snow.  The fact
that we could probably physically distinguish between these different
kinds given the time and instrumentation does not contradict the basic
point of this article; as non-Eskimos, we would probably not even think
about looking for 40 kinds of snow.  This demonstrates the basic
point--the nature of scientific investigation is not objective in the
absolute sense in which many of us believe it is.

     Here is another linguistic example.  There is a language called
Aranda, which is spoken by some native Australians.  When western
linguists first investigated the language, they found it extremely
complicated and they invented linguistic terms for different kinds of
verb tenses, moods, and so on that they "discovered" It turned out, in
fact, that the Aranda do not have any tenses.  According to current
belief, they only live in the present.  The multiplicity of forms that
linguists, who had been exposed to Latin and Greek, perceived were just
different forms that had no semantic function.  We see from these
examples that the procedures for changing the axiom system of science
are arbitrary and a product of chance (e.g. past history, academic
politics and the like).

     One may object that "the scientific community at large is not
driven by chance events and the whims of academic politicians.  Before a
new theory or world-view is accepted, it is subject to close scrutiny
and experiments to search for evidence in support of the claims made;
and that his is what led to the acceptance of the Theory of Relativity
and the rejection of Cold Fusion.  There is no denying that scientific
investigation is systematic.  In fact, one may say that this
systematization is definitional of science.  However, this does not
contradict the fact that such systematization is arbitrary.

     Here is another example of the randomness of the path taken by the
scientific community.  The "officially" accepted interpretation of
quantum physics offered by Niels Bohr (the Copenhagen interpretation) is
that "no elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is recorded";
before the act of observation, we can only make probabilistic statements
about elementary phenomena, such as the position of an electron; the act
of observation determines the position of the electron.  In other words,
observation creates reality.  Now this was a position that Einstein
could not accept--his view that "God does not play dice with the
universe" is well known.  More recently, two researchers, David Bohm and
Basil Hiley have developed a theory that, more or less, allows for the
Einsteinian position that there is a pre-existing reality and our
observations merely uncover it.  Given the general acceptability of the
Copenhagen interpretation, however, it is not unlikely that this theory
will not be investigated.  If this is true of a theory espousing an
Einsteinian point of view, imagine what could happen to theories put
forward by less known researchers!  This is an example of how scientific
(or social) consensus shapes our view of reality.


The Role of Scientific Inquiry in Judaism:

     We now come to the role of scientific inquiry in Judaism.  The
third commandment listed by the Rambam in the minyan ha-mitzvos is the
commandment to love God.  In the words of the Rambam (freely
translated),

	(begin quote)...God commanded us to love Him.  And this means
	that we should reflect (nekheshav) and contemplate (nisbonen) on
	his commandments and on his sayings and on his works until we
	come to an understanding and grasp of the matter, and that is
	the definition of the love of God.  As the Sifri says,
	
	Ve-ahavta es hashem elokekha--And you shall love the Lord, your
	God; from these words, I would not know how to love God; hence
	the Torah tells us, Ve-hayu hadevarim haeyleh asher anokhi
	metzavekha hayom al levavekha--And these are the things/words
	that I command you, upon your lev; that through these you may
	know God.

	As I have explained, through contemplation (hisbonenus) you will
	come to an understanding and grasp of the matter and you will
	certainly arrive at ahavas hashem. (end quote)

It is pertinent that the Rambam uses the term hisbonenus to describe the
act through which the mitzvah of ahavah is fulfilled.  The root of the
word hisbonenus is binah, which means discernment, analytical truth.
Similarly, the Sifri in explaining how one is to love God quotes from
Deuteronomy 6:5 until the words 'that I command you upon your lev.'  It
is well known that the lev, in Hebrew is understood to be the seat of
the intellect; hence the meaning of the phrase hadevarim haeyleh asher
anokhi metzavekha hayom al levavekha is that one can arrive at ahavas
hashem through an intellectual understanding of the works of God, i.e.
through scientific or logical thinking.

     The same thing is explicated by Rav Soloveitchik in his work,
Halachic Man.  He writes, "the cognition of the Creator is possible,
according to Maimonides view, only through the cognition of the
attributes of action--i.e. this vast and great cosmos."  It is not to be
assumed, however, that the motivations or ends of the Jew in pursuing a
scientific understanding of the world is similar to that of the
scientist.  On the one hand, this scientific analysis is pursued simply
because it is commanded by God.  On the other hand, it is necessary for
a better and more complete fulfillment of all the other commandments.  As
the Rav explains elsewhere in the same work,

	(begin quote) Halakhic mean cognizes the world in order to
	subordinate it to religious performance.  For instance, he
	cognizes space by means of religious, a priori, lawful
	categories in order to realize in it the halakhic norms of
	Sabbath, the commandment of sukkah, and the idea of purity.
	...Cognition is for the purpose of doing. (end quote)

     It would seem from the above evidence that a case can definitely be
made for the inclusion of scientific thinking as an integral part of
Judaism.  Finally, an admission of scientific inquiry into the domain of
Judaism does not exclude other ways of knowing Hashem, such as the
Kabbalah.  A scientific knowledge of the world is posited as one of the
ways in which God asks us to seek Him, but other ways are not ruled out.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 4 Number 6


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Jewish Community in South Bend, Indiana
             [Howie Pielet]
        Showering on Yom Tov
             [Louis Rayman]
        Stage Magic
             [Morris Podolak]
        Torah Temimah
             [Stephen Phillips]
        Women in Political Positions
             [Aryeh A. Frimer]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed,  1 Jul 92 08:55:20 CST
From: [email protected] (Howie Pielet)
Subject: Jewish Community in South Bend, Indiana

Please include South Bend, Indiana on the list of small towns with a
vibrant, growing observant Jewish community.  Rabbi Yisroel Gettinger
has been particularly instrumental in the community's development.  He
is the rabbi of the Hebrew Orthodox Congregation and his wife is
principal of the day school.  He began what is now a growing Yeshiva,
with a campus adjacent to the shul.  His brother is now Rosh Yeshiva.
There is of course a mikva.  Kosher meat is delivered regularly from out
of town.

The families are very friendly.  Some are baalei t'shuva.  Some were
observant and are becoming more so.

The area around the shul and the yeshiva is wooded with a slightly
rolling landscape.  Housing is affordable.  I believe that Notre Dame
University is a significant factor in the nature of South Bend's
economy.

South Bend is about 1 1/2 hours from downtown Chicago and about 2 hours
from the Kosher restaurants, shuls, and yeshivos on the north side of
Chicago.

Howie Pielet        [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 92 13:03:16 -0400
From: [email protected] (Louis Rayman)
Subject: Re: Showering on Yom Tov

A quick question related to showering on Yom Tov:

Do any poskim differentiate between bathing and showering?

In regards to the problem of s'chita (squeezing water) from a towel or
from your hair: the same problems would exist with washing your face
with cold water, which is 100% permitted, even on shabbat.  Do any early
rishonim deal with the issue?

(I recall a footnote in Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata in which the author
dealt with this question.  The details escape me.)
                      _ |_ 
Lou Rayman           .|   |
[email protected]    |  / 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 92 03:30:03 -0400
From: Morris Podolak <D77%[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Stage Magic

In response to a number of queries about stage magic, and in particular
Mike Kramer's posting, I have also seen Rav Ovadia Yosef's psak.  He
prohibits it.  There is a lenient opinion in Aseh Lecha Rav of Rav Chaim
David Halevi, the Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv.  He argues that
sleight of hand is not prohibited since it is possible, in principle, to
follow the motions and see it is a trick (I am relying on memory here so
check the original).

Morris Podolak

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 92 13:43 GMT
From: Stephen Phillips <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Torah Temimah

Aryeh A. Frimer writes:

>  Eli Turkel has mentioned two books written by R. Boruch Epstien,
> The Torah Temimah on Chumash and The Mekor Boruch, an Autobiography. He
> is also the author of a "Tosefet Beracha" on Chumash which he wrote in
> his later years and contains a wonderful collection of insights and
> explanations wonderfully suited for Divrei Torah. Highly recommended!

I enjoy very much Rav Epstein's Tosefes Berochoh. His insights are
sometimes quite brilliant, but on occasion I feel IMHO that he goes a
bit too far.

For instance, in Parshas Noso he comments on the Priestly Blessing by
bringing the Gemoroh in Berochos to the effect that if someone has a bad
dream or one which he cannot interperate, he should come before the
Cohanim [Priests] when they Duchan [give the Priestly Blessing in Shul]
and say the "Ribono Shel Olom" prayer (to be found in most sidurim and
machsorim) while the Cohen "shlepps" out the words "Veyishmerecho",
"Vichuneko" and "Sholom". [As an aside, we are fortunate in our Shul to
have a Cohen who does indeed sing enough "Lai Lai LAi's" for one to have
time to say this prayer.]

Rav Epstein comments that as the prayer had to be said on the morning
immediately following the dream, and as in the Diaspora we only Duchan
on Yom Tov (unlike in Israel, where it is every day), the prayer is not
appropriate to dreams that may have been dreamt several months
previously. He therefore goes on to suggest that the prayer be amended
to refer to "Chalomos" [dreams], including those that the person may
have forgotten about.

Now it seems to me IMHO that to tinker with the wording of a prayer that
is brought down word for word in the Gemorrah is somewhat beyond the
capacity of even someone of the stature of Rav Epstein.

Stephen Phillips.

[Stephen, you have hit one of my favorite topics, and as a Cohen I have
tried to examine the halakha. I will try and check the sources when I am
back home, but I think we will find that R' Epstein's comments are more
grounded in halakha than out current practice. I admit to being on a
campaign to eliminate the singing, so I will admit to a bias. But let us
examine over the next several issues (since I have about 19 submissions
already waiting to go out) what are the sources and halakhic decisions
in this area. If anyone has the sources and puts it together before me,
please feel free and don't feel I've claimed any right to reply. Avi
Feldblum, your friendly Moderator]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 92 09:28:10 -0400
From: [email protected] (Aryeh A. Frimer)
Subject: Women in Political Positions

	Jonathan Stiebel has raised some interesting questions regarding
women and non-Jews in political positions. The view expressed by Rabbi
Melamed are those of the Rambam, but he is not the only Rishon to
discuss this issue. In an article I wrote in Hatzofeh (The Mafdal
Newspaper) and later reprinted by "Ne'emanei Torah Ve-Avodah" I cite
those poskim who are lenient on this issue when we are talking about a
Democracy. And of course this discussion has direct relevance to the
appointment of Leah Shakdiel to the religious Council of Yerucham.
	Briefly, the Torah in its discussion of the appointment of a
king states "Som Tasim alecha Melech...Lo Tasim Alecha Ish Nachri". Ye
shall place upon yourselves a King...Thou shalt not appoint a non-Jew.
The Sifri derives from various redundant words and phrasings that the
following may not serve in positions of "sima" - loosely translated as
positions with discretionary power: Women, non-Jews, converts.  There is
a discussion among the poskim whether this refers to Kingship only or
any leadership position. Of course, the poskim discuss at length the
historical reality which seems to fly in the face of this: Devorah the
prophetess and Shlomziyon Hamalkah, Shmayah ve-Avtalyon leaders of the
Yeshiva and the Court who were converts, Hordus the King (a non-Jew)
etc. I should like to note that Shlomziyon ha-Malkah was praised because
she did everything Hazal told her - were she inappropriate for the job,
she would have undoubtedly stepped down.
	I can't go into all the details (particularly, since I'm in the
States now away from my reference material) but various explanations are
given by the codifiers and commentaries for their appointment. The
bottom line is that the prohibition of "Simah" only applies under the
following conditions:
	1) The position is an inherited one - as in the case of a king
which passes on his position automatically to his progeny.
	2) The position is for the lifetime of the appointee and irrevocable.
	3) The position is one that comes from "above". If the people
pick or popularly accept them as leaders ("kiblu alayhu") there is no
prohibition.
	4) The individual has discretionary powers. If the decisions
require approval of others or is made together with others this is not
"Simah".
	5) Finally, if "There is none like them in Israel" (she-ein
kemotam be-Yisrael), then simah is permitted

	In light of the above, Democracy - which by it's very
definition is "Kiblu Alayhu" - does not involve Simah. Indeed Rav Shaul
Yisraeli The world renowned scholar, Rosh Yeshivat Merkaz Harav Kook and
Member of the Chief Rabbinical Court, permits (for some of the
aforementioned reasons) to have a non-Jew sit in the Iriyah of
Jerusalem. Rav Grossness permitted a convert to serve as Rosh Yeshiva.
Rav Moshe Feinstein permitted a women to serve as a Kashrut supervisor
(because of his concern for a literal/stringent interpretation of the
Rambam he has a creative solution; but a careful reading of the
responsum makes it clear that he maintains that the Rambam is a minority
position in regard to non-kingship appointments). Rav Kapach writes "I
don't know what simah is involved in being elected to the knesset". Rav
Goren and many other poskim who led the Mizrahi movement from its
inception clearly had no problem with women running for office.
	To be sure, there are stringent positions - but to state as Rav
Melamed does that "Non-Jews and Women may not assume any political
office" without citing the scores of poskim and Halachic Giants who are
lenient is unfair (to say the least!).
	I'd like to note that Monarchy does not exclude democracy, and
one could readily envision a king at top working together with a
democratically elected legislature. This is a long discussion which
could be tackled later.

	Rav Melameds view on our relationship with non-Jews assumes them
to be Idolaters (Ovdei Avodah Zarah), not gerei Toshav (non-Jews who
have accepted the seven Noachide commandments). This too deserves long
discussion, since many rishonim maintain that moral non-Jews who are not
idolaters do not have to formally accept the 7 noachide commandments to
be considered Gerei Toshav. The latter status permits them to dwell in
the Land of Israel Lechatchilla and we are even obligated to support and
help them in any way possible.

	Rav Melameds statement that the majority of Israelis voted for
Shamir is absurd. One votes for a party, not a Prime Minister - there
are no direct elections for PM in Israel.  In fact, the Likud attacked
Labor on just this point, since the latter pushed hard in its public
relations that Rabin was its designated PM. Everyone knows that all is
fair in love and Politics and that is why the extreme right TZOMET party
is so willing to talk with labor!
	Enough for now; but things are far from being as simple as Rav
Melamed would like us to believe. I personally believe he's Halakhically
wrong on many accounts.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 4 Number 7


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Correction about dollars in Israel
             [David Kramer]
        Hebrew Language Skills
             [Rick Turkel]
        Interest and Heter Iska
             [Stephen Phillips]
        Malchut and Democracy
             [Norman Miller]
        Malchut in Halacha
             [Jerome Parness]
        Meat/Milk Ovens
             [Steve Prensky]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 92 12:47:10 IST
From: [email protected] (David Kramer)
Subject: Correction about dollars in Israel

A correction to something Hillel Markowitz said paraphrasing a R. Kaganoff :

> He also said that it is a question as to whether the currency of the
> state of Israel is Dollars or Shekels because of the way they are used
> (i.e. stores accept dollars and prices are in dollars).

This is absolutely false. Stores in Israel DO NOT accept dollars! It is
ILLEGAL for a native Israeli to hold dollars. I don't know what he means
when he says that "prices are in dollars" - there is no store I've been
at in Israel that quotes prices in dollars - other than some booths and
shops at Ben Gurion airport. There might be some unscrupulous owners of
sforim stores (and maybe souvenir-type stores whose target market are
tourists) that accept dollars as payment - but that is surely the
exception.

The prices of apartments are generally *quoted* in dollars. However, the
rent or purchase is paid in Shekel.

David Kramer    INTERNET: [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 92 12:14:07 EDT
From: rmt51%[email protected] (Rick Turkel)
Subject: Re: Hebrew Language Skills

[email protected] (Howie Pielet) writes:

    What methods have participants found effective for improving speaking
    and writing Hebrew language skills?  Are there tapes that go beyond
    tourist level?  What printed or electronic dictionaries would be good
    for reading an Israeli newspaper, for reading a personal letter, or for
    reading technical engineering material?

Practice, practice, practice, as for any language.  I went to Israel for
a year in 1968-1969 with limited speaking skills but a solid basis of
grammar to build on.  I've been back four times since, but never for
more than three weeks at a time.  My Hebrew is still fluent today only
because I force myself to use it whenever I can.  Find yourself one or
more patient Israelis [:-)] who are willing to put up with some errors
and slow speech on your part, and talk to them as often as you can.
Tapes and dictionaries are fine, as far as they go, but people don't
speak in stock phrases, so you have to get used to hearing the language
"as she is spoke," complete with common but ungrammatical usages.
Writing skills will improve in tandem with speaking skills, and spelling
will improve with reading (just like English -- funny thing about that).

I use the Alkalai Hebrew-English/English-Hebrew set, which has a fair
complement of technical terms.  I also bought a new (1991) "Five
Language Dictionary of Terms in Mathematics, Computer Science and
Natural Sciences" by Raphael and Yael Ikan and Vera Weinstein (published
by Academon, the Hebrew University students' printing and publishing
house) when I was in Israel this past winter.  It covers Hebrew,
Russian, English, French and Spanish.  Unfortunately, I don't have any
information on online resources.

Behatzlakha!

        Rick Turkel     ([email protected])      ([email protected])


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 92 15:21 GMT
From: Stephen Phillips <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Interest and Heter Iska

I wish to borrow some money from my mother and I today had an interview
with Dayan Berger of the London Beis Din to discuss the question of a
Heter Iska. From what he said it is clear that some part (and not just a
minor part) of the money must be capable of generating a profit so that
the "interest" paid is in lieu of the profit. If, therefore, the money
borrowed is to repay other loans (as in my case), then a Heter Isak on
its own will not do. What has to happen is that the lender must be given
a share in some appreciating asset belonging to the borrower and then
the "interest" can be in lieu of the profit gained from the appreciation
in value of the asset. In my case, Dayan Berger suggested that my mother
take an equitable (as opposed to a legal) share in my house.

When I queried the Heter Iska in Israeli banks and how it would apply to
borrowing money for (say) a car (which is a depreciating asset), Dayan
Berger seemed to suggest that the Heter Iska cannot apply in such cases
and there is therefore a problem in repaying such a loan with interest.

Stephen Phillips.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 92 13:28 EST
From: [email protected] (Norman Miller)
Subject: Malchut and Democracy

Jonathan Stiebel's post represents the views of a sizable
number of observant Jews--but by no means of all.  I hope 
that a quiet and reasoned discussion can now ensue.

Norman Miller

[I think we are having a relatively quiet and reasoned discussion, that
is a large part of what I see my job being, and I think all sides within
the halakhic framework are getting a fair share at presenting their
views. Mod.]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 92 12:08:43 EDT
From: Jerome Parness <[email protected]>
Subject: Malchut in Halacha


	As I stated in my original query, I know that the Rambam and
others seem to indicate categorically that the institution of monarchy
is required in the messianic era. However, it does not seem to me for
this to be a fore gone conclusion since I am quite sure the mehaber of
Ha'amek Davar and Harav JB Soloveichik are quite aware of these halachic
sources and yet they do indicate that monarchy is not a foregone
conclusion, certainly it was not so in the midbar, and from their
remarks both written and oral, it does not seem to be so beyameinu anu.
My question is where are the sources for these views that are expressed
in contradiction to the standard interpretation of the halachic
requirements of monarchy in the messianic era as enumerated by the
Rambam and others. Indeed, what is so surprising to me is that Harav
Soloveichik, whose derech in learning is pure "Brisk", is known to use
the Rambam as his primary source for halachic interpretation and
elucildation of pshat in the gemara. His remarks, therefore, are all the
more startling and deserving of iyyun.

	Jerry Parness

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1992 11:14:26 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email protected] (Steve Prensky)
Subject: Meat/Milk Ovens

This topic was recently addressed by Rabbi Moshe Heinemann
(Administrator of the Baltimore Vaad Hakashrus, star-K) in Kahsrus
Kurrents, v. 12, no. 2, winter 5752.  In addition to discussing the
proper (halachic) use of stoves, ovens, and cooktops, on Shabbos and Yom
Tov, regarding the use of the same oven for milk and meat dishes, his
conclusions are summarized as follows:

   "Cooking is the process of preparing for with a liquid.  Baking is the 
      process of preparing food without liquid.

   1. Baking meat and diary foods one after the other is permitted in a 
      clean oven.

   2. Cooking meat and dairy dishes one after the other is permitted as 
      long as one type (either the meat or the dairy) is always covered.  
      Once one type of dish is covered, that "gender must always be the 
      gender that must remain covered in the oven."

   3. Baking is not affected by cooking.

   4. Cooking a covered meat dish and a covered dairy dish together is 
      permitted.

   5. Cooking or baking uncovered dairy and meat dishes in the same oven at 
      the same time is forbidden.

      These rules apply equally to electric, gas, and microwave ovens."

Steve Prensky - <[email protected]>



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 4 Number 8


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Mixed Classes (3)
             [Freda B. Birnbaum, Andrew Feldman, Bob Tannenbaum]
        Non-Orthodox Conversion
             [Mike Allen]
        The first major ERUV in London
             [Stephen Phillips]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 92 07:11 EDT
From: Freda B. Birnbaum <FBBIRNBA%[email protected]>
Subject: Mixed Classes

Rabbi Yaakov Haber responded to the question about the Halakhic basis
for separating the sexes in Yeshiva, and the sources for same.
He indicated that he teaches mixed classes, so I assume there is
halachic support for that too. Where can we find it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 92 17:00:55 -0400
From: Andrew Feldman <[email protected]>
Subject: Mixed Classes

maybe a remez (hint) to it found in: Pesukei d'zimrah(Siddur Tehillat
Hashem P36,Line 12

Tehillim 148:12
.young men as well as maidens, elders together with young lads...
bachorim V'GAM b'sulos, z'kainim im n'awrim
The use of V'GAM (also) and not "and"

Avrohom Feldman  FAX: 201-546-5669  Internet [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 92 08:42:19 edt
From: Bob Tannenbaum <trumpet!bob>
Subject: Re: Mixed Classes

Rav Moshe Feinstein has a Tshuva (Responsa) to the question of
permitting boys and girls to be taught in the same classroom. It appears
in the Igrot Moshe volume for Yoreh Deah.

He states that it is definitely forbidden for boys and girls (men and
women) to have any mixed socialization once they begin to experience
sexual desire.  He specifically states that there is no distinction
between Torah classes and secular classes in this regard.  The driving
principle is that we don't want to encourage the Yetzer Harah (improper
desire) at all.

Most of his discussion is concerned with whether or not children younger
than the age of awakened desire need to be separated just like older
children and adults. His conclusion is that we should keep them separate
so that they don't become accustomed to socializing together.  He
considers this an obligation of Hinuch -- i.e. prepatory training prior
to the actual obligatory period.

However he leaves an opening for mixed classes only for the very early
grades and only where there are not enough students to support separate
classes. It's obvious that he considers this to be permissable only
under the most difficult situations, and not as an apriori situation.

Note: he does not seem to need any sources to conclude that mixed
classes are forbidden for older children and adults. He takes it
absolutely matter of fact.

Ezra Tanenbaum  (908)819-7533 home   (908)615-2899 work
[email protected] (att!trumpet!bob)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 92 10:12:56 -0500
From: [email protected] (Mike Allen)
Subject: Non-Orthodox Conversion

>> (1) What are the exact requirements for a conversion - i.e. what statements 
>>     and actions must be carried out.
>> 
>> (2) What is the HALACHIC role of the rabbi (or is it a beit din) in all 
>>     of this.  For example, let us assume that the convert properly accepts
>>     the mitzvot from an orthodox halachic position.  In this case, is the
>>     converstion valid - or is it invalid because the rabbi is an invalid
>>     witness.

 From what I understand, the laws of conversion are learned from two
main places: 'Matan Torah' (the giving of the Law) as described in in
parasha Yitro, and from the book of Ruth.  In answer to the specific
questions above, I think the answers are:

1) The major requirement of conversion is an acceptance of the Law
(Written and Oral) and the Halachah, ie, the correct application of the
Law to daily life as determined by our Sages in each generation.  This
part of the conversion is not wholly unlike the the procedure for
becoming a naturalized citizen.  Next, if the potential convert is male,
he must be cirumsized; or, if already circumsized, a procedure called
"Hataphat Dam" (a drop of blood) is performed.  Finally, the person
immerses in a valid Mikveh.  Once coming up from a complete immersion,
the person is irrevovably Jewish.  Mazal Tov!!

This whole procedure is made legal and binding by going in front of a
Bet Din (Jewish Court) made up of three valid witnesses.  Who is
considered a valid witness is a matter of some discussion (in Masechta
Sanhedrin, I think), but the basic requirement is that to be a valid
witness, one must be jewish, male, Shomer Mitzvah (observant of all the
Mitzvot), and be known to possess outstanding Midot (good character
traits).  Of course, one must have had sufficient instruction in what is
involved in the acceptance of the Mitzvot, otherwise the potential
convert would not know what they were accepting, and the whole procedure
would be invalid.

2) I think that Halachicly the Rabbi's only real function is to train
the potential convert.  Practically, he is usually part of the
supervising Bet Din.  If a person went to a non-Orthodox Rabbi, but went
to an Orthodox Bet Din, the procedure would probably not be valid
because the person would not be in a position to properly accept "Ol
HaMitzvot" (the yoke of the commandments).

Questions of validity do not go on the supervising Rabbis, but on the
procedure itself.  I personally know of a case where there was a
completely Orthodox conversion that later had to be repeated because of
a technicality.  No one was angry at any Rabbis, nor was anyone
concerned about politics; everyone was concerned that the procedure be
done correctly to be sure that the person would be Jewish.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 92 10:33 GMT
From: Stephen Phillips <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: The first major ERUV in London

Hi Yitzi, how're you doing? There are two issues at stake here, one a
matter of principle and the other halachik. There are those who oppose
this Eruv on a matter of principle as they feel that people might carry
outside the Eruv without realising its boundary and also that people
will see people carrying within the Eruv and not realise why and then
carry outside the Eruv. Those who agree with the Eruv say that the
Shulchan Aruch details the laws of Eruvin and therefore they must be
Halocho Le'Ma'aseh [practical laws] which we can observe. Also, IMHO,
the existence of an Eruv could lead to less Chillul Shabbos as many who
already carry on Shabbos will now be doing so without breaking the
Shabbos.

Then there are those (including the above) who oppose the Eruv on a
matter of Halochoh. One such is Rav Feldman of Munks Shul in Golders
Green. I regularly attend a Shiur of his and he will in the next Shiur
be discussing the laws as brought in the Shulchan Aruch to show that
this particular Eruv is not Kosher. His reasoning seems to be that the
North Circular Road (a major road that encircles the whole of London)
passes right through the Eruv and Rav Feldman is of the opinion that the
NCR is considered a Reshus Harabim [public thoroughfare through which
600,000 pass daily] and an Eruv is no good if a Reshus Harabim passes
through it.

I had a meeting yesterday with Dayan Berger of the London Beis Din and I
raised this question with him. He is in no doubt that the Eruv will be
Kosher and that the NCR is not a Reshus Harabim because:-

1. Research has been carried out which casts doubt on whether 600,000
people pass through the NCR every day.

2. The vast majority of people using the NCR are in cars and the car
may be considered as a separate Reshus and therefore the driver is
not actually in a Reshus Harabim.

3. Even if 600,000 use the whole of the NCR, it may none the less be
considered as many separate roads. He gave the example of a long road at
each end of which is a shopping mall. If 300,000 people go to one mall
and 300,000 to the other, then one can consider the road as being
divided in half, each half having only 300,000 people.  Therefore
neither half is considered to be a Reshus Harabim.

It would therefore seem that this Eruv will be Kosher according to the
London Beis Din, but other communities (like Rav Feldman's) will not
hold by it. I believe that the initial consultations regarding the Eruv
were with Rav Shimon Eider of Lakewood who is, I believe, an expert on
these matters.

Gut Shabbos.

Stephen Phillips



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 4 Number 9


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Care for Babies on Shabbos and Yom Tov
             [Sigrid Peterson]
        Kosher restaurants in Budapest
             [Steve Prensky]
        Regarding the Questions of Shelomoh of Warsaw (2)
             [Aryeh A. Frimer, Stephen Phillips]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1992 23:00 MST
From: Sigrid Peterson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Care for Babies on Shabbos and Yom Tov

In Volume 4 No. 3 of Mail-Jewish, Bruce Krulwich cited me as follows:

     * In a recent MJ message Sigrid Peterson wrote:

       * After all, babies do not know that it is Yom Tov when they spit up,
       * etc., and showering may be a necessity.

He then provided an example of caring for an infant on shabbat, and concluded

     * In general, therefore, it is not possible to generalize from babies to
     * adults in terms of what is permitted on Shabbos or Yom Tov.

I am happy to see information appearing on the care of infants on Shabbat; I do 
want to point out that I made no attempt to generalize from infants to adults 
regarding whether showering is permitted or forbidden on Shabbos or Yom Tov. 

The point I had hoped to make was that infant care involves the unpredictable. 
This unpredictable behavior of infants is messy, as Bruce Krulwich understood;
this unpredictable behavior of infants that is messy may not be confined to 
infants, but the messiness may unavoidably be transferred to a caregiving 
adult. A picture of my daughter eating in her high chair at 18 months would 
provide graphic evidence; any adult who needed to pick her up in a hurry would 
be as covered with food as she is in the picture. Some children are not nearly
as well-behaved as my daughter; sometimes an adult is caring for an incontinent 
parent. In other words, if I may be so bold as to inform you, one cannot both 
provide physical care on Shabbat and Yom Tov and escape the need to shower.

Sigrid Peterson
[email protected] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 9:43:30 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email protected] (Steve Prensky)
Subject: Kosher restaurants in Budapest

Re: Kosher restaurants in Budapest

A general comment: the best single source of information concerning the 
availability of shuls and kosher food, worldwide, is the "Jewish Travel 
Guide," published annually by the Jewish Chronicle (London), available in 
the US through Jewish book stores, price $11.50.  

In 1986, I visited Budapest for a month, on business.  At that time there 
was only one kosher restaurant, "Hannah VII" at Dob utca 35 (adjacent to 
the central orthodox shul).  The food was classic eastern European, heavy, 
meat and potatoes, but good (considering the alternative, it was 
excellent).  The best time was on Shabbat when everyone paid in advance and 
many tourists, from all over the world, and locals would share in a 
community dinner (75-100 people).  The restuarant wass about 1 mile from 
the major tourist hotel I was staying at.  In 1986, there was, within a few 
blocks of this resturant, a kosher bakery at Dob utca 28, a kosher butcher 
that sold prepared salami and sausage, and an outlet for kosher wine and 
slivovitz.  Also there was a also a man who sold cholev yisrael milk and 
yougart (I don't think there was any hard cheese) outside the shul in the 
evening, around the time of maariv. It was also a great place to change 
money to/from dollars using the blackmarket rate which, at that time (as a 
communist country) was signficantly better than the official rate.

Since 1986, a second restaurant has opened, "Shalom VII, Klauzel ter 1-2.  
I think that it opened in response to the large number of Jewish tourists.  
I don't have any idea of food quality or the hasgacha.  

Make sure you find out the hours that meals are served at either place.  
Because of the nature of my visit, I was unable to get to the restaurant 
during their serving times and I had someone work out a deal for me where 
the restuarant would put some food aside for me that I could pick up when I 
came for mincha/maariv.  When I visited, fluency in Yiddush or Hungarian 
was essential.  I had to work through a translator and that was a hassle.

Packaged foods were a problem since the labelling was in Hungarian.  At 
that time I did not come across any imported (e.g. Israeli) packaged goods 
that I could be sure were kosher.  There are such products in Vienna (about 
3 hours away by car).  U.S. government employees there (or for that matter 
any foreign country) on offical business, as I was, are entitled to 
purchase items at the U.S. embassy comissary where they generally carry 
some American food items that are kosher.

Phone numbers (from the Jewish Travel Guide): Hannah 1-421-072; Shalom 
1-413-396.  

Steve Prensky
<[email protected]>



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 92 08:53:25 -0400
From: [email protected] (Aryeh A. Frimer)
Subject: Re: Regarding the Questions of Shelomoh of Warsaw

	1) All religious objects (Torah scroll, mezuzah, Tefillin,
Siddur etc.) touched by a non-Jew maintain their sanctity. The only
thing tainted by the contact of a non-Jew is an open bottle of Wine; but
the purpose of the latter is to prevent intermarriage. There are several
details regarding the latter which would take our discussion far afield.
	2) A mezuzah must contain Yud-heh-vav-heh. The mono-,di- and
trigrammaton as you call them are printers devices and have no sanctity.
If your mezuzah contains them, then they are invalid and cannot be
corrected.
	3) Halacha requires us to face towards Jerusalem, which may
involve directions other than east. If one is unsure as to the exact
direction, then "one directs his heart toward Jerusalem". It is also
clear from the sources that one does not have to worry about praying
exactly toward Jerusalem, but the general direction suffices.  If
Jerusalem is south-east of Warsaw, then South east suffices, you don't
have to take out your compass! Indeed there are traditions to pray a bit
more south of the exact direction if you desire knowledge and a bit more
north if you want to emphasize "Parnassah" (financial and economic
needs). If you are in a synagogue which faces improperly, RAV HENKIN
za"l, in Eidut le-Yisrael argues in Joining with the other members of
the community in facing the wall on which the Aron Kodesh (The Ark)
faces.
	4) Your watch should be set to the time that is most practical
to you.  This is because times in Judaism follow local time (often based
on Local sunrise and sunset). The only exception is the "Molad", the
time of the birth of the new moon, which is based on Israel time.

					(Rabbi) Aryeh Frimer



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 92 13:35 GMT
From: Stephen Phillips <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Regarding the Questions of Shelomoh of Warsaw

> SHALOM UVRACHA ACHIM YEHUDIM AMERIKANIM!

Shalom Uveracha to you, but from England! And welcome to the net.

Please do not feel in any way embarassed to ask any questions here.
Indeed, I think you have raised 3 interesting and important
questions.


>      (A) May my Tallith & Siddur become Lo-Kosher (HaShem forbid!) if so
>          unhappily does it happen that they've been touched by a Goy?

(A) The short answer, as far as I am aware, is no they don't become Possul
[not Kosher]. However, the Tefillin do have a high degree of Kedusha
[holiness] and I think that you should try and avoid having them touched
by a non-Jew.

>      (B) Does the Mezuza still preserve its Kashrut status after the
>          Tetragrammaton Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey in the parchment has been
>          replaced by either (i) the Digrammaton Yod-Yod, or (ii) one of
>          the Monogrammata: Hey or Alef, or (iii) the Trigrammaton Hey-
>          Shin-Mem?

(B) I believe that in such cases the Mezuzah would become Possul. The
Yod-Yod is an abbreviation used by printers of Hewbrew books. If you
have such a Mezuzah, then it is quite likely that it is not Kosher.

If you have any problems finding a Kosher Mezuzah, or wish to have your
Mezuzah checked, then let me know and I can arrange to either send you a
Kosher Mezuzah or have your Mezuzah checked. If you want to telephone me
during the day, I can be reached on 44-895-448153 (the 44 is the code
for England) or you can Fax me on 44-895-421231.

(C) I believe I am right in saying that wherever you are in the world you
should pray towards Yerushalayim. So you would seem to be quite
correct on what you are doing.

(D) I have never come across anyone who sets their watch according to
Yerushalyim time, although doing so in order not to forget
Yerushalyim is an intersting idea. So the answer to this question
would seem to be no.

I wish you Hatzlochoh Rabboh in your endeavours and pray that Hashem
gives you Siyata Dish'maya [Heavenly Help].

Kol Tuv.

Stephen Phillips.







----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 4 Number 10


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Announcement: DAF YOMI List
             [Yosef Branse]
        Kol Isha and Zmirot
             [Joel Goldberg]
        Mega Hearing Aid
             [Manny Lehman]
        Mixed Classes (3)
             [Ezra L Tepper, Bob Werman, Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 92 06:39:29 -0400
From: [email protected] (Yosef Branse)
Subject: Announcement: DAF YOMI List

Shalom.

Some weeks ago, I posted an item soliciting discussion on the possibility of
creating a mailing list devoted to Daf Yomi.

Response was good, and the list has been set up on the
ISRAEL.NYSERNET.ORG server (acknowledgements to administrator Warren
Burstein for his help). If you didn't see or respond to the original
mailing, and are interested, here is some basic information on the list.

DAF-YOMI is a discussion group based upon the worldwide Daf Yomi
schedule of Torah study, in which one page (Daf) of the Babylonian
Talmud is studied each day, leading to completion of the entire Gemara
in some 7-1/2 years.

Examples of topics appropriate for this group are the following:
1) queries/explanations regarding difficult passages in current 
   material
2) chiddushim (novellae) based on current dappim
3) exchange of information regarding locations and times of shiurim
   (e.g., "I'm going to Riyadh on business next week. Where is there
    a Daf Yomi shiur?")
4) evaluation of and updates regarding learning aids, such 
   as translations (Soncino, Artscroll), review publications, 
   Dial-a-Daf, taped shiurim, etc. 
5) information about offshoots of Daf Yomi - such as the Halacha/Mishna
   Yomit, or the Amud Yomi
6) hadranim  given at the conclusion of learning a masechta
7) historical, biographical and anecdotal material relating to Daf Yomi
   and its devotees     

The above are just possibilities, which may be modified or expanded
according to the interests of participants.

In light of the fast pace of Daf Yomi study, and comments received
following the initial proposal for the group, the list exists in two
formats, giving participants the possibility of regulating the amount of
material they receive:

DAF-YOMI is an unmoderated group, in which you receive all submissions as
         they are sent by participants

DAF-YOMI-M is a moderated group consisting of an edited digest of the 
         submissions from the previous week

Both lists are available via the listserver at NYSERNET.ORG.
To subscribe, send a mail message to [email protected], as follows:

SUBSCRIBE DAF-YOMI "Your full name"
SUBSCRIBE DAF-YOMI-M "Your full name"

Yosef (Jody) Branse - University of Haifa Library, Mt. Carmel, Haifa, Israel
Internet/ILAN:     [email protected]                                  

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 92 10:00:59 EDT
From: Joel Goldberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Kol Isha and Zmirot

The Sridei Ha Esh (Remnants of the Flames=Holocaust) has a tshuva
on Kol Isha and singing zmirot in the context of an NCSY style
youth group called "Yeshurun" in Germany. In his introductory
remarks, he notes that there are Haredi circles (which he doesn't
specify) that oppose the very existence of such a mixed group.

His comment on this is that while in the east the hermetic approach
didn't preserve Yiddishkeit, the approach of the Germans wherein
modernity is not shunned has resulted in the preservation of a frum
community. He concludes, based on this empirical evidence, that the
Germans know what they are doing.

(In the body of his tshuva he cites various sources and ends
up allowing mixed singing of zmirot--in case anyone wants to know.)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 92 07:41:54 -0400
From: Manny Lehman <[email protected]>
Subject: Mega Hearing Aid

The system described by Joe Abeles is most interesting but I am not as
optimistic as DRT as to the potential synagogal application.

First the disclaimer. I am not a Posek, have no authority whatsoever and
any observations I make are subject to correction. My remarks are based
on what I have learned over the past several years in working with Dayan
Ehrentreu shlitta, Rosh of the London Beth Din, on the question of
permitting the use of Induction Loop Systems in synagogues on Shabbat to
permit participation by the hard of hearing.

First the bad news. There is a general Issur of Hashma'at Kol taken from
the gezerah that forbids one to use a watermill on Shabbat to grind
grain because those who hear the mill working cannot know that no
Chillul Shabbath De'oraitha is involved. That issur still holds and is
the basis of not using public addresss systems on Shabbat (See Minchas
Shlomo - full ref. below). Thus it may also prevent use of the DRT
system. No doubt the various Poskim and Batei Din will come out with a
ruling and one hopes that it will not lead to machloket.

Now the good news. The London Beth Din has been able to permit the use 
of loop systems on Shabbat to permit the hard of hearing to participate 
in Synagogue services subject to cetain stringent conditions.

1. The amplifier must be switched on before Shabbat or by a time switch. 

2. There must not be an external indicator lamp flashing (with the 
output) to indicate that the amplifier is in operation.

3. Microphones should be hidden as much as possible.

4. The deaf aid too must be switched on before Shabbat, which of course 
has already been decided and agreed by most, if not all, Poskim (see eg. 
Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata)

5 The deaf aid will, normally, have to be modified to permit switching 
between the M or microphone and T or telephone (which is also the loop 
pick up) positions to overcome the Chazon Ish's zzl ruling that 
switching electric circuits on Shabbat is a toldah of binyan. It was in 
connection with that problem that it was possible to find a minor 
modification to (British) deaf aids that overcame this obstacle. Note 
also that there are now deaf aids on the market in which the initial 
construction satisfies the Shabbat requirement.

The question has been raised whether the hetter here is based on the 
fact that the Hard of Hearing are Cholim she'ein bahem sakanah (sick 
persons albeit not in danger) that permits certain leniencies and so 
does not carry over to others or whether basically there would be no 
objection to using the induction loop system to overcome the audibility 
problems of a large building (other Shabbat applications have also been 
proposed). That question has not been decided.

For any one wishing to delve deeper the starting point could be Reb 
Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's Shlitta Minchat Shlomo, Chapt. 9 and, to a less 
direct extent, 11 (10 and 12 also deal with electrical Shabbat problems)

Manny Lehman

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 92 16:29:23 +0300
From: Ezra L Tepper <[email protected]>
Subject: Mixed Classes

Ezra Tanenbaum writes (v4#8) re Rav Moshe Feinstein's (ztz"l) teshuvah
(responsa) relating to the question of boys and girls being taught in the
same classroom:

>Note: he does not seem to need any sources to conclude that mixed
>classes are forbidden for older children and adults. He takes it
(MY EMPHASIS)                                 ______
>absolutely matter of fact.

Ezra blows my mind. I have seen classes given by gedolei Torah that were
attended by males and females. The only provision was that there was
either separate seating or the putting up of a _mechitzah_ (physical
partition).

We have to maintain accuracy here. I assume the problem with the mixed
schools is not, in essense, the classes but rather the school itself
where boys and girls would be wandering about in an intermingled manner.

Ezra L. Tepper <[email protected]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 92 08:08:02 -0400
From: [email protected] (Bob Werman)
Subject: RE: Mixed Classes

I would like to suggest that Rav Moshe, z'l, from the onset of his
career as a famous posek, with his p'sak on mok b'oznayim b'tvila,
was fond of using the method of svara, logical derivation [of course
within the framework of gemara thinking and m'soret], in his work.

This method characterizes Litvak poskim as differentiated from, say,
Rabbi Ovadiya Yosef, who lists the pros and cons on a given issue,
counts up, and goes by the majority [n'tiya aHarei ha-rov].

Bob Werman    [email protected]    [email protected]
Jerusalem

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 92 11:53:27 -0400
From: sg04%[email protected] (Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund)
Subject: Re: Mixed Classes

> Tehillim 148:12
> .young men as well as maidens, elders together with young lads...
> bachorim V'GAM b'sulos, z'kainim im n'awrim
> The use of V'GAM (also) and not "and"

Perhaps I misunderstand the poster, but I always understood this
Kapital of Tehillim as indicating that one should have a seperation
between men and women (at least when singing praises to HaShem, the
topic of the Kapital). The remez for this is that bachorim are
mentioned seperately from the b'sulos rather than just lumping them
together as yeladim, or bochurim.

Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund		 		  [email protected]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA			    harvard!bunny!sgutfreund



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 4 Number 11


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Animals Muktzeh on Shabbat?
             [Daniel Lerner]
        Biblical Shekel
             [Daniel Lerner]
        Dollars in Israel (2)
             [Robert Aaron Book, Eli Turkel]
        Evolution
             [Manny Lehman]
        Touching Wine
             [Keith Bierman]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 92 21:53:19 -0400
From: [email protected] (Daniel Lerner)
Subject: Animals Muktzeh on Shabbat?

Why are animals such as dogs muktzah on shabbat?  Some people have said
that it is so you do not pull out hair.  Then, people should also be
muktzah on shabbat.  I had thought it was because of the prohibition of
working farm animals on shabbat, such as ploughing a field with oxen.
But how would this apply to a domestic pet?  I met some Bobover Chasidim
who said that a dog is muktzah every day of the week.  They didn't mean
muktzah per se, just that, one should not touch "tummadik" (not kosher)
animals in general.

dan lerner

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 92 21:53:19 -0400
From: [email protected] (Daniel Lerner)
Subject: Biblical Shekel

What would a biblical shekel be worth today in dollars?  I started
learning Sanhedrin, where it mentions certain fines for 50 or 100
shekels, e.g., for rape, or if the husband incorrectly claims that his
wife did not have b'tulim.  Also, the torah seems to be unusually
lenient in the penalty for the rape of a non-betrothed woman, only a
monetary fine.  This has always seemed very odd.

dan lerner

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 92 14:17:47 -0400
From: [email protected] (Robert Aaron Book)
Subject: Re: Dollars in Israel

> This is absolutely false. Stores in Israel DO NOT accept dollars! It is
> ILLEGAL for a native Israeli to hold dollars. I don't know what he means
> when he says that "prices are in dollars" - there is no store I've been
> at in Israel that quotes prices in dollars - other than some booths and
> shops at Ben Gurion airport. There might be some unscrupulous owners of
> sforim stores (and maybe souvenir-type stores whose target market are
> tourists) that accept dollars as payment - but that is surely the
> exception.

I don't think this is quite so.  When I was in Israel, stores that
catered to tourists quoted prices both in shekels and dollars, and did
so quite openly.  Many even had signs on the shelves indicating the
dollar prices.  They accepted dollar-denominated traveler's checks, and
would write credit card drafts in either dollars or shekels.  A
shopkeeper I spoke to said he deposited these traveler's checks and
credit card drafts in a "dollar account" in his bank.  The impression I
got was that he had two accounts at the same bank -- one in dollars and
one in shekels.

Furthermore, the official exchange rate for the shekel is set with
respect to other currencies.  Every Sunday, the Bank of Israel sets the
exchange rate against a basket of "hard" currencies -- I believe they
are the: U.S. Dollar, Canadian Dollar, British Pound Sterling, German
Deutschmark, French Franc, Swiss Franc, Japanese Yen, and Australian
Dollar.  With the advent of the ERM (European Exchange-Rate Mechanism),
they might be using the ECU (Europeran Currency Unit).

Does this make all of these halachic currencies?

Robert Book  -    [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 92 12:56:54 -0400
From: Eli Turkel <[email protected]>
Subject: Dollars in Israel

     To defend Hillel Markowitz many of the halakhic opinions about
using dollars in Israel were written in the era of rampant inflation in
Israel (10 percent per month). At that time many places quoted prices in
dollars to avoid the constant inflation. Today this is much less common
except for apartment prices as David Kramer notes. As such it is
important to stress that halachkic responsa respond to a given
circumstance and that is subject to change.

    As an interesting aside I recently toured Jerusalem with a friend of
mine visiting from the US. He was able to go for a long time on his dollars
and never converted to shekels this included trips on buses, sherut,the
museum and many stores.

[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 92 07:10:24 -0400
From: Manny Lehman <[email protected]>
Subject: Evolution

Pinchas Nissenson's comments were very interesting and I believe there 
is no fundamental difference of view between us. There is no way in 
which we, as mere humans, can possibly understand how G-d created the 
Universe or, for that matter, how He prepared for that creation. Notice 
that "prepared" is an anthropomorphic expression of something that we 
engage in in a process of "creating yesh miyesh" (something material 
from something material). There is no way that we can understand or 
describe the "process" (also a human concept) of yesh me'ayin (something 
material from nothing) or of subsequently ordering that material 
something into a structured Universe. As believing Jews we study Torah 
she'bek'tav and ba'al peh to achieve as much understanding of the act of 
creation as is humanly possible. There are, however, as repeatedly 
pointed out, fundamental obstacles to complete understanding. As 
scientists we may study theories of how the Universe "emerged and was 
formed" and develop a view as to how convincing each theory is. However 
as ma'aminim ben ma'aminim we cannot regard such theories as 
representing any form of truth about the origin of the Universe. What we 
can, and do, say is that any theory can be interpreted as a model, 
kav'yachol (in human terms), of the process whereby G-d implemented his 
ten stage plan of Yehi Or, ......  Na'aseh Adam bezlmenu ... (Pirke Avot 
- The world was created with ten Ma'amarim). Notice that in this context 
too "process" is a human description of a timeless "action" that defies 
human comprehension.

Despite Ben Svetitsky's expression of disagreement with some points in 
my early paragraphs,  I cannot see a substantial difference. Of course 
the question of whether Darwinian or any other evolutionary theory is 
"correct", that is a theory that explains all relevant observable 
phenomena, is totally irrelevant. Once we understand that we can treat 
such a theory as a model of (Kav'yachol) G-d's "planning" or "thought" 
process any theory can be viewed in this way. I am then left to choose 
whichever theory I prefer by any criteria that I choose to apply. 
Whether others will agree with my choice is their business. Thus in 
Ben's words I "make my peace with what science dishes out" by saying 
that this or that theory of XYZ appears self consistent, is a possible 
explanation or model of observation and, as far as I am concerned, is, 
therefore, an acceptable theory, that is, model of whatever phenomenon I 
am concerned with. But that does not, in any way, demonstrate that it is 
a "true" description of what "actually" happened. The latter is 
something in the past that can never be resolved. Looking backward we 
can take history back beyond the point of actuality to descriptions 
that, again kavya'chol, were G-dly "thought" processes.

As to the question of whether science establishes truth, I accept Ben's 
correction in the context of establishing facts such as Priestly's proof 
about the combustion of Oxygen (Ben's example). It is when Science goes 
outside the facts to provide "explanations" that one must take great 
care. If a theory says A because B causes C causes D causes A than this 
too may be fact-based and therefore regarded as true (to some degree of 
approximation - because in an unbounded continuous world finite discrete 
models cannot be absolutely precise that is totally true). But where a 
theory provides a mathematical or phenomenological model, a differential 
equation for example, that remains a model and truth does not come into 
it, only relevance, closeness of fit, elegance, richness, etc.

As to his final paragraph, all I can say is Hear, Hear.

Manny Lehman

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 92 12:38:53 -0400
From: [email protected] (Keith Bierman)
Subject: Re: Touching Wine

Reb Frimer mentions...

>thing tainted by the contact of a non-Jew is an open bottle of Wine; but
>the purpose of the latter is to prevent intermarriage. There are several

 From a reading of Avodah Zera, it would appear to me that the basic
issue (for wine) is the possibility that a pagan will consecrate the
wine to one of their deities; pagans are not permitted to interact with
the wine during its creation, transportation, etc. Details of what is
permissible during war vs. peace, etc. are detailed.

It is a very interesting section of the Talmud.

It is, of course, quite possible that my understanding of the tractate
is defective.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 4 Number 12


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Mixed Classes
             [Zvi Basser]
        Torah Temimah (2)
             [Reuben Gellman, Elhanan Adler]
        Use of oven for 'chollent' on shabbos.
             [Gavriel Newman]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 92 17:39:33 EDT
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

I would like to remind all people posting that if you use transliterated
hebrew words, you should include a translation as well. "Commonly" used
words, such as Shabbat, Torah do not need to be translated. What
constitutes "commonly used" is not well defined and left to the
discretion of the author. I will either translate any words I feel need
to be translated, or will send the article back to the author (depending
on how much there is and my mood). Please also try and check your work
for typo's, spelling etc. I'll catch and correct some, but the more you
do, the easier you make my job. Thanks and hope you all are enjoying
this mailing list.

-- 
Avi Feldblum
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 92 01:39:25 -0400
From: [email protected] (Zvi Basser)
Subject: Re: Mixed Classes

A few notes concerning mixed classes.

a) We need not do anything more than mention the Magen Avrohom who
mentions that putting up partitions on shabbos for the rav's drasha is
permissible. Obviously women came. So too with the mitzvah of hakhel,
the taz stresses that there were drashas then too-- things suited for
women and things suited for men.

b) The usual makor [source - Mod.] for separating sexes, besides the
fact that curriculum is different, is the Gemoroh in sukkos which
mentions the hesped [eulogy - Mod.] for the yezer hara [evil inclination
- Mod.] when the righteous will exclaim-- what a mountain that yezer hora
was, and the wicked will cry-- what a small hair it was-- and so the
yetzer hora will be gone, but still at the hesped the men and women are
separated-- kol vehomer when the yezer hara is still active and well,
separation should be kept.

c) It's less well known that a great great grand daughter of Rashi--
Miriam Shapira in the 16c gave the top shiur in a german yeshiva to
advanced bochrim-- she stood behind a partition and taught Gemoroh and
rishonim. The Marshal was descended from her. Even less well known is
Osnat Mizrachi, the only child of a great talmud chacham in Kurdistan in
the 16-17c -- who was educated by her father to be a rosh yeshiva, her
husband took over her fathers yeshiva and when he died she became the
rosh yeshiva-- she answered sheolos from talmidei hachomim and was
accepted as a gedola. She undoubtedly wore a veil and mentions in a
letter her trouble fundraising for the yeshiva since woman couldn't mix
with men publicly.

d) I am not entirely sure that one could name a precise issur for
mixed classes.

zvi basser


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 92 13:46:06 -0400
From: Reuben Gellman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Torah Temimah

Regarding the prayer concerning dreams ("Ribono shel olam") that
is recited during birkat kohanim, Stephen Phillips writes:
 - Now it seems to me IMHO that to tinker with the wording of a prayer that
 - is brought down word for word in the Gemorrah is somewhat beyond the
 - capacity of even someone of the stature of Rav Epstein.

His argument seems incorrect to me. For one thing, I know of no evidence
that we have to preserve talmudic prayers unchanged, with the possible
exception (but see below) of b'rachot, where the concept of "matbei'a"
(roughly, "formula") exists. Examples of changes from talmudic
formulations abound. Three quick examples:

1. Compare our "elokai n'tzor" said at the end of the amidah to
   that in the g'marah (the prayer of Mar, if I recall; TB [Talmud Bavli
   - Mod.] B'rachot 17a).
2. In the b'racha after cakes, etc ("al hamichyah"), the word
   "she'ratzitah", which describes our inheritance of the land is
   absent in the talmudic text (TB B'rachot 44a) at least in the
   standard Vilna edition (I didn't check for variants).
3. In the prayer that Mr Phillips refers to, the "Ribono shel olam"
   said during birkat kohanim, the talmudic version (TB B'rachot 55b)
   differs substantially from ours.

Reuven Gellman

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 92 07:40:14 -0400
From: [email protected] (Elhanan Adler)
Subject: Torah Temimah

With regard to the attitude of the Torah Temimah to bad dreams and the
priestly blessing, I would like to comment:

1) In the discussion of dreams and their meaning in masekhet [tractate -
Mod.] berakhot we find that some amoraim took them seriously and others
considered them to be nonsense. I believe throughout later literature we
find both of these attitudes to be common.

2) The attitude of the Torah Temimah to dreams seems to follow that of his
father, the author of the Arukh ha-shulhan. In Orah Hayyim (siman 288), with
regard to fasting ta'anit halom on Shabbat to nullify a bad dream (sort of a
psychological pikuah-nefesh), he states that: 

a) There are rishonim who hold that there should be no ta'anit halom
nowadays because we don't understand dreams today anyway - compared with
the time of the Talmud.

b) The best thing is to simply ignore dreams - particularly if the dream
was related to something he was thinking about during the day or if he
had too much to eat or drink before going to sleep.

c) If one is bothered by a dream, the best thing to do is to go to the
local rabbi who will explain it to him in a positive way (rather than
fasting, special prayers, etc.)

It seems to me that the Torah Temimah was following his father's
approach to dreams - that they are insignificant anyway (certainly
nowadays), but if one really wants to say the prayer - at least
generalize it a bit. I don't think this is going "too far" at all.

By the way - in Israel where there is daily nesi'at kapayim, the general
custom is not to say anything during nesi'at kapayim except AMEN
(following the custom of the Vilna gaon).

Elhanan Adler, University of Haifa Library, Mt. Carmel, Haifa, Israel
Internet/ILAN: [email protected] or: [email protected] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 92 16:49:47 -0400
From: [email protected] (Gavriel Newman)
Subject: Use of oven for 'chollent' on shabbos.

Time to throw a shabbos cooking question 'into the pot': Many people
seem to have the practice of using their ovens for the stewing of
chollent overnight. I hear tell it is also widespread practice to 'test'
the chollent around midnight, and to add water if necessary. I do not
understand how this is feasible, from the following perspectives:

	1) Removal of the chollent at this time constitutes 'hagassah'
since one disturbs the rest of the contents (hagassah means stirring,
and is forbidden "lest one hasten the cooking"). To taste of the holy
chollent would therefore not be allowable.

	2) To pour in water (from another, boiling source, obviously)
would be forbidden for the same reason. To lift the pot and move it, in
order to pour in hot water (eg. from an urn set up before shabbat),
even if one sets it back without placing it on a surface, would be
forbidden for two reasons: hagassah, and hatmanah (setting up food on a
hot source with a cover- eg.towels- such that no heat may escape, and
the heat continues to build). While there is discussion about whether
one may be mashhe (set up food before shabbat on an uncontained basis)
or machzir (return food to the heat source during shabbat) food which is
mostly cooked, on this there is unanimity: one may not be matmin (set up
in contained system) on shabbat, and one may not be machzir or mashhe
food which is less than, at least, one third cooked. In other words,
from at least two different angles, if not more, one may not put the pot
back in the oven (which is a matmin situation).

[On the issue of hatmanah, and what hatmanah is, see also Volume 3
numbers 24,26,30,31 and 36. Mod.]

	BASED ON THE ABOVE, it seems logical to conclude that using a
'blech' (a surface breaking between the stove's source of heat,
electrical or gas, and the food) is far better that use of either oven
or crock pot (the latter would not be different to an oven), unless it
is possible to assert that one will definitely not fall to the
temptation of tasting the chollent, and that it will not be touched
until permanently removed, at lunchtime, at which point: "bon appetit",
"beteiavon", and "Oneg shabbat mehudar"

Respectfully inviting spicy responses, Gavriel Newman.





----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 4 Number 13


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        Acharay Rabim Lehatos
             [Joshua Rapps]
        Animals Muktzeh on Shabbat?
             [Stephen Phillips]
        Direction of Prayer
             [Reuben Gellman]
        Wine (3)
             [Aryeh A. Frimer, Stephen Phillips, Zvi Basser]
        Women in Politics
             [Ezra L Tepper]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 8:36:24 EDT
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <pruxk!ayf>
Subject: Administrivia

NOTE:

Something pretty much wiped out the subscriber list late last
week. I've reconstructed it from the July 2 backup file. If you know of
anyone that subscribed after July 2nd, please have them contact me so
that we can check if they are there or not (there were six names left
in the list with a modification date of July 10). The last mailing that
I got back was #12. I will resend #13-15 today and then get on to the
new postings. Sorry for the inconvienience.

Avi Feldblum
Moderator
[email protected]   or  [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 92 17:45 EDT
From: [email protected] (Joshua Rapps)
Subject: Acharay Rabim Lehatos

Bob Werman writes:

>>> This method characterizes Litvak poskim as differentiated from, say,
>>> Rabbi Ovadiya Yosef, who lists the pros and cons on a given issue,
>>> counts up, and goes by the majority [n'tiya aHarei ha-rov].

I believe I heard in the name of Rav J.B. Soloveichik shelita that
arriving at a halacha requires more than simply "adding up the score" on
both sides of an issue. One must understand the issues involved and use
sevara to distinguish among differring opinions. After this
investigation, simply following the majority may not be appropriate.
Indeed the mishna and gemara apply the concept of "tray kemayah" ( the
shared opinion of two is as valid as the shared opinion of a hundred).
Indeed there are many places where the opinion of two is accepted over
that of a group that is > 2. A similar concept applies to Eidus,
providing testimony.

One could say that din (judgement) requires netiyah acharay rabim
(following the majority). When a beis din (rabbinical court) sits in
judgement they are required to follow the majority opinion. Rishonim (R),
and for that matter Acharonim (A) as well, are writing their opinions 
not b'toras beis din (as an act of a rabbinnical court) but rather
as talmud torah, as part of the study of torah. Simply adding up the
individual torah discourses of the R and A does not constitute an
act of beis din. 

josh rapps - [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 92 13:16 GMT
From: Stephen Phillips <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Animals Muktzeh on Shabbat?

> Why are animals such as dogs muktzah on shabbat?

I think the answer is that basically animals have no Shabbos use and
anything that has no Shabbos use is Muktzeh on Shabbos.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 92 13:57:23 -0400
From: Reuben Gellman <[email protected]>
Subject: Direction of Prayer

In response to one question of Shelomo of Warsaw, Rabbi Aryeh Frimer
(supported indirectly by Stephen Phillips) writes:
  - 3) Halacha requires us to face towards Jerusalem, which may
  - involve directions other than east. If one is unsure as to the exact
  - direction, then "one directs his heart toward Jerusalem". It is also
  - clear from the sources that one does not have to worry about praying
  - exactly toward Jerusalem, but the general direction suffices.  If
  - Jerusalem is south-east of Warsaw, then South east suffices, you don't
  - have to take out your compass! .....

This is certainly broadly correct, but I'd like to draw your attention
to a discussion of this subject by Rabby Yechiel Michel Epstein (father
of Rabbi Baruch of the Torah Temimah, I think) in the "Aruch ha'shulchan",
Chap 94, para's 4-9. He asks: given that we (in Eastern Europe) are
NW of Israel, and should face SE, how come we all face East? His
basic conclusion (similar to what Rabbi Frimer writes, and put into
mathematical terms) is that the vector of our prayer direction should have a
positive component toward Israel. That is, facing East is OK if Israel
is SE (or, presumably NE, as it would be from central Africa). I
recommend reading his discussion.

Reuven Gellman


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 92 10:20:34 -0400
From: [email protected] (Aryeh A. Frimer)
Subject: Re: Wine

	Keith Bierman has noted that the Talmud in Avodah Zarah prohibits
the wine of an Idolater because of Yayin Nesech, i.e. it may have been
used for a libation. The Talmud and Codifiers note that nowadays we don't
have real idolaters and hence the prohibition of Yayin Nesech is no
longer applicable. Nevertheless, the Chazal reinstated the prohibition
(now rabbinic and referred to as "Stam Yeynam") to prevent socializing
and intermarriage (Meshoom Benoteihem). The prohibition of Stam yeynam
follows all the rules of Yayin Nesech, which explains why Boiled wine
(yayin Mevushal - boiled before the non-Jew touched it) and wiskeys (and
other "hard Stuff") are permissible.
				Aryeh Frimer

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 92 13:16 GMT
From: Stephen Phillips <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Wine

I believe that there are two separate prohibtions regarding
non-Jewish wine. The first is "Yayin Nesech" which is wine used by
non-Jews for idolotrous practises, as mentioned in Avodah Zoroh. The
second is "Stam Yeinom" [their wine] which is what Reb Frimer is
referring to.

Stephen Phillips.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 92 08:46:25 -0400
From: [email protected] (Zvi Basser)
Subject: Re: Wine

One should not confuse yaiin nesech [lit: poured wine, i.e. wine used
for idolatrous libations - Mod.] with stam yenum [general wine of a
non-Jew - Mod.]. When hazal create a gezera they take categories which
are already established as d'oraysa [Biblical - Mod.]  and extend them
to their gezera. When they wanted to prevent Jews from going to gentile
weddings and from discussing marriage with non-jews they forbade the
drinking of gentile wine. This issur was framed in the catagories of the
laws of wine used for idolatrous libations. Thus yayin mevushal, wine
boiled past the pasteurization mark was exempted since it was never used
for idolatrous purposes, but unboiled wine even touched by non-Jew was
included since such would have a din of yaiin nesech if idolators used
yaiin today. The difference is that the shiurim [amounts - Mod.] may be
different for bittul. yaiin nesech is not annuled [bittul - Mod.] ever,
"even one part in a thousandth"-- not because of a din of yaiin nesech
per se but becuase of its category as avodah zarah [idolatry - Mod.].
Many rishonim permit mixtures of stam yaynam to be anuuled by being
mixed inadvertantly, or by a non-jew, with a permitted product if it is
less than one fifth or so of the volume of the total mixture.

The gemoro treats stam yainam (the prohibition was somewhat applied to
bread and almost applied to oils but it proved too much) and yaiin
nesach together since the rules of the one are the basis for the rules
of the other.

zvi basser


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 92 16:49:49 +0300
From: Ezra L Tepper <[email protected]>
Subject: Women in Politics

I read Aryeh A. Frimer's discussion of women in political positions with
interest (v4#6). I have not been all that bothered by the question of
women sitting in the Kneset, but have seriously questioned giving women
the right to vote. I never understood that problem clearly until I read
Frimer's bottom line of the question of _simah_ and the conditions under
which it applies. Going through the list, each and every reason he gives
would point against giving women the right to vote.

   1) The position is an inherited one -- as in the case of a king
which passes on his position automatically to his progeny.
-- Women pass down the right of citizenship and vote to their daughters.
   2) The position is for the lifetime of the appointee and irrevocable.
-- The right to vote sure is.
   3) The position is one that comes from "above."
-- The women's citizenship and right to vote came from the declaration of
democracy by the founders of the State.
   4) The individual has discretionary powers.
-- The vote is by definition discretionary.
   5) Finally, if "there is none like them in Israel," then _simah_ is
permitted.
-- Although I definitely agree that as far as women are concerned, "there
is certainly none like them in Israel." However, I think that the poskim
were referring here to specific unusual individuals and not the family
of womankind. Giving all women the right to vote would not be included
under this section.

Perhaps someone has some suggestions to get out of this quandry, aside
from moving out of Eretz Yisro'el and settling down in one of the
Swiss districts that have not yet permitted women to vote. However,
that would provide only partial resolution: women there do vote in national
elections; they just sit home for the local variety.

Ezra L. Tepper <[email protected]>





----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 4 Number 14


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Coed Classes:
             [Aryeh A. Frimer]
        Epistemology and the Eskimos
             [Geoffrey K. Pullum]
        Judaism and Science
             [Benjamin Svetitsky]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 92 09:12:18 -0400
From: [email protected] (Aryeh A. Frimer)
Subject: Re: Coed Classes:

	There is an excellent booklet entitled "Hevra Me'urevet"
(mixed/coed society) in Hebrew, published by Ne'emanei Torah Ve'Avodah
in Israel which discusses various aspects of Women in an Open Society
and Coeducation according to the poskim. Highly recommended. (I'm in the
US now away from my library and hence cannot cite the salient points;
perhaps one of our Israeli bretheren could). Let me just mention a few
salient sources:
	1) In the Hebrew section of Litwin's classic "The Sanctity of
the Synagogue" he brings a Teshuva of Rabbi Ochs za'l who indicates that
in Shiurim given at which men and women are present no Mechitza is
required. He raises no objection to having such mixed classes either.
	2) Rav Moshe Feinstein in his various responsa on Mechitza notes
that a Mechitza is only required when masses of people are required to
attend, as in the case of Tefilla Betzibbur. He explicitly says that a
mechitza is not required at a Chatuna (wedding) since it is a private
affair; the same should be true for a shiur.
	3) There are many Halakhot that are observed in the exception
rather than as the rule which deal with a mixed society. For example,
the halakha frown against women serving men as waitresses, secretaries,
stewardesses etc.  and yet today this is the rule. The Talmud and
Shulkhan Aruch prohibit women as educators - yet nearly the whole
religious school system is based on women.  The Levush in Even HaEzer
indicates that since our society is open and we meet women in all walks
of life, their presence is no longer sexually distracting or
halakhically problematic (his exact language is that they are "ke-kvakei
Hiyura", like white geese, namely beautiful but not distracting).
	Clearly such a comment indicates that "regillut" (being used to
a particular situation) lessens the sexual distraction. This idea is
also found in other Rishonim in their discussion of the laws of modesty
(though for some reason rarely quoted): see for example the Mordechai
and Meiri to Berakhot on "Tefach Beisha Erva" and Hagahot Maimoniyot to
Rambam and Arukh HaShulkhan to OH 74 - who all note that Regillut
attenuates sexual distraction.
	We need to be aware that even if the present society is open and
the separation of the sexes is not required - the question remains
whether it is advisable. "Is it good for the Jews or bad for the Jews".
Personally speaking, I don't mind coeducation in the lower grades,
indeed I find it beneficial from a decorum perspective (the children are
better behaved). However, as the children become sexually aware, Junior
HS and HS, coeducation creates a needless distraction which runs counter
to our educational goals. We have to assure however that separate is
equal and that the education for women remains as intellectually as
challenging as it is for the men. For decades I have been giving Talmud
classes for women, but Talmud is not the issue. If you don't want to
teach women Talmud, teach them something else which is as equally
challenging (e.g., Shulkhan Arukh with Magen Avraham and Taz and Mishnah
Berurah), mishnah with Tiferet Yisrael and Rabbi Akiva Eiger, Humash
with Ramban, Klei Yakar and Nehama Leibowitz etc.

	Regarding Coed youth groups, the responsa of Rabbi Yechiel
Weinberg in Seridei Eish Is a very sensitive and accurate piece. Must
Reading.
				Aryeh Frimer

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 92 23:05:38 -0700
From: [email protected] (Geoffrey K. Pullum)
Subject: Epistemology and the Eskimos

                  Epistemology and the Eskimos

                       Geoffrey K. Pullum 

Meylekh Viswanath's article "Judaism and Science" (Mail.Jewish vol. 4
no.5) makes some linguistic claims in the course of developing an
argument that science cannot be objective.  The general theme they are
supposed to elaborate is that "It is well known that one's language and
culture determine how one views reality (i.e. interprets phenomena)."
This may or may not be so (the conceptual and empirical problems
involved in confirming or refuting this hypothesis (generally known as
the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) are notorious.  But (to the extent that the
alleged impossibility of objective science does not undercut everything
a linguistic scientist like myself may say) I think it would be useful
for me to point out that Viswanath's linguistic claims themselves should
be treated with caution.

Viswanath's first example is simple enough: too simple.  The point drawn
from it either is a non sequitur or (if weakened) does not bear on the
argument:

    ...among South Indian Brahmins, an individual's father's
    brother's daughter is quite different from his mother's
    brother's daughter: he is permitted to marry the latter while
    the former is forbidden to him.  Correspondingly, there are
    two different words for the two kinds of cousins, but no
    single word that includes both kinds of cousins.  But for an
    American, they are both simply cousins.

"Correspondingly" is the crucial point of unclarity here.  If the
claimed correspondence is supposed to be a necessary one -- that is, if
it is meant to suggest something like "consequently" -- then the claim
being made is far too strong: you do not have to have different words
for things that are crucially different in a culture, and if you happen
to have only one word that does not prevent you from seeing the
difference.  To see this it is only necessary to appreciate that there
is a major difference in our culture between (i) an FDIC-insured
financial institution and (ii) the shore of a river, but we have a
single word for the two, "bank".  And if the claim is weakened to the
point of saying merely that a culture may or may not have different
words for interestingly different concepts, it is too weak to support an
argument about anything.

It is interesting that no one ever makes a claim that there are two
dialects of American English that are separated by an unscalable wall of
incomprehension because of some vocabulary difference.  Perhaps the
reason is that such a claim would be so readily refutable by speakers of
the dialects in question.  Tell the readership of Mail.Jewish that
speakers of Ozark English are intrinsically unable to grasp some
distinction because of some fact about their dialect, and tomorrow
morning there will be an angry riposte on the net from a reader in
Arkansas who insists (s)he is perfectly capable of grasping it thank you
very much.

Perhaps it is for this reason that most people seeking to convince you
that language deterministically constrains thought turn to purported
facts about very far-off "primitive" people from the ends of the earth.
Such people don't read books about language and culture and,
conveniently, they're not on the net.  About ninety percent of such
language-has-culture-by-the-throat theorists, in fact, seem to turn to
the Eskimos, and Viswanath is in that large majority:

    Similarly, it is almost a cliche that there are 40 or
    so words in the Eskimo language for snow.  We, in more
    temperate climes, would certainly not perceive so many
    different kinds of snow.  The fact that we could probably
    physically distinguish between these different kinds given
    the time and instrumentation does not contradict the basic
    point of this article; as non-Eskimos, we would probably
    not even think about looking for 40 kinds of snow.  This
    demonstrates the basic point--the nature of scientific
    investigation is not objective in the absolute sense in
    which many of us believe it is.

Well, never mind about whether Eskimo lexicography could demonstrate
that science cannot be objective (I don't believe it for a moment, but
let that pass); the trouble here is that there is no such fact about the
Eskimo languages at all.  Eskimologist Jerry Sadock (University of
Chicago) has a vanity license plate on his pickup truck that spells out
what he says is the single word for snow in all the Inuit and Yupik
languages: APUT.  There are a few other words for similar stuff or
phenomena: words for snowflakes, snowdrifts, and a few things like
crusts and frosts and slush -- but of course, English has a dozen or
more of such words too.  That's not going to support Viswanath's
argument.

The story of the myth that the Eskimos have X words for snow where X is
some interestingly large integer (people tend to pick a value between 1
and 400 almost at random) is told in tongue-in-cheek (but perfectly
truthful) vein in the title essay of my book THE GREAT ESKIMO VOCABULARY
HOAX (University of Chicago Press, 1991), and the appendix to that essay
("Yes But How Many Really?").  My essay is really just an attempt to
publicize to the linguistics profession and other people interested in
the study of language the nice piece of investigative reporting
published by anthropologist Laura Martin (Cleveland State University) in
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST in 1986.  You can read the crazy story in either
my piece or hers.  Here let me just reassert one key point: no
responsible scholar who knows any of the Eskimo languages has ever tried
to argue that there is some surprising plethora of snow words in those
languages, and the tale of how it came to be believed nonetheless is a
story of scandalously sloppy pseudoscholarship -- mainly, uncritical and
inaccurate repeating of unchecked secondary and n-ary sources.

Of Viswanath's third example, about the Australian aboriginal language
Aranda not having tenses, I know somewhat less.  But I do know that in
the late 1950s THE GUINNESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS had an entry under
"Most Primitive Language", and Aranda won that crown.  In the early
1970s I looked into the literature and found respectable descriptions of
Aranda (and the whole closely related family of Australian languages to
which it belongs) that made it clear it was just another language, with
similar grammatical complexity to many others and rather more in some
ways than some languages have.  I persuaded Guinness editor Norris
McWhirter to take out the racist nonsense about the Aranda language
being primitive (no human language is the slightest bit "primitive"; if
you want to see a primitive language, look at the MS DOS batch file
command language), along with other linguistic misinformation.

I have not returned to the primary literature on Aranda, but my guess is
that there will be no support there for Viswanath's claim.  Australian
languages generally do have tense and time reference; every human
language seems to have tense or something effectively equivalent to it
or fairly close (like an aspect system plus time-referring adverbials)
in one way or another (MS DOS does not).  I doubt that further research
on Aranda will support Viswanath's point at all, whatever the exact
system of tense and/or aspect and/or time adverbs in Aranda is like.

Believe that science cannot be objective if you want, but don't trust
nonlinguists who press linguistic claims into service to shore up their
arguments about epistemology.  At least, call a reputable linguistic
scientist first.  We're in the yellow pages.

Well, we're not in the yellow pages actually, I just made that up.  But
the Linguistic Society of America ([email protected]) sells a
directory of linguistics programs in North America that will tell you
where we are.  There are top-flight researchers on the Inuit and Yupik
languages at the University of Chicago (Jerry Sadock), the University of
Texas at Austin (Tony Woodbury), the University of Alaska, and other
places.  There are specialists on Australian languages at most research
universities in Australia.  And there is readily available published
literature on these languages; they are not mysterious or unknown to
linguistic science.

                             Geoffrey K. Pullum
                             Professor of Linguistics and
                             Dean of Graduate Studies and Research,
                             University of California, Santa Cruz


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 09 Jul 92 10:50:10+0200
From: Benjamin Svetitsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re:  Judaism and Science

With all due respect for M. Viswanath's evident scholarship and the
clarity of his exposition, let me repeat what I said in my previous
posting on this subject: that I reject the description of science which
he presents, as would, I believe, the many colleagues with whom I have
discussed such questions over the years.  Scientific research is NOT a
game of axiom-and-theorem as Mr. Viswanath claims.  Trial-and-error is
a method, but not a principle.  The goal of science is truth, and that
truth is actually reached inductively, not deductively, by putting
together many facts gleaned from measurements and eventually coming up
with theory.  And that theory tells me what happens under circumstances
I have yet to encounter (or have already encountered, such as the Big Bang).

To say that physical law is merely one of an infinite number of
theories which could describe the same data ignores the process by
which this theory has arisen, ignores the contribution of human senses
and human thought.  I would go further and say that this is a sort of
relativism between fact and fiction which is just as unacceptable as
a moral relativism between good and evil. I can theorize that
I live in a vat of nutrients, provided with carefully concocted stimuli
by a computer attached to my sensory nerves; would anybody accept such
a theory, irrefutable though it may seem?

Philosophy in this century has become severely confused by the need to
understand and systematize the rapid advance in science.  Relativity
bred moral relativism, a simply awful non sequitur.  Quantum mechanics,
widely misunderstood, gave rise to the notion that there are many
things we will simply never understand, and that the things we thought
we understood can always be understood some other way.  It is not often
appreciated that quantum mechanics is a precise theory which can
sometimes be brought very close to our senses.  What can better
illustrate the need for probabilistic description than the carbon-14
nucleus in front of your face, which might decay in a minute or in a
century, with no way to tell ahead of time?  Such simple things are
established by simple observation, not by authority (Bohr's,
Einstein's, Popper's, ...) and not by social pressure, despite the
claims of astrologers and of fanciers of cold fusion.

All this talk of null hypotheses and statistical inference obviously
has its origin in modern experimental technique.  One should not
confuse the day-to-day methodology of science with the way it
establishes truth.  People do NOT assign probabilities to the question
of whether a theory is true, but to whether a particular ingredient has
a given value.  In point of fact, we have only one Universe, and either
a fact is true or it is not.  One should not apply statistics outside its
rather restricted domain of validity.

Mr. Viswanath's conclusion, that science is a form of worship of the
Creator which is both acceptable and desirable, is one that I can live
with.  In conjunction with his description of science, however, it
trivializes the problems which arise continually at the interface
between science and Torah.  While, as I have written, I do not find
these problems very troubling, they are significant and worthy of
study.  I would underline their significance by claiming that we are
ALL scientists, by virtue of having been given five senses and an
intellect; and hence we are all forced to understand how the Truth of
the Torah is reflected in the world revealed to us by our senses.

The progression from Priestley's bell jar to Maxwell's atomic theory to
particle physics is one of technology and of subtlety.  Going from a
description of matter in the laboratory to one of matter in the Big Bang
is merely the addition of a time variable to the problem.  Neither
progression can be shrugged off as mere model-building.

For a discussion of how science works, and why it is NOT a "logical
system" (unlike mathematics), I recommend the essays in Richard
Feynman's book, "The Character of Physical Law."  His views permeate
his basic science text, "The Feynman Lectures in Physics," and thus
form the "girsa de-yankuta" of most working physicists.

Ben Svetitsky   [email protected]




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest

                        Mail.Jewish Mailing List
                           Volume 4 Number 15


Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

        Administrivia
             [Avi Y. Feldblum]
        The Autonomy in Halakha
             [Yisrael Medad]
        Tinkering of Prayers
             [Eli Turkel]
        Use of oven for 'chollent' on shabbos. (4)
             [Jeremy Schiff, Warren Burstein, Susan Hornstein, Zvi Basser]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 8:36:24 EDT
From: Avi Y. Feldblum <[email protected]>
Subject: Administrivia

NOTE:

Something pretty much wiped out the subscriber list late last
week. I've reconstructed it from the July 2 backup file. If you know of
anyone that subscribed after July 2nd, please have them contact me so
that we can check if they are there or not (there were six names left
in the list with a modification date of July 10). The last mailing that
I got back was #12. I will resend #13-15 today [well, I made 2 out of
three and managed to do most of a move from my upstairs apartment to a
downstairs apartment, so that's not too bad] and then get on to the
new postings [so expect a some more tonight and tomorrow night, after
work. Wednesday got to finish the move.]. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Avi Feldblum
Moderator
[email protected]   or  [email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 92 09:57 IST
From: MEDAD%[email protected] (Yisrael Medad)
Subject: The Autonomy in Halakha

Recently, there has been an increase in the articles published in
Halachic/Torah journals on the subject of Halakha.  They relate to
the prohibition of "lo techanem" (Devarim 7:2), of making covenants
with non_jews, releasing control over the Land and the issue of
Pikuach Nefesh.

I will not go into the subject in detail now but rather inform the group
of two publications.
The first is a pamphlet entitled "Eretz Tzvi", No. 2 with an article by
Rabbi Chaim Steiner of the Jewish Quarter emphasizing the thinking of
Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook.
The second is the publication of the Religious Council of Mateh Binyamin in
Samaria called "Yesha Yemini", No. 32, Nissan 5752 which includes five
articles by Rabbis Shlomo Aviner, Yaakov Navon, Yonatan Blass and Benny Elon
plus an editors' note.

If there is interest I will try to summarize the points.

Yisrael Medad  --  <MEDAD@ILNCRD>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 92 14:15:04 -0400
From: Eli Turkel <[email protected]>
Subject: Tinkering of Prayers

     With regard to the discussion of changes in prayers, since the
three weeks begin shortly, I wish to also bring up the problem of
'nachem' which is included in the shemonei esrei on tisha ba'av. The
standard version of the prayer refers to the desolation of Judea and
Jerusalem. Rav Chaim David Halevi (sefardic chief rabbi of Tel Aviv)
suggests some minor modifications to the prayer while strongly objecting
to the elimination of the prayer because of the rebuilding of present
day Jerusalem. My impression is that even his emendations are not
accepted and most people use the 'old' version of the prayer. I have
heard from Rav Soloveitchik that Jerusalem is not considered rebuilt
until the Temple is rebuilt.  Accepting this it still seems to me that
words of 'Nachem' are very strong in describing Jerusalem.

[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 92 11:15:36 EDT
From: [email protected] (Jeremy Schiff)
Subject: Use of oven for 'chollent' on shabbos.

Gavriel Newman has raised an issue about the cholent in our ovens on
Shabbat, to which I would like to add another, in light of a machloket
I recently had with a caterer with some very `right wing' hashgachot.

The Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchatah clearly states that on Shabbat it is
not permissible to use a thermostatic oven in any way whatsoever. When
I informed the caterer that I don't use the oven on Shabbat, he retorted
that I then had no right to use the refrigerator either (on the subject
of refrigerators the Shemirat Shabbat brings down several opinions,
ranging from using them freely to connecting them to a timeclock and only
using them when the electric supply is off; I refer readers to the 
Shemirat Shabbat for discussion of the issues involved). 

There is a simple difference between ovens and refrigerators. The 
typical difference between a low oven temperature and room temperature
is about four times the typical difference between room temperature
and refrigerator temperature. I invite the reader to do an experiment.....
open your fridge and take out the milk and close the fridge on a few
occasions over the next few weeks; sometimes the fridge will go on shortly
afterwards (assuming it was not on to start with) and sometimes it won't;
therefore such an activity is permitted on Shabbat because it is not a
`pesik reishei', i.e. it is not an inevitable consequence of your action
that the fridge will go. If you have a thermostatic oven such that you can
see when the oven is heating and when not, see what happens when 
the oven is on a 250F setting, the heater is off and you open the door;
within a few seconds the heater will go on. (Some thermostatic ovens, I
believe, don't have simple `on' and `off' settings, but various different
gradings; the effect of opening the door is to invoke the highest setting
almost instantaneously.)

So you cannot open a thermostatic oven while it is off. While it is on you
can open it, but then you have problems closing it, which I don't want
to discuss in detail. I also don't want to enter the technicality of
whether the `pesik reishei' of lighting the oven is `neichah lei'
(loosely speaking, `desirable') or not; according to most poskim this
makes no difference to the halakha.

There is only one way I see to use a thermostatic oven for cholent on
Shabbat; with an electric thermostatic oven you can connect the thing to 
a timeclock that goes off at the time you want to eat the cholent, letting
you open and close the door freely (my apologies to Rav Moshe ZT'L for
this; in his time he wanted to forbid the use of timeclocks for anything
but lights). Personally I leave the cholent on the blech. I don't know
how crock pots work, so I can say nothing about them; if anyone does
know I'd be happy to learn.

Because there is at least one rishon who paskens that a pesik reishei that
is not neichah lei is permitted, I would suggest that it is unnecessary
to rebuke caterers who use thermostatic ovens freely on Shabbat.

Jeremy Schiff

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 92 17:19:31 -0400
From: [email protected] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Use of oven for 'chollent' on shabbos.

Well if you use a crock-pot you don't need to add more water as long as
you make sure the beans have enough to drink. 

[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 92 09:54:38 -0400
From: Susan Hornstein <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Use of oven for 'chollent' on shabbos.

With respect to cholent in the oven, and removing it at "around
midnight,"...  It would be reasonable to assume that a cholent that has
been in the oven since the onset of Shabbat is at least 1/3 cooked by
midnight, no matter when Shabbat began.  Furthermore, I believe that
many people hold that the cholent *must* be 1/3 cooked *before* Shabbat
begins for it to be consumed on Shabbat.  Therefore, returning the
cholent to its source of heat, assuming that one has fulfilled all the
requirements for doing so (intent to do so, keeping contact with it,
etc., see the early chapters of Shemirat Shabbat K'Hilchata for an
exhaustive discussion) is ok.  And, anyway, if this hypothetical person
was actually willing to taste the cholent, we might assume that he/she
believed it to be at least 1/3 cooked, or it might be dangerous to do
so, especially if it contained meat (let's not get into different
opinions of the inherent dangers of cholent!)  Whether putting something
in an oven or a crock pot constitutes hatmanah (lit. burying) is another
question altogether, and I'm pretty sure that many people do not
consider this to be so.  As for spices, my favorite secret ingredients
are honey, a little ketchup, a lot of garlic, and a piece of kishke
stuck in for good measure.  Kosher Italian sausage is my husband's
favorite addition.  (The honey and ketchup are collective wisdom from my
teachers at Michlelet Bruria in the early 80's.)  

Susan Hornstein

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 92 21:15:48 -0400
From: [email protected] (Zvi Basser)
Subject: Re: Use of oven for 'chollent' on shabbos.

A few interesting observations concerning dreams and chollent. The
gemoro is aware that cholent can lead to dreams. -- the general rule of
the Talmud is that we don't pay attention to dreams. However, there is
another place in the gemoro where a talmid chacham has a dream that he
was placed in cherem. The gemoro concludes that he should observe the
minimum requirements of cherem until he gets released from it.  Another
case is found in the netziv's commentary to sheitltos. A man dreams that
somehow the meat in his icebox is treif. The Netsiv decides that the man
who had the dream is forbidden to eat it. The final case of interest
concerns a man who dreamt he would drown if he went on a certain trip.
The romo (I think) told the man to go-- he did and drowned. The posek
claimed his psak was right anyway.

Now for some chollent. Given that the meat, potatoes, beans have to be
cooked 1/3 before twilight on shabbos, and that by midnight chollent in
a pot would be at the temperature whereby a young child would remove his
hand from it quickly and the chollent would be completely cooked,(unless
the fire (gas/elect.) went out or else its for the US army), why
shouldn't one be able to add boiling water which was on a burner to the
chollent? Stirring is only a problem if the food is uncooked because it
hastens cooking the uncooked part. If everything is cooked why should
hagassa or hatmana be an issue. Its true that the gemoro tells of
plastering up the small ovens they had then and says one should smash
the plaster seal the next day to get the food-- but that is because of
the fear that the ashes would be raked so the fire would be stronger--
that cooking would be hastened.  We do not use these slow burning
charcoal stoves today. I do not see why chollent in a crock pot which is
about to go up in smoke cannot be watered and saved. I believe the
modern sefer used as a reliable authority called shemiros shabbos
kehilchaso permits the addition of water.

Zvi Basser



----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Send submissions/responses for mail.jewish to:
        [email protected]  or  [email protected]

Anonymous ftp archives available on:

	israel.nysernet.org in the directory archive/mail-jewish
	arthur.wustl.edu in the directory mj

End of mail.jewish Digest