Volume 10 Number 81
                       Produced: Thu Dec 23 14:51:17 1993

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

10 Teveth
         [Lon Eisenberg]
13th of the 12th month
         [Danny Skaist]
BeRov Am by Kiddush
         [Aryeh Frimer]
Ear Piercing
         [Mayer Danziger]
Malei and Chaser
         [Ben Berliant]
Mormons and Genealogy and more
         [Najman Kahana]
         [Malcolm Isaacs]
Santa on-line
         [Goldberg Moshe]
Suicide, assisted or otherwise
         [Ben Berliant]
The next ten days
         [Yisrael Medad]


From: eisenbrg%<milcse@...> (Lon Eisenberg)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 93 05:29:00 -0500
Subject: 10 Teveth

Where is the pasuq "be`ezem hayom hazeh" that people have been referring
to?  How does it relate to 10 Teveth?

Using this as theoretical argument for fasting on the 10 of Teveth
should it come out on Shabbath is nice, but I don't see what it has to
do with fasting on Friday.  There are no other public fasts that ever
occur on Friday.  If they did, I assume we'd fast on Friday.  Isn't EVEN
the Fast of the First Born observed on Friday when Pesah begins on


From: DANNY%<ILNCRD@...> (Danny Skaist)
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 93 09:19:43 -0500
Subject: 13th of the 12th month 

>Another interesting coincidence was brought to my attention today.
>Megilat Ester: chapter 3, pasuk 13 :
>Needless to say, the date of 13-dec is the start of the "Peace Process".

Esther 9:1.
Now in the 12th month, that is the month of Adar, on the 13th day ..... In
the days that the enemies of the Jews hoped to have power over them
v'nahafoch hu [it was turned over) and the Jews ruled over their enemies.

Needless to say, the "peace process" didn't start.



From: Aryeh Frimer <F66235@...>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 93 05:17:49 -0500
Subject: BeRov Am by Kiddush

   The Arukh ha-Shulkhan explicitly states that be-Rov Am requires one
individual to make Kiddush for all present.


From: diverdan!<mayer@...> (Mayer Danziger)
Date: 21 Dec 93 18:00:58 GMT
Subject: Ear Piercing

Recently there has been some debate re: Is ear piercing considered
"chovel batzmo" - wounding oneself. The Rambam in Hilchot Chovel
U'Mazik chap 5 considers wounding oneself a biblical prohibition and
ear piercing would seem to fall into this category.  R. Moshe Feinstein
in Igrot Moshe Choshen Mishpat no. 66 discusses a similar question. May
a girl of marriageable age undergo surgery for the purpose of beauty
enhancement? R.Feinstein quotes the above Rambam who says the wound
must be "derech netzayon" or "bezayon" (2 versions) - meaning the wound
must be inflicted in a manner of fighting or intent to embarass.
Surgery for beauty enhancement is not wounding in either of these
contexts and would therefore be permissible. IMHO, ear piercing is not
wounding in either of these contexts. 

Daniel Faigin (vol 10 no 66) responded to this same question with a
quote from Contemporary American Reform Responsa #76. I respect the 
right of Daniel to quote and rely on any source he may choose. But,I was 
suprised to see this source quoted in this forum. I will quote from 
mail-jewish ground rules:

This mailing list was founded in 1986 for the purpose of discussing
Jewish topics in general within an environment where the validity of
Halakha and the Halakhic process is accepted, as well for the
discussion of topics of Halakha.

1) Halakha

  a)Submissions to the mailing list may not advocate actions which are
  clearly in violation of Halakha.

  b) Discussions about whether it is appropriate in these modern times
  to follow Halakha is not a valid topic for discussion

I believe Daniel's source does *not* accept the validity of halacha as
we know it e.g. Rif, Rambam, Tur, Shulcan Aruch. The informaton
contained in the responsa may be correct/incorrect, but that is not
relevant. What is relevant is the fact that the Reform movement does
advocate actions which are clearly in violation of halacha and does not
believe halacha (or most of it) is valid in modern times. I am aware
that Daniel's submission itself might or might not of violated the
above mentioned rules, but it definitley violates the spirit of the

[I have to disagree with this interpretation of the rules. I read
Daniel's submission very carefully. Nothing in that submission advocated
any non-halakhic activity, Daniel did not in any way attack the validity
of Halakha. All the sources quoted were ones that are clearly ones that
we accept. The fact that the Reform Movement denies the validity of
Halakha is not a relevent issue to me. As the Rambam says, examine what
is being said, not who is saying it. It appears to me that Daniel
carefully followed the rules set up here, and as such his posting was
accepted. Mod.]

Mayer Danziger


From: Ben Berliant <C14BZB@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 9:45:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Malei and Chaser

[It was pointed out to me that we may not have defined/translated these
terms in a while. There are many words in the Torah that can be spelled
either with or without a Vav or Yud or similar letter, and both
spellings are "correct". Such a word that is spelled with the letter is
malei - full. If spelled without the letter, it is chaser - missing.

	Recent postings (I've deleted them, so I can't cite) discussed
problems of "chaser v'yater" in the Torah.   Here's some more: 
	In parshat Teruma, (I don't have a chumash handy, so I can't
give chapter & verse) at the end of the parsha describing the kaporet,
Rashi cites the pasuk "v'et kol asher atzaveh ot'cha el b'nai yisrael."  
and gives an explanation for the extra vav (v'et).  Problem is: our text
does not have any vav there.  The minchat shai mentions several
m'forshim who comment on this vav,  but then he says he couldn't find
such a vav in any manuscript.     
	Similarly, there is an lengthy Minchat shai at the end of
Parshat Bo about the word Mezuzot, which discusses when it is malei with
two vavs, when it has only the first vav, and when it has only the
second vav.  Rashi (I think it is in Bo, chap 12) comments on Mezuzot: 
that it is written as if it is Mezuzat.  But that does not agree with
our text. 
	The minchat shai claims (hypothesizes) that Rashi was often 
quoting from the Midrash, not from the text, and that it was the Midrash 
that had it wrong.  But that really just transfers the problem. Anyway,
it's food for thought.



From: Najman Kahana <NAJMAN%<HADASSAH@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 09:04 JST
Subject: Mormons and Genealogy and more

	It seems strange to me that so much band width is used on a,
relatively, obscure package.

	One of the best known PC packages (and an excellent product !)
is WordPerfect.  This package is produced by the same Mormons, who still
tithe to their church.

	To the best of my knowledge, the Israely reps are Orthodox.
	I have seen this software used in Yeshivot and other Orthodox sites.

	One of the best world wide hotel chains is the Hyatt.  This
chain is owned by the same Mormons.  I have been invited to the
Jerusalem Hyatt for many an Orthodox "simcha".

	I think that, perhaps, the time to "talk" is over, and the time
to get clear Psakim has come.

Najman Kahana


From: <M.Isaacs@...> (Malcolm Isaacs)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 04:52:51 -0500
Subject: Rainbow

In the second chapter of Chagigah, Perek Ein Dorshin, the Gemara
mentions 3 things which make ones eyes go dim if one looks at
them - one of which is a rainbow.  Problem - we have to make a
Brachah (blessing) when we see a rainbow, but we're shouldn't
look at it?!  Resolution:  We make the blessing on the rainbow,
but we don't dwell on it because of the reason it's 



From: <vamosh@...> (Goldberg Moshe)
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 93 06:13:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Santa on-line

And then there was this non-Jewish guest lecturer at the Technion
when we moved to Israel many years ago. His young son complained 
to him at Hanukah time:
"Daddy, why can't we have a menorah like all my friends do?"

I am sure that this incident was part of what convinced us that this
country is our home.


From: Ben Berliant <C14BZB@...>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 93 09:48:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Suicide, assisted or otherwise

In volume 10 #76:
David Charlap <dic5340@...> writes:

>I believe the halacha is that you are not permitted to hasten someone's
>death, but you are allowed to remove artificial means of sustaining
>life beyond its normal span.

	Let's be a little careful in our definitions.  One is *NOT*
permitted to "remove artificial means of sustaining life" if such are
connected to the patient.  That comes under the category of disturbing
the "gosess" (the dying patient), which was mentioned earlier in that
m-j mailing.  Thus, IV's, respirators, etc. may *NOT* be removed from a
dying patient.
	This is very different from stopping a loud noise, (or drawing a
shade) which are external to the person.  I am not familiar with the
source that David remembered, so perhaps someone can enlighten us both.


From: MEDAD%<ILNCRD@...> (Yisrael Medad)
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 09:54:29 -0500
Subject: The next ten days

I just want all the mail-jewish nettors to know that the Jewish
residents of YESHA (Judea, Samaria & Gaza) do not consider the next ten
days as the Aseret Yemai Tshuva (Ten Days of Repenetance), although we
do hope for some sort of Divine Intervention.
The delay of the implementation of the first phase of withdrawal is
welcomed, of course, and is perhaps indeed a D.I. of sorts but pessimism
is the word.  An example of black humor:

Q. How's the situation?
A. Critical but stable.
My neighbors at Shiloh, Rabbi Yitzhak Shpatz and his daughter,
were wounded two weeks ago by Hamas gunmen but too many have been
killed in too short a period of time.
So, while we discuss the Halachic ramifications of our actions,
I hope we do not forget that daily life proceeds with all its
dangers and hopes.
Yisrael Medad


End of Volume 10 Issue 81