Volume 11 Number 78
                       Produced: Sun Feb 13  7:43:15 1994

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Definition of "Rov" in Tanach and Talmud
         [Elie Rosenfeld]
Kiddush Clubs
         [Alan Mizrahi]
Miami Boys Choir
         [Yechiel Pisem]
Orthodox Shul Decorum
         [Shimon Schwartz]
Private Responses
         [Aleeza Esther Berger]
Shabbath boundary (tehum)
         [Lon Eisenberg]
Yichud between converts from the same family (2)
         [Freda Birnbaum, Avi Feldblum]


From: <er@...> (Elie Rosenfeld)
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 13:29:31 -0500
Subject: Definition of "Rov" in Tanach and Talmud

Israel Botnick writes:

>Henry Edinger pointed out that The word "rov" in Tanach always means
>many-- not majority. This seems to be true in most cases but there
>is at least one place in Tanach where "rov" means majority. The
>last posuk in Megillat Esther contains the phrase "ve-ratzuy le-Rov
>echov" [Referring to mordechai that in addition to being second to
>king achashveirosh he was viewed favorably by "Rov" of his brethren].
>Rashi(quoting gemara megilla 16b)  translates "rov" here to mean
>majority, since a minority of the sanhedrin didn't approve of the fact
>that mordechai had to give up much of his time from learning Torah in
>order to become second to the king.

I don't think I'd agree that this example is conclusive.  The Midrash is
very enlightening, but I think that p'shat [plain meaning of the verse]
here seems to favor "rov" having it's usual Biblical meaning of "many"
rather than "the majority of".  I.e., Mordechai was viewed favorably by
the multitudes, he was widely popular.

I'd be interested in an example from the Tanach where "rov" does
definitely mean "the majority of" rather than "many".  Interestingly,
the plural form of "rov", "rabbim", does seem to be used to mean
"majority", as in "acharei rabbim l'hatos" [follow the majority (in

Elie Rosenfeld


From: <amizrahi@...> (Alan Mizrahi)
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 94 23:25:52 EST
Subject: Kiddush Clubs

from Shimon Schwartz (<schwartz@...>):

> Most shuls in Eretz Yisrael perform birkat Kohanim -daily-
> There is a direct problem for Kohanim

So do ALL Sephardi shuls, and I have never heard of this problem in a 
Sephardi shul.

> Would a chazan who had made kiddush before musaf be required to omit
> "borcheinu ba'bracha"?  Would he have to say "Shalom Rav"?

Well, I am certainly not a posek, but if drinking wine would forbid the 
chazan from saying any part of the davening, then I would say that the 
chazan should refrain from drinking wine, if Kiddush were to occur before

> Also: It's not reasonable to ask the shaliach tzibbur for musaf to
> refrain from drinking wine/schnapps, while the rest of the congergation
> partakes freely.

Sure it is!  If the congregation cannot wait until after musaf to have
Kiddush, then they will suffer the consequences.  Anyone who wants to be
a shaliach tzibbur can refrain from drinking for one week.  Since it is
the general custom to say kiddush again at home, the shaliach tzibbur will
not miss out on drinking.

Another thought:

Until now, we have been discussing the rudeness of people leaving davening
early to make kiddush by themselves, and the problems associated with the
shul having its official kiddush after k'riat haTorah.  Perhaps having this
early kiddush would solve the problem of fasting until Chatzot on days when
davening runs late.

-Alan Mizrahi


From: Yechiel Pisem <ypisem@...>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 17:36:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Miami Boys Choir

> A few months ago, the Miami Boys Choir performed at SUNY Binghamton.  To
> the audiences dismay, almost the whole performance was lipsung.  During
> the intermission Mr. Begun, the choir leader, was approached and told
> that people were furious that the somgs were being lipsung.  He replied
> that all proffesionals lipsing, and therefore it was all right for him
> to do it.  A large percent of the audience walked out.  The Jewish
> Student Union, which sposored the event has asked without success for a
> refund.  Does anyone know whether it is Halachaly permissible to
> lipsing, without first informing people before they buy the tickets.  I
> would think at the very least it would be "geneva da'at"

OK.  Being that I am in the Miami Boys Choir, I feel obligated by
halacha to respond.  Before that concert, Yerachmiel (as we refer to
him) went to Systems Two, the recording studio he patronizes.  They were
going to prepare a "DAT" (Digital AudioTape) with the orchestra recorded
on it.  That is 100 percent acceptable as there was insufficient room
for the orchestra.  Unfortunately, Systems Two gave him a blank tape, as
he discovered in the concert hall.  I don't believe that he said that
--that is _NOT_ his style.  He was extremely annoyed and up-tight about
the concert.  He went to his car and got out his CDs.  If you were in
such a situation, what would you do?  By the way I don't think I deserve
to be criticized for this along with Yerachmiel.  That is unfair to me
and the other choir members.  So please, think twice before you do this

Yechiel Pisem


From: <schwartz@...> (Shimon Schwartz)
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 02:56:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Orthodox Shul Decorum

> From: <david@...> (David Charlap)
> >1. eat a hearty breakfast before davening and then daven fully with the
> >   congregation.
> >2. daven quickly alone, both shachris and musaf, and then eat - perhaps
> >   going to shul to hear the Torah reading and Kedusha with the congregation.
> >3. doing like the "kiddush clubs" - davening shachris with the congregation.
> >   Taking a short break to eat and say kiddush -- then returning to the
> >   davening.
> I would normally recommend #2, since there is a custom not to eat
> anything before davining shacharit.  #2 allows you to say all of it
> before eating, thus participating in this custom to the fullest.

I don't believe that you have to davven shacharit -and- musaf first.
You can davven shacharit and make kiddush at home, then join the
tzibbur for the Torah reading and musaf.  It would seem to me that the
mitzvah of davvening -musaf- with a minyan overrides the desirability of
davvening musaf before eating.

Note that after saying shacharit on Shabbat or Yom Tov, you are -required-
to make kiddush before eating.  If you choose to have a snack -before-
shacharit, you would not make kiddush at that time.


From: Aleeza Esther Berger <aeb21@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 12:36:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Private Responses

Recently I have submitted two queries to which I received, for each, 3 or 4
private (short) responses, while one (from a different person) was posted
to the list.
I know Avi has made a suggestion that to keep down volume on the list,
people respond privately, then the "querer" summarize the responses for
the list.  People seem to be following his suggestion to send private mail. 
However, it doesn't work for me and I'm wondering if anyone else has the
same problem. The reasons it doesn't work are:
(1) If I had time to spend summarizing, I would volunteer to be one
of the editors Avi is asking for.
(2) I don't want to summarize what other people said - it's sort of
"hearsay".  Also, why should I have to summarize things I disagreed with and
post them to the list?
(3) I feel obligated to respond to everyone who wrote to me, while I don't
feel obligated to do so if they write to the list.  This takes time.
(4) If the private e-mail is developing into a debate, it certainly belongs
on the list so that others can participate.  Why not put it on the list to
begin with?  
(5) Personality characteristics can be a factor here.  Someone timid may
think, well, what I have to say isn't important enough to put on the list,
so I'll just send it privately.  This could lead to a "big mouth" bias in
what gets posted (if the querer never bothers to summarize).

 Is the problem more the length of submissions or the number of submissions?
The ones I received privately were pretty short.

If Avi is in fact getting other people to help with the volume of mail,
maybe this recommendation could be discontinued?

Aliza Berger

[Just to clarify what I had recommended: The only recemmendation I have
made about replying via personal email and the original poster putting
together a summary is in Kosher and Travel requests, which now appear in
a seperate headered issue. In such a case where the person is requesting
information about a place, first of all often s/he needs the information
in a more timely manner than will come on mail-jewish, second the only
real value to the group at large is to have the summary available if
someone else is going to the same place, and last, I figure if you are
getting some good replies, you can take the time to put it together
along with any comments after your trip and make it available as a
"kosher trip report" for the list. All topics raised on mail-jewish, as
far as I am concerned should be discussed here. If people want to have
private email discussions, that is fine, but it should be viewed as by
my request or that there is any obligation on them to later summarize.



From: eisenbrg%<milcse@...> (Lon Eisenberg)
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 04:11:14 -0500
Subject: Shabbath boundary (tehum)

	|A|			|A|
        /.\			/
       / . \		       /
      /  .  \		      /
     /   .   \		     /
    |B|--.--|C|		    |B|

      Figure 1		      Figure 2

	/    < 500 cubits	2000 cubits from the edge of the city in which
	\    < 500 cubits       one lives is the limit one may walk on Shabbath.

	-    < 70 2/3 cubits    This is the maximum distance between houses
				within a city (a house further than this is
				not considered part of the city).

In the Mishnah Berurah (398), the case in Figure 1 is discussed (at least that
is the picture from my understanding): 3 villages (A,B,C) are in the shape of
a triangle.  The middle village (A) is less than 2000 cubits from each of the
"outer" villages (B,C).  The outer ones (B,C) are less than 283 1/3 apart
(they actually may be as much apart as 283 1/3 plus the width of Village A).
The 3 villages in the triangle are considered a single state, so the allowable
2000-cubit limit may be measured from their perimeter.  Apparently, the middle
village (A) is conceptually extended (we do the same sort of thing with the
walls of a Succah) to be between B and C, thus joining B with (conceptual) A
with C.  It there were actually a village (let's call it "a") at the lowest
point (.) below A (between B and C), it would be fine to consider the line of
the 3 villages (B,a,C) as a single village, since it would be less than
141 1/3 (2 * 70 2/3 = one "house-limit" for each) from any of them to the next
(2 cities less than 141 1/3 apart are considered the same city, since there
is a between-house extension for each).

However, I don't truly understand how we can conceptually extend village A,
which is relatively far away.  Consider Figure 2:  From discussions in the
previous chapters (396, 397), I would conclude that if one walked from A to B
(on Shabbath), once the 2000 cubits from the edge of A became exhausted
(somewhere in B), it would not be permitted to walk any further; we don't
combine A and B into a state.  What's so special about the third village
(in Figure 1)?


From: Freda Birnbaum <FBBIRNBA@...>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 17:31:06 -0500
Subject: Yichud between converts from the same family

In m-j V11N75, Immanuel O'Levy asks:

>If a gentile man and his daughter both convert, then their family tie is
>broken and they are no longer considered as man and daughter.  Does the
>prohibition of Yichud still apply between them?  What sources are there
>that discuss family ties being broken upon a family's conversion?

A more serious question: are they permitted to marry each other?!
(God forbid!)

Freda Birnbaum

From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 17:31:06 -0500
Subject: Yichud between converts from the same family

That question has been discussed in the past on this mailing list, and
the answer is that by Torah law the answer I'm pretty sure is yes (the
more usual case discussed is a brother and sister, as I remember, but
the above should be the same). The basic statement is that "Ger
Shenisgayer kekatan shenold damei" - A Ger than converts is considered
like a new born child, i.e. has no pre-existing relatives. HOWEVER, the
rabbis have made a rabbinic decreee that those relatives the Ger was
forbidden to marry as a non-jew are still forbidden after conversion.

Avi Feldblum


End of Volume 11 Issue 78