Volume 11 Number 87
Produced: Sun Feb 20 12:52:54 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Candy and Reward
[Eli Turkel]
HaMekabel Shabbos vs notyet Mekabel!
[Benjamin Rietti]
Matzah
[Elizabeth Katznelson 382J]
Parents of converts at wedding
[Anthony Fiorino]
Rabbinic Decrees (2)
[David Sherman, Janice Gelb]
Schindler's List & Death Lists
[Saul Djanogly]
Schindler/Saving Lives
[Aharon Fischman]
Women and time-bound commandments
[Aleeza Esther Berger]
Yichud between converts from the same family
[Lenny Oppenheimer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <turkel@...> (Eli Turkel)
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 14:41:17 -0500
Subject: Candy and Reward
Leah Reingol doesn't like the idea of giving candy to childred as a reward
for good behavior. While her idea is nice in theory it doesn't work as well
in practice. All the schools that I know give stars or other rewards to
children for proper behavior. Many yeshivas give prizes for the number of
pages of Mishna/talmud memorized etc. I think it is standard behavior to
reward children and adults for good activities.
We are expected to perform mitzvot for the love of G-d and not for reward
but even here the Talmud states that one who performs a mitzva for
inappropriate reasons (shelo lishma) is to be encouraged so that he will
eventually perform the mitzvah for the right reasons (lishma).
<turkel@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <sales@...> (Benjamin Rietti)
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 15:47:04 GMT
Subject: HaMekabel Shabbos vs notyet Mekabel!
A few days back, Gedalyah Berger was writing about someone who had already
been Mekabel Shabbos (accepted that Shabbos had started) asking someone
who had not yet been Mekabel Shabbos to do a Melacha. - and similarly
on Motzae Shabbos (Saturday night); if someone who was keeping, let's say
Rabbenu Tam time, could ask another yid who had already taken Shabbos
out (e.g. R'Gra time) to do a Melacha (work).
As far as I know, it is 100% halachically ok in both cases - in other
words let's say I go to a 7pm minyan Friday night (summer time!)and
come home from shul before it is actually sunset, and my neighbour is
going to a 8pm minyan - I can ask him to do a melachah for me as long as
it is not yet Shabbos m'deoraysoh (sunset - a few minutes tosefes shabbos).
Similarly Motsae Shabbos, if my neighbour keeps Rabbenu Tam's z'man, and
I don't; he can ask me to a melacha for him.
It's not a contradiction in terms because we are fully entitled to
accept either zman; and nobody would say that just because I wish to be
machmir and keep Rabbeinu Tam's longer shabbos, that everyone else around
me is Chas VeShalom being mechallel shabbos! (breaking Shabbos).
Benjamin Rietti, London
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <elizabet@...> (Elizabeth Katznelson 382J)
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 06:43:12 -0500
Subject: Matzah
Is it possible to find (kosher for pesach) matzot made without wheat?
Are there any Bay Area (San Francisco) bakeries that make non-wheat
challah?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anthony Fiorino <fiorino@...>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:03:04 -0500
Subject: Parents of converts at wedding
Gerald Sacks brought an example of the wedding of a convert at which the
parents of the convert were not permitted to escort their daughter down,
and he implies that the decision was made by the mesader kidushin, a
well-know rosh yeshiva. Since it was not explicitely stated, I am
wondering if indeed the mesader kidushin made this decision, or was it
made by the chatan and kallah? And if the decision was made by the
mesader kidushin, were there extenuating circumstances? I ask these
questions because I have investigated this issue for my own wedding I"H
in May, and have received several unqualified answers of "yes" to this
very question.
Eitan Fiorino
<fiorino@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <dave@...> (David Sherman)
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 18:51:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Rabbinic Decrees
>It was common in Europe to forbid "Schitat Chutz" (Meat from out of town
>butchers) in order to ensure that the local butcher would stay in business.
>They didn't just say, "It's kosher, but you should patronize our local
>butcher." The rabbis specifically termed the meat "not kosher".
About 10-11 years ago, at the height of the Lubavitch-Satmar wars,
Lubavitch issued a decree that products supervised by Satmar were to be
considered non-kosher. Not boycotted, just non-kosher. This was taken
as halacha by many Lubavitchers in Toronto, and, from what I remember,
elsewhere as well.
The practical effect for us was that our neighbours, who were
Lubavitchers who did eat in our house (i.e., they had no problem with
our kashrus), would not eat anything we'd bought at a particular bakery,
which, although under the COR, also had a Satmar-related hechsher. I
seem to remembers there was an issue as to what oil we'd be cooking
with, as well.
I believe the theory was as follows: if person X (or movement X) is so
"rotten" (however that be determined), you can't trust their hashgacha.
The whole thing blew over after a couple of months, as I recall. Does
anyone remember more details?
David Sherman
Toronto
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Janice.Gelb@...> (Janice Gelb)
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 09:56:59 -0500
Subject: Rabbinic Decrees
In mail.jewish Vol. 11 #76 Digest, Andy Goldfinger says:
> Robert Tannenbaum has given some examples of cases in which rabbis
> declared something "not Kosher" because of non-kashrus related reasons.
>
> I think we have to be careful here. I was in Boston during the
> late 1960's and it is true that the Va'ad HaRabbanim of Massachusetts
> (The "VH") declared grapes and lettuce to be non-kosher during the
> migrant worker strikes. But -- there are many reputable Poskim who
> criticized the VH for doing this. In Baltimore, the Star-K does not
> accept the hasgacha of the VH. [...]
There are certainly examples to support Robert Tannenbaum's contention,
from the Israeli rabbanut at least. Just a few months ago we heard
about a yogurt product that the rabbinut removed hechsher from because
its container art featured dinosaurs. Ditto the Michael Jackson/Pepsi
case. And I know of a case from the 1979 where the International
Convention of Gay and Lesbian Jews was supposed to be held at a
kibbutz outside of Jerusalem and the rabbinut told the kibbutz
that the hechsher would be removed from their candy factory if they
carried through with these plans. So they had to revoke the contract
with the gay and lesbian group only 6 weeks before the convention
was to be held. I'm sure there are numerous other examples.
Janice Gelb | (415) 336-7075
<janiceg@...> | "A silly message but mine own" (not Sun's!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <saul@...> (Saul Djanogly)
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:47:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Schindler's List & Death Lists
The Halacha is unequivocal that when no indivdual is specified by those
composing a death list,the Jewish community must not cooperate even if
they will ALL die as a result.(See Rema Yoreh Deah 147.1) The Beer
Heitev there says the same principle applies to supplying an individual
Jew to suffer physical punishment or financial loss. The Pitchei
Teshuvah also advises non-cooperation in providing a quota of Jews for
conscription(a terrible problem in Tsarist Russia in the 19th
century),even from those youths who are not orthodox,as he says''G-d
forbid we should drive them away entirely from Kehal Yisrael''. I
assume that the explanation for this Halacha is that handing over a Jew
in such circumstances is the equivalent of murdering him oneself and
thus ranks as a 'Yaharog Ve al yaavor'(let him die rather than
transgess). There is also no numbers game here.One Jewish life is as
precious as a million.
The Rema brings two opinions about when a victim is named.The first says
we can hand him over.The second,that of the Rambam,says we can't unless
he is deserving of the death penalty and even this must be done
extremely reluctantly. We follow this second opinon says the Taz.
One can but speculate if the Judenrat(Councils of Jewish elders)in the
Ghettos, had followed this policy of non- cooperation with the Nazis,
whether this would have slowed the course of the Holocaust.
saul djanogly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <afischma@...> (Aharon Fischman)
Date: 15 Feb 94 14:40:22 GMT
Subject: Schindler/Saving Lives
My Rebbe from Yeshivat Sha'alvim (Rav M. Yamer) spoke last year while in the
US about life threatening situations, and what a person is allowed to do. The
gist of his shiur (and I don't know if this directly answers the question) was
that a person can do a _direct_ act to save a life, even if its kills another
person, and not be considered a rotzeach (murderer). However that act must
directly save a life not indirectly (grama), and both parties must be in
equall peril. Caveat Emptor: this was a year ago, and I may not recall
all the details.
Aharon Fischman
<afischman@...>
<fischman@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aleeza Esther Berger <aeb21@...>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 20:14:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Women and time-bound commandments
>As I have come to understand, women are basically exempt from time
>related mitzvot. In many ways it makes sense. Women, because
>they run the household are quiet often not the masters of their time.
>But, there has been a change in society. There are households now
>in which it is the man is the one who stays home doing what one
>might classify as 'women's work' - keeping the household going. On
>the same theme, obviously, there are women who work strictly in
>business (ie - not household work). What happens in these
>situations? Are the men still obligated to perform the time related
>mitzvot, though they are performing a class of work that in the past
>has been freed of some obligations? And of course the reverse, are
>those women mentioned above now obligated?
>Seth Magot - <magot@...>
The list of time-bound exemptions is really pretty short and doesn't
necessarily follow the logic you might generate based on someone's having
household duties:
tzitzit (after all, that doesn't take any time at all)
tefillin of head
tefillin of arm
shma
sukkah
lulav and etrog
shofar
counting of omer
There are many women who in fact do perform one or more or *all* of
these. There's a lot more to it in the halakhic literature than just an
exemption because of household duties. Personally, I don't have
"household duties" that can't wait (i.e. children) but I imagine that
someone with such duties could manage to do these things (as many men in
fact manage to do given the situation Seth raises).
Note that a prime activity (I won't say obligation) NOT on this list
that men often do "outside the home" while the "woman stays home" is
attending minyan. (That's popular practice that I think should be
rethought in the context of the type of situation Seth is suggesting.)
Aliza Berger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <leo@...> (Lenny Oppenheimer)
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:47:19 -0500
Subject: Yichud between converts from the same family
Freda Birnbaum asked:
> A more serious question: are they permitted to marry each other?!
> (God forbid!)
Avi answered:
> 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.
See discussion of this issue in Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 58a. Rashi quotes
the basic reason, which is "Shelo Yomar Bonu M'kdushah Chamurah L'kdushah
Kalah" or, so that the convert will not feel that by converting they have
come from a place of greater sanctity to one of lower sanctity. Anything
forbidden to a Ben Noach is forbidden to a Jew as well. (With the
exception of the exclusive privilege prohibitions, such as the prohibition
of a gentile to observe the Shabbos.)
Lenny Oppenheimer
att!hrmso!leo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 11 Issue 87
