Volume 11 Number 98
                       Produced: Thu Feb 24 12:53:42 1994

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Bankruptcy and Halacha
         [Solomon Betesh]
Hebrew in Israeli One Year Programs
         [Jeff Woolf]
Kodesh Hakodashim
         [Gina Samstein]
Logic and Halacha
         [Barak Moore]
Mormon Products
         [Steve Wildstrom]
People in Wheelchairs on Shabbot
         [Rachamim Pauli]
Sentence for Hebrew
         [Joseph P. Wetstein]
Thee and You
         [Rachel Sara Rosencrantz]
         [Eli Turkel]
Yaakov and Yosef
         [Mechel Flam]
Zoo or Zo
         [Seth Ness]


From: <SBETESH@...> (Solomon Betesh)
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 05:46:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Bankruptcy and Halacha

i would like some opinions on the subject of "bankruptcy and halacha".
does the halacha acknowledge United States bankruptcy laws.
Solomon betesh

[There is an article on just this question in the most recent (I think)
edition of the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society (I think that
is the title) put out by RJJ. Mod.]


From: Jeff Woolf <F12043@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 17:19:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Hebrew in Israeli One Year Programs

Last year when Aryeh Frimer went on his tirade about Hebrew I jumped in
to back him up and I want to do so sagain...The situation in One Year
Programs for Americans has deteriorated beyond that which he describes:
1) Most of the popular programs teach no Hebrew and isolate the students
so that they only mingle with other Americans 2) There are fewer and
fewer sections of the program which teach Love of the Land through tours
3) The teachers tend to be rabidly (or moderately Anti-Zionist) 4) The
students might as well be in New Jersey or Brooklyn in as boarding
school arrangement for all that Eretz Yisrael and Medinat Yisrael impact
upon them...I feel that severe pressure must be exerted upon High School
principals in the US to ONLY send students to Zionist, Hebrew speaking
programs where mixing with Israelis AND Gemillut Hasadim through
volunteer work with immigrants or needy is a portion thereof. Otherwise,
all this phenomenon is is Camp Raughly 6,000 miles away.
                                    Jeff Woolf


From: <GSAMSTEIN@...> (Gina Samstein)
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 02:53:57 -0500
Subject: Kodesh Hakodashim

My son asked me the following question. Can anyone help me out.
Nowadays we do not enter the area where the mosque is near the Kottel.
My understanding is that it might be the area of Kodesh Hakodashim.
Why is it still holy if the Aron is no longer there?


From: <SZN2758@...> (Barak Moore)
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 05:46:27 -0500
Subject: Logic and Halacha

Regarding Micha Berger's excellent post on logic and halacha: we are not
commanded to do what is True. Rather we adhere to a legal system which
has been composed based on a knowledge of Truth. This is why we rely on
the principles he mentions when they contradict the Truth.  Another
case, given in Chullin, is that of three pieces of fat, one of them is
non-kosher, although we don't know which.

Each of the three pieces can be eaten.  Halacha does not claim that none
of the pieces was in reality from a non-kosher animal; it says that each
portion has been declared kosher by Halacha and therefore all are
permissable. We need not look to quantum physics for alternate schemes
of logic.

When I heard this explanation, a troubling concern was resolved. One of
the allegations against Orthodox Jews is of hypocrisy, expecially when
we engage in "legal fictions."  For example, selling hametz on Pesach
seems like a violation of the "spirit of the law."  There are laws,
however, such as "to love God" that are rules of morality and are
complety dependent on their intention.

Barak Moore


From: Steve Wildstrom <swild@...>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 09:36:19 EST
Subject: Re: Mormon Products

Regarding the ongoing discussion of Mormon geneology software and
WordPerfect, etc.:

It should be noted that WordPerfect and Novell are publicly owned
corporations.  The chief executives and major shareholders of both are
Mormons (also true of Marriott hotels) but many others are not.

As a practical matter, it's generally impossible to know who owns a
public corporation (only ownership of 5% or more of the stock, plus the
ownership by officers and directors, is a matter of public record.)
Corporations such as AT&T have millions (literally) of shareholders who
undoubtedly include every conceivable form of religious observance. Some
of them may even use their dividend checks to pay for idols. Does that
mean there is a prohibition on making long-distance calls, or using the
Internet, which may run over AT&T circuits?

None of this logic, of course, would apply to software that is actualy
produced and sold by the church.


From: eisenbrg%<milcse@...> (Rachamim Pauli)
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 08:21:50 -0500
Subject: People in Wheelchairs on Shabbot

Joel Goldberg in Vol. 11 # 55 stated that when his wife was a girl it
was announced on erev Shabbos that the Eruv was down and a person who
didn't yet take on the holiness of Shabbos could drive her home. Now
that broaches on the subject of wheelchairs, crutchers and artificial
limbs on Shabbos. The Gemara in the tractate Shabbos speaks about
artificial limbs and padding that goes with them - if that is carrying
on Shabbos or not.

Basically if a person continually goes with such a devise, and does not
remove it in a "Reshut Harabbim" (Public domain) then it is like
attached to his body like clothing = the artificial limb. Ie;
permissible to go out in public even if there is no Eruv. Crutchers and
canes I have not studied all the various types (ie; a crutch that wraps
around the hand with a handle, telescoping crutchers, the standard
wooden crutch, etc.) so I don't want to get into water above my head
since I am only a layman. If the Eruv fell down on Shabbos, then what I
am going to say about a wheel chair should also apply.

The incident that Joel talked about happened outside of Israel where a
gentile could have been found to transport his wife home in the
wheelchair if notification occurred on Shabbos itself. In places where
no gentiles can be found the following solutions can be used. The first
comes from Gema Shabbos and the second is based on a Guide for Soldiers
in Field and War Conditions by Rabbi Shlomo Goren talks about carrying
food to the kitchen or Siddur to prayer etc.  1) There is a principle in
Gema Shabbos that "Hachai nosayer atzmo" (the live one carries himself).
This applies to picking up a small child who is normally capable of
walking the distance set out by the parent but for some reason has
walked until tired and has become cranky. Better still, the two parents
holding the child arm by arm and swinging and walking the child. Thus
the wheelchair patient might be able to wheel him/herself home.  2)
However if the child is too young or the person had polio or c.p. and is
incapable of wheeling him/herself home then the following solution
should be applied. Two people should push at the same time the
wheelchair.  In this way each person is doing only 1/2 a Melacha (39
forbidden forms of work). If the Melacha is normally done by two people
like lifting up a wheelchair and invalid, then a third one should help
so as not to perform a Melacha by the same amount of people who normally
perform it.  Again these solutions should be used only if the Eruv fell
after the holiness of Shabbos started.  - Rachamim Pauli


From: <jpw@...> (Joseph P. Wetstein)
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 02:53:32 -0500
Subject: Sentence for Hebrew

Is there a Hebrew equivalent to the sentence "The quick brown fox jumps..."
to test a Hebrew keyboard, etc. for all possible letter?

email to <jpw@...>
Yossi Wetstein


From: Rachel Sara Rosencrantz <rachelr@...>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 02:53:46 -0500
Subject: Thee and You

> From: Michael Shimshoni <MASH@...>
> As To Rav Margaliyot's suggestion of the third person being more
> respectful, even as a youngster I was troubled by that practice as after
> all in blessings we use barukh *ata* H'.
> It seems to me that it could be an influence of those languages in which
> there is a difference between du/sie, tu/vous and to a lesser extend
> thou/you.  In Yiddish we have it as well.

I think I may have an answer for this.  I used to work at a Rennaisance
Faire.  As an actor there I needed to learn how to speak the language.
Thee and thou were the second person singular forms while you and your
were the third person singular forms.  Now if someone was above you in
rank you would adress them as "You", if some one was equal to you or
below you you would address them as "thee".  If you were friends with
someone above you, and you were in a private situation you would address
them as "thee", where is in public events you would probably address
them as "you".  (And if you were angry with someone you would address
them by the wrong form.  Thus a wife addressing her husband as "you"
would probably indicate that she was upset with him.)  The comment went
that the only "people" qualified to be call "you" by the Queen was her
horse and G-d.  Because G-d was "an intimate" the Queen would address
G-d as "thee".

The Jews certainly have a special relationship with G-d, and even though
G-d is "above" the Jews in the chain of being for us to address G-d in
the third person would be for us to distance ourselves from G-d, rather
than a means of showing respect.



From: <turkel@...> (Eli Turkel)
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 10:10:53 -0500
Subject: Wordperfect

    Wordperfect and Novell are incorporated public companies. As such I
see no problem that many of the stockholders are Mormons or Pagans or
any other group. It would seem to me strange that it would be forbidden to
buy a product produced by a major firm listed on the stock exchange because
much of the stock has been bought by some church group. I am not sure
of the legal status of Empire Chickens. However, on the assumption that
its stock (or some similar Jewish company) is publically available we
would be in the position that one cannot eat certain Kosher products 
because part of the profits go (indirectly) to idol worship.
     Rav Moshe Feinstein has said that a corporation is different than a
private form in regards to the laws of interest. I would strongly suggest
that there are similar differences with regard to benefits to Avodah Zara.



From: <mflam@...> (Mechel Flam)
Date: 18 Feb 94 16:02:26 GMT
Subject: Yaakov and Yosef

Regarding the recent postings concerning the avos and sh'votim . . .

There is a dictum that "kol mi sh'byodo limchos v'aino mocheh nitfas
b'ovon chaveiro", if someone can protest [a wrong] and does not do so it
is as if that person [the non-protester] did the wrong [also].
Therefore, being I feel strongly about the recent speculations
concerning Yaakov and Yosef and perceive that they are being brought
down to today's common man level, which *I* feel is wrong, I must

No matter how smart we think we are we can never truly
comprehend/understand the avos, sh'votim, and the creation of k'lall
yisroel.  Therefore, whether the pshat can be interpreted as such or
not, I believe there are certain things that if CHAZAL did not say them,
we have no right to say them especially when it denigrates or belittles
the avos or sh'votim.

It is no wonder that our current and past g'dolim have been so easily
attacked and shown disrespect when even our holy Patriarchs and
Matriarchs are relegated to the behaviors/pettinesses of the common
person.  We should keep in mind the CHAZAL that states [re: the
generations preceding them] "if they [the tana'im] are like angels we
are like people, if they are like people we are like donkeys . . ."

                                        Mechel Flam


From: Seth Ness <ness@...>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 02:53:53 -0500
Subject: Zoo or Zo

does anyone know the nature of the dispute over whether to say 'b'tabaat zoo'
or 'b'tabaat zo' (with this ring) under the chupah?

Seth L. Ness                         Ness Gadol Hayah Sham


End of Volume 11 Issue 98