Volume 13 Number 12
Produced: Thu May 19 0:14:55 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Agudah and Zionism
[Yitzchok Adlerstein]
Artscroll and Modim Derabban
[Mark Steiner]
Bamidbar prior to Shavuot
[Richard Schultz]
Bracha for Solar Eclipses
[Yosef Bechhofer]
Cholov Yisrael
[Janice Gelb]
Daas Torah
[Mark Steiner]
G-tt fun Avrohom and t'khines (women's supplications)
[Constance Stillinger]
Lashon Hara
[Adam Aptowitzer]
Misleading Fossils
[Yitzchok Adlerstein]
Naso after Shavu'ot
[Zak Dee]
Parsha in Israel v. Diaspora
[Marc Meisler]
Public apology
[Marc Meisler]
Shalom Rav or Sim Shalom
[Mechael Kanovsky]
Which way to Pray
[Aryeh Blaut]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yitzchok Adlerstein <ny000594@...>
Date: Tue, 10 May 94 22:57:11 -0800
Subject: Agudah and Zionism
While Marc Shapiro is an historian and I am not, I'm still going to
summon up the courage to take issue with his contention that Agudah was
founded on the principle of anti-zionism. My own sources, including a
friend writing a definitive history of Agudah in America, tell me that
this is far from the truth, although many within Haredi and Agudah
circles do not know this.
The Haredi world was NOT always anti-zionist. (I use the term as it is
commonly used, although I find it abhorent. I find it hard to accept
that people should be seen in many people's minds as "anti-Israel" when
they and their families vote with their feet for the strength of our
land.) In fact, it was pretty much split down the middle. Hungary and
Germany were anti-; most of Poland, including many Chassidishe rebbes,
were pro. This was in fact reflected in an Agudah platform at one of
the Knessios (the year escapes me), which went on record as welcoming
the Balfour declaration and the eventual intended founding of a Jewish
State. What united Agudah was the determination NOT to make common
organizational cause with secular zionists in a world zionist movement.
(Rav Kook himself, for the same reason, refused to join Mizrachi!). In
time, especially as the anti-religious activities of secular zionists
became more pronounced, the anti-zionist elements of Agudah prevailed,
to the point that few today know that there was far from unanimity about
this in the good old days.
All of which perhaps suggests that there are few issues that are
completely black and blue and white :-) ...
Yitzchok Adlerstein
Yeshiva of LA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <MARKSA@...>
Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 16:13:35 -0400
Subject: Artscroll and Modim Derabban
Since it seems to be Artscroll-bashing season, I'll add my two
cents. The Artscroll siddur seems to have botched up the translation of
the Modim Derabbonon prayer, and for what I believe is an interesting
reason.
The difficult passage to translate in this prayer is `al she-onu
modim lokh, and I have heard many "bobbe mayses" about this expression
(including the Artscroll version).
The obviously correct translation is as follows: Blessings and
thanksgiving to Your great and holy Name because [`al] You have kept us
alive and sustained us; so may You keep us alive and sustain us
...because [`al] we are [now] giving thanks to You.
That is--we thank G-d for having sustained us; we then pray to
Him that, in virtue of the merit of thanking G-d, He may continue to do
so. (Since everyone who says this prayer does have that merit, it is
appropriate to include this language in a prayer meant for all.)
I believe that the editors of the Artscroll siddur simply did
not grasp the correct syntax for theological reasons: what Chazal
actually wrote was too "chutzpadik" (the suggestion that there is
something like a bargain on equal terms going on between us and the
Ribbono Shel Olom), so it had to be nullified by a mistranslation (I'm
not suggesting that this was deliberate, of course--just a theologically
based linguistic blindness).
Mark Steiner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <schultz@...> (Richard Schultz)
Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 09:47:12 -0700
Subject: Bamidbar prior to Shavuot
In mail-jewish 13:6, the question was raised as to why galut doesn't
"catch up" to Israel by reading Acharei Mot and Kedoshim on the
same week rather than waiting until Mattot/Maasei. As I understand it,
the reason is so that parshat Bamidbar comes out the Shabbat prior
to Shavuot. If you read Acharei Mot/Kedoshim on one Shabbat, then
Bamidbar would come out a week early. I don't have a source for why
Bamidbar is "supposed" to be the Shabbat before Shavuot other than the
empirical observation that it always does.
Richard Schultz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <sbechhof@...> (Yosef Bechhofer)
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 00:41:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Bracha for Solar Eclipses
Rabbi Aryeh Frimer suggests a bracha for solar eclipses. My instinctive
response when asked the same question is that since the gemara in Sukka
states that eclipses are bad omens, they are a "milei d'pur'anus", and
we do not make a bracha on milei d'pur'anus (although we do make
berachos on a rainbow despite the fact that they represent our
shortcomings, the bracha is on the positive aspect of bris invoked).
This is a "gut" reaction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Janice.Gelb@...> (Janice Gelb)
Date: Tue, 10 May 94 11:51:44 PDT
Subject: Re: Cholov Yisrael
In Vol. 13 #5, Aryeh Blaut quotes someone saying:
> >Certainly most orthodox people would not think twice
> >about eating a Hershey bar which is OU and not chalav-yisrael. This
> >means that the OU regards chalav-stam as kosher!
And adds:
> This would only be true in the United States (assuming that the O-U is
> relying on Rav Moshe's ZaTZaL tshuva allowing chalav-stam in the US).
> Several issues ago, Kashrus Magazine had an allert regarding
> Baskin-Robins in Canada. It is different there than here because the
> same government regulations aren't there as well as the type of
> machinery used in the US is not there. This is not only true for
> Canada, but all over the globe.
If I read this correctly, Aryeh is saying that chalav-stam in other
countries might not be acceptable under Rav Moshe's teshuva. For the
benefit of those of us who don't follow Cholov Yisrael and so are
unfamiliar with this issue, could someone explain what about the
Canadian regulations might cause this teshuva to be inoperative? And,
for that matter, what Cholov Yisrael is intended to prevent? I am
guessing that my assumption that it was simply a matter of Jewish
supervision of the process is incorrect, given the above post.
Janice Gelb | (415) 336-7075
<janiceg@...> | "A silly message but mine own" (not Sun's!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <MARKSA@...>
Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 16:31:11 -0400
Subject: Daas Torah
The expression daas Torah appears in chazal, Hullin 90b, where
it is contrasted with daas notah. The latter is an opinion based on
plausibility [notah means "leaning"], the former is a certainty based on
Torah evidence (exegesis of a verse).
Whatever the expression daas Torah means today, it certainly is
far from what chazal meant by it--indeed perhaps the opposite.
Mark Steiner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Constance Stillinger <cas@...>
Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 16:31:05 -0400
Subject: G-tt fun Avrohom and t'khines (women's supplications)
I'm surprised---well actually not so surprised---that no one has yet
mentioned in this thread the centuries-old (at least) body of women's
prayers known as "t'khines" (supplications). Typically written in the
vernacular (ie Yiddish) they cover the women's mitzvot as well as the
daily concerns of raising a family and running a household.
Although we can't say whether they were actually written *by* women,
their popularity among Jewish women says something about our
foremothers' lives. They also generally have a somewhat different
character, eg a more personal style of address and a concern with
personal issues, than the prayers of the Siddur.
Given how infrequently t'khines are even mentioned, I was surprised by
how much material I found in our library here. Somebody would be
doing a big favor for traditional Jewish women if they were to compile
and translate them. The UAHC has published a translation of a few
of them, but as the translators admit themselves in the introduction
it is neither a comprehensive nor a particularly scholarly effort.
I am looking forward to the day ArtScroll publishes a *Sefer Tehinnot*
or something like it. Could it ever happen?
Regards to all,
Connie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Adam Aptowitzer <aaptowit@...>
Date: Tue, 10 May 94 23:28:03 MDT
Subject: Lashon Hara
By my understanding of the laws of Lashon Hara, one is only allowed to
speak Lashon Hara if it will help that person. But what if speaking
Lashon Hara will help a third party who needs the help more. For
example, two people are up for a job and a raise, the first one is on OK
(that is not one of the famous mj acronyms) financial ground, but the
second is on the red. Would it be permitted to speak Lashon Hara about
the first one, so that the second one can benefit? This doesn't seem
like something halacha would permit, without at the very least, the
consent of the first one.
Thanks
-Adam Aptowitzer
<aaptowit@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yitzchok Adlerstein <ny000594@...>
Date: Mon, 09 May 94 22:31:04 -0800
Subject: Misleading Fossils
Dr Sam Juni credits my posting with the notion that Hashem deliberately
laced the landscape with misleading evidence to give the impression of a
very old world, for the purpose of testing our emunah.
On behalf of my overtaxed stomach linings (I get a very visceral
reaction to the above suggestion), I would like to make it clear that I
mentioned the argument ONLY to forcefully reject it. Please assign
credit to someone else.
On the Daas Torah issue, I will bow to the good judgment of Avi and NOT
respond to the last salvos, while continuing to firmly stand behind
Rabbi Yaakov Feitman's article on the matter. To disparage it just
because it happens to be published by the house organ of a rightist
organization (as one recent respondant did) doesn't seem to be any more
on target than criticizing some of the differing articles just because
they were published by house organs of the left.
Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein
Yeshiva of LA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <zakd@...> (Zak Dee)
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 09:19:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Naso after Shavu'ot
I remember asking the same question a couple of years ago when it
seemed that for quite some time, we in Chutz La'aretz (diaspora)
were out by a week than Israel.
The answer I was given by one of the local kolel Rabbi's was that
certain Parshiot are timed to coincide with particular dates, e.g.
Naso, the longest Parsha is usually read right after Shavu'ot and
Va'etchanan, whose Haftara is Nachamu is usually read right after
Tisha B'Av et cetera.
Zak.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc Meisler <mmeisler@...>
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 20:17:34 -0400
Subject: Parsha in Israel v. Diaspora
The last time I was in Israel the same situation arose which will arise
next year. The Israelis were one parsha ahead of the rest of the world.
I asked why the Diaspora did not catch up the first week and instead
waited until the end of Bamidbar. The answer given was that we are
supposed to read Bamidbar the week before Shavuos. I asked why the
Israelis were not bound by the same rule and was told that they read it
before Shavuos, just not the week before. The only reason given was that
as long as the Diaspora can fix it, they do, but in Israel there is
nothing that can be done.
My question is if when the calendar was calculated, so many things were
assured, such as parshas being read before certain yomtovim, and yomtovim
only occuring on certain days, why couldn't they fix this one as well?
Marc Meisler 1001 Spring St., Apt. 423
<mmeisler@...> Silver Spring, MD 20910
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc Meisler <mmeisler@...>
Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 22:23:13 -0400
Subject: Public apology
I owe an apology to Lon Eisenberg on two counts. First of all, I
spelled his name as "Lou" and not "Lon" in a recent posting. Second of
all, I made a reference to a statement that I attributed to him
regarding being patur from mitzvos due to discomfort. The statement was
made in a posting by Lon where he was quoting a message from Fred Dweck.
Lon did not make the statement I attributed to him. My comment should
instead be directed to Fred Dweck.
Marc Meisler 1001 Spring St., Apt. 423
<mmeisler@...> Silver Spring, MD 20910
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <KANOVSKY@...> (Mechael Kanovsky)
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 16:30:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Shalom Rav or Sim Shalom
Since the subject of shalom rav/sim shalom was discussed I just wanted to
add my $0.02. The Abudraham says that saying sim shalom is dependant on
whether birkat cohanim would be said in that davening, since birkat kohanim
ends with "ve'yasem lecha shalom" (and he will give unto you peace) we then
continue with sim shalom. All other times one says shalom rav. I hope this
helps.
mechale kanovsky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aryeh Blaut <ny000592@...>
Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 23:27:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Which way to Pray
> My second question concerns something my Uncle told me several years
> ago. He said that if one doesn't know which direction is east (we are
> going under the assumption that East is the correct direction to pray)
> one should pick a direction and use it consistently. I was wondering if
> anyone could tell me his source for this. Thanks.
I would start with Mishna Brachos, Chapter 4, Mishna 5.
Aryeh Blaut
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 13 Issue 12
