Volume 13 Number 22
                       Produced: Sun May 22  0:39:58 1994

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Address in Orthodox Couples (2)
         [Stephen Phillips, Meylekh Viswanath ]
Fender Bender
         [Ron Katz]
Interpretation of Torah
         [Howard Reich]
Isaac Balbin's Shavuos dilemma
         [Jerrold Landau]
R. Lipovitz
         [Shalom Carmy]
Sim Shalom or Shalom Rav
         [Nathan Friedman]
Water Meters on Shabbat
         [Stephen Phillips]


From: Stephen Phillips <stephenp@...>
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 09:23:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Address in Orthodox Couples

>     Another style I noticed was one where roles are used. This is the
> mode most noticed when the spouse is being referred to in conversation
> with another person. Here, references may include "The Doctor", "The
> Rav", or "The Rebbitzen" (the latter often used even when the woman is
> technically not a Rebbitzen). Occasionally, I have heard "My Rav" or "My
> Rebbitzen" as a close synonym for husband or wife (presumably the latter
> terms may be too coarse). Correlated with this style, is a tendency to
> refrain from second person pronouns, so that only the respectful third
> person form is used.

A certain Rav in London whose Shiurim I used to attend would often
refer to "my Rebbetzin" and I firmly believe that he used this
Be'Derech Kovod to his wife.

When any of my local Rav's sons give a Shiur, they refer to "the Rav"
and not "my father", again Be'Derech Kovod.

Stephen Phillips.

From: Meylekh Viswanath  <PVISWANA@...>
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 17:31:03 EST5EDT
Subject: Address in Orthodox Couples

Dr. Sam Juni suggests that right of Modern Orthodox jewish married
couples often address each other in the third person.  He suggests that
this may be motivated by Al Tarbeh Sicha Im Isha issues.

In India, among relatively traditional couples, this is very common, 
especially if the wife is addressing the husband.  When the husband is 
addressing the wife, a more direct mode may be used.  

In one language, Malayalam (spoken by the Cochini Jews), the use of the 
third person in conversation is very common, as a form of politeness.

Using terms like mami (for the wife) and tati (for the husband) is also 
not uncommon in India among traditional couples.  Except, rather than 
just mami (or tati) it will be 'mother of _eldest son's name here_' or 
'father of _eldest son's name here_.'  This is also common in Arabic, I 
understand.  For example, Arafat is also called Abu Amar (father of 
Amar); but I do not know if this is used instead of the second person 
address, the way it is in India.

P.V. Viswanath, Rutgers University
Graduate School of Management, 92 New St, Newark NJ 07102
Tel: (201) 648-5899  Fax: (201) 648-1459  email: <pviswana@...>


From: katz%<milcse@...> (Ron Katz)
Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 03:01:08 -0400
Subject: Re:  Fender Bender

I'll try to answer the following two posts:

> From: Aleeza Esther Berger <aeb21@...>
> >However (!!), if the damage was exactly in the same place as the original
> >damage, then it is proper to come to an arrangement with the damagor,
> >Especially if you know the person.
> Why would knowing the person make a difference?  This brought to my mind a
> judge benefiting someone they know in a case, which (offhand) violates "lo
> takir panim" (you shall not recognize faces in judgment).

My impression was as follows:  The damagor has to pay fully despite the fact
that the bumper was already somewhat damaged.  However, if the damage was in
the same place, it is hard to be 100% certain of the extent of the new damage,
therefore it is appropriate to compromise (even though it may not be necessary
according to the strict letter of the law.  My understanding of "knowing the 
person" is that even though according to the strict letter of the law you
may be entitled to certain damages, in a case with some dought, a person
acts (or should act) more leniently with friends and neighbors.  There is
no "heker panim" (favoratism), but rather a person can always decide to
forgo what is rightfully his.  If your neighbor walks into your house and
breaks something, you can say "forget about it", but if it was a mover
or a repair person, you would be more likely to ask for compensation.

> From: <dave@...> (David Sherman)
> > To answer my own post, I spoke with a Rav and he said as follows:
> > I don't have to worry about the fact that the insurence is paying for
> > a new part even though the original part was already somewhat damaged,
> > because that is their business.  Meaning this is not a question of
> > damages (NEZIKIN), but business.  
> Would anyone care to expand on the concepts involved here?  I find
> this somewhat troubling, as it seems to me that this reasoning could
> be used as justification for all kinds of ethically questionable
> actions.  Does fraudulent activity become less so because the defrauded
> entity is a large corporation?

There is actually a fine gray line here.  There are two conflicting ways
of looking at things.  On the one hand, strictly speaking something can
be wrong, on the other hand if it is the accepted norm, it could be
considered OK.  For example, I once worked in a company where official
policy was that one could not make personal phone calls.  However,
pretty much everyone including management did.  I asked Rav Heineman if
I am allowed to make personal calls (of course withing reason - one or
two locals calls home aday).  He said that its OK to make the calls,
since that is the accepted behaviour in the office.

To me the above example seems a bit fishy.  To me it seems that a
company has a right to define rules and define that you may not make a
local call, and if you do then you're stealing.  However, it could be
that since the "unspoken" world practice is that an employee in the
high-tech field is allowed certain leeway then that is the rule.

In the case of insurence it is much more straight forward.  Their way of
doing business is that when your car is damaged and you make a claim,
then they pay to fix your car properly.  If the car is in an accident
and it needs a new paint job, so it is done.  They don't say, "Gee, your
car needed a paint job anyway since it hadn't been painted in 10 years,
so let's go 50/50 on the paint job".  It just isn't their way.  The
service they provide is to pay for full repairs for damaged areas.

Of course there is no leniency is defauding large or small corporations
(that I know of).


From: Howard Reich <0006572811@...>
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 15:33:25 -0400
Subject: Interpretation of Torah

     Mitch Berger in V13N11, posits:
>The "70" facets to the Torah could be understood IMHO in two ways:
>- 70 means many, as in the 70 nations, 70 languages, "if a Beis Din executes
>  someone once in _70_ years"...
>- As the introduction to Avos says, Mosheh taught the Torah to Yehoshua, and
>  Yehoshua to the Zeqeinim [Elders]. The phrase could mean that every zaqein
>  had his own opinion, and they are all valid.

     The suggestion that the 70 faces of the Torah is attributable to
the Zeqeinim [Elders], and the implication that prior to that there was
only one understanding ascribed to the Torah, would seem to be
contraindicated by the Ritva to the effect that when Moshe received the
Torah, Hashem demonstrated to him that EVERY matter was subject to 49
lenient AND 49 stringent approaches.  Hashem explained to Moshe that the
scholars in each generation will consider the various approaches and
establish normative halacha for that generation.

     Whatever the interplay between the "70 faces" and the Ritva's 98
faces, we can safely conclude that the multifaceted character of the
Torah was very much intentional and not the result of man's foibles.
Thank G-d.  :-)

          Howard Reich 
          <hreich@...> or 71630.3433@compuserve.com


From: <LANDAU@...> (Jerrold Landau)
Date: Fri, 20 May 94 14:07:57 EDT
Subject: Isaac Balbin's Shavuos dilemma

[Slightly edited by moderator after email correspondance. Mod.]

The minhag to eat milchigs on Shavuot does not mean that one cannot eat
meat.  It merely means that it is appropriate to have some milchigs at
some point on Shavuos.  Some people eat exclusively milchigs, but this
bears no relation to the minhag -- it only means that the people like
milchigs better than fleishigs.  In fact the Rama (in Shulchan Aruch
Orach Chaim) recommends to eat milchigs [first, and then to follow it
by] eating fleishigs as one would do on any other shabbos and yomtov
(because of the halacha of basar veyayin, meat and fish on yomtov).
Therefore, no hatarat nedarim is necessary.  No discomfort was necessary
either.  You simply confused the minhag of eating milchigs with a
personal custom to eat only milchigs.  (Of course, if the lunch was very
late on the first day, and you planned on having a milchig supper, you
could have run into a problem, but with the length of the days around
Shavuos time, this is unlikely).  Hope this straightens out the minhag.

Jerrold Landau

[Just to clarify a bit, the only minhag brought down by the Rama (the
Mechaber does not mention it at all) is to have a meal that starts with
milchigs, and ends with fleishigs. The Rama says the the reason may be
related to something analogous to the two foods we have on the Seder
plate, and says that since we have to have a seperate bread for the
dairy part of the meal and the meat part of the meal it may also relate
to the two loaves of bread brought in the Temple during Shavuot. Does
anyone have any sources for our "current" minhag of having a purely
dairy meal on Shavuot? Note also that the minhag the Rama brings down is
specifically for first day of Shavuot. Mod.]


From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@...>
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 13:20:58 -0400
Subject: R. Lipovitz

Rabbi Hillel Goldberg made R. Lipovitz's name known to me many years ago, 
and I have long wanted to get my hands on his commentary to Ruth.

Is it available?


From: <dmw2@...> (D.M.Wildman)
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 17:54:11 -0400
Subject: Sim Shalom or Shalom Rav

In V13N12, Mechael Kanovsky writes:

> 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.

I'm afraid it doesn't help completely. For instance, Nusach Sefarad
recites Sim Shalom at Mincha all the time. In Yerushalayim, even Nusach
Ashkenaz recites Sim Shalom at Mincha of Shabbat.  Also, the absence of
Birkat Cohanim on Tisha B'av morning, or in the house of a mourner, does
not signal recitation of "Shalom Rav" in Shacharit.

If we accept that Sim Shalom always goes with Shacharit and Shalom Rav
always goes with Ma'ariv, then Mechael's rule does explain the usual
Ashkenazi custom that it is said with Mincha only when correlated with
Birkat Cohanim, as on a fast day.  With the same assumptions about
Shacharit and Ma'ariv, the Ashkenazi-Yerushalmi practice could be
explained by correlating Sim Shalom with Kriyat Hatorah [reading of the
Torah], a relationship that is supported by the emphasis on Torah
present in Sim Shalom but absent in Shalom Rav.

The Nusach Sefarad custom follows a very simple rule: Sim Shalom is said
in all tfilot chiyuv (obligatory prayers) while Shalom Rav is said with
tfilot r'shut ([once] non-obligatory prayers).  I don't know why this
correspondence should be true. (Perhaps Chazal wanted to shorten the
recitation for those people, in the old days, who "bothered" to say the
non-obligatory Ma'ariv. :-) )

I have the feeling there's some greater "lamdus" behind these customs.
Any further ideas?

Danny Wildman


From: Nathan Friedman <nathan@...>
Date: Fri, 20 May 94 13:37:52 -0400
Subject: Techinas

Constance Stillinger recently asked about translations of the traditional
women's prayers known as Techinas.  My wife frequently says these prayers
and has a few books of them, mainly in Yiddish.  While she doesn't actively
collect them, she buy such books when she finds them.  She recently found
a fairly large (400 page) English translation of many of the techinas
found in her other books.  The book is `Techinas -- A voice from the heart'
by Rivka Zakutinsky published by Aura Press (718) 435-9103.
There is another book published a few years ago (we seem to have misplaced
it, so I don't have the reference handy) which contains English translations
of various Techinas related to pregnancy and birth.

Best wishes

Nathan Friedman


From: Stephen Phillips <stephenp@...>
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 09:23:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Water Meters on Shabbat

> From: <ce157@...> (Eric W. Mack)
> Cleveland Heights (Ohio) Water Dept. recently installed electronic
> water meters.  It is a Badger Meter Model 25.  Is this in use in
> other cities?  Has anyone researched whether this is a problem on
> Shabbat?

I was discussing this point the other day with a fellow m.j'er,
Lawrence Myers. Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchosoh says that turning on a
tap (fawcet to you people over the ocean) on Shabbos is permitted
even if a water meter is attached. This is in the English version
that has no footnotes so it is not clear whether the meter being
referred to is mechanical or electronic. In the Hebrew version,
however, it seems that a mechanical meter is being discussed as the
footnotes give the reason that it is not considered "Medidoh"

So, whether or not turning on a tap with an electronic meter attached
is permitted depends presumably on the various laws of P'Sik Reishoh
and Missassek which have already been discussed here in relation to
security lights. Possibly it might also depend on who benefits from
having the water metered; the water company or the user.

Stephen Phillips.


End of Volume 13 Issue 22