Volume 13 Number 28
Produced: Mon May 23 18:33:40 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Administrivia
[Avi Feldblum]
Ashkenazic vs. Sephardic
[Fred Dweck]
Cholov Yisrael
[Claire Austin]
Lashon Hara
[David Charlap]
Obeying orders in the I.D.F.
[Ezra Rosenfeld]
Obeying orders in the Israeli Army
[Lon Eisenberg]
Status of Jew killing non-Jew
[Marc Shapiro]
transliteration conventions
[Lon Eisenberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mljewish (Avi Feldblum)
Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 18:33:05 -0400
Subject: Administrivia
Hello All,
First item for tonight: As Shavuot is now over, it means we are heading
towards the summer. At last years mail-jewish picnic and BBQ, the
Teaneck (NJ) crew indicated that they would like to host this years
NJ/NY/PA area picnic. Anyone of you ready to take up the mantle of
organizer? I'm waiting to hear from you, and looking forward to
traveling north this year for the picnic.
Second issue has to do with translation and transliteration. I'm getting
somewhat more forceful in sending back submissions in which the
"non-trivial" hebrew is not translated. The point is what is considered
"non-trivial" hebrew? One of our members, Fran Glazer, has volunteered
to work on putting together a mail-jewish "glossary" of frequently used
hebrew words along with their meaning. If you have words that you think
don't need to be translated on a regular basis, please email them to
Fran [<fglazer@...>], along with a translation. Once we get
this going, I will include this in the new member posting, and put it up
on the archive.
Two people in this issue remark on the transliteration issue (and Fran
and I mentioned it as well when we were talking). I would be very happy
if everyone agreed on a single transliteration scheme and used it.
However, I highly doubt it will happen. I also will not take on the
extra burden of checking the transliteration spelling. I do not think
that we should enforce one pronunciation over another, even though it
makes it difficult for some people to follow. One recommendation I have
is that if we have the glossary mentioned above, with an ashkanaz and
sepharad transliterated spelling for words listed there, people can try
and normalize to one of the spellings used there.
Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator
<mljewish@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Fred Dweck <71214.3575@...>
Date: Sun, 15 May 1994 03:19:45 -0400
Subject: Ashkenazic vs. Sephardic
I have two suggestions for the membership to consider, and possibly discuss.
1) I think that there should be a standard, as to pronunciation and
transliteration. Since the State of Israel has adopted an official
Hebrew pronunciation and almost all those who are on the list (maybe
ALL) can speak Israeli Hebrew, maybe we can make that pronunciation the
standard for M-J. Also, those of us who are Sephardic, sometimes have a
heck of a time trying to decipher what is meant. Would it be so hard to
write: Shabbat instead of Shabbos, mitasek instead of misasek (which
took me at least 2 minutes to figure out, and I speak fluent Hebrew.) or
Beit Hamikdash instead of bies?? We Sepharadim have almost no occasion
to use Ahkenazic Hebrew pronunciation, while most Ashkenazim are at
least familiar with the Israeli pronunciation. If Israel can set a
standard, why can't we?? It almost feels as if there is no recognition
that there are Sepharadim making valuable contributions to the list and
to Yahdut, in general.
2) When stating a halacha which applies only to Ashkenazim, or only to
Sepharadim, the writer should mention it. (see my posting in M-J 13:4 as
an example) Unfortunately, there are many on the list who can't make
that differentiation by themselves, and are then mislead. "Lifne iver al
titen michshol." (do not put a stumbling block in front of a blind
person) A couple of examples are when people say that if someone doesn't
eat glat, he is still eating kosher. That does not happen to be true for
Sepharadim, most of whom follow the Beit Yosef, who insists on "Halak."
If another says that peas, or corn are perfectly permitted on Pesah,
that isn't true for Ashkenazim. These problems can only be ignored, by a
group that is insensitive to the needs of their fellow group members,
who follow other halachot.
Maybe we can have some input from the members and arrive at a consensus.
It sure would be nice to be able to leave the "Tower of Babel" in the
past, where it belongs.
Sincerely,
Fred E. Dweck
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Claire Austin <CZCA@...>
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 19:36:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Cholov Yisrael
>Shalom Krischer <PGMSRK@...> writes:
>Since Cholov Stam has been ruled Halachakly acceptable, it is certainly
>permissible. Since (one may argue {if even necessary}) Cholov Yisroel is
>just Cholov Stam with a Jewish overseer, it too is Halachakly acceptable.
>Thus, all thing being equal, it would not matter which one you buy. Of
>course, life is not so simple, and, all things are NOT equal. the
I would like to put the following to the list for discussion:
I was told by a Rabbi who works for one of the organizations which
supervises kashrut that one may not eat food (even if it is cholov
Yisrael) if it is prepared in or served on dishes which have been
previously used for cholov stam.
[As a precaution, I checked with Claire to see if the Rabbi was a
Lubavitch Rabbi, as I know they are more strict with Chalav Yisrael than
many other groups. She has clarified that this was NOT a Lubavitch
Rabbi. If one accepts Rav Moshe's psak permitting what is commenly
called "cholov stam", or more correctly possible called "company milk
-chalav hacompanies" for eating/drinking, I do not understand the
opinion brought above. We do have a few Chalav Yisrael postings in the
queue, but none that will shed light here, I'm afraid. Mod.]
Claire Austin
czca@musica.,cgill.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <david@...> (David Charlap)
Date: Thu, 19 May 94 11:07:31 -0400
Subject: Lashon Hara
Adam Aptowitzer <aaptowit@...> writes:
>By my understanding of the laws of Lashon Hara, one is only allowed to
>speak Lashon Hara if it will help that person.
I don't even think it's permissible in that case. The ramifications
of a misplaced word can have far more (potentially harmful) effects
than you would realize at the time. For example, insulting someone
in order to embarass him into improving could create a bad reputation
that he would never get away from. Even if he does get embarrassed
and improve, the damage is still irreparable.
If there is a situation where "lashon hara" would be permitted, I
don't think anyone alive today is qualified to know when such
situations exist, or if you really should avail yourself of the
opportunity.
>But what if speaking Lashon Hara will help a third party who needs
>the help more.
Kal v'chomer - absolutely not, IMO.
>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. ...
You would destroy a person's entire life to help another? That's
horrible. Your lashon hara might not only give the raise to the
second person - it might also get the first person fired, and put a
black mark on his record that would prevent him from ever getting
hired for a similar job.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Rosenfeld <zomet@...>
Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 10:11:59 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Obeying orders in the I.D.F.
1. Much has been written over the years about the "double legal system"
which exists within Torah law i.e. the fact that the king (and by
extension, other forms of Jewish sovereignty?) had the power to levy
taxes and tariffs and mete out punishments which were not mandated by the
Torah. It's a fascinating topic and I wonder if it has been dealt with on
mj in the past.
2. As expected, the three Rabbis call to religious jews to refuse to
carry out orders to evacuate settlements has been met with much
demagoguery in the press and the political world. Already in the fifties,
the Israeli Supreme Court prohibited soldiers from carrying out orders
which they perceive to be clearly illegal. In the Lebanon War, many
soldiers affiliated with the left, refused to carry out certain orders
which they considered unethical and immoral and paid the price for their
morality when they were sentenced to incarceration in military prisons. I
can see no reason why Jews who refuse to evacuate settlements because of
their religious beliefs should be treated as disloyal Israeli citizens
because they are willing to act according to the dictates of their
conscience. Its a price which Torah-true Jews should be willing to pay
just as my grandfather was willing to live in poor conditions in N.Y. in
the twenties when he refused to take a job which required him to work on
Shabbat.
Ezra
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: eisenbrg%<milcse@...> (Lon Eisenberg)
Date: Mon, 23 May 94 07:34:43 IDT
Subject: Re: Obeying orders in the Israeli Army
Stanley Rotman quoted the Ra"n on the mitzvah of appointing a king: "and
since the power of the king is great, he is NOT LIMITED BY THE RULES OF
THE TORAH as a judge is...and if he should abolish a law of the torah
for a temporary time, his intention shall not be to violate the entire
torah and to revolt against god, but his intention shall be to keep the
torah ... and anthing which he adds or subtracts should be so that
overall the rules of the torah will be preserved."
But it seems to me that he was referring to a king who observed Torah and
mizvoth. Our "king" today, as well as those running the army, do not observe
Torah and mizvoth; they try to go against them as much as they can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc Shapiro <mshapiro@...>
Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 00:04:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Status of Jew killing non-Jew
Just a clarification on what Ari Kurtz wrote in my name. In my original
posting I quoted an article by R. Avraham Shapiro in Hatzofeh in which he
spoke of the sakanah etc. which actions such as those by Barukh Goldstein
could cause to other Jews. This type of logic is not at all strange and
Haredi spokesmen have often blamed the Zionists for the Holocaust, or
claimed that because Jews began to boycott the Nazis they were
responsible for Hitler's increased persecution. They were thus called
rodfim (although I don't know if this was said in an halakhic sense.) I
myself heard from the mouth of Rabbi Pinchas Teitz that those who
encourage Jews to protest against the Soviet Union are rodfim since they
cause increased persecution. Once again I doubt whether this was a
halakhic judgment. (Not to mention the fact that R. Teitz' view was way off
and we know without any doubt that it was the protests which kept Soviet
Jewry in the news.) A friend of mine told me that some roshe yeshivah had
made the point that Goldstein was a rodef. I assume he was referring to
Haredi spokesmen. When Ari asked me for clarification I told him that in
my opinion the hesder yeshivah heads also must hold that Goldstein was a
rodef (vis a vis non-Jews) I assumed this based upon their statement
which speaks of the murder of innocent people. I cannot speak for Rabbi
Rabinovitch. Ari spoke to him and reported his reply. It would be
interesting whether Rabbi Lichtenstein has the same view. My
correspondence with Ari continued to discuss the issue of rodef vis a vis
Gentiles and this is certainly a subject which needs to be discussed. Ari
made the point that if a Jew were to kill another Jew who was in the
process of killing Gentiles he might be subject to capital punishment.
This is the sort of stuff which needs to be discussed.
I must admit that I am at a loss to understand Rabbi
Rabinovitch's position. If you say that it is murder to kill a gentile
but then say that one who is killing gentiles is not a rodef, what is one
to do. Does that mean I can go into the local church and start killing
everyone and a Jew would not be permitted to kill me in order to stop me.
Are Jewish lives that much more valuable than Gentile lives. Finally,
doesn't this lead to a mentality of genocide. Will someone explain what
the halakhah is if a Jew is killing Gentiles and the only way he can be
stopped is by killing him (whether the Gentiles are Arab or not is
obviously irrelevant.)
Marc Shapiro
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: eisenbrg%<milcse@...> (Lon Eisenberg)
Date: Mon, 23 May 94 07:44:41 IDT
Subject: transliteration conventions
I'd like to suggest the following convention for transliterating the 22
letters of the Hebrew alphabet. This would bring a bit of consistency.
' b g d h w z x t y k l m n s ` p c q r sh $
(a sin should be "s")
Any of the bgdkft letters should be followed by "h" when it contains no
daghesh. I have not suggested particular conventions for the vowelization,
leaving it somewhat free (so Ashkenazim and Sepharedim can all be happy).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 13 Issue 28
