Volume 13 Number 78
Produced: Mon Jun 27 8:26:41 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
"halakhik"
[Mark Steiner]
`Aguno$h [deserted wives]
[Warren Burstein]
Articles on 165 years
[Ezra Rosenfeld]
Aveil's Dilemma
[Yitzchok Adlerstein]
Baby Toys
[David Kaufmann ]
Big three
[Adam P. Freedman]
Geirus without a Rabbi
[Andy Goldfinger]
Kivinu and kavanah
[Mike Gerver]
Monsey Trails Bus davening?
[Susan Sterngold]
Number of Pesukim in Each Parsha
[Hayim Hendeles]
Religious Moral Dilemma
[Howie Pielet]
Sefer Milchamot Hashem, etc.
[Alan Cooper and Tamar Frank]
Wording of Brachot
[Warren Burstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <MARKSA@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 1994 02:34:21 -0400
Subject: "halakhik"
I don't see why so many writers use the spelling "halakhik" when
the suffix "ic" is the one used in English to convert a noun into an
adjective, hence "halakhic" should be the correct spelling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <warren@...> (Warren Burstein)
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 23:37:10 GMT
Subject: Re: `Aguno$h [deserted wives]
Shalom Krischer writes:
> Jewish law does not "tolerate" Ad Olam clauses ...
I'd like to see the source for this contention.
|warren@ bein hashmashot, in which state are the survivors
/ nysernet.org buried?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Rosenfeld <zomet@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 1994 16:08:52 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Articles on 165 years
A number of people asked for the exact reference of the article which I
referred to last week about the 165 years in the Persian period. Upon
looking it up, I found that there are two articles on the subject in
Megaddim volume 14 (Sivan 5751), one by Rav Yaacov Meidan and the other
by Dr. Chaim Chafetz.
Ezra
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yitzchok Adlerstein <ny000594@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 94 00:42:43 -0800
Subject: Aveil's Dilemma
A M Goldstein asked about the propriety of missing a mincha minyan if he
joins a department trip to Yerushalayim. His presence, though, will
insure that the rest of the group eats at a kosher eatery.
THE FOLLOWING IS NOT MEANT AS A PSAK, but as food for thought. A very
similar question was posed a few years ago to Rav Hershel Shachter, the
Rosh Kollel of YU, at a meeting of the Association of Jewish Outreach
Professionals (AJOP). A young girl in aveilus for a parent was invited
to a party. If she attended the food would be kosher; if not,...
Rav Shachter held that she should go. Aveilus of the 12 month kind is
not aveilus per se, but a form of kavod [honor] for the deceased. This
is why the 12 month variety only applies to a child, who has the mitzvah
of honoring parents. Now, imagine if the parent were ALIVE and
requested that the child not go to the party. We would instruct the
child not to obey the parent, since halacha demands that a mitzvah be
performed even over the objection of a parent. Insuring that others get
kosher food is certainly a mitzvah. The fact that the parent is no
longer alive should not change the equation.
He also recalled a psak by Rav Kook, who was appraoche in the early
decades of this century by some Mizrachi organization that sponsored a
restauarant in a secular, working class neighborhood. The restaurant
provided a place where the workers could get kosher food on their lunch
break. Rav Kook told them to stay open during the nine days, and to
offer a MEAT menu. (He reasoned that if they switched to dairy, the
workers would look elsewhere for their meals.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Kaufmann <david@...>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 18:52:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Baby Toys
> From: <david@...> (David Charlap)
> mljewish (Avi Feldblum) writes:
>>... if they disapprove of or any toy (and book?)...
>Regarding books, I know that they are very particular. They will not
>allow themselves or their children to read books that were not written
>by a frum author, no matter what the content is.a
I think the above was in reference to Lubavitchers. If so, the
answer is incorrect. Lubavitchers are very careful about reading
material, but the frumkeit of the author is not _the_ criteria.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Adam P. Freedman <APF@...>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 8:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Big three
One point I haven't yet seen on the "big three" discussion (Shabbat,
kashrut, and taharat mishpacha) is a very practical one. It is very
difficult for home life to function if spouses do not concur on these
big three. In particular, if a woman does not keep taharat mishpacha, a
man who does can't marry her. If a woman does not keep kosher, a kosher
man would have difficulty in eating her cooking (and vice versa, of
course). And a home where one spouse keeps Shabbat and the other does
not will not be a very Shabbasdik environment. I have seen homes where
this is not always true, e.g., the wife keeps tah. mish. and the man
"tolerates" it, the homemaker (usually the wife) keeps kosher and the
spouse "tolerates" it (at least at home), and the members of the couple
are at very different levels in their Shabbat observance. But these
clearly make home life difficult and will remain a source of contention
in the family unless observance levels synchronize.
Thus, I have seen the "big three" used as the "minimum adult religious
requirement" in determining whether marriage was possible between
couples with different observance levels.
Note that in this case, observing the big three does not at all
guarantee that a person is frum in other outward or inner ways.
Adam Freedman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Goldfinger <andy_goldfinger@...>
Date: 24 Jun 1994 08:20:57 U
Subject: Geirus without a Rabbi
In the seventh perek (chapter) of Mesechta Shabbas, there is a
discussion of a "tinuk she'nishbah," a child who was kidnapped by
non-Jews at an early age and never learned about Shabbos. The gemara
also talks about a ger (convert) who was misgaier (converted) among the
non-Jews, and therefore does not know about Shabbos. When learning
this, my sons and I wondered how this latter case was possible. After
all, doesn't a person have to learn a certain minimal amount about Torah
before converting?
On second thought, it was not so clear. Certainly, the PREFERABLE way
of undergoing conversion is under the guidance and direction of a Rabbi
who decides whether the person is ready for geirus (conversion), but
then again although the PREFERABLE way of getting married is through the
guidance of a Rabbi, such guidance is not required: a couple can effect
kiddushin (the first step of marriage) on their own if two witnesses are
present. So -- is the same thing true for geirus (conversion)? Suppose
a non-Jew circumcizes himself and, in the presence of three Jews who are
kosher witnesses, immerses in a mikvah (ritual bath) after declaring
before them that he accepts the authority of the Torah (even though he
doesn't know what it is), is willing to give his life if necessary when
the Torah calls for it, etc. Does this constitute a kosher geirus
(conversion)? Or -- is it necessary that a duly constituted bais din
(court) agree to his geirus (conversion)?
Can anyone give us references that deal with this issue?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <GERVER@...> (Mike Gerver)
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 4:09:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Kivinu and kavanah
In his posting in v13n10 on "Achakeh lo [I shall wait for him]", which
I liked very much, Micha Berger says
> R. Milecki translates "kivinu" to mean "await," but "kavanah" is usually
> concentration or attention.
In fact kavanah and kivinu are from different shoreshim [roots]. Kavanah is
from kaph-nun-he, which is also the shoresh of "ken" [thus, yes] and
"nachon" [right, correct]. Kivinu, which Lon Eisenberg would transliterate
as "qiwinu," is from kuf-vav-he (the "-nu" is a first person plural suffix,
not part of the shoresh), meaning "wait" or "await," and this meaning goes
back a long way if you believe the "Nostratic" hypothesis. This hypothesis,
which has some evidence to support it although it is not accepted by many
linguists, holds that Indo-European and several other language families
are historically related to Hebrew and the other Semitic languages. Among
hundreds of other words, they relate the Indo-European root "kweih" (the
source of the English words "while" and "quiet") to the Hebrew root
kuf-vav-he.
Mike Gerver, <gerver@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Sterngold <ss117@...>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 10:25:37 -0400
Subject: Monsey Trails Bus davening?
I am from this area, and have not heard about this case of NYCLU v. bus
co. Is this bus open to all people, frum and not so? If it is a private
bus chartered exclusively for the use of frum people who wish to be
separated by sex, how did this woman come to use the bus in the first
place? If it is a public bus open to all, it would be hard to enforce
the mechitza rule. Could you describe the case in a little more detail?
thanks Susan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hayim Hendeles <hayim@...>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 94 12:35:48 -0700
Subject: Number of Pesukim in Each Parsha
In many chumashim, there is a simon at the end of each parsha
indicating the number of pesukim in that Parsha. Likewise, at
the end of each of the 5 Books of Moses, is another siman
indicating the total number of pesukim in that Sefer (Book).
Does anyone know the origin of these simanim? The reason I am
asking is because in some cases the siman does not jive with
the actual count of pesukim as they appear in our texts.
(Sometimes there appears to be a valid reason for the discrepancy,
e.g. taam haelyon or taam hatachton in Prashas Yisro, but there
are cases where there are no obvious reasons for the discrepancies.)
There are additional problems as well, which I am interested in looking
into. (e.g. there are internal inconsistencies.)
If anyone can supply me with any references or any info at all
you have on this subject, I would greatlyy appreciate it.
Thank you,
Hayim Hendeles
E-mail: <hayim@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <pielet@...> (Howie Pielet)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 94 16:07:08 CST
Subject: Re: Religious Moral Dilemma
> From: A. M. Goldstein <MZIESOL@...>
>...and having to leave the group or stay behind in Jerusalem in order
>to be sure to get to a minyan for minha {around 7:30 p.m. these days}
>rather than take my chances of arriving back in Haifa in time....
Would the group be willing to daven mincha with you? Or go with you to
a place that has a mincha minyan at a convenient time? Possibilities
with frequent minyanim include the Kotel, Geula, and the Bus Station.
Howie Pielet Internet: <pielet@...> (East Chicago, Indiana, USA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Cooper and Tamar Frank <Alan.Cooper@...>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 16:11:48 -0400
Subject: Sefer Milchamot Hashem, etc.
The best answer to Marc Bookbinder's query is to refer him (and anyone
else who is interested) to Sid Z. Leiman's book, _The Canonization of
Hebrew Scripture_, pp. 16ff. Professor Leiman observes, "Canonical
books imply the existence of uncanonical books. Both categories of
books were known to biblical authors" (p. 17). He then gives an
exhaustive list of these "uncanonical books" that are cited in the
Bible--twenty-four in all. The Sefer Milchamot Hashem is, of course,
the only one of these that is cited in the Torah.
With good wishes, Alan Cooper
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <warren@...> (Warren Burstein)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 12:14:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Wording of Brachot
I'd like to suggest that anyone who offers an explanation might be
best able to explain their principle (or see where it breaks down) by
concentrating on why the bracha for a tallit katan is the passive "al
mitzvat tzizit" and the brach for a tallit gadol is the active
"l'hitatef batzitzit". Isn't the same mitzvah being done in both
cases?
|warren@ an Anglo-Saxon."
/ nysernet.org Stuart Schoffman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 13 Issue 78
