Volume 14 Number 51
                       Produced: Tue Jul 26 21:28:46 1994

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

         [Binyomin Segal]
Chassidim and Israel
         [Warren Burstein]
Clinton the Talmudist
         [Moshe Goldberg]
Flouresence (fwd)
         [Steven Edell]
Jews and Guns
         [Mark Bells]
Naming a child after someone else
         [Abe Perlman]
         [Eli Turkel]
Pre-War Telzers
         [Aryeh A. Frimer]
So-called Realistic Solutions
         [Yechezkel Schatz]
When are Italics the Rama
         [Michael Broyde]
Yerushalmiu on Kodoshim
         [Jeff Woolf]


From: <bsegal@...> (Binyomin Segal)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 15:19:34 -0400
Subject: RE: Antisemitism

Danny Skaist quotes me:
>>Binyomin Segal
>>Anti-semitism is directly related to the goys (unconscious) understanding
>>that we are the mamleches cohanim (nation of priests) We are the religious
>>leaders for the world, and they respond to that in their gut. That is why
>>the Goldstein thing (or for that matter any Jewish scandal) is such a big
>>deal to the non-jews ("How could _Jews_ act that way?!") and Arab terrorism
>>(or gang crime or...) is _relatively_ uncommented upon ("What do you
>>As I understand it (possibly only some) anti-semitism is a direct result of
>>our failure as an example - they resent not having the leadership we should
>>be giving them. It seems to me that this is _exactly_ what a chillul Hashem

and then he writes:
>Your understanding in the second paragraph does not follow the ideas in the
>first paragraph.

>The understanding should be that they resent HAVING the leadership we
>should be giving them. They are relieved when Jews show them that they
>(the non-Jews) really aren't that bad. It is the reason that any misstep
>by Jews is "shouted from the rooftops" when similar or worse actions by
>other Goyim are ignored.  It reaffirms their faith to continue acting as
>they will.

Danny, you are correct that 1 does not _prove_ 2. However, 2 is an
explanation for 1. It is not the only possible explanation, it is the one
for which I have a _mesorah_ (tradition), as I said in that same post:

>I think these words elucidate an intresting point that Ive heard from many
>of my rabbeim over the years (though a source might be hard to pinpoint).

This explanation points to differences between bigotry and anti-semitism.
For example, anti-semitism _increases_ as differences between Jews and
non-Jews decrease. (For a startling example/discussion of this you may want
to look at the famous Meshech Chochmah on Lev 26:44, where in 1909 he
predicts a storm will come from Berlin where there are people who see
Berlin as the "new Jerusalem")



From: <warren@...> (Warren Burstein)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 08:00:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Chassidim and Israel

The correct way to react to police brutality (whether one is frum or
not) is not to "understand" the people who respond to police brutality
by rioting, nor to do the same for the police who respond to the rioting
with brutality.  Strengthening the hands of either of these competing
groups of lawbreakers is uncalled for (and also strengthens the hands of
the other side as well).

I notice that all I've said aboive is what's not the correct way.
Well the correct way is to use the Israeli courts.

 |warren@         bein hashmashot, in which state are the survivors
/ nysernet.org    buried?


From: <mgold@...> (Moshe Goldberg)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 04:54:47 -0400
Subject: Clinton the Talmudist

>             THE WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON, D.C. - JULY 25, 1994
> And the Talmud teaches: 'That man is a hero that can make a friend
> out of a foe.'

Can somebody give the source of this? It sounds close to Pirkei Avot,
"Eizehu gibbor hacovesh et yitzro." [That man is a hero that conqures
his evil will] --but that's not quite it.
    Moshe Goldberg -- <mgold@...>

[David Curwin also wonders where that quote is from. Mod]


From: Steven Edell <edell@...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 02:27:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Flouresence (fwd)

This is forwarded from private mail by permission.

> Maybe it wasn't clear that my kids did this ON SHABBAT (Friday night 
> after Shabbat had started).  Leaving a light on over shabbat means you 
> 'charged' it before Shabbat.  Here, they were "charging" the flourescence 
> ON Shabbat.

I would (think) it was being "charged" whenever they had it out by any
ambient light that hit it.  I am not an LOR so this is just a private
opinion.  I would think it is not worse than playing with any other toy
but you should probably ask your LOR if the toys are muktza or not.
Since it would be getting light whenever they leave it out, it is
probably not the same as attaching a battery to a socket.

|  Hillel Eli Markowitz    |     Im ain ani li, mi li?      |
|  <H.E.Markowitz@...>   |   V'ahavta L'raiecha kamocha   |


From: idela!<markb@...> (Mark Bells)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 08:43:12 -0400
Subject: Jews and Guns

[This posting in my view represents a valid discussion of some Jewish
aspects of the issue of owning or banning Guns. I will allow any replies
that stay in that mode. General discussions about whether guns, or any
subset of guns, should be banned/allowed in the US is not appropriate
for this forum. Mod.]

In  mail.jewish Vol. 14 #36  Frank Silbermann	(<fs@...>) writes:

>Therefore, to fulfill what I consider to be my Halachic
>responsibilities, I and my wife have acquired handguns and taken courses
>in their use.  We are investigating the possibility of acquiring
>concealed-carry permits.  We will oppose any law or political candidate
>who would interfere in our observance of this mitsvah.

I couldn't agree more.  This is not for everybody, but it is essential
that *some* of us do this.  As I've come to believe in this moral value,
I have obtained certification as a firearms instructor and am arranging
to conduct firearms safety classes through our our temple -- as a
community service and a fundraiser.

Which brings up an interesting question I faced recently.  I was a
parent volunteer at a three-day "Pioneer Experience" camp that our
Jewish day school set up.  The fifth grade class packed off to a rural
camp and had numerous sessions with different craft/resource persons,
such as a blacksmith, leather workers, sheepshearing and a Mountain Man.
He was a marvelous source on 1820-1890 life on the frontier.  To my
amazement, our school had also arranged that each child would have a
chance to shoot the black powder rifle belonging to the mountain man.

So what happened was, after our post-dinner prayers the second night,
all the kids scampered out of the dinner hall to go out and play.  All
but this one kid who, out of the blue, walked up to me and said, "I
think we should unconditionally ban assault rifles because their only
purpose is to kill."  This skinny, bright, bespectacled fifth grader had
a firmly held view and wanted to share it.  What a neat kid.

Those of you who are teachers probably well know the "in loco parentis"
responsibility that caretaker adults have in a setting like that.  What
to do?

What I did was listened to him with utmost respect and did not
interrupt.  I then acknowledged his views and asked some questions as
gently and respectfully as I could.  I felt I had a moral responsibility
to not say things that his parents would disapprove of, yet it soon
emerged that his views were his own.  So I touched on two points: the
likely inevitability of ever more restrictive gun laws and the
importance of Jews -- not all Jews but at least *some* Jews -- to act on
their knowledge of history and be prepared.  Whether this means
resisting criminals or governments, *some* of us may have to do it.

I will be making presentations along these lines in other Jewish forums
(in LA, Exodus 95, for example).  If you have ideas how to approach it
with gentleness and dignity, so as not to turn people off, I'd sure like
to hear about it.


From: Abe Perlman <abeperl@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 14:47:28 EDT
Subject: Naming a child after someone else

I was wondering if anybody knows the reason why we name a child either
after a living relative (in the case of some Sepharadim) or after a
relative which has passed on?

I know that the first time we find such a thing is by the Tanna'im of
Beis David where we find Hillel's name is repeated every two generations
as well as Gamliel.  However, in the time of Tanach we don't find it at
all.  True, if the Navi pronounced Binevuah that a cetain person was
evil in the eyes of Hashem we don't expect one to name a child after
them.  However, we also do not find any of the Malchei Bais Dovid naming
their children after Dovid Hamelech or Chizkiyahu etc.

Mordechai Perlman


From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 09:50:33 -0400
Subject: Politics

   Yisrael Medad asks:

>> do Rabbis have a duty, obligation or human interest to express an
>> opinion and have it discussed on the basis of Halachic principles?

   Of course rabbis have an obligation to express their concern about
politics in Israel. The question is whether Mail.Jewish should issue
calls to go to demonstrations. Rav Amital and others are quite
qualified to issue halakhic statements for the other side. Should
Mail.Jewish also publish each statement of Rav Amital calling for
a demonstration on bealf on the government peace initiative?

Eli Turkel


From: <frimer@...> (Aryeh A. Frimer)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 08:56:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Pre-War Telzers

	My Grandfather Zatsal, HaRav Moshe Zev HaKohen Kahn, Was sent by
the Telze Yeshivah to Raise money in the US in the early 1920's. He
stayed on in Chicago to take over the position of the Lomze Gaon. He,
like nearly all the pre-War Telzers spoke a fluent Hebrew and even
corresponded with his children and relatives in a beautiful Hebrew (Not
Yiddish). He read the Newspaper Daily, was a zionist and very wordly.
He published regularly in the Torah Journals ha-Pardess and ha-Maor and
Authored a Large volume of responsa. He was quite tolerant, a true
gentelman and encouraged his children to learn Torah and Secular
knowledge. He was quite typical of the pre-War Telzers and modern day
Telzers have much to learn from their predecessors, IMHO.


From: Yechezkel Schatz <lpschatz@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 05:32:19 -0400
Subject: So-called Realistic Solutions

I had to read Eli Turkel's posting several times in order to understand
how it had any connection at all with mine.  Eli gave examples of cases
in history where Jews had to compromise their religious feelings and
seek "realistic solutions".  They did this because of the fear of
endangering Jewish lives, while living under hostile non-Jewish
rulership.  I don't think the situation nowadays can compare.  For one
thing, we have an independent Jewish state.  I purposely used the term
"so-called realistic", because now, more than ever, it seems (at least
to me) that the path chosen by our current government is far from
realistic.  I urge Eli to weigh the dangers that exist now, against the
situation before the 1992 elections.  Furthermore, I wrote "solutions
that go against everything we believe in as Jews", because I believe
caring about your fellow Jew (even if he is a Mitnachel...) and love of
the Land of Israel are basic concepts in Judaism.  I trust Hillel and
Raban Yochanan Ben Zakai remained faithful to these concepts when they
made their decisions.


From: Michael Broyde <RELMB@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 08:56:48 -0400
Subject: When are Italics the Rama

For a long discussion of when does one know that the italics in the
shulchan aruch are from Rama, and when are they not, see volume 9 of
sedai chemed, ma'arechet haposkim under Rama.  This is also discussion
by machon yerushlayim, and one by Machon Hashulchan Aruch.


From: Jeff Woolf <F12043@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 08:56:50 -0400
Subject: Yerushalmiu on Kodoshim

The so-called Yerushalmiu on Kodoshim was a 'Pious Fraud.' The Yeshiva
world should see to its own wounds.
                           Jeff Woolf


End of Volume 14 Issue 51