Volume 14 Number 62
                       Produced: Tue Aug  2  0:43:13 1994

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

         [Avi Feldblum]
Baruch Hashem l'Olam and Kaddish in Ma'ariv
         [Arthur Roth]
Cheating (2)
         [Irwin H. Haut, Ezra Dabbah]
Halacha L'Moshe Mi-Sinai
         ["Yitzchok Adlerstein"]
Kedusha/Kaddish responses
         [David Griboff]
Producing Gedolim
         [Aryeh A. Frimer]
reference to death?
         [Jonathan Katz]
Thinking, Tipping, and Psychopathy
         [Sam Juni]
Yeshivah tuition
         [Hillel Eli Markowitz]


From: mljewish (Avi Feldblum)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 00:31:55 -0400
Subject: Administrivia

Hello All,

This is your friendly moderator, actually on vacation. It feels great.
I'm sitting here in the San Francisco Bay area, in Menlo Park. I spent
part of today flying here to SF, then met my sister in Stanford and
walked around the campus. I took my laptop with me, otherwise you would
not be getting this message, but I'm not sure how regularly mail-jewish
will be coming out this week. So if there are a few days of gap, it is
as likely to be my taking off as email problems :-). But lets get a few
messages off, and then it is to bed with me. The clock here says only
9:30, but it is 12:30 by my clock.

Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator


From: <rotha@...> (Arthur Roth)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 14:24:41 -0500
Subject: Baruch Hashem l'Olam and Kaddish in Ma'ariv

>From Abe Perlman (MJ 14:54):
> According to Minhag Ashkenaz the brocho Baruch Hashem L'Olam is in fact
> a hefsek and so is Kaddsh before Shemone Esrei as can be found in the
> Rosh on Maseches Brochos Perek 1, Siman 1.  This is why when something
> extra is added to the tefila of the day in Shacharis we usually just
> bang on the table to remind everybody because there we are careful to be
> "somech geula l'tfila" (i.e.  not to make a hefsek) but by Ma'ariv we
> are not careful and we make an announcement such as Ya'ale V'yavo etc.

> According to the Rosh those who are careful not to say BHLO because of a
> hefsek lose out anyway because they say Kaddish.

    This is the first time I have ever heard of a potential problem with
Kaddish as a hefsek, but it seems logical once I think about it.  So
thanks, Abe.  Of course, Kaddish is not a problem for those davening as
individuals, so perhaps omitting BHLO indeed eliminates the hefsek for
them, even according to the opinion of the Rosh that Abe quotes.
    There must be other opinions, though.  I say that because in every
(Ashkenaz) shul I've ever been in, banging on the table in lieu of an
announcement is the norm for BOTH shacharit and ma'ariv, in order to
avoid a hefsek in either case.  I don't doubt that some shuls make an
announcement in ma'ariv, but it ought to pointed out that Abe's "we"
does not encompass all of us, probably not even most of us.  Abe is
obviously right that the banging for ma'ariv would make little sense
according to the Rosh, so this opinion can't be the only one.


From: Irwin H. Haut <0005446733@...>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 17:13 EST
Subject: Cheating

With regard to Dr. Juni's recent posting on the Halachah of cheating, I
am constrained to paraphrase him in a related context when someone dared
to challenge him in the area of his expertise and professional opinion,
psychology. As an ordained Rabbi, who received Smichah in 1958, from
Horav Joseph B. Soloveitchik, z"l, it is my considered opinion that all
of the types of activities under discussion are absolutely prohibited
under Halachah. I challange him, or anyone, to provide contemporary
rabbinic sources (even from Conservative or Reform rabbis) that support
cheating and theft, whether from Jews or non-Jews. As we will be
reciting in shul tomorrow: "Her paths are paths of pleasantness, and all
her ways are peace."

Rabbi Irwin H. Haut 

From: Ezra Dabbah <ny001134@...>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 94 22:24:03 -0500
Subject: Cheating

Are jews required to observe the 7 Laws of Noah? One of them is to
set up a judicial system. If jews are required to observe these laws,
then should we say "dina demalchoota halacha"?

Ezra Dabbah


From: "Yitzchok Adlerstein" <ny000594@...>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 94 01:17:54 -0800
Subject: Halacha L'Moshe Mi-Sinai

Dr Aryeh Frimer questions how disputes are found regarding the ordering 
of the parshios [different sections] of tefilin, if so many of the laws 
concerning tefilin are Halacha L'Moshe Mi-Sinai, and Rambam maintains 
that no machlokes [dispute] ever applied to these laws.

The issue is a large one.  For starters, see Shut Chavos Yair # 192, and 
Toras Neviim (Maharat"z Chayes), chapter 4 (pg. 115), especially the 
latter's contention that no machlokes applies to the general law that is 
a Halacha, but can apply to details.


From: David Griboff <TKISG02%<EZMAIL@...>
Date: Fri 29 Jul 1994 16:12 ET
Subject: Kedusha/Kaddish responses

Mordechai Perlman asks:

>In most shuls  when the Chazan says Kedusha he says Kodosh, Kodosh, Kodosh at
>the same time as the Tzibbur.  ( As well as Boruch K'Vod and Yimloch)  Why?

This may have to do with the way it is presented in many Siddurim (prayer
books).  I know that many times I have seen those lines presented with the
phrase "Cong. and Chazzan", which could imply that they should all be
saying the lines together.

However, I have a question about a similar topic: Kaddish.  The last two
words of all of the 'paragraphs' are "V'imru Amein" .And say, Amen.
However, there are many chazzanim who say (out loud) the "V'imru", but
never say the "Amein" part until the rest of the congregation does.  From
a grammatical point of view, this seems to be at odds with the meaning of
what is being said.  The chazzan seems to be saying, "And say, ______", so
therefore, the congregation should not be saying anything.  I have never
seen any Siddur that seemed to imply that the "Amein" should be a
'congregation only' part of the prayer.  Any ideas?

David Griboff


From: <frimer@...> (Aryeh A. Frimer)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 09:43:38 -0400
Subject: Producing Gedolim

	I found Rabbi Prof. Eli Turkel's Analysis about the lack of
First line Gedolim insightful and unfortunately accurate. One must
remember that we now have more Bochurim learning Torah in Yeshivot Then
there ever were in All of Europe at the Height of its glory. Yet first
line gedolim are hard to find.  I believe that there are a few
additional factors. Firstly, this is the first generation in which we
have limud Torah out of wealth. This is clearly a brakha (blessing) but
it has its downside - and that is that there is no fire under people to
learn. Whether you excell or not, whether you batel (waste your time or
not) the Jewish community will support you. Excellence comes from a
"bren" - a fire which forces you to squeeze out the last drop. If it
makes no difference what you do - people don't excel. The outstanding
Yeshivot of Lita, Hevron, Slabodka etc. Couldn't afford to take
everyone. You had to prove yourself to get in and you had to prove
yourself to stay in. Even the mediocre were out after a few years - the
remainder produced the Roshei Yeshiva and poskim of the previous
generation. We have to find some way of encouraging mass limud ha-Torah,
but at the same time select out the promising students. I'm not sure
that the Jewish community can any longer afford to support Bochurim to
sit and Learn ad infinitum - I'm not convinced that it's a good idea
either. Perhaps yatza scharo be-hefseido (we lose more than we gain).
Clearly food for thought and Cheshbon Nefesh.


From: Jonathan Katz <frisch1@...>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 94 14:56:37 EDT
Subject: reference to death?

Eli Turkel writes: 
"the pasuk which mentions "vayihi tov me-od" - the Talmud says that very
good refers to death.

Can someone explain this a little bit more to me? In what way does it 
refer to death? Death of what? (since Man was immortal at that point)

Jonathan Katz
410 Memorial Drive Room 251B
Cambridge, MA 02139


From: Sam Juni <JUNI@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 22:48:59 -0400
Subject: Thinking, Tipping, and Psychopathy

In his post of 7/24/94, Phil Chernofsky comments  on several aspects of my
recent posting.  I shall respond to several of these:

  1. Phil cannot understand why someone would post to this list without
     thinking through all the ramifications.  My attitude is that this is
     a conversational list, where one can rely on others to explore issues
     as they evolve.  A post is not a dissertation or a position paper.

  2. Evoking the spectre of Chillul Hashem with regard to deception, as
     Phil does, is a legitimate response to the suggestion that Torah
     Jews are free to deceive others.  However, this suggestion seems to
     have been divined out of thin air by posters who take the hypothesis
     that Hallacha may not prohibit lying to imply that Hallacha sanctions
     lying.  This leap of illogic is absurd!  How about telling a traffic
     cop that breaking traffic law is OK for Torah Jews since it is not
     prohibited by the Talmud?

  3. Phil mentions Hakarat Hatov as an Hallachic Edict.  Is it so, or is it
     an ethical percept? In addition, the connection of this percept (re-
     gardless of its categorization) to the practice of tipping for extra-
     ordinary personal service is a social connection. It is NOT an a-
     priori ethical mandate.  My point was that I found it remarkable that
     a person whose behavior was outwardly extremely ethical as a rule
     would show such anomalous behavior as soon as he believes Hallacha
     did not apply.  I was not at all concerned evaluating the Hallachic
     validity or invalidity of tipping vs. not tipping.  Nor was I con-
     cerned in my argument about the possibility of Chillul Hashem.  In
      fact, my gut reaction was to say to myself that if, in fantasy,
     G-d would give this guy a one-day reprieve from following Torah, he
      would be a walking terror.

  4. I presented a vignette about a psychopathic Hareidi professional thief
     who aspired to "become a goy" so he could steal without guilt.  My
     point (which I was explicit about) was that the guilt ingrained into
     the youngster was totally Hallacha based, with no room for morality
     at all.  The kid thus felt that since a goy does not see himself as
     bound by Hallacha, and since there is no other basis for ethical
     behavior by a Goy (sic), becoming a goy would solve his problems.
         Phil reacts to this outline by reminding the psychopath and
     myself that non-Jews are bound by Noahide law not to steal, totally
     missing the point of what I said.  The fact that non-Jews are prohibited
     to steal is irrelevant to my argument, and would even be of less inte-
     rest to the psychopath. By no stretch of argumentation does this
     caveat of Noahide law make the youngster's aspiration "pointless in
     addition to ridiculous". In fact, the aspiration makes perfect sense
     from the perspective of a person whose moral system is totally
     circumscribed into a legal doctrine, with no intrisic moral sense
     present.  It is in this context that I argued that such deliniation
     may be implicit in the behavior of some religious Jews whose morality
     is indeed no morality at all, but rather a strict (and admirable!)
      adherence to the laws under "Hilchos Morality."

     Dr. Sam Juni                  Fax (212) 995-3474
     New York University           Tel (212) 998-5548
     400 East
     New York, N.Y.  10003


From: <HEM@...> (Hillel Eli Markowitz)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 1994 01:14:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Yeshivah tuition

In the latest letter from a local Yeshiva the average cost per pupil is
given as over $5,000.  The actual tuition ranges from $2,000 for
nursery, $3950 for elementary, $4300 for middle school, to $4,950 for
high school as well as $500 for the building fund, $500 for the
scholarship fund, and $250 for the banquet.  In addition, many parents
(especially those with more than one child) get tuition reductions.
Thus, the school runs at a deficit each year.  Several of the schools
are regularly faced with the inability to meet their payroll for periods
up to six weeks at a time.  While the amounts may seem a lot, and the
size of the tuition increases seem large, consider a typical automobile
which has increased from $2,000 to $20,000.

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


End of Volume 14 Issue 62