Volume 14 Number 63
                       Produced: Tue Aug  2  0:49:29 1994

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Carlebach music
         [Abe Perlman]
Cheating and Cable T.V.
         [Jeff Korbman]
Fragmentary Pesukim, Kiddush
         [Mechy Frankel]
Kosher Plastics
         [Ben Berliant]
popcorn at work
         [Eli Turkel]
Torah vs. G-d's Knowledge
         [Sam Juni]


From: Abe Perlman <abeperl@...>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 94 10:40:46 EDT
Subject: Carlebach music

I've got lots of Shlomo Carlebach tapes but I don't know if they're pre-86 or
not.  One thing I can tell you.  Many of them are dubbed from old tapes and
the sound isn't all that great. Besides I've played them so often.   Below is
a list of all the ones I was able to find presently.

Together with Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach
Nachamu Nachamu Ami
Carlebach Toronto Kumsitz of 1989 (Tape of a private kumsitz)
Carlebach Toronto Kumsitz of 1987 (Also tape of a private kumsitz)
Vehaer Eynenu

Some of my others I never labelled but I later noticed that they re-recorded
them anew.  For instance the tape with his famous V'zocher Chasdei Avos and
also a tape made in '65 which recently I've noticed has been put on CD.

I'm telling you the stores still sell the old Carlebach stuff and they're
starting to put them on CDs.  They also sell new tapes such as Best of
Carlebach I, II, III, IV, and V.  But aside from the stories, the music is
jazzed up.

Mordechai Perlman


From: Jeff Korbman <KORBMANJ@...>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 10:46:58 -0400
Subject: Cheating and Cable T.V.

The discussions regarding the boundaries of cheating/G'navos Daas / and
stealing, remind me of a question that someone once asked that I wasn't
sure how to answer: Is "stealing" cable t.v. considered "stealing" from
a halachic viewpoint?  Let me explain.

Quite a few times I hear of people who move into an apartment where a
cable is left attached to an outlet.  Out of curiosity they plug the
cable into the back of their t.v. to find that - walla - it works; the
cable t.v. company did not shut it off after the previous tennents left
(and that's if the company knew that they were using cable to begin
with).  Is that stealing?  Or does stealing need to be something of
tangible value that one can make a kinyan (aquisition) on?

How about if you pay for cable for one t.v., and you hook up an
extension to a second t.v.?  How about going outside, leaving your
reshut (domain) and hooking up the wiring yourself (i.e. is there a
differene between what you do in your living room vs. the parking lot
telephone poll)?

Is this classic dina d'malchut adina (law of the land)?  How about
chilul hashem?

What is at the crux of the question, at least for me, is the definition
of stealing and dina d'malchut adina - not whether or not television
should be in a jewish home.  The latter is a discussion I belive
mail-jewish has addressed.

Anyhow, those are my questions and I'd welcome all responses.

Jeff Korbman

p.s.  Just for the record, I do not have cable t.v. (cuz I know what my
Highland Park buddies are all thinking - and I'll hear it in shul.)


From: Mechy Frankel <frankel@...>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 14:49:15 -0400
Subject: Fragmentary Pesukim, Kiddush

Mike Grynberg (Vol 14 #55) inquired about a source proscribing the use
of pasuk fragments and how it relates to the vocalization of "yom
hashishi" at the start of kiddush. The source is to be found in Berachos
12b in the midst of a discussion why certain alternative parshios were
not included in the Shema. The formulation there is "kol parsha deposke
moshe rabeinu paskinon, deloa paske moshe rabeinu loa paskinon" which is
interpreted as applying to fragmentary citations.

D. Sperber (in Vol 2 of his Minhagei Yisrael/Mosad Harav Kook) provides
a nice review of the relationship of this principle to Kiddush minhagim
(though I think he slightly misquotes the gemara). The following is a
brief summary from Sperber.

1. First, the reason for prefacing the kiddush with "yom hashishi" at
all, in light of the Mechaber's pesak that one should start with
"Vayichulu..". The Rema's addition of "yom hashishi" (the last two words
of the pasuk previous to the Vayichulu pasuk) allows the four letter
name of God (yud kay vav kay) to be added to the beginning of the
kiddush - by taking the first letter of each of the first four words in
this "expanded" version of kiddush (i.e. first letters of "yom hashish
vayichulu hashamayim")

There are also kabbalistic benefits derived from this addition. e.g the
four letter (tetragrammaton) name of God is now connected with the
seventy two letter name of God which was used to create the world
(recitation of Vayichulu equivalent to bearing witness that God created
the world, it being kabbalistically known that the seventy two letter
name was used to effect this creation by the derash of "olam chesed
yibaneh" i.e. that God used the attribute of chesed (gematria=72) to
create the world). The connection arising through through either a)
noting that the gematria of vayichulu = 72 (again) or, b) the addition
of the two prefatory words now brings the total number of words in
kiddush to seventy two. (35 in Vayichulu pasuk, another 35 in the
kiddush beracha, and 2 from yom hashishi - before you start counting our
current ashkenazi version of kiddush has a few more words than this).

2. The addition of the two extra words from the end of the preceeding
pasuk does however raise the new problem of reciting fragmentary
pesukim. Solutions were then as follows:

a) start yet further back in pasuk 5= origin of the custom to now start
from "vayihi erev - but only quietly - to separate them from the yom
hashishi words which are said loudly since those were really meant to
add on to the following (not preceeding words) as part of hazcaras shaim
hashem viz. paragarph 1.

This still doesn't quite solve the fragment problem, since starting from
vayihi erev is still only the middle not start of the previous pasuk. So
we have; b) the Chasam Sofer - ok to start from vayihi even in middle of
pasuk because it follows an esnachta. and anyway we wouldn't have wanted
to include the beginning of that pasuk for a special reason - since the
first part of the pasuk contains the words "vayar elokim es kol asher
asah vehinei tov me'oad" and "tov me'oad" in midrash chazal (Bereshis
Rabah 9) is a euphemism for death - which shouldn't be remembered as we
usher in the Shabbas.

c) R. Menachem Mendel Kasher - (following Yerushalmi Megila 4b) this
particular half-pasuk fragment has the status of a "pasuk bifenei atzmo"
i.e of a complete separate pasuk.

d) Rashi - In other pesukim in Bereishis 1, e.g. verses 13, 19, 23 -
vayihi erev vayihi boker yom x" does constitute a complete pasuk, we can
confer upon it the status of a complete pasuk here in verse 5, even
though it really isn't.

e) R. Reuven Margolis - the proscription against fragmentation only
applies to citations from the beginnings of a pasuk if cut short before
the whole pasuk is cited, however starting in the middle and continuuing
to the end is perfectly ok. He brings a number of proofs for this by
citing instances where the talmud prescribed articulation of pasuk
fragments starting in the middle) e.g.  Berachos 28b where a "short
prayer" of "hosheia hashem es amcha es sheairis yisrael" is recommended
for travelers in dangerous places - even though this is the last half of
a pasuk in Jeremiah 31.

f) R. Yaacov Emden -(see Bais Yaacov siddur) who, apparently persuaded by the
fragmentation problem, recommends starting kiddush quietly from the very
beginning of pasuk 5, i.e. from vayar elokim.   

3. Much of the kabbalistic discussion in par. 1 also has relevance to
the plethora of standing/sitting minhagim for kiddush - despite the
Rema's clear preference for sitting (in support of the "kevias seudah"
notion - Mishna Berurah). Those who tend to stand would seem to be
following the opinions that the whole of the kiddush is a representation
of the (72 letter) name of hashem - and of course you would stand for
respect. Other variations consider only the first four words as part of
the name of God, or would have one stand only for the vayichulu part
since this is equivalent to bearing witness (and one is required to
stand while bearing witness). Sperber also cites a Sephardi minhag that
only the men stand during kiddush but not the women since they do not
bear witness. Bottom line is that whatever your minhag may be it
probably has al ma lismoch.

Mechy Frankel                            W: (703) 325-1277
<frankel@...>                      H: (301) 593-3949


From: Ben Berliant <C14BZB@...>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 15:50:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Kosher Plastics

	Somewhat chastened, I have to correct one of my earlier posts. 
On 21 Jul, commenting on the subject of Kosher Plastics, I said:

>	Some years ago, Rabbi Gewirtz and Rav Heineman combined to
>create the concept of "Certified Steel" - to certify that steel
>containers (primarily large drums) used in transporting food were free
>from whale oil (or other treif oils) used in the manufacturing process.
>Despite Rav Heineman's backing, the necessity for certified steel was
>not accepted by other Kashrut certifying organizations, and I remember
>reading an impassioned rebuttal of its necessity in the "Jewish
>Homemaker" magazine from the head of the OK (I believe it was still R.
>B. Levy).

	Someone on the net forwarded my remarks to Rabbi Gewirtz, and he
was kind enough to drop off some additional information on the subject. 

	From the information he provided, it seems that Rabbi Levy's
comments (It was Don Levy, of course, not R. Berel Levy z'l) were at the
least injudicious, and in some respects wrong.  Rabbi Gewirtz also
enclosed a copy of a letter by Rabbi Genack of the O-U which expressed
concern about the oils used in the finishing process for steel drums. 

	R. Gewirtz also provided information about the plastics problem,
not all of which I understood. (It was very technical, and it was _very_
late at night -- or early in the morning).  If I understood it
correctly,  the problem is that the chemicals used may (and do) leach
out of the plastic in measurable quantities, and contaminate the food
stored in them.  One of the examples given in the literature was
styrofoam. R. Gewirtz supplied some testing results confirming that this
phenomenon does indeed occur under some conditions.  

	I am more than a little chastened to find that I have fallen
into the precise trap I was trying to avoid:  Namely, leaping to a
conclusion based on reading the popular press.   So I stand corrected on
the facts of the issue, and I am willing to concede that Steel drums
may indeed be coated with non-kosher lubricants, and that non-kosher
chemicals used in plastics manufacture may contaminate food.  What
remains is to see some firm halachic analysis of the issues it raises. 
What are the quantities involved -- and to what extent does this pose a
halachic question? -- In short, precisely what this list was created

	Many years ago, in Rav Weiss' Yoreh Deah class at REITS, the
subject of salt came up.  Rav Weiss asked, "What could be wrong with
salt?"  One of the students was quick to respond, "It could contain
POLYSORBATE-80."  Rebbe said, "So?"  Student:  "Polysorbate-80 can be
made from Treif oils."  Rebbe: "So?"  Student: "The salt can contain
polysorbate-80." Rebbe: "So?"  etc.

	The conversation continued for some time.  As I recall, the
student had some trouble understanding that asserting a fact was
insufficient unless one had analyzed all the halachic implications
inherent in that fact.  

	Which is why I said (and should have told myself as well) CYLOR.

						BenZion Berliant


From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 17:23:25 -0400
Subject: popcorn at work

     I was asked the following question: Some comanies supply a
microwave at work to be used by all the workers in a department. Is
there any problem with using the (treif) microwave to pop popcorn
in a completely closed bag as is sold in many supermarkets?
     Has anyone heard any discussion of any possible problems.



From: Sam Juni <JUNI@...>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 14:13:08 -0400
Subject: Torah vs. G-d's Knowledge

In his post of 7/26/94, Robert Braun writes: "there seems to be an
assumption that G-g is obligated to act on his knowledge. If that were
the case, the Torah itself would be unnecessary."

I could use elaboration. I do not follow the reasoning here.

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


End of Volume 14 Issue 63