Volume 15 Number 28
                       Produced: Thu Sep 22 23:42:31 1994

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

         [Avi Feldblum]
Another comment re eruvim
         [Constance Stillinger]
death of a good friend
         [B Lehman]
         [Pinchus Laufer]
         [Shalom Carmy]
Mazal Tov! It's A Boy!
         [Dan Goldish]
Misheberachs for sick
         [Aleeza Esther Berger]
Shabbat is Holiest Day?
         [David Curwin]
Shemot in Foreign Letters
         [Michael Shimshoni]
Succah Problems
         [Ari Shapiro]
The Paradox concerning Amalek
         [Ronnie Schreiber]
Wedding Gift Ideas
         [Rob Slater]


From: mljewish (Avi Feldblum)
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 94 23:37:13 EDT
Subject: Administrivia

I think we are back in business now. I'll be trying to get out a bunch
of the shorter postings first, working my way up to the longer
ones. I'll keep you all informed of the status of things but I expect
that we should have a smoother time of things now. Some of the commands
that you can send to the listproc (new name for what was the listserv)
have changed somewhat. I'll get out details on that over the next few
days, as well update the the .welcome file.

Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator


From: Constance Stillinger <cas@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 10:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Another comment re eruvim

Personal chumrot can eventually become community ones.  A personal
chumra at least makes it appear that the person who takes it on would
prefer others to do so too.

In this case, if a community decides not to hold by eruvim, then mothers
(who are usually the prime caretakers for children, since their husbands
have an obligation to daven with the community) and small children are
unnecessarily confined to home.  It seems to me that imposing
unnecessary hardships on mothers and small children does nothing for the
sanctity of Shabbat.

May we all be inscribed for life and peace,

Dr. Constance A. (Chana) Stillinger    <cas@...>
Research Coordinator, Education Program for Gifted Youth
Stanford University


From: <BLEHMAN@...> (B Lehman)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 94 11:35:13 PDT
Subject: death of a good friend

  Unfortunately there is a need to take advantage of this forum to be
the bearer of bad news.
  Dorit Shani (name changed to Lea) passed away this morning after a
long battle with lung cancer.
  The relevance to the M.J. readers is that over the years a lot of
people have passed through Kibbutz Shaalvim and one of the outstanding
people who is remembered by all is Lea. She "adopted" all he temporary
residents on he kibbutz, and I am sure a lot of people remember Lea.
   The shiva will start after SUCCOT in Kedumim. If any body would like
to pass a message or memories should send direct to me and I will pass
it on to the family.

   SHENISHMA RAK BESOROT TOVOT.... may we hear only good news.


From: <plaufer@...> (Pinchus Laufer)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 08:57:00
Subject: Re: Excedrin

Art Werschutz recommends Excedrin to prevent caffeine withdrawal.  This
makes perfect sense as (I believe) Excedrin contains caffeine.  


From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 01:12:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: G[-]d

David Phillips tells of a Gentile woman who thought that the hyphen in 
"G-d"  stood for the profane dash "G----dm" I have several times received 
letters from pious Christians who hyphenate just like the Jews. The first 
few times I suspected them of being missionaries and, truth be told, I am 
still a bit wary of the phenomenon.

While the practice of hyphenating in English is not obligatory, Rabbi 
Bleich in an old column, stresses that it is not a worthless custom.



From: Dan Goldish <GOLDISH@...>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 22:56:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Mazal Tov! It's A Boy!

SONrise happened for us at 1:25pm today (Shabbos) in Boston.
I just knew if the baby was born today, it'd be a boy.  Why?
Because of the age old adage: the best MAIL arrives on Shabbos!
(A girl would've been born Sunday, since they don't deliver MAIL then)
B"H, mother and son are fine getting ready for new TV series
called: My Three Sons.

Dan and Annie Goldish
Boston, Mass.


From: Aleeza Esther Berger <aeb21@...>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 14:28:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Misheberachs for sick

In response to my comment (and suggestions for remedying the problem) 
that women often are not given an opportunity to submit names of the sick 
for misheberachs, Yechiel Pisem wrote that the entire custom of 
misheberachs on Shabbat is problematic.  I checked with Yechiel and found 
out that his comment was not addressed to the entire problem of length 
(i.e. that maybe people should consider not submitting names, because 
anyway maybe we shouldn't be saying the misheberachs on Shabbat)
but only to women, i.e. that women should not mind that we cannot submit 

I do not understand the reasoning behind this point of view.  First, 
women who wish to submit a name during the week cannot do so.
Thus the problem is not limited to Shabbat.  Second, misheberachs for 
sick are in fact said on Shabbat.  (If Yechiel was suggesting to do away 
with them, I would understand his reasoning, but that is not what he 
said.)  Why should some people be more entitled to submit names than others? 
People of both genders know people who are sick.  

In ma'ariv after Rosh Hashana, I said a prayer (yehi ratson) for 
a relative who has been sick, as I usually do for this person.  I then found 
out that he had died on Rosh Hashana.  He was 90 years old, and a 
survivor of the 1929 Hebron massacre.  The opportunity to say a prayer 
for a sick person should be based on the person who is sick (anyone who 
is sick deserves a prayer said for them), not on the basis of the gender 
of the person who wishes to say the prayer.

Aliza Berger


From: <6524dcurw@...> (David Curwin)
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 20:05:59 EDT
Subject: Shabbat is Holiest Day?

 In an AP report about Israel preparing for Yom Kippur, the reporter
stated that Yom Kippur is often mistakenly identified as Judaism holiest
day, but Shabbat really is. Does anyone know the source of this? I always
heard that Purim and Yom Kippur were considered the holiest days (although
I don't remember the source). 

David Curwin		      Bnei Akiva's Shaliach to the Net
904 Centre St.          List Owner of B-AKIVA on Jerusalem One
Newton, MA 02159                   <6524dcurw@...>
617 527 0977          Why are we here? "L'hafitz Tora V'Avoda"


From: Michael Shimshoni <MASH@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 94 10:28:36 +0200
Subject: Shemot in Foreign Letters

I wish to comment only on one point in Norman Tuttle's learned article
on  several issues,  including  "Shemot" (15.27),  which  says at  the

>2) Shemot: That which was stated regarding attributes or names of G-d
>which are written in a language besides Hebrew not requiring Geniza is
>only Dat Echad and is actually subject to Mackloket (dispute).

I am sure, and Tuttle's article shows it, that there is a dispute on the
matter.  I just would like to state, that one of the first perhaps who
used a foreign language and foreign letters to discuss Halakhic and
related matters, namely Rabbi S.R. Hirsch, while obviously most careful
with Shemot when writing them in Hebrew, in the German text he
consistently uses the word Gott, without any changes.  If the above is
"Dat Echad", it was quite some important "Echad".

 Michael Shimshoni


From: <m-as4153@...> (Ari Shapiro)
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 94 19:51:48 -0400
Subject: Succah Problems

The Gemara in Succah (21b) has a dispute whether you are allowed to
be m'aamid (rest,support) the schach(roof of the succah) on something
that is m'kabel tumah(can become ritually impure).  This dispute is 
very relevent nowadays when many people have canvas succah's.
The succah is made of a metal frame with canvas hung from the frame.
The schach rest on top of the poles.  This creates a problem that the
schach is resting on something that is mekabel tumah.  There is a 
machlokes rishonim and acharonim how to pasken the Mishna Brura
at the end of Siman 630 says it is not a problem while the Chazon Ish
is stringent.  Many people try to address this problem in the following 
way.  They put wood boards across the succah and rest the schach on
them.  What this is supposed to do is make the davar hamekabel tumah
a m'aamid d'maamid(indirect supporter) of the schach.  However this is
questionable for the following reason.  The wood boards that you are 
putting are themselves kosher schach (otherwise its pointless) so in
reality we should say they are schach and resting on something that is
mekabel tumah and no good.  Also since they are schach you can't say
the boards are  supporting the schach they are part of the schach.  
The only way this helps is if we assume the following.  The Ran claims
that the prohibition of being maamid the schach on a davar hamekabel
tumah is that we are worried you will use the supporting material next
year for schach, therefore he says that stone since everyone knows it is
no good for schach because it doesn't grow from the ground was never
prohibited.  The same logic applies to metal.  Also, the Ran says a Heker
(symbolic action) is enough so maybe putting up boards and resting the
schach on them would be enough of a heker.  However, Rashi and many 
other Rishonim hold that the gezera is that whatever is resting on something
that is mekabel tumah becomes schach pasul(not good) and therefore neither 
leniency of the Ran would apply.  The bottom line is that according to the
Chazon Ish just about every succah with non-wood walls is no good because
the schach is resting on a material that is mekabel tumah.  The Mishna Brura
however is lenient.

Ari Shapiro


From: <RonnieS153@...> (Ronnie Schreiber)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 94 01:31:59 EDT
Subject: The Paradox concerning Amalek

I once asked my Rabbi, R. Avraham Jacobovitz, a similar question. On one
hand we are obligated to "m'cho emche et zecher amalek" [obliterate the
memory of Amalek] (Sh'mot 17:14, cf. also Devarim 25:19), and on the
other hand we are simultaneously obligated to "zachor et asher asah
l'cha amalek" [remember that which Amalek did to you] (Devarim
25:17). How can one simultaneously remember what they did while blotting
out their memory.

Rabbi J. told me that every culture has some things of value, art and
music and the like, parents loving their children, schools and cultural
institutions etc. But what do we know about Amalek? Do we know about
their art and literature and music? No! All we know about them is that
they did evil things to B'nai Yisrael. So, by remembering only that
which they did to us we have effectively blotted out their memory as a

I should add that as a modern example of this that if I say the word
Germany, most mj'ers (and other Jews) will not think about Beethoven and

kol tuv
g'mar tov
Ronnie Schreiber


From: <slater@...> (Rob Slater)
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 09:48:17 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Wedding Gift Ideas

	A very good friend of mine is getting married (G-d willing) in
October in London.  She is a friend of mine from Chicago who is
registered in several stores in Chicago and London.  Unfortunately, I do
not live anywhere near these stores.  Thus, I am on my own in terms of
picking out a gift.

	I would like to get something "Jewish" but very common items
like Shabbos candlestick holders and Mezuzah cases are out because
invariably someone in the Kallah (Bride) or Hazon's (Groom's) family
will have thought of this.

	Does anyone out in Mail-Jewish land have any ideas?  I am
looking for something that will be special and nice, but at the same
time functional.  I am looking to spend about $100.

Shana tova,

 Rob Slater (<slater@...>)


End of Volume 15 Issue 28