Volume 16 Number 9
                       Produced: Tue Oct 25  7:34:20 1994

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

         [Ira Rosen]
         [Martin Stern]
         [Nachum Chernofsky]
No Fire Proof Aron Kodesh from Zomet
Rav Schach
         [Eli Turkel]
         [Jeremy Nussbaum]
Shofar on Shabbat
         [Danny Geretz]
Trick or Treat
         [Aryeh Blaut]
         [Jay Denkberg]
Whey and Caseinate
         [Jeremy Nussbaum]
         [Dr. Mark Press]
Word Relationship
         [Aryeh Blaut]


From: Ira Rosen <irosen@...>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 94 7:57:33 EDT
Subject: Hallowe'en

	The following is the entry under Hallowe'en in Webster's family

	31 Oct., the eve of All Saints' Day.  The name is a contraction of
All Hallows (hallowed or holy) Eve. In Pre-Christian Britain, Oct. 31 was the
eve of New Year, when the souls of the dead were thought to revisith their
homes. After it became a Christian festival[,] supernatural
associations continued and Hallowe'en customs include the shaping of a
demon's face from hollow pumpkin, in which a candle is then placed.
Children wearing disguises, go from door to door on Hallowe'en
demanding "treats" on penalty of "tricks".

	It sounds like a silly holiday to me, but it certainly IS
(according to my source) a religious holiday.



From: Martin Stern <MSTERN@...>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 94 12:52:00 PDT
Subject: Handicapped

There were suggestions for reading [in Vol. 15 #90].  One, a book. and
another was in a journal.  Is there anyone out there who could help with
directions about how these two items might be obtained from a distant
community without adequate library facilities for Jewish studies.

Moshe Stern


From: <F5E017@...> (Nachum Chernofsky)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 94 08:56 O
Subject: Hevron

In response to a recent posting asking about the Cave of the Patriarchs
in Hevron:

This past Shabbat (Parshat Va'yera), my wife and I attended a bar-mitzva
in Kiryat Arba.  On Friday night, we prayed at in the street below the
Cave.  The Cave itself was completely surrounded by police barriers and
access to the Cave was prohibited.  The spiritual experience was still a
very great one.  I left Kiryat Arba filled with admiration for the
wonderful people there who are on the front lines in the battle for
Jewish survival in Eretz Yisrael.  I would recommend to all residents of
Israel to come to Kiryat Arba for Shabbatot (I know of no phone number
to contact) to strengthen the resolve of this much maligned community.
Tourists from abroad should certainly include it in their itinerary.
This coming Shabbat (Parshat Chaye Sara), Hevron is hosting a
country-wide Shabbaton.  I understand that the Cave will open for
business next week.  Nachum Chernofsky


From: Zomet <zomet@...>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 11:02:58 +0200 (IST)
Subject: No Fire Proof Aron Kodesh from Zomet

While I am grateful to A.M. Goldstein for his free publicity, I would
like to clarify that Zomet (more than a decade ago) developed and
markets an alarm system for the Aron Kodesh which does not have to be
deactivated before Shabbat. The alarm system can be installed on any
Aron Kodesh regardless of size or material but there is no fireproofing
feature involved.

Ezra Rosenfeld


From: <turkel@...> (Eli Turkel)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 94 10:08:00 +0200
Subject: Rav Schach

    I would not be so strong as to say that Rav Schach has prohibited
study of the works of Rav Soloveitchik. However, the letters of Rav
Schach are periodically published. In the most recent set (appeared
about a year ago) he has a letter in which he advises the questioner not
to read the halakhic works of Rav Soloveitchik since that might lead him
to read his other works. Other poskim in Brooklyn have explicitly
prohibited reading the works of Rav Soloveitchik.

    I don't know of anywhere where Rav Schach discusses Rav
Kook. However, many others including articles in the Jewish Observer
have prohibited reading the works of Rav Kook.



From: <jeremy@...> (Jeremy Nussbaum)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 94 0:59:28 EDT
Subject: Roles

> >From: <bsegal@...> (Binyomin Segal)
> Janice Gelb questions the ability to generalize about women's & men's
> roles. Her problems are, 1.the exception will be treated poorly as they
> either have to do something they can't or are looked at as weird for not
> doing it. 2.It suggests that a divorced husband is unable to raise his
> family well.
> Imagine a math genius marries. The mathmetician has a lucrative position to
> support the family nicely. The mathmetician dies, and the now poor spouse
> approaches the employer and asks for a job. Would that spouse be insulted
> if they only got a secretarial position for which they barely qualified?
> Would they demand the salary the mathmetician got? I'm sorry to insult you,
> but bottom line - each spouse - man & woman - brings unique advantage into
> the marriage. Giving either up may sometimes be the only option - but it is
> a sacrifice, the other spouse will indeed be "handicapped" (or spousely
> challenged?)

I trust that your use of spouse in the above was intentional; that it
could have been either the wife or the husband who was the
mathematician, and either the husband or the wife offerred the
secretarial position.  If not, what if the wife was the actual math
genius, and the husband just a competent mathematician?  Or perhaps God
does not create female math geniuses?  I am not implying that this is
Binyomin's intent, rather that if one takes that position that women
just don't have open to them the role of
mathematician/scientist/professional, and God does create women who are
exceptionally talented in those areas, what should those women do?  And
if it never occurs, does that mean that women are deficient in e.g. math
skills etc.?

Jeremy Nussbaum (<jeremy@...>)


From: starcomm!imsasby!dgeretz (Danny Geretz)
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 94 16:20:27 EDT
Subject: Shofar on Shabbat

In volume 15, number 95, Arthur Roth poses a hypothetical question:

>     All the above leads to an interesting hypothetical question.
>Suppose there had NOT been a rabbinic edict about shofar, and suppose
>the shofar had been mistakenly left on Shabbat in a home from which it
>could be carried to shul without passing through a r'shut harabim
>d'oraita.  Would it have been prohibited, permissible but not necessary,
>or required to carry it to shul?  On a more abstract level, is it
>prohibited, permissible, or required to violate a negative RABBINIC
>commandment if this is necessary in order to fulfill a positive TORAH
>commandment?  Sounds like the kind of thing I must have learned at some
>time or other, but if I did, I have no recollection of it.

Off the top of my head, I seem to recall that the reason for not
blowing shofar on Rosh Hashanah when it falls on Shabbat is not because
one might mistakenly leave the shofar at home and then need to carry it
(this being necessary to fulfill the mitzvah). The reason it was prohibited
is that shofar blowing is considered a "skilled craft" (I think the word
used was "omnut"), and someone, hearing the shofar on Shabbat, would be son
interested in learning how to do it that they would carry the shofar on
Shabbat (this not being necessary to fulfill the mitzvah).

Maybe I'm wrong -- I'll try to find what I saw and  where I saw it (most
likely somewhere in Mishnayot Rosh Hashana which I learned a while back) 
and report back to the list at some future time.

Danny Geretz


From: Aryeh Blaut <ny000592@...>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 94 00:17:46 -0800
Subject: Re: Trick or Treat

>>From: <CHERYLHALL@...> (Cheryl Hall)
>Christian schmistian, Pagan schmagen!  The only people I know who
>consider Halloween a "religious event" are those who refuse to
>participate for "religious" reasons -- some observant Jews and
>fundamentalists Christians and maybe a few WICCA practioners, who are
>offended by witches costumes :>.

It is my understanding of Jewish Law that it doesn't make a difference 
how the holiday is presently celebrated, we have to go back to the roots 
of the holiday.

According to your arguement, we should be joining our non-Jewish
neighbors on December 25 because so many people use it as a day to give
gifts to each other and not as a "religious holiday".

Aryeh Blaut


From: <JDENKBERG@...> (Jay Denkberg)
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 12:37:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Wheelchair

A few years ago a person in my neighborhood started to use a special
mechanized wheelchair that was okay for use on shabbos.  To avoid, maris
ayin, the rabbi of the community gave a special class on the how it
worked and why it was okay to use on shabbos.

Even for those that did not attend the class, the announcement of the
class alone made it quite clear to everyone in the neighborhood that
there was absolutely nothing wrong with what this person was doing.

If I remember correctly, the class was given, either the shabbos before
or the very first shabbos that the special wheelchair was in use.


From: <jeremy@...> (Jeremy Nussbaum)
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 94 13:21:59 EDT
Subject: Whey and Caseinate

> >From: Joshua Proschan <0004839378@...>

> is pareve.  The reason is that the whey and caseinate are pogum
> (foul tasting), and are therefore classified as not fit to eat.  Thus
> the product does not become dairy, even though those ingredients are
> derived from dairy sources.

This is very interesting.  I do not take issue with the analysis, but am
very curious who else rules in this fashion.  I am aware of many food
items considered dairy because of whey and caseinates in the
ingredients, and not aware of any other items considered pareve in spite
of their inclusion.  Does anyone know of any other food items where the
certifying agency rules in this fashion?

Jeremy Nussbaum (<jeremy@...>)


From: Dr. Mark Press <PRESS@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 94 23:19:40 EST
Subject: Wifebeating

Rabbi Haut noted that "despite the apologetics poured on the subject of
wife beating, any fair-minded student...must conclude that the absolute
and utter propriety of the beating or flogging of a wife by her husband
is supported by eminent authorities.." One can hardly agree with such a
statement unless the words "absolute and utter" are used in ways that
anyone as skilled in using language as Rabbi Haut could never agree to.
If he means that there were eminent authorities who permitted striking a
wife to prevent her from sinning severely when other approaches were
unavailable he is absolutely correct, even though there is no evidence
supporting his statement that "these views predominated".  Authorities
also permit the use of physical force in training children and students,
even adult students; as I noted previously, there are even some who
permit any reprover to use force if necessary.  This is nonetheless
quite different from what is usually referred to as wifebeating and has
nothing to do with the unique status of women.  Rabbi Haut is wrong in
asserting that this was Maimonides view and the "support s" he cites are
not such at all.
   1. The claim that the language "we force" clearly refers to the
husband is nothing more than a repetition of his position.  In fact, it
is implausible tha t the plural form should be used for the husband,
particularly since the Rambam continues in the rest of the paragraph and
the next to talk about a judg e.
   2. The argument from the language of the Ravad is in support of the
above, not as Rabbi Haut would have it. If the Ravad were talking about
the husband in the first clause as well as the second he would have had
no reason to phrase his statement "I never heard of the flogging of
women with whips but he(the husband) reduces..." He would have said
"Inever heard of the husband flogging but..."
   3. That the Maharshal interpreted the Rambam as does Rabbi Haut is
not evidence for what the Rambam held, both because of the disagreement
of others with Maharshal as well as our lack of knowledge of the
Maharshal's version of the Rambam's text.
   Aside from the Rambam's view, it is clear that even Rabbi and
Mrs. Haut are aware that the view of the majority of later authorities
was not in support even of those views that permitted striking by the
husband for serious offenses or the view of the Rambam that a court
could compel the woman to fulfill her contractual obligations through
physical force.
   There is a not much of a difference between the the distortions of
apologeti cs and the distortions of those who have a political agenda to
force upon the sources.  In this connection I would take issue with
Dr. Woolf who notes that "Rivka Haut is being outrageous in a just
cause."  Dishonesty is never a justifiable basis for argument and I
would argue that it weakens the justness of a cause.  While I have only
anecdotal data, I do know both from patients of mine who have consulted
Mrs. Haut and from rabbonim and botei din having to deal with her
organization that at times the cause of the women has been hurt by the
intensity of Mrs. Haut's convictions that allow her to see only one side
of an issue.
  I was surprised that Marc Shapiro thought that Naomy Grtaetz knows
what she is talking about.  I sent a post indicating that she
misunderstood almost all the sources she quotes and I see that Yaakov
Menken preceded me in pointing that out. I have to assume that Marc
didn't have time to look at the sources.

M. Press, Ph.D.                  718-270-2409
Dept. Of Psychiatry
SUNY Health Science Center At Brooklyn
450 Clarkson Avenue, Box 32       Brooklyn, NY 11203
Acknowledge-To: <PRESS@SNYBKSAC>


From: Aryeh Blaut <ny000592@...>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 94 23:25:17 -0800
Subject: Word Relationship

A student asked me the following question:

What is the connection between the shoresh (root) ches, ziyen, reish
(return) and the animal chazir (pig)?

Any thoughts?


Aryeh Blaut


End of Volume 16 Issue 9