Volume 16 Number 33
                       Produced: Sat Nov  5 20:05:21 1994

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Coffee and Tea on Shabbat
         [Lori Dicker]
Divorce in Israel
         [Shaul Wallach]
Frum in the Army
         [Rabbi Moshe Taragin]
Modern Orthodox
         [David Steinberg]
         [Zvi Weiss]
         [Zvi Weiss]
         [Stan Tenen]
Stan Tenen on the Septuagint
         [Moshe J. Bernstein]


From: Lori Dicker <ldicker@...>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 10:06:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Coffee and Tea on Shabbat

> In Volume 16 Number 24, Connie Stillinger asks about the halachot of
> preparing coffee and tea on shabbat.
> My LOR tells me that there would be no problem for ashkenazim in preparing
> coffee in this way if the water comes from a k'li shlishi.  It would be
> interesting to read an analysis of whether a k'li sheni is permissible.

Last year, in a class on the laws of cooking on Shabbas, we discussed 
this (pouring from a k'li sheni).  What we learned was that pouring from 
a k'li sheni over instant tea or coffee is not permitted because as the 
first few drops of water hit the tea/coffee in the bottom of the cup, a 
cool liquid is formed, and more hot water poured over this mixture is 
like heating (re-heating, actually) the cool liquid, which is also not 
permitted (i'm not sure how the s'fardim hold on this).  But instant tea 
or coffee can be put INTO a k'li sheni.  Since THAT is not an option with 
coffee grounds, I would guess a k'li sheni is NOT permissible.  (but, as 
always, this is by no means a p'sak halacha)

- Lori Dicker


From: Shaul Wallach <F66204@...>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 94 17:26:02 IST
Subject: Divorce in Israel

      Rabbi Yosef Bechhofer asks in regard to divorces in Israel:

>I would like to raise a "quick and dirty" rabbinical solution. Just as
>there is currently one Beis Din and one Chief Rabbi (in Netanya, I
>believe, Rabbi Shloush, a student of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef) that registers
>Ethiopians for marriage, why doesn't the Chief Rabbinate set up a
>"Sefardic" or "Yemenite" Beis Din that will follow the Rambam's ruling
>and force a husband whose wife has simply claimed that she finds her
>husband disgusting to divorce her?

     This would be fine if everyone followed the Rambam, but
unfortunately this is not the case in Israel. Even the Sephardim who
follow the Shulhan `Arukh would not do it. Ashkenazim and Sephardim who
are strict about forcing a Get would not be able to marry a divorcee
whose husband was forced to give the Get, out of doubt that perhaps the
Get is invalid and the woman is still married.

     Now that people have mentioned the new divorce law in New York, I
must say that I don't understand the objections that were raised to it
in the Jewish Observer. Perhaps people more knowledgeable in Even
Ha-`Ezer can explain what it's all about.




From: Rabbi Moshe Taragin <taragin@...>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 21:45:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Frum in the Army

I have been reading with great interest comments about the major  reason 
that charedim stay away from the army is due to the "religious" 
reasons.Having served three years in the U.S. army, I know a thing or two 
about army vs. religion but I do not wish to get into that subject now, 
nor do I wish to open a Pandora's box by discussing the real motives of 
many- if not a majority- of charedi young people for avoiding army 
service. I am always amused by people (WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS) who are 
so CERTAIN of their opinions when they are no more than a knee-jerk 
reaction. I admire and respect a talmid chochum like Dr. Press who at 
least has the internal honesty to think about things, to realize that 
there are two positions to most non-halachic matters, and to realize that 
even tho he believes one way-- in his gut he is troubled. 
  I have close family in Eretz Yisroel in both the charedi and kippah 
seruga world. I have discussed this issue at great length with reasonable 
people on both sides and respect those people who have come to 
intelligent and thought out positions. What surprises me and shocks me is 
that no one has discussed the Hesder program where young men-- many of 
them serious learners of the highest calibre-- serve in the army in an 
integrated yeshiva-army program. These young men have different times 
when they serve-- but always as a group with other b'nei yeshiva. THey 
have minyonim every day as well as shiurim both by fellow soldiers, 
senior people (in terms of torah-learning, not rank), and visiting roshei 
yeshivos. Their entire lives are governed by halacha and torah. This is 
indeed a great kiddush Hashem. Young men return from Hesder fully more 
capable of meeting challenges (spiritual) in the modern world. There are 
volumes of shaalos that these soldiers have written to their various 
roshei yeshivos from training camp all the way to combat zones. 
I am not saying that this is ideal or even good for every ben Torah, but 
it certainly should be given due praise. I feel that one day in the 
future the "black" yeshivos will no longer enjoy blanket exemptions and 
this area will provide a path for charedim to remain in the derech 
Dr. Herbert Taragin


From: David Steinberg <dave@...>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 01:10:17 +0000
Subject: Modern Orthodox

I personally hate labels: orthodox, modern orthodox, torah true, right 
wing, left wing etc.  Why do we need them?  Most people know where they 
are.  So they are used to categorize others:  He's too right wing...she's 
not religious enough..he wears a kippah seruga.. she wears a 
sheitl...black hatter etc.  Often these are used divisively.

To my way of thinking anyone who is a shomer torah and mitzvos and who 
believes that torah is min hashamayim - divine in origin- is orthodox.  

Anyone who does not believe in Torah min hashamaim is not orthodox. They 
might be very Frum Conservative, or maybe Conservodox. 

Someone who believes in Torah min hashamayim but is not shomer mitzvos is 
what my wife calls Orthodox/non-practicing.

I have met very few people who believe they are extremists.  On that 
basis, I postulate that an operant definition of right wing is anyone at 
least one standard deviation more stringent than I am (you are).  Anyone 
one standard deviation less religious is modern orthodox. You and I are 
obviously centrist.

BTW I remember meeting someone who was not impressive at first
meeting. Several weeks later, a good friend of mine told me that the
person, who worked for a tzeddaka, had the organization take Maaser -
tithe her salary - off the top.  This was above and beyond her other
tzeddaka.  One never know do one?


From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 09:53:26 -0400
Subject: Repeating...

Please note that there are some Nuscha'ot (versions of the text) that
use the additional phrase "U'l'ayal" instead of just "L'ayla" which
clearly indicates that the additional word is just that -- an additional
word and NOT just repeating the prev. word.

In general, people should realize that there is a stream of thought in
Halacha and in the Responsa that appear to indicate that the composition
of the Tefilla was done in an exquisitely precise fashion -- down to the
NUMBER of words (and in some cases letters).  By repeating in
"inappropriate" places, there is the idea that one disrupts this
carefully constructed composition of Tefilla.  This ties in with the
idea that there are Kabbalistic "Secrets" embedded in each prayer and
that the prayers were composed with "Ru'ach Hakodesh"...

If one takes those ideas seriously, it would seem to strongly indicate
that one should recite the Tefilla EXACTLY as "given" to us -- except in
those places where we are given EXPLICIT license [e.g., in Shm'a Koleinu
where the Gemara states that one can make any requests that one wishes

This also ties on with the RAMBAM who states that the prayers were
"composed" for the benefit of people who did not know how to "compose"
their own...

Given the above, it seemsa bit presumptuous for a Chazzan to
"repeat".. it seems to indicate that the Chazzan is less concerned with
the prayer and more with fitting everything into the "music".  Remember
that "having a nice voice" is only ONE of the qualifications for a
Chazzan ... the others have to do with purity of reputation, fear of
sin, etc. (at least as far as the High Holy Days are concerned).


From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 22:25:17 -0400
Subject: Repeating....

1. In Kadish (*not Kedusha*)... we do NOT simply repeat "l'eyla"... The
   additional word is considered an actual INSERT to the Kaddish as
   evidenced by the fact that we say "Mikol" instead of "Min Kol" in
   order to keep the overall word-count stable.  The insert is because
   the meaning IS different -- hence the Tefilla, itself, has been

2. The Gemara [in Sukka, among other places] discusses the "doubling" of
   phrases in Hallel.  Rabbi Soloveitchik ZT"L once explained that this
   was done at the end of Hallel (or of Sefer Tehillim) to show that we
   are not really "finished", we just ran out of what to say.  Note that
   in that case, the ENTIRE phrase is repeated...  We do not have single
   words being repeated as often happens in our "modern" liturgy...



From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 16:33:29 -0800
Subject: Roles...

The reasons why there must be men and women include that only Hashem can 
be Unitary and Whole, otherwise, in our reality all wholes must come as 
complementary pairs - like wave and particle in physics.  Unity is said 
to exist only when the "flame is wedded to the coal" (from memory, but I 
can find the reference if needed).  The flame is usually associated with 
the cyclic and (e)motional or spiritual aspect of life and thus it is 
often considered as feminine.  The coal is usually associated with the 
rigid, structural, and physical aspect of life and thus it is often 
considered as masculine.  Adam was (initially) both masculine and 
feminine and a man and wife are considered whole while an unmarried 
person is (usually) not considered to be whole.

Male and Female together represent inside and outside.  This is 
physically true during sexual embrace and it is the basis of the 
embryonic unfoldment that takes place after conception.  The developing 
embryo goes through repetitive inversions between inside and outside.  
Except by mutual complements at every level, it is generally not 
possible to express Unity or Wholeness in this reality.



From: Moshe J. Bernstein <mjbrnstn@...>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 13:44:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Stan Tenen on the Septuagint

1) the full quotation from Soferim 1:8 which you cite correctly concludes 
with the line "she-ein hatorah yekhola lhittargem kol tzorkah," because 
the torah cannot be properly translated, but the yerushalmi states (first 
chapter of megillah, i think, around pp. 19-20 in the "standard" 
yerushalmi edition [the computer room isn't the library]) "she-ein hatorah 
yekhola lhittargem kol tzorkah ella 
yevanit," the torah cannot be properly translated except into Greek! 
once again, it appears that this matter is subject to rabbinic dispute.
2) yes i do dispute what you are claiming about bible and its 
translations, i just didn't choose to comment on it in my correction of 
your data. your assertion that Hazal opposed the Septuagint (or the 
targum hashivim) because it "flattens" the narrative and does not contain 
the mystical messages of the letters of the hebrew is simply not borne 
out by the classical rabbinic texts. i don't think that your inference 
from the zohar is correct, although my statement would be unaffected by 
that fact.
3) your blanket assertion about rabbinic attitudes to translations are 
also called into question by the statement in the yerushalmi about the 
translation of the torah into Greek by Aquila which concludes "veqilsu 
oto veamru lo yofyefita mibnei adam" they praised him and said to him you 
are the most elegant of men (i.e., you have done beautiful work). the 
dilemmas of translators were well-known to Hazal, cf. bKiddushin 49a 
hametargem pasuq ketzurato with the divergent approaches of Rashi and 
Rabbenu Hananel (cited in Tosafot). 
4) the letter of Aristeas _is_ a Jewish work, albeit pseudepigraphic. the 
author pretends to be a non-Jew contemporary with the translation, but 
actually is a Jew writing somewhat later. this is broadly acknowledged in 
the scholarly literature and explains the author's intimate knowledge of 
certain data which a non-Jew would have been unlikely to have. the 
technique of pseudepigraphy, of course, is employed to praise the 
translation and translators via a non-Jew whose words would be taken more 
seriously than a jew's would have been. the question of using such a text 
in a halakhic context has nothing to do with its proper employment in a 
historical context. the evidence of fact which it might contain (after 
filtering out any exaggerations, tendentious statements, and the like) 
can often be utilized to understand both history and the realia of the 
period.  but all of this has nothing to do with the question of biblical 
moshe bernstein


End of Volume 16 Issue 33