Volume 17 Number 19
                       Produced: Mon Dec 12 22:38:16 1994

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

About Sherut Leumi
         [Dvorah Art]
         [Avi Feldblum]
         [Zvi Weiss]
Fri. Night/Chanukah
         [Chaya Ochs x7553]
Fundamentals of Yahadus
         [David Steinberg]
Grape juice
Martial Arts and Halacha
         [Joshua Proschan]
Midrash on Martial Arts
         [Joel Goldberg]
The very first syag? (was Playing Telephone with Oral Law)
         [Michael Shimshoni]


From: <DVORAH@...> (Dvorah Art)
Date: Tue,  6 Dec 94 18:14 +0200
Subject: RE: About Sherut Leumi

There is at least one haredi version of sherut leumi, called "Shnat
Hesed" run by Yad Sarah in Jerusalem. A friend's daughter did her year


From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 22:31:40 -0500
Subject: Administrivia

I have uploaded the file of most of the replies that had come in about
the list prior to my earlier message to the mail-jewish ftp area as the
file ~ftp/israel/lists/mail-jewish/future. I'll try and get it on the
email listserv as future sometime within the next day or two. Any
replies that may not be there are not due to editorial picking, but more
likely that I did not get it during the period I was collecting the
responses into the file.

Those interested in being on the editorial board should send me
mail. Trying to subscribe to mjboard will fail, that list is set as

Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator
<mljewish@...> or feldblum@cnj.digex.net


From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 12:38:26 -0500
Subject: Chanuka

I was not going to comment but ...

The D'var Tora mentioned here that the true "cause for celebration"
was the military victory but the "oil miracle" was the point the "proved"
that the military victory was miraculous... was an item that I recall
hearing many years ago from Avi Feldblum's FATHER when he spoke at YU
(on a Shabbat Chanuka, I believe.....).

[Kol Ha'omer davar b'shem omro....]

Now, if we could impose on Rabbi/Dr./Prof. Feldblum to contribute once in
a while....... [I'm working on it. My sister is going to visit him
shortly, and I'll try and prevail on one of our Bar Ilan or Petach
Tikveh members who is a computer friendly to figure out what he needs to
get connected. That at least will be step A. Avi Feldblum, Mod.]



From: <cto@...> (Chaya Ochs x7553)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 07:44:57 +0500
Subject: Fri. Night/Chanukah

While Chanukah is still fresh in our minds and under discussion (and
some of us have yet to clear away the menorahs from our windowsills),
I'd like to pose another interesting question that came up around our
Shabbos Chanukah table.

We learn that since the mitzvah of Ner Chanukah is "pirsumei nissim" -
publicizing a miracle, one is required to sell the clothes off their
back if they do not have candles in order to buy some for Chanukah. We
also learn that on Erev Shabbos Chanukah if you only have enough candles
for for one - either Chanukah or Shabbos Lecht, you use the candles for
Shabbos since one purpose of Ner Shabbos is Shalom Bayis. However, there
is no requirement to sell your clothes if there are no candles for

So here's the question - if there are no candles for Chanukah and it is
erev Shabbos - are you required to sell your clothes for candles when
you know they will have to be used for Shabbos (where there is no
requirement to sell your clothes)?

Chaya Ochs


From: David Steinberg <dave@...>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 20:47:15 +0000
Subject: Fundamentals of Yahadus

 In Stan Tenen's post 'Comments on "Flood and Mesorah"', in mj 17#15, he 

> ...  IF the finding that the Hebrew letters are generated by a model
> hand in the form of a Tefillin strap bound on our hand is correct,
> then how is it that this knowledge is not available either from our
> current teachers, or from our current understanding of what our past
> sages taught?  If the Hebrew letters come from a Tefillin strap
> specified in B'reshit, why don't we know about it?
> Two choices:
> 1. This theory is incorrect.
> 2. This theory is essentially correct.  (This is still a work in 
> progress, and the qualification is necessary.)
> If the answer is 2, what explanation is possible?  How could so basic a 
> teaching have become lost?  

There is a third possibility that Stan refuses to consider or recognize:  
that the methodology, while interesting, is not fundamental to anything.  

'We'  don't know it because its not important.  We may not know it 
because it is not Torah.

I'll admit my bias.  I believe that Torah is the product of messorah --
the passing down from teacher to pupil, from father to son, grandmother 
to grandaughter, the accumulated learning and tradition of Clal Yisroel.  

The Talmud Chacham's version of 'prove it' is generally "Vee shtait 
gershriben" ? (where is it written?)  Show me the Gemorah that says it... 
how can you read it into Rashi.. Under what circumstances does the Mechaber
pasken that way.  Coming up with a chidush (original thought) is wonderful
but to be machaven a Rosh's Kasha or a Ritva's Teretz (question or answer 
by earlier authorities) is possibly even better.

While Torah includes astronomical information, not all astronomy is 
torah. Ditto bilogogy.  And for all I know, Ditto the Topology of 
Tefillin Straps.

I am uncomfortable with the way Stan implicitly positions his work as 
fundamental to understanding Torah.  So much so, that the Ramban *must* 
have known it.    

I am skeptical of new discoveries.  More skeptical still, of way that 
Stan positions his work as central to understanding Torah, as the key to 
understanding earlier works.

I believe that if the tefillin strap and its relationship to the alef 
bais  were fundamental we would have such a messorah.  The fact that 
there is no such messorah identified, means that this is NOT fundamental.

Finally, I urge Stan to recognise that there is a huge amount of Torah 
out there for us to learn.  Chumash, Navi, Mishnah, Talmud Bavli, Talmud 
Yerushalmi, Medrashim, Rishonim, Achronim, Chassidus, Mussar ... and 
forgive those of us who chose to focus our attention on learning 
traditional sources rather than joining his efforts.

For me at least, some of Stan's assertions would be easier to accept if his 
claims were less extravagent. 

Dave Steinberg


From: <karena@...>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 15:40:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Grape juice

A few weeks ago I was asked a question which prompted me to do some
research into a subject I had always taken for granted.  I was asked if
Kedem grape juice was mevushal even if it is not marked mevushal.  My
initial responce was that I hed never noticed that any of the grape
juice was maked mevushal...  but that I had never seen anyone question
its status as mevushal.  I asked a local rov and he said he did not
know...  so I started to look into it myself.  The seemingly simple
question became more and more complex as time went on.  Some of Kedem's
grape juice (in the 1L bottles) is marked mevushal.  I called Kedem and
after a week of half answers I talked to Ilan at the bottling plant in
Milton, NY (phone # 914/236-4281) and was told that only the 1L bottles
are boiled to the temperature that makes them halachikly mevushal.
During the same day I talked to the R"Singer at OU(phone # 212/563-4000)
and was told that all grape juice is mevushal, other wise it would be
wine, and that only the Chasidim have a problem with the bottles of
grape juice that are not marked mevushal.  During this time I talked to
several "Chassidishe" Rabbayim about this issue and they were supprised
and concerend about the fact that all of the Kedem grape juice was not
boiled to the proper temperature...  but none of them had heard about
this problem before.  I was wondering if anyone knew where I could find
more information or had any insights about this and I thought that this
might be a good place to raise an awareness about the fact that maybe
grape juice should not be taken for granted as mevushal.  CYLOR

				    Liba __/\__
					   \/	<liba@...>


From: Joshua Proschan <0004839378@...>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 00:40 EST
Subject: re: Martial Arts and Halacha

In mail.jewish Vol. 16 #97 Joseph Steinberg <steinber@...> 
comments on my posting: 

>:    There are mitzvos concerning protecting one's health and well-being
>:that must be considered.  
>:     {examples omitted}
>:Joshua Proschan
>Are you saying that one should 'protect his health and well being' by NOT 
>studying martial arts. I think that most logical people would claim the 
>exact opposite!

    No.  I am saying that one should be careful, in seeking to improve 
one's health, to avoid practices that can damage it.  How can someone 
'protect his health and well being' by causing permanent damage to 
himself?  What has he gained if he avoids possible injury in a fight by 
suffering repeated muscle, joint, and bone damage in training? 
    This applies more broadly than the martial arts.  Improperly done, 
aerobic dance exercise can be harmful.  Improperly adjusted Nautilus 
machines can cause joint damage.  Improper technique with free weights 
can cause severe injuries.  Blindly picking a school of martial arts can 
be equally harmful.  
    This does not mean avoiding the martial arts.  It does mean using 
common sense in selecting a school and instructor.

Joshua Proschan.


From: <goldberg@...> (Joel Goldberg)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 13:03:46 +0200 (WET)
Subject: Midrash on Martial Arts

Gad Frenkel <0003921724@...> wrote
>         ..a Midrash (this is from memory so please forgive any
> inaccuracies) that says smething about some fight that one of the
> brothers had with some of Yosef's soldiers and how Yosef downed the
> brother with a kick which was recognized as a kick from the house of
> Yaakov.
  Midrash tanchuma. When shimon is left behind as a hostage, he fells 70
of yosef's chayalim with a shout that knocks them all down and breaks
their teeth. Menashe then knocks shimon down. Later on, (in Vayigash)
Yehuda shouts and turns peoples faces around on their heads,
permanently. And you all thought that the Exorcist was bitul torah.


From: Michael Shimshoni <MASH@...>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 94 16:08:22 +0200
Subject: The very first syag? (was Playing Telephone with Oral Law)

<ask@...> (Art Kamlet) describes a "very first game":
>The very first game of telephone tag:
>G-d to Adam:    Don't eat the fruit of that tree.
>Adam to Eve:   (unrecorded)
>Eve to Serpent: Don't eat or touch the fruit of that tree.

Perhaps we have here the very first case of making a "syag laTorah"?  :-)

 Michael Shimshoni


End of Volume 17 Issue 19