Volume 17 Number 27
Produced: Thu Dec 15 21:41:39 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
"Chol Hamoed" book
[Jeff Mandin]
Abortion question
[Jonathan Katz]
Codes Article
[Andy Goldfinger]
Grape Juice
[Zvi Weiss]
Is Kedem Grape Juice mevushal?
[Akiva Miller]
Learning First Aid
[Eli Turkel]
Payment for Work on Shabbos
[Stan Tenen]
Stan Tenen's work
[Meylekh Viswanath ]
Washing Feet in Chumash (2)
[Gilad Gevaryahu, Rachel Rosencrantz]
Woman Answering Questions of Jewish Law
[Michael J Broyde]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeff Mandin <jeff@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 13:27:28 -0500
Subject: "Chol Hamoed" book
The book "Chol Ha-moed" by R. Zucker and R. Francis states that the 39
melachot [labors] of Shabbat are prohibited on Chol Hamoed unless there
is a specific heter[exemption] (a major loss etc.).
The only reference the authors give for this is the Shulchan Aruch itself
(which is ambiguous, IMHO). In the Hebrew appendix they mention the
gemara and Rashi on Moed Katan 2b that indicate that only burdensome
labor [tircha] is prohibited, and quote the Ravyah and Shibolei Haleket
in favor on the lenient view, but give no source that supports the strict
ruling that they give in the English text.
Can anyone supply me w/ a source that supports the strict view, or shed
any light on the issue?
- Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonathan Katz <frisch1@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 13:10:38 EST
Subject: Abortion question
Eric Jaron Stieglitz writes:
"One person mentioned that in the case of abortion, the Shevah Mitzvot
B'nei Noach seem to suggest that non-Jews have a greater prohibition against
abortion than Jews do."
Could somebody please explain this a little more clearly? Is this true?
[I'm pretty sure that this is correct, and has been discussed here in
the past (one side effect of my move to digex is that I don't the full
archives here on digex, and I need to get a PC for mail-jewish so I can
store the full archives on my local PC). A often not realized result is
that if a Jewish woman is allowed/supposed (and I'm pretty sure that
issue was also discussed) to have an abortion, she should get a Jewish
doctor to perform the abortion, as it is forbidden (as I understand it)
for a non-Jew to perform an abortion, even one that is permitted to a
Jew. Mod.]
Jonathan Katz
<frisch1@...>
410 Memorial Drive, Room 241C
Cambridge, MA 02139
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Goldfinger <andy_goldfinger@...>
Date: 15 Dec 1994 12:56:18 U
Subject: Codes Article
It's been published! After years of waiting, the Torah Codes article is
now in print. The reference is:
D. Witztum, E. Rips and Y. Rosenberg; "Equidistant Letter Sequences in
the Book of Genesis;" Statistical Science, Volume 9, Number 3,
pp. 429-438, August 1994.
Also -- see the introduction to the article written by the journal
editor on page 306.
-- Andy Goldfinger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 09:17:13 -0500
Subject: Grape Juice
Please note that there is a disagreement among Poski, as to what
constitutes "Mevushal" -- One opinion states that it must be BOILED (or
very very close to that temperature) while the other states that
pasteurization is sufficient. This has ramificaitons for wine -- both
in temrs of Non-Jews handling such wine as well as for Kiddush -- for
those who wish to be stringent and NOT make kiddush on "cooked wine".
The Kedem People follow the P'sak that BOILING is required to render
wine "mevushal". CYLOR.
--Zvi.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Keeves@...> (Akiva Miller)
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 01:36:56 -0500
Subject: Is Kedem Grape Juice mevushal?
In MJ 17:19, Liba raises some concern and confusion over which of Kedem's
grape juices are considered mevushal (cooked). I believe this confusion stems
from a disagreement among the rabbis about the temperature at which wine
attains the mevushal status.
I now quote from the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, published
by the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School, volume 14, Fall 1987, pages 80-81, from an
article by Rabbi Israel Poleyeff: "R. Moshe Feinstein... concludes that to
eliminate the possibility of yayin nesech, the wine need only be heated to a
temperature of 165 F. ... The Tzelemer... Rebbe's view is... 190 F and wines
under his kashruth certification which are mevushal are heated to that
level."
I have read in several places (I am unfortunately unable to find them right
now) that the smaller bottles of Kedem grape juice are heated to a
temperature between 165 and 190 degrees, rendering them mevushal according to
R Feinstein, but not according to the Tzelemer Rav. What complicates this
matter further is that Kedem is supervised by both the OU (which tends to
follow R Feinstein's decisions) and also by the Tzelemer Rav! Thus, you get
two opposing answers, depending of which of the two you ask, both of which
are legitimate and authoritative!
If you have this in mind when you reread Liba's post, you will understand it
in a whole new light.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <turkel@...> (Eli Turkel)
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 14:33:17 +0200
Subject: Learning First Aid
Shmuel-Weidberg states:
>> It seems that if you would be spending the time learning
>> torah, then learning first aid would be bitul Torah.
I recall once seeing a statement of the Rogachover that it was a
mitzva to learn medicine to help others. I assume he was talking about
learning first-aid and not attending medical school
<turkel@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 19:54:36 -0800
Subject: Payment for Work on Shabbos
Bobby Fogel asked for comments on his posting, m-j 17,21. In my
experience, I must agree with him: "I maintain, also, that legal
fictions like this are quite detrimental to orthodoxy being accepted by
many secular Jews." This type of seeming hypocrisy did deter me from
any serious interest in Judaism when I was younger (and perhaps
unrealistically idealistic.) It currently deters many of my Jewish
mathematician and scientist friends. We do need to support our
(Shabbos) teachers, but we should not make use of shortcuts and half-
truths if we want to gain the respect of the more perceptive persons we
are trying to reach. The average person will not notice the problem,
but the perceptive and idealistic person will. This means that if we
use methods we must apologize for, we will, in effect, be filtering out
the best and the brightest and loading Jewish learning with less
perceptive and less idealistic minds. Tragically this, in effect, can
pit the average, dedicated Torah Jew against the Torah Jew (or potential
Torah Jew) with an exceptional mind - the exceptional can easily be out-
shouted because of their minority status. In its extreme, mediocrity
can triumph to the detriment of true Torah learning. I believe that
this is partly why we sometimes have different rebbes attacking each
other and why so many Jews are not interested in orthodox Judaism.
B'Shalom,
Stan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meylekh Viswanath <PVISWANA@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 10:29:49 EST5EDT
Subject: Re: Stan Tenen's work
In reply to some of his critics, Stan reproduces for us, a haskome from
R. Gedaliah Fleer, a former colleague of R. Aryeh Kaplan. I don't think
that this will convince the majority of mj'ers ( this is my opinion). The
reason is the nature of m.j. and its readership. Witness the lengthy and
hot discussion re daas torah. Somebody, even a very well regarded rabbi
asserting the importance of something that has not been shown to be
linked to torah, is not likely to be sufficient for mj-ers. And even for
those who believe in daas torah, I would suspect that it would be
necessary to produce somebody of a much higher stature than R. Fleer.
Very probably, as I understand it, such verbal assurances would only be
acceptable from somebody one has accepted as one's rebbe/moreh.
Of course, one could spend a lot of time and investigate what Stan
asserts. Maybe that would lead to conviction. However, I don't think
that the haskomes that Stan produces would convince many mj people to
drop their regular gemore/torah studies and study tefillin shapes. (Again,
this is my opinion, and btw, this is also why I would not, at this
juncture, spend time investigating Stan's work actively.)
Meylekh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad Gevaryahu)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 09:19:05 -0500
Subject: Washing Feet in Chumash
In JM17#21 Gedalia Friedenberg says:"As far as I can recall, there are
only 2 references to washing feet in Chumash. One is in Pasrshas
Vayera, and the other is in Parshas Miketz."
There are six instances of feet washing in the Chumash.(I hope that I
havn't missed any)
Bereshit 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24
Shemot 30:19; 30:21
There are many interpretations and midrashim for the "feet washing"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rachelr@...> (Rachel Rosencrantz)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 09:45:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Washing Feet in Chumash
From: Gedaliah Friedenberg <gedaliah@...>
> As far as I can recall, there are only 2 references to washing feet in
> Chumash. One is in Pasrshas Vayera, and the other is in Parshas Miketz.
>
> In the first reference (in Vayera), Avraham invites guests into his home
> (the Angels), and offers water for them to wash their feet (Vayera
> 18:4).
> ....rashi deleted to make post reasonable length.....
> In Miketz, the head of Yosef's house meets the brothers, brings them
> into Yosef's house, and gives them water, and the brothers wash their
> feet (43:24). Rashi says nothing regarding washing of the feet
> washing here.
> What is the significance of washing feet in Miketz that warranted its
> inclusion?
>....more text deleted...
> Just as the case in Vayera has a reason for its inclusion (avoiding
> Avoda Zara), then the case in Miketz must have a reason too (or else
> it would have excluded like all other cases of guests in Chumash).
Ok, this is just a guess, but the brothers were going into a house in
Egypt where presumably Egyptians worshipped the dust of their feet. By
bringing water to the brothers to wash their feet Yosef's head of
household was subtly indicating that in his house they didn't worship
the dust of the feet. (And perhaps Yosef always brought water for the
guests to wash their feet following Abraham Avinu's example.) (And
Rashi figured that since he had already commented on the washing the
feet he needn't waste words on a similar explanation.)
I have no sources or books here, it's just what seemed to follow from what
we learned in the parsha.
-Rachel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael J Broyde <relmb@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 12:24:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Woman Answering Questions of Jewish Law
One of the writers stated that Jewish law would prohibit a woman from
answering questions of Jewish law (paskening shaliot). The proof
provided was that it has not happened yet. Two small notes.
There is a dispute within halacha as to whether "it has not
happened yet (lo ra'e'no) is a proof; compare the first shach to the
first Taz on Yoreh Deah when discussing women shochtem.
It is well established in halachic sources that a woman can, if
she knows the right answer, answer questions of halacha; see Encyclopedia
Talmudit vol 8 page 494 which states "A wise woman worthy of answering
questions (lehoroat) can do so" and the many sources cited in note 109.
No contrary opinion is advanced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 17 Issue 27
