Volume 18 Number 38
                       Produced: Sun Feb 12  0:26:00 1995

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Archaeology and Shiurim (v18n33)
         [Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer]
         [Danny Skaist]
Birchas Hagomel (the blessing recited when saved from danger)
         [Eric Safern]
Cleveland Community BBS
         [Harry Kozlovski]
Fish After Meat
         [Ben Rothke]
HaRav Goldvecht ZAL
         [Leah Zakh]
Keys of Shabbat
         [Harry Weiss]
Men and Women: what's NOT the issue
         [Alan Zaitchik]
Non-mamzer Slave Children
         [Ari Shapiro]
Outing Tzitzis.
         [Michael Lipkin]
         [Martin Friederwitzer]
The "other" Adar - [Richard Freidman - vol 18 #34]
         [Yehudah Edelstein]
Variant Readings of Nach
         [Moshe Koppel]
Wedding Minhag
         [Erwin Katz]
Worcestershire Sauce
         [David Charlap]


From: <sbechhof@...> (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 00:12:08 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Archaeology and Shiurim (v18n33)

A number of studies of the Temple Mount (I believe you will find one in
Rav Tukachinski "Ir HaKodesh v'HaMikdash" have yielded the (surprising)
conclusion that if one assumes today's Temple Mount to have the same E-W
dimensions as the original, then an amah is approximately 22 inches -
almost the same as the Chazon Ish's shiur!

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer


From: DANNY%<ILNCRD@...> (Danny Skaist)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 12:05 IST
Subject: Belts

>Leah Zakh
>but this seems to reinforce the question: Why is a useless belt better
>then jewllery that serves an asthetic purpose?

Belts, useless or otherwise, are permitted on shabbat without limit and
without question.

There are those who question Jewelry for men.  [Even for women there is a
fear of removing in public to show a friend.]

Ergo a useless belt is better then jewelry that serves an asthetic purpose.



From: <esafern@...> (Eric Safern)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 08:35:14 EST
Subject: Birchas Hagomel (the blessing recited when saved from danger)

Last month's "Issues in Practical Halacha" (which is available on-line)
was about saying birchas hagomel (the blessing recited when saved from
danger) after plane flights.

It quotes Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (the 'Tzitz Eliezer') on this issue:

>The Tzitz Eliezer [20], however, rules that hagomel is required only after a
>lengthy flight, such as one longer than 2 hours, irrespective of whether the
>journey is over the sea or not.  Shorter flights do not require hagomel
>since the chance of danger is small.

I would not, chas-ve-shalom, argue halacha with Rav Waldenberg, shlita.

However, I am not sure that shorter flights are safer than longer ones.
In fact, I believe most of the danger is on takeoff/landing.

In addition, shorter flights are more likely to involve smaller, older, 
propeller planes - which are *much* more dangerous, I believe.

Am I missing something?


From: Harry Kozlovski <hkozlovs@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 17:59:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Cleveland Community BBS

I am very happy to read that communal organizations are waking up to the 
realities of the internet. But why in the world would you set your self 
off to your "private" domain? Imagine if all federations did what you 
did. Everyone world-wide would be telneting (assuming they 
knew where you were) themselves to death. Discounting that, the potential 
redundancy of similar data is so great. I certainly hope that the other 
federation organizations do not follow your path but seek to follow a 
course that takes everyone into account and seeks a more centralized 
repository (such as Shamash). Don't get me wrong. You deserve credit for 
being pioneers but I hope someday your pioneering spirit will find its 
way to benefit everyone.


From: Ben Rothke <yafo!<ber@...>
Date: Wed,  8 Feb 95 08:57:43 PST
Subject: Fish After Meat

While on the subject of eating fish and meat together, the halacha
states that it is a sacana (danger) to eat them together.  What I find
curious is that no one in the frum world will eat the two together while
that same individual will smoke cigarettes.  Even though the mitsius
[physical reality - Mod] is that it is not ostensibly dangerous to eat
fish/meat together, (millions of people eat the two together w/ no
obvious ill effect.)  Yet we see that millions of people have died (R"L)
from the effects of smoking.  Mention the danger of smoking to some
people and you will hear heter after heter.  Tell them to eat fish/meat
together and they will tell you its an issur.  Go figure.


From: Leah Zakh <zakh@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 19:31:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: HaRav Goldvecht ZAL

On the 7 of adar Rosh Hayeshiva of Keren BeYavne and founder of the 
Hesder movement HaRav Chaim Yitzhak Golvecht passed away.In his hesped R' 
Mordechai Willig, shlita noted the the highest praise in Gemara went to 
Chiya for creating an opportunity to learn for those Talmidim who had no 
such opportunity. Chiya stands for Chaim Yitzhak ben yaakov (?) eliezer. 
This were the initials of R' Goldvecht as well.  This is indeed a great 
loss for Klal Israel.

You can reach me at <zakh@...> or 718-601-5939


From: <harry.weiss@...> (Harry Weiss)
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 95 19:27:42 -0800
Subject: Keys of Shabbat

In MJ 18#36 Leah Zakh asks about the preference of using a key belt
rather than a key as jewelry.  A key in a belt is an integral part of
clothing and is definitely not carrying Regarding the women in Crown
Heights, I am not sure.  I have heard that it is better to use the key
belt as a primary belt and not in addition to a regular belt.  However
no one questions whether a Chasid wearing a wool overcoat in 100 degree
temperature is carrying.  Even if it serves no purpose other than an
identifier it is still a garment.

Jewelry must meet the definition of Jewelry.  I have heard that to use a
key as jewelry it must be made of a precious metal.  For men there is
also the question of whether Jewelry is "women's clothing" and

Since a garment is always a garment, but jewelry is not always jewelry,
and using a belt is not that difficult, why not be safe rather than



From: Alan Zaitchik <ZAITCHIK@...>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 08:49:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Men and Women: what's NOT the issue

Just wanted to add a small (but IMHO important point) about women's
roles in Jewish practice and thought (or in any other domain, for that

It is quite irrelevant to insist that "men" and "women" are different
in this or that way. The point is that any given INDIVIDUAL man or
woman can be an exception to the generalization about "men" and "women".
The issue ultimately is about an INDIVIDUAL's rights and needs.

And this care for the individual is not merely a western, liberal concern
(although that would in my eyes be enough reason to take it very seriously).
It is also the essence of any religion, Yiddishkeit included, which takes
seriously the INDIVIDUAL's relationship with God (as opposed, l'havdil,
to "statist" religions such as in ancient Rome or Nazi "Christianity" or...)



From: <m-as4153@...> (Ari Shapiro)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 95 21:51:25 EST
Subject: Re: Non-mamzer Slave Children

<I thought that a Yisrael, Mamzer or not, is only allowed to have
<relations with a Shifcah Cnaanit if he is an Eved Ivri.

Actually the reverse case is discussed (an eved marrying a mamzeres)
in Tosafos Gittin 41a.  Rabbenu Tam there says that an eved (slave)
is allowed to marry a mamzeres the RAmabam however argues.

Ari Shapiro


From: Michael Lipkin <michael_lipkin@...>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 95 10:11:31 EST
Subject: Outing Tzitzis.

>From: Leah Zakh <zakh@...>

>For this reason Sefardim for example never wear their tzitzit out so 
>as not to show off their frumenkeit.

I thought the reason for this was safety, i.e. in many of the 
countries sefardim came from it was dangerous to be so obviously 
identified as a Jew (also, I thought, the reason for less extensive 
yarmulka wearing by sefardim).  

The Aruch Hashulchan uses the safety angle as a Heter for Ashkenazim 
not to wear their Tzitzis out in public.  I am curious as to why, seeing   
that the Mishna Brurah was an advocate of this practice, so many 
Ashkenazim DON'T wear their Tzitzis out (at least in their homes and 



From: <martin.friederwitzer@...> (Martin Friederwitzer)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 13:27:34 EST
Subject: Tachnun 

In Halacha Yomit we just learned that a Choson should avoid entering a
Shul for the entire seven days of Sheva Brochos because with his
presence the Minyan will not say Tachnun. (Siman 131 Siman Katan 26 at
the end) Is this our Minhag? I know many Shuls that are thrilled when a
Choson comes to Shul.


From: <yehudah@...> (Yehudah Edelstein)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 23:42:22 +0200
Subject: The "other" Adar - [Richard Freidman - vol 18 #34]

In the Shulchan Aruch - Orech Chaim, Hilchos Taanis, siman 568 - 7, the
Mechaber - Rabbi Yosef Kaaro states that if ones father or mother passed
away in a regular year in Adar, then in a leap year the anniversary
should be observed (to fast) in Adar II [sefardim]. The Ramo - Rabbi
Meir Iserlish [ashkenazim] adds that one should observe Adar I, and
there are those who say fast in both months as a 'Chumra'.

The Mishne Brura explains the Mechaber as accepting the idea if one
mentions verbally or in a contract Adar (stam), then Adar II in intended
in a leap year.  The Ramo is of the reverse opinion, and also adds 'ein
maavirin al hamitzvot' (not to pass up the chance of performing a
mitzva).  Except for the above case, any birthday etc. originating in a
regular year, should be observed in Adar II in a leap year. The added
month in a leap year is Adar I. It has always 30 days. Adar II has 29
days as Adar in a regular year.  In general anything being observed
yearly Adar II is the real Adar. Where months have to be counted as 12
months of mourning, Adar I is counted as 1 month.  More on this can be
found in The Talumdic Encyclopedia - Adar - Adar Rishon V'Adar Sheni.


From: <koppel@...> (Moshe Koppel)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 10:30:37 +0200
Subject: Variant Readings of Nach

Regarding the question raised by Eli Turkel concerning variant
readings of Nach (especially by Baalei Tosfos) see Shabbos 55b, Tosfos
d.h. Maaviram Ksiv and in the Gilyon Hashas there. 
See also the article by Rav Reuven Margolies in HaMikra vehaMasores.

-Just Plain Moish


From: ERWIN_KATZ_at_~<7BK-ILN-CHICAGO@...> (Erwin Katz)
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 95 15:57:37 CST
Subject: Wedding Minhag

Does anyone have the source for the minhag of a bride walking around the
groom seven times during the wedding ceremony? Also why seven brochot?


From: <david@...> (David Charlap)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 11:54:18 EST
Subject: Worcestershire Sauce

Etan Diamond <aa725@...> writes:
>With all the discussion recently about fish and meat, I was wondering
>what the deal is with worcestershire sauce.  I see that the bottle
>says "OU-fish"--does this mean that one cannot use it in cooking with
>meat or chicken?  

I assume you're talking about Lea & Perren's worcestershire sauce.  I've
also seen that and wondered.

More interesting is that Lea & Perren's steak sauce contains
worcestershire sauce as an ingredient, but it doesn't have the "OU-fish"
label on it.  Does any fish content in the worcestershire sauce get
nullified after a point?  I thought batel b'shishim (nullification of a
prohibited substance when diluted) doesn't apply if the substance is
deliberately added.


End of Volume 18 Issue 38