Volume 18 Number 90
                       Produced: Mon Mar 20 20:40:24 1995

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

3 Torah from Aron Kodesh
         [Eliyahu Teitz]
Adar II
         [Yaacov Fenster]
Counting People, Megilah Questions
         [Jan David Meisler]
         [Eli Turkel]
Fish and Meat
         [Josh Backon]
Ipuwer Papyrus
         [Ben Rothke]
IVF Program in New York under Hashgocho
         [Isaac Balbin]
Parashat Shekalim on Shabbat
         [Jerrold Landau]
Pre-Marriage Agreement
         [Brigitte Saffran]
Purim question
         [Ari Belenkiy]
Rabotai nevarekh
         [Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Readings on Purim & Zachor
         [Eliyahu Teitz]
Shekalim & Rosh Chodesh
         [Ed Cohen]
Women reading megilla vs haftarah
         [Joel Kurtz]
Women Reading the Megillah
         [Yisroel Rosenblum]


From: <EDTeitz@...> (Eliyahu Teitz)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 16:14:09 -0500
Subject: Re: 3 Torah from Aron Kodesh

It was asked whether Rosh Chodesh Adar II can come out on Shabbat &
therefore take out three Torahs.  There are 14 different types of years
( Rosh HaShana can come out on one of 4 days, Cheshvan and Kislev either
can both have 29 or 30 days or Cheshvan 29 & Kislev 30, and the year can
be regular or leap year.
 This allows for more than 14 permutations, but not all permutations
occur in our persent system ).

Of the 14 types, two regular and one leap year can have Nissan start on
Sunday, which means that the preceeding Adar starts on Shabbat, and
therefore 3 Torah will be taken out, one for Shabbat, one for Rosh
Chodesh, and one for Shekalim.

The fourth possible time to take out 3 Torah was omitted from the
original post, and that is Simchat Torah, with one for V'Zot HaBracha,
one for Breishit, and one for maftir.

Eliyahu Teitz


From: Yaacov Fenster <fenster@...>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 95 06:07:59 EST
Subject: Re: Adar II

> >From: spike%<bimacs@...> (Mike Grynberg)
> One year at camp we were having a contest. one of the questions asked
> was when do we take out 3 sifrei torah from the aron? I answered when
> parshat hachodesh falls out on rosh chodesh. the other obvious
> answer is during shabbat chanuka. I was just wondering if it is
> possible for rosh chodes adar II to fall out on shabbat and then we would
> also take out 3 sifrei torah for shabbat, rosh chodesh, and for shabbat
> shkalim? is this possible?

Yup. According to my Rinat Yisrael Siddur it is possible. You also left
out the most obvious of them all: Simchat Tora/Shmmeni Atzeret (at least
in Israel).  Also Shabbat-Chanuka-Rosh Chodesh Tevet.

% Yaacov Fenster		(603)-881-1154  DTN 381-1154
% <y.fenster@...>	      fenster@world.std.com
% <fenster@...>   Yaacov.Fenster@zko.mts.dec.com 


From: Jan David Meisler <jm8o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 11:32:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Counting People, Megilah Questions

With regards to counting people, I thought the reason that we don't went
back to Avraham, when Hashem said to him that He would make his children
as many as the stars in the sky, and the sands on the sea.  Just as we
can't count those, we shouldn't count Jews.

I have 3 questions about the Megilah that came up yesterday in
discussions with people.  First of all, why did Esther have 2 parties
for Achashverosh and Haman?  Wouldn't 1 party have been sufficient to
tell the King what was going on?  Instead, she had one party to invite
them back to a second.
Second question - Why are we supposed to be happy during the entire
month of Adar?  It says in the Megilah that the month was turned from
mourning to happiness.  But wasn't the "destruction of the Jews" by
Haman and his people suppoesd to only be on the 13th of Adar?  Shouldn't
that be the DAY that was turned from mourning to happiness?
Third question - Achashverosh was supposed to be a tremendous
anti-semite.  If this was the case, why did he need Haman to recomend to
kill the Jews, and then give Haman his ring to do it?  Why didn't he
instead decide himself to kill the Jews, and if not that, then why
didn't he do it on his own when Haman recommended it?



From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 12:19:47 +0200
Subject: Debates

     The story in the Purim edition with the debate between the Pope and
the rabbi reminds me of another famous story of a debate.

    In one country the king declared a debate between the local bishop
and a Jewish representative. If the Jew lost not only would all the Jews
be exiled but the Jewish representative would lose his life.  The Jews
could not find anyone to debate the bishop until an ignorant tailor
volunteered. The the community was very unhappy no one else appeared so
at the last minute they consented to appoint him as their

     The rules were that the Jew would begin with a question and they
would then rotate. The first one who could not answer a question would

The tailor began with the question: what does "e-ne-ni yo-de-a" mean?

The bishop answered: I don't know.

Everyone one stunned that the bishop couldn't answer the first question.
The king decided to give one more chance. The tailor repeated the
question and the bishop again answered: I don't know.

The king had no choice but to declare the Jews winners and the bishop
went home in shame.

The Jews celebrated their victory. At the party the local rabbi asked
the tailor how he conceived such a brilliant strategy. The tailor
answered that he looked up the word in his yiddish dictionary and it
said "I don't know (in yiddish)". He figured that if the holy dictionary
didn't know what the phrase meant then the bishop certainly wouldn't



From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Sun,  12 Mar 95 11:25 +0200
Subject: Re: Fish and Meat

Thank you Moshe Schor and Yehuda Edelstein for the MAREH MKOMOT (reference)
of the inyan of eating fish and meat together. That Rashi says it may
induce a skin disease is PRECISELY what I referred to in my original
posting on MJ that the interaction of stearic acid and EPA may cause
lipid peroxidation. Many forms of skin disease are due to this
mechanism (lipoxygenase, cGMP).

Josh (amazed in Cyberspace :-)


From: Ben Rothke <ber@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 10:01:21 EST
Subject: Ipuwer Papyrus

What is the Ipuwer Papyrus?
Rabbi Avigdor Miller quotes it often in his sefer "A Nation is born" 
when discussing the 10 plagues & Yetzias Mitzraim.


From: Isaac Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 08:33:32 +1100
Subject: IVF Program in New York under Hashgocho

This is an urgent request I am relaying on behalf of a friend of a friend.
Does anyone know of a program in New York which performs IVF with the
assistance of a Shomer?


From: <LANDAU@...> (Jerrold Landau)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 95 09:53:28 EST
Subject: Parashat Shekalim on Shabbat

Mike Grynberg asks whether Rosh Chodesh Adar II ever falls on Shabbat,
thus necessitating reading three Sifrei Torah on Parashat Shekalim.
Parashat Shekalim can certainly occur on Rosh Chodesh, as it did last
year, necessitating the taking out of three Sifrei Toras.  This is
relatively rare, as it will only happen when Pesach falls out on Sunday.
This can happen in a leap year as well.  It last did so about 15 years
ago.  (An interesting note, the only time that Mattot Massei can be
split up outside of Israel happens when Pesach falls on Sunday in a leap
year -- i.e. when the preceding Parashat Shekalim was on Rosh Chodesh.)

In your note, you mention that the occasions of taking out three Sifrei
Torah include Shabbat Chanuka on Rosh Chodesh (happened this year, and
will happen next year), Shekalim on Rosh Chodesh (happened last year),
and Hachodesh on Rosh Chodesh (happens this year).  You neglected the
obvious one that occurs every year.  Simchat Torah, when Vezot Habracha,
Bereshit, and the maftir from Pinchas are all read.

Jerrold Landau


From: Brigitte Saffran <richa@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 13:06:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Pre-Marriage Agreement

Would someone be able to help me obtain a copy of the text, which was agreed
upon by the Israeli Rabinate, for the "pre-marriage agreement" which both
the bride and groom sign before the wedding, in order to ensure that she will
not ever be left an Aguna. I'm sorry for being so vague, I'm not sure of the
actual title of the document.           Thanks,


From: <belenkiy@...> (Ari Belenkiy)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 01:22:14 PST
Subject: Purim question

Why were letters sent on Sivan 23 and not immediately on Pesach?


From: <gevaryah@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 00:21:54 -0500
Subject: RE: Rabotai nevarekh

Linda Kuzmack wrote in MJ18#78 (5 Mar 95)
>Micha Berger <berger@...> writes:

>> I don't understand the question. Growing up, most benchers read
>> "Rabosai mir velen bentchen!" (Rabbis, I will bench) Now that Yiddish
>> is losing popularity, the Hebrew "Rabosai Nevareich" (Rabbis, let us
>> bench) is more common. The words don't even mean the same thing.

>Actually, "mir veln bentshn" (standard transliteration) means "*WE* will 
>bentch".  In Hebrew, "nevarekh" means "we will bentch".

The Sefardic zimun starts: "hav-lan ve'nivrich le'malka ila'ah ka'disha" and
the response is "shamayim". The Lubavich movement adopted it partially
and they start: "hav-lan ve'nivrich". The mezamen then says: "Bi'rshut malka
ila'ah kadisha ne'varech..." The nosach of Italian and other Sefaradim is
"Bi'rshut shamayim..." and the mezamen finishes with: "Baruch hu u'varuch 
shemo u'varuch zichro le'olmei ad".

It is important that when we give examples from all the edot  to the extent 
possible. I do not have a Yemenite siddur but I would venture to guess that 
it is a bit different too.

Gilad J. Gevaryahu


From: <EDTeitz@...> (Eliyahu Teitz)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 16:14:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Readings on Purim & Zachor

Chaim Schild asked why we read Ki Teyzey on Purim & B'shalach on Zachor,
and not the reverse.  Unless this was an intended v'na-hapoch hu
[reversal ?], the reality is that we do read from B'shalach on Purim
(not Zachor ) and Ki Teytzey on Zachor ( not Purim ).

The reading on Zachor includes the commandment to remember the actions
of Amalek, and to obliterate their memory.  It is this commandment that
we fulfill annually with this particular reading.  The story at the end
of B'shalach relates the events of our defeating Amalek at war ( no
mention of obligation to remember ) and is more fitting for Purim when
we remember our victory over Haman, a descendant of Amalek.

Eliyahu Teitz


From: Ed Cohen <ELCSG@...>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 95 03:49:27 EST
Subject: Shekalim & Rosh Chodesh

To answer Mike Grynberg [MJ:18#69] about Adar II and Shabbat Shekalim
with Rosh Chodesh, there are 14 different types of Hebrew calendar
years. Of these 7 are ordinary years and 7 are leap years. Of the 7
possible ordinary years, two have all three together (i.e., Shabbat
Shekalim, and Rosh Chodesh) in what Spier calls B & F years. The next B
year is 5761; the next F year is 5785.  As for leap years, the three
together only occur in Spier's I year, the next one coming in 5765.


From: Joel Kurtz <kurtzj@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 20:01:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Women reading megilla vs haftarah

I would like to thank Rabbi Michael Broydes and Dr. Aryeh Frimer for
their responses to my query on this subject.  It occurs to me, however,
that I did not express my question precisely enough.

The weekly haftara portion does not have attached to it a similar
halachic requirement as that of reading and hearing the megilla.

Consequently, the rules surrounding the public reading of the megilla
should be more stringent than those surrounding the public reading of
the haftara.

I am not concerned here with a reading by a woman for women.  The
question posed concerns a woman reading for a congregation composed of
men and women.

The potential problems posed by kol isha, kvod hatzibur and the chanting
of the brachot would apply to both cases equally.  However, only in the
case of the megilla is there the possibility of violating a halachic

As a result of this logic, I held the belief that a megilla reading by a
woman poses a greater halachic difficulty than a haftara reading.

I would be most gratified if either Rabbi Broydes, Dr. Frimer or other
distinguished authority would demonstrate to me the error in this logic.

In seeking to understand this issue better, I am asking for a detailed
response without recourse to specific rabbinic pronouncments which do
not address the issue as framed.

I apologize for my ignorance.

Joel Kurtz


From: <Yisroel1@...> (Yisroel Rosenblum)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 15:45:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Women Reading the Megillah

Ari Shapiro overlooked two other important reasons as to why women cannot
read the Megillah for men:

First, men have the additional obligation of Talmud Torah K'Neged Kulam (The
learning of Torah [including Megillah] is equivalent to all other mitsvos).
 Men are obligated to learn Megillah simply for the sake of learning Torah,
fulfilling an obligation that women don't have.

Second, there is are the issues of Tsnius (modesty) and of Kol Isha (Men
hearing a woman's voice).

Belated Chag Sameach to all,
Yisroel Rosenblum


End of Volume 18 Issue 90