Volume 20 Number 77
                       Produced: Sun Jul 30 20:39:51 1995

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

1. Pigeon Ceremony  2. Pirya V'Rivya
         [Richard Schiffmiller]
Angels and Free Will
         [Joe Goldstein]
Changing Ba'alei Kriya
         [Arthur Roth]
Desecrating Shabbat
         [Michael J Broyde]
Eliyahu- a Cohen? - go through a Muslim cemetery.
         [Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Requirement to Marry Young Rape Victim
         [Arthur Roth]
Using Bathrooms in Treif Restaurants
         [Warren Burstein]


From: Richard Schiffmiller <moe@...>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 23:22:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 1. Pigeon Ceremony  2. Pirya V'Rivya

	This post concerns two diverse topics.

1.  Pigeon Ceremony.
	I was told that last Wednesday night, a ceremony was performed
in Oceanside, NY on a young man suffering from hepatitis.  I was told
that although in general Talmudic remedies are no longer practiced,
there is a hetare (halachic permission) to perform a pigeon ceremony for
hepatitis.  The ceremony was witnessed by a group of frum professionals
from the medical, legal and scientific fields.  The Rabbi performing the
ceremony was not a M'kubal (mystic) but a Rav in a local Yeshiva who is
a friend of the patient's family.

	The Rabbi came with three white pigeons.  The patient lay on a
couch on his back.  The Rabbi placed the anus of one of the pigeons on
the patient's navel.  The idea is that the toxins in the patient are
supposed to transfer through the navel to the bird and kill it.  The
Rabbi held the pigeon in place, and after one-and-a-half hours, the
pigeon died.  He then took a second pigeon and repeated the procedure,
and this pigeon died after twenty minutes.

	It should be noted that the patient is receiving conventional
medical treatments for his illness, so there is no controlled experiment
here to determine effectiveness of this technique.  I have since been
told of two other people who have received the ceremony and both
recovered (one from the dangerous hepatitis C).  I would like to know
more about the sources for this ceremony, its history, what proof may
exist for its efficacy, and what if any explanation is given for how it

2.  Pirya V'Rivya (procreation)

	I participate in a weekly shiur that is currently studying the
Mitzvah of Pirya V'Rivya (procreation).  The Mitzvah applies to Jewish
men and is fulfilled by having a son and a daughter who themselves can
have children.  A question arose about this Mitzvah to which I would
like to get responses.  This is an example of a Mitzvah over which we
have no control.  For although one may get married and attempt to have
children, one has no control over whether he has children or that he
will have a son and a daughter.  He is then "cheated" out of the Mitzvah
through no fault of his own.  Since all the major codifiers count Pirya
V'Rivya as a Mitzvah, what does this indicate about the nature of
Mitzvos?  Are any other Mitzvos of this type?


From: Joe Goldstein <vip0280@...>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 22:45:57 
Subject: Angels and Free Will

The Meshech Chochmo (I thin in Yisro) says Angels Theoretically have
free will however in practice they do not.  He Explains that an angel
has the same free will a human bing does, however, since they are in the
presence of the SHECHINAH itself, it is impossible for them to do
anything other than Hashems will.  In that vein he explains the meaning
of KOFO ALEYHEM HAR KEGIGIS, He held the mountain over them like a
barrel.  He explains it does not mean there was literally a mountain
held over the Jews.  Rather Hashem gave them such a recognition of his
divine presense that they were unable to do anything other than accept
the Torah. They were forced just as surley as if they would have been
under a mountain.

As far as men turning into angels, We know that CHANOCH, in beraishis
became MATTAT the SAR HAPNIM, some sort of very high angel. However The
SHELOH HAKODESH says man stands much higher than any angel. He goes on
for pages to discuss and prove this point.



From: <rotha@...> (Arthur Roth)
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 12:48:44 -0500
Subject: Changing Ba'alei Kriya

>From Aliza Berger (MJ 20:49):
> Scenario: several Torah readers each know how to read part of one aliyah
> (extreme example: rishon [the first aliyah]).  Can they share the
> reading? Would a new person need to be called to the Torah each time
> they switch? If this is done for any aliyah but the last one, how are
> these aliyot called (instead of the usual hamishi, or whatever)? Or
> could they just switch readers without any ceremony? Is there any
> special problem with the first two aliyot (kohen, levi)?

    The ba'al korei is the shaliach of the oleh.  Many mitzvot can be
done via a shaliach, but I don't know of any cases where it is valid to
appoint two or more shelichim to divide up a single mitzvah between
them.  Can anybody comment?  If this is not allowed, that would seem to
imply that a new aliyah should be started at each point where the ba'al
korei changes.  This would in turn imply that the change points have to
be at places where it is OK to end an aliyah in the first place; there
are several types of conditions under which this is not allowed.  Since
we allow hosafot only on Shabbat and Simchat Torah (with a difference of
opinion with respect to a Yom Tov that falls on Shabbat), it would also
follow that ON OTHER DAYS, the ba'al korei should be changed only at
"regularly scheduled" dividing points between aliyot.  Of course, all
bets are off on any of this if my premise about two or more shelichim
for one mitzvah is wrong.  On Shabbat, I don't know of any reason why
the ba'al korei can't be changed many times.
    The naming of the aliyot has already been correctly addressed by
several other posters.  There is no special problem with the first two
aliyot, except in Parshat Ki Tisa (where the first two aliyot are VERY
long because the Levi must specifically be given the portion dealing
with certain actions of b'nei Levi) and Parshat Masei (where no hosafot
are allowed during the listing of the journeys of the Jews in the first
aliyah).  There are other specific portions in which no hosafot may be
made, but I can't think of any others which occur in the first two
aliyot.  Though the first two aliyot pose no specific problem, hosafot
are usually not made there anyway, as there is a general custom to make
hosafot, if any, in the latest aliyot that have sensible dividing


From: Michael J Broyde <relmb@...>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 15:59:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Desecrating Shabbat 

Hayim Hendeles asks in response to a post of mine which was critical of a 
reader's assertion that  one need not desecrate Shabbat for a Jew whose 
life is in danger when that Jew intentionally causes others to violate 

> Unfortunately, Rabbi Broyde fails to provide any proof or support for
> his assertion, and I don't know on what basis he makes his assertion. I
> am aware of a Hagahos Yaavetz who says the exact opposite - i.e. that
> one may not desecrate the Shabbos to save the life of one who endangered
> his own life.

Hayim is right that I should have provided a source for that assertion, 
and I am sorry that I did not.  It was part of an analogy to another 
topic and I did not bother to support it properly.  Rabbi Feinstein in 
Iggerot Moshe YD 3:90 asserts that one desecrates shabbat of a suicide 
"with a doubt;" similar conclusions can be found in many other poskim, 
such as Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg 8:15 (kuntress Mashiv Nephesh ch. 4) who 
cites many many other authorities to support that proposition.  It is my 
sense that the Yavetzes approach is unique to him, and not followed in 
any way shape or form by any poskim.
Carl Sherer's reply to mine criticism of him is in a different vein, and 
I will respond to it in a day or two.
Michael Broyde


From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 13:20:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Eliyahu- a Cohen? - go through a Muslim cemetery.

In MJ20#71 Dani Wassner writes:
>An interesting fact. If one goes to the Golden Gate "Sha'ar Harachmim"
>in Jeruslaem today (that is the sealed gate, leading directly to Har
>Habayit, through which Mashiach will enter), one will find a Muslim
>cemetry in the area immediately around the gate.
>The reason for this is that the Muslims believed that Mashiach (or
>perhaps Eliyahu) is/was a Cohen. They did not want the Al-Aqsa Mosue to
>be destroyed when Mashiach comes and rebuilds the Beit Hamikdash. So
>they put a cemetry there so that a Cohen would be unable to pass through
>the gate.
>The cemetry is many hundreds of years old.

It is not that clear that a cohen is not allowed to go into a gentile
cemetery. See Yoreh Deah 372b where the two opinions are discussed and
Aruch Ha'shulchan for a more detailed discussion. So according to some
Jewish sources such as the Rambam, a cohen can go through a gentile

Rabbi Aaron Gold from Philadelphia tells me that when many years ago he
wanted to visit a big museum in New York which had in it Egyptian
mummies.  His friends told him that he couldn't go there because he is a
cohen and this is clearly a case of tumat ohel. He approached his
teacher, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein about it and R. Feinstein told him that
there are two opinions of this subject, and that he held that R. Gold
was allowed to go and visit the museum but that he should not touch
(tum'at negiah) the mummies with his hands.

Since I do not know if this story and teshuvah (response) were published
I thought that it was appropriate to bring it here.

Gilad J. Gevaryahu


From: <rotha@...> (Arthur Roth)
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 11:26:41 -0500
Subject: Requirement to Marry Young Rape Victim

>From Israel Botnick, with response from "the Cheshire Cat":
> >In any event, the condition of not marrying off one's daughter can also
> >change an outcome that is automatic. If a man has relations with girl 12
> >or under against her will, he is obligated to marry her. The only way this
> >obligation can be fulfilled is if the girl's father marries her off.
> I wonder if this is so. Is the requirement that the girl be married off
> right away? If not, then the father could wait until the girl was old
> enough to marry herself off> In that case, the obligation would have
> been fulfilled and the father would not have had to marry her off. (Of
> course, it would also be beneficial to the girl, who might not want to
> marry her rapist, and SHE is under no requirement to marry HIM). This
> would seem especially relevant if the girl was, for example, four, which
> is old enough that she is considered too old to have her "virginity"
> regenerate, but obviously too young to marry.

    The pasuk says, "Mahor yimharena lo l'isha" --- he must speedily
marry her.  However, the pasuk explicitly provides for a monetary
payment instead if the girl's father refuses to marry her to him.  Thus
it is clear that the "speediness" requirement simply means that he
cannot procrastinate if the girl's father chooses the marriage option.
But does the father have a time limit for his decision?  In particular,
does anybody know if the rapist can be held to this obligation even
after so much time has passed that the girl is now old enough to get
married on her own?
    On a separate but related note, it occurs to me that a situation
such as this involving a Torah REQUIREMENT to marry someone might create
difficulties with the rabbinic takana against polygamy, at least in a
hypothetical country that operates exclusively under Jewish law.  If a
married man rapes a minor, would he be required to divorce his current
wife in order to fuflfill his Torah obligation?  Suppose a man rapes two
minors during the course of his lifetime.  Which would take precedence,
the takana against polygamy or the requirement from the Torah that he
marry both of them?  Perhaps this could be resolved by "persuading" the
father of the second one to "choose" the monetary option rather than the
marriage option.  None of this applies if he rapes someone who is
forbidden to him, e.g., his wife's sister.  In that case, the marriage
requirement from the Torah does not apply, which is a different
situation from a conflict between a Torah law and a rabbinic takana.
Any thoughts?


From: <warren@...> (Warren Burstein)
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 17:02:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Using Bathrooms in Treif Restaurants

While asking the price of an item that one has no intention of buying is
forbidden as "onaat devarim", I fail to see that "window shopping" is
simply theft of airconditioning.  I believe that shopkeepers like people
to wander into their stores and look at the merchandise, as this
sometimes leads to sales and consider the additional cost of the air
conditioning that results from one's opening the door and giving off
body heat a worthwhile investment.

If, of course, there is no chance at all that one would buy anything in
the store even at a future date, the concern might be in place.  --

/ nysernet.org    


End of Volume 20 Issue 77