Volume 20 Number 95
Produced: Wed Aug 9 22:20:57 1995
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
70 Languages
[Arthur Roth]
Beginning fast on westward flight
[Sherman Marcus]
Kashrut Certification on Ralston Cereal
[Danny Kitsberg]
Kosher and Non-Kosher
[Micah Gersten]
Lottery for Dividing the Land
[Mike Marmor]
Meat and Fish 1/60
[Micha Berger]
Minor Correction
[Zvi Weiss]
No Talking and No Singing, Related or Not?
[Winston Weilheimer]
Nusach Tapes for R"H/Y"K
[Steve Albert]
Pinchas and Eliyahu
[Moishe Kimelman]
Sanhedrin and Language Requirements
[Yeshaya Halevi]
Turnpike Rest Areas
[Steve White]
Wedding Photos
[Warren Burstein]
Yetziat Mitzrayim and Yarmulka
[Moshe J. Bernstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rotha@...> (Arthur Roth)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 09:00:40 -0500
Subject: 70 Languages
> But then we would still be left with the problem of Sanhedrin not being
> able to use a translator, having to hear directly from the
> litigants/witnesses. Why should I care if the translator is human or
> software?
I'm confused. Avi, are you raising the "hearing directly" issue as an
additional consideration here, or are you implying that this is the
underlying reason behind the language requirement in the first place?
[Actually, the person presenting (somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I admit) the
"universal translator" as a solution to no longer need the 70 languages
requirement made that assumption, or one like it. Regardless, I like
your questions and don't have a quick answer, I hope someone more up on
this topic will comment. Avi]
If this is indeed the underlying reason, then
1. Even if one member knows all 70 languages, the other members would still
need to hear testimony through a translator. Why isn't this a problem, since
all members serve as judges on any case heard by the Sanhedrin?
2. Even if we say that it is sufficient for one member to hear directly, why
must the SAME member know all 70 languages? Wouldn't it be sufficient for each
language to be known by at least one member, without requiring that any one
member knows all of them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sherman Marcus <mernav@...>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 23:12:49 +0300
Subject: Beginning fast on westward flight
I'd like to describe an interesting situation during my recent
trip to the States. Because of my scedule of conferences in the U.S.,
I had to fly from Israel to New York sometime during the 17th Day
of Av. Since this is a daytime fast, I figured it was important to
avoid a daytime flight since it would prolong the fast by about seven
hours. So I chose what appeared to be the ideal solution: El Al's
Flight 001 which leaves Israel at 1 AM and arrives in New York at
4:30 AM. In that way, when they serve breakfast at about 3 AM
New York time, the fast will not have begun yet, and I will have the
advantage of having just eaten before the fast does begin.
With all this contemplation, there's something I didn't count
on: the flight path. Most of these flights fly pretty far north before
crossing the Atlantic, and this one was no exception. And we all
know that flying north in the summer means flying towards daylight,
with the problem compounded by a cruising altitude of 30,000 feet.
As a result, we couldn't have been in the air more than a couple of
hours when light could be seen in the horizon. Uh oh. Does this
mean the fast has begun?
The situation remained static for the next several hours, but
by the time we reached Greenland heading south, it began getting
darker. At Nova Scotia, it was already completely dark, and it was
clear that it was night again. The stewardess was quite
accommodating, and heeded my request to receive breakfast before
the other passengers. But did I do the right thing by eating then?
Had the fast actually started already when the horizon was
illuminated? I was in no position then to ask my LOR.
I'm sure these questions have been considered before for
more serious cases related to Shabbat or Yom Tov. After all, in the
same way, one can in principle fly into Shabbat and then out again.
But it would appear that for the case of a daytime fast, more lenient
considerations should prevail, especially this year when the fast was a
nidcheh (postponed from the previous day because of Shabbat).
Any ideas?
Sherman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <KITSBERG@...> (Danny Kitsberg)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 9:39:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Kashrut Certification on Ralston Cereal
Does anybody have any information on the kashrut certification on
Ralston cereals? There is only a K on the package and I am told that the
hechsher is given by a Rabbi Cohen from Forest hills and a Rabbi
Weinbach. I would be grateful for any information.
Danny Kitsberg
[I'm letting this one go out, but with a few comments. In general it is
not too productive to ask the list about information on a Hashgacha. To
be more precise, most responses to such a question, if sent to me would
not be able to be printed on the list. I cannot write that Hashgacha A
is reliable and Hashgacha B is not reliable. Besides for being
potentially liable, what does reliable mean? The following kinds of
questions and/or answers to make sense to me:
The following product just has a K on it, who gives the Hashgacha on it?
If the product comes with an 800 customer service number, you
are likely to get the information quicker and more reliably by calling
the company.
Hashgacha X is accepted by Hashgacha A
I know that many of the major Kashrut organizations accept
hashgachot from some other organizations, but I don't know if the
various sets of relationships are publicly known.
OK, long enough rambling on a short posting. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Micah Gersten <gersten@...>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 21:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Kosher and Non-Kosher
Ok, kosher means correct according to Jewish law. That is why items such
as gets(divorce documents) can be kosher or non-kosher.
Micah Gersten
<gersten@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <mar@...> (Mike Marmor)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 09:16:05 -0400
Subject: re: Lottery for Dividing the Land
Yosey Goldstein writes:
> Rashi in Parshas Pinchos, on the POSUK of AL PEE HAGORAL, according to
> the Goral, explains that the goral spoke. (See Rashi Chapter 26 posukim
> 54 & 56) He also brings the Gemmorah quoted by Mr. Marmor.
Zalman Suldan showed me privately that the Midrash Tanchuma, parshat
Pinchas, siman vav, discusses all of this, including the speaking goral.
Thanks.
/Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Micha Berger <aishdas@...>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 08:52:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Meat and Fish 1/60
To answer Michael Broyde's quotestion, Shmiras Haguf viHanefesh, vol I ch I
quotes R. SZ Aurbach that bittul bishishim (accidental mixing of 1 part
into 60 nullifying the smaller object) would not apply to meat and fish.
He also makes it very clear that contemporary well-known poskim are torn
on the issue.
Micha Berger 201 916-0287 Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3203 days!
<aishdas@...> (16-Oct-86 - 9-Aug-95)
<a href=news:alt.religion.aishdas>Orthodox Judaism:Torah, Worship, Kindness</a>
<a href=http://haven.ios.com/~aishdas>AishDas Society's Home Page</a>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 14:47:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Minor Correction
The poster who cited the portion of B'shalach in the reason for head
covering was slightly -- I believe -- inaccurate. Rather than being
based upon the verse "VaChamushim....", the source for a bare head being
a sign of freedom is from a slightly later verse where it states the
B'nei Yisrael went out "B'yad Rama" -- literally with an uplifted hand.
The Targum on the verse -- I believe -- translates that to mean with an
uncovered head...
--Zvi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <TAXRELIEF@...> (Winston Weilheimer)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 1995 23:00:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: No Talking and No Singing, Related or Not?
> It is quiet, unfortunately, when it comes to singing as well, which is
> another issue
why is that do you imagine? perhaps this issue is also worth discussion
winston weilheimer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <SAlbert@...> (Steve Albert)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 08:51:58 -0400
Subject: Nusach Tapes for R"H/Y"K
I can recommend two sources for people seeking tapes to learn how to lead
services for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur:
1. Tapes from Chadish Media for R"H and Y"K.
2. Tapes by Cantor Avraham Davis, covering the same thing.
Although I haven't listened to these in close to a year, I think that (1)
includes some directions for people learning to lead services, while (2) is
probably better musically, so if you feel you know what you're doing and just
want to learn melodies, pick (2), but if you are less sure of yourself, pick
(1).
I found both of these at one of the Jewish bookstores in Chicago, and
expect they should be pretty widely available. Chadish Media is well known,
and I checked with the cantor at the shul I usually attend, who said Avraham
Davis was also good. After listening to some of each, I can recommend both.
Steve Albert (<SAlbert@...>)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <kimel@...> (Moishe Kimelman)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 12:57:19 +1000
Subject: Pinchas and Eliyahu
In mj # 86, Chaim Schild wrote:
> Nobody said in Eliyahu/Pinchas's case that it was the same body....just
> the same soul...
A problem with this explanation is that in Bava Metzia 114b, when
Eliyahu is spotted in a cemetery, he was asked how a kohein can be in a
cemetery. Rashi explains that there is an opinion that Pinchas is
Eliyahu, and Pinchas was a kohein. But if "Pinchas is Eliyahu" only
means that they had the same soul, and Eliyah was really physically
descended from another tribe (see Tosafot there), then he would have
been permitted to be in a cemetery.
Moishe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Chihal@...> (Yeshaya Halevi)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 01:00:55 -0400
Subject: Sanhedrin and Language Requirements
Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...> writes, regarding whether a
computer program can be used to translate for purposes of having a
Sanhedrin member who is versed in "all 70 languages:"
< But then we would still be left with the problem of Sanhedrin not
<beingable to use a translator, having to hear directly from the
<litigants/witnesses. Why should I care if the translator is human or
<software?
I was going for grins when I proposed that Targumatik or a similar
program could be use to solve the translation problem. But since we're
treating it seriously, please permit the following
questions/observations:
1. In the days of yore, when city-states/kingdoms were the norm,
there were far more than 70 nations on this planet. How many languages
were in existence then -- on ALL continents -- is anybody's guess.
Therefore I submit that the phrases "70 nations of the world" and "70
languages" merely denote "many," not necessarily a specific number.
2. Except for Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and a couple of others, how
many of the "70 languages" are still spoken? (Dunno about you, but my
Ugaritic is rather rusty.)
3. If I have a hearing aid and use that to aid my understanding of
any language, is that "hearing directly from the litigants/witnesses?"
Or are we into the question of such devices being an "echo?" Can we say
that a computer program which translates is in the same league as a
hearing aid?
4. Artificial Intelligence (also known as Machine Intelligence, AI
and MI) is a rapidly growing field. Don't be too surprised if, before
the mashiah comes, we get an AI capable of human thought -- and capable
of speaking 100 languages.
Of course, that presupposes we've given an affirmative answer to the
question which is already being debated: can an AI/MI have a soul?
Not having the Gemara in Makot in front of me, I don't know why an
interpreter was not permitted on the original Sanhedrin. If it was
because the interpreter might have his own agenda and deliberately
mistranslate a key word, then a machine has no problem like that. If
the fear was for an accidental mistake, both the Sanhedrin member and a
machine are subject to glitches.
If it's because one is supposed to plead directly, sans
intermediary, then we go back to the question of what constitutes
"directly:" is a hearing aid indirect transmission? A loudspeaker?
<Chihal@...> (Yeshaya Halevi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <StevenJ81@...> (Steve White)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 00:31:26 -0400
Subject: Turnpike Rest Areas
OK, Ellen, here's another "driving chumra" for you, which I attribute to
Rabbi David Levy, then of Wichita, KS, and now (I think) of Kitchener,
ON:
Given even waiting time, you should always go to the staffed toll
booth, rather than the automatic basket, in order to participate in
giving the toll collector parnassah (a living). Also, one should greet
the toll collector cheerfully. This does not apply if the staffed line
is longer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <warren@...> (Warren Burstein)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 21:18:10 GMT
Subject: Re: Wedding Photos
Janice Gelb writes:
>When I was first living in Israel, we saw wedding couples all over
>the place shlepping around in full formal outfits to the more scenic
>parts of the country (like the Wall or the balcony at the Dan Hotel in
>Haifa) to get their wedding pictures taken.
I never stopped any of the couples to ask, but I assumed that they
were doing it the day of the wedding, probably before the ceremony.
|warren@ bein hashmashot, in which state are the survivors
/ nysernet.org buried?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Moshe J. Bernstein <mjbrnstn@...>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 09:48:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Yetziat Mitzrayim and Yarmulka
If I remember correctly [the computer room does not have sefarim], it is
targum onqelos who renders "uvnei yisrael yotze'im BEYAD RAMAH" with
"beresh gelei" = with uncovered head, which apparently in the era of the
targum (no discussion on what that is, please) was a sign of freedom. If
it wasn't onqelos, please correct my reference.
moshe bernstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 20 Issue 95
