Volume 21 Number 13
                       Produced: Fri Aug 18  0:14:31 1995

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Chamar Medina (2)
         [Josh Backon, Joe Goldstein]
Definition of Orthodoxy. (2)
         [Ari Belenkiy, Avi Feldblum]
Electricity in Israel on Shabbat - update
         [Shmuel Himelstein (n)]
Mazal Tov
         [David Steinberg]
Psak and Concensus
         [Zvi Weiss]
Religious Zionists
         [Moshe Koppel]
Shofar blowing in Elul
         [Shmuel Himelstein (n)]
Tzadeekem's Bodies Dont Have Tuma? Yosef!
         [Bobby Fogel-Mineral Sciences]
Yayin Nesech and Non-Religious Jews
         [Isaac Balbin]
Yishuv HaAretz and Marriage
         [Joseph Steinberg]


From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Thu,  17 Aug 95 19:14 +0200
Subject: Re: Chamar Medina

Carl Sherer asked about the criteria for defining Chamar
Medina. According to Rav Moshe Feinstein z"l in Igrot Moshe Orech Chaim
Chelek Bet Siman 75) Chamar Medina is defined as a beverage a person
drinks (even when he's not thirsty) because of its importance or
preference. And he paskins that tea and coffee are Chamar Medina.

Josh Backon

From: Joe Goldstein <vip0280@...>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 95 16:50:55 
Subject: Chamar Medina

In response to the question concerning the definition of "Chamar
Medina", The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch's ("Simon" 45) definition is: (My
approximated translation) (What is Chamar Medina? YG) Wherever wine does
not grow within a days journey from the (person's) city, therefore the
price of wine is inflated (Literally: Expensive) and therefore they
drink this drink instead of wine.

    Now we still need too define the term, " they drink this drink
instead of wine." When I was learning in Yeshivah the explanation of
this was: When one has guests and he wants to offer them a drink to show
them honor and respect, THIS is what they would be offered. (They would
not be able to decline saying they were not thirsty.) Therefore, Beer
was always assumed too be "Chamar Medina", as I was also told was tea,
and coffee. (Please note: In Ner Yisroel The Rosh Yeshivah, Rav Yaakov
Yitzchock Ruderman Z"L used to tell the bochurim that "Pepsi cola" was
Chamar Medina in America)

   It could be that this is what the Chazon Ish was wondering about and
the reason he changed his mind. Maybe he originally felt beer was a
drink like wine. Dark beer was a refreshment too drink with a meal.
Maybe he saw the custom was to drink all kinds of beer with meals as a
refreshing drink. I do not know.

    (I wonder if "poskim" still feel soda is "chamar Medina" Since soda
companies are pushing soda as a thirst quencher to drink any time during
the day. Any information on this?)



From: <belenkiy@...> (Ari Belenkiy)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 22:08:27 -0700
Subject: Definition of Orthodoxy.

The Moderator (JD#0) said that among JD-readers there are people
with different views who still consider themselves as Orthodox.

What is lacking in this statement is a Definition. There can be different 
views on many things whereas the basis is the same.

Definition of Orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy = Shabbat (+Kashrut + Kipah). For married also a regular Mikva. 

This is a "bottom line" but a real one.

Ari Belenkiy

From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 23:52:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Definition of Orthodoxy.

Ari Belenkiy writes:
> What is lacking in this statement is a Definition. There can be different 
> views on many things whereas the basis is the same.
> Definition of Orthodoxy.
> Orthodoxy = Shabbat (+Kashrut + Kipah). For married also a regular Mikva. 

I'm not all that good at putting together one-liners for things like
"What is Orthodoxy", and I have never much liked the term anyhow. For
the record, my definition of "Orthodox" as a working definition for
deciding issues relating to the list is "Accepting Halakha as a binding
requirement, with Halakha being defined through the responsa
literature". If anyone who understands what I am saying here wants to
take a shot at putting it into two lines or less, be my guest.



From: Shmuel Himelstein (n) <himelstein@...>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 19:48:35 GMT
Subject: Electricity in Israel on Shabbat - update

In a shi'ur on Israeli radio tonight (Thursday, August 17), Rabbi
Mordechai Eliyahu, the former Sefardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, discussed
various aspects of Halachah as it pertains to Shabbat. As best my wife
and I remember them (I was driving my car at the time), he made the
following points:

a) The Chazon Ish and Rav Goren were opposed to the use of electricity
in Israel on Shabbat.

b) Nowadays, everything is automated and set before Shabbat, so that one
can use electricity in Israel on Shabbat.

c) If there was a power outage and power was restored, once should ask
one's rabbi about whether food left on an electric warmer may be eaten
on Shabbat (possibly the problem of food which coled down and reheated
on Shabbat?).

d) In Israel, one may not watch anything on TV after Shabbat if it was
filmed or in any way processed by a Jew on Shabbat, as, for example, the
Shabbat soccer games.

e) He cannot understand how religious newspapers use photographs taken
on Shabbat, as one may not derive any enjoyment from such Chilul

         Shmuel Himelstein
22 Shear Yashuv Street, Jerusalem, Israel
Phone: 972-2-864712; Fax: 972-2-862041
<himelstein@...> (JerOne, not Jer-L)


From: David Steinberg <dave@...>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 22:59:58 +0100
Subject: Mazal Tov

My wife Dina, and I are proud to announce the birth of our daughter, Yael 
Nechama, born last Shabbos.

May there be more simchas by Yidden
Dave Steinberg


From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 13:02:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Psak and Concensus

I never meant to imply that p'sak was a simple "roll call" count.
However, thre is ALSO the notion of "Midah and Minyan" -- that there is
a sense of concensus and/or solidarity among Poskim generally regarded
as the leading ones of the generation.

*If* if it true that MOST Chareidi Rabbonim do not support the government 
on their "peace program" and
*If* many "Zionist" Rabbonim do not support the government on this matter

then it seems to be quite legitimate to ask what sort of "Torah support"
does this policy have.

Obviously, those who regard R. Amital and/or R. Lichtenstein SHLITA as
their Poskim are quite justified in supporting the government (although
I note that even these "leaders" only offer "qualified" support which
means that those who follow them also only offer qualified support).

However, for those who do not regard (and I do not mean any insult here) 
R. Amital and R. Lichtenstein as THE pre-eminent poskim, and also do not 
regard them as their personal poskim, it would appear that there is not a 
strong "Torah support" for this position while there are Rabbonim that 
many DO regard as their personal poskim and/or as "pre-eminent" poskim 
who DO oppose this process.  Does this mean that members of Oz V'shalom 
regard R. Amital/R. Lichtenstein as thier pre-eminent poskim and/or as 
personal poskim?  Do members of Oz V'shalom consult these Rabbonim for 
all other matters?  Or are these people simply looking for a conveniant 
"hook" to use to justify their OWN leftist views (Again, note carefully 
that I am NOT accusing the Rabbonim of such a contemptible action.  I am 
quite sure that these Rabbonim reached their conclusions after much hard 
work in learning and Avodas Hashem.  I am concerned that the so-called 
*followers* may not be operating at such a level or in such a fashion.)



From: Moshe Koppel <koppel@...>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 18:02:26 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Religious Zionists

	I feel compelled to comment on some remarks concerning Religious
Zionism which were made in this forum. While I hesitate to deal with
what are essentially political issues here, I think that several
tendentious inaccuracies in a recent post should not go unchallenged. I
agree with Aharon Manne that a substantial majority of Religious
Zionists do not adhere to an ideology which proscribes territorial
compromise of any sort. Nevertheless, it is manifestly not the case that
anything even close to "20-30? percent" of Religious Zionists support
the Oslo accords. I didn't carry out a rigorous sociological study
either but I live in the heartland of Meimad territory, was active in
Meimad the last time it ran for election, and am exaggerating only
slightly when I say that I personally know half the people who voted for
them. Nowadays I meet these people on Givat haDagan and Nebi Samuel; in
fact, I hardly know any Religious Zionists at all who support the Oslo
accords. I think "20-30?" would have been closer to the mark than
"20-30? percent". Moreover, the reason for this lack of support is
nothing as visceral and short-sighted as "disappointment with Arafat's
failure to prevent terrorism". The real reasons are far more substantive
than that, but I leave them for more appropriate forums.



From: Shmuel Himelstein (n) <himelstein@...>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 08:04:25 GMT
Subject: Shofar blowing in Elul

With only about 2 weeks to Elul, I happened to be checking the laws of
Shofar blowing during that month. The Mishnah Brurah (in his preface to
Hil. Rosh Hashanah 581:1, which states that one begins Selichot on Rosh
Chodesh Elul - the practice of the Sefardim) explains that the reason
for this is that that was the day that Moshe went up to Sinai to receive
the second Tablets. Later, in his Note 3, the Mishneh Brurah indicates
that there are those who begin to blow the Shofar on the first day of
Rosh Chodesh Elul (i.e., the 30th day of Av) while others only begin on
the 2nd day of Rosh Chodesh (the 1st day of Elul).

While my Shul's custom (and possibly the more accepted one) is to start
on the 2nd day of Rosh Chodesh, I find a difficulty in this. Elul is
invariably 29 days long. If we add these 29 days to the 10 days of
Tishrei up to and including Yom Kippur, that gives 39 days. As Moshe
went up to Sinai for 40 days, shouldn't the universal custom logically
be to begin blowing the Shofar on the 1st day of Rosh Chodesh - i.e.,
where Yom Kippur will be the 40th day from the beginning of the blowing
of the Shofar?

         Shmuel Himelstein
22 Shear Yashuv Street, Jerusalem, Israel
Phone: 972-2-864712; Fax: 972-2-862041
<himelstein@...> (JerOne, not Jer-L)


From: Bobby Fogel-Mineral Sciences <bobby@...>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 17:37:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Tzadeekem's Bodies Dont Have Tuma? Yosef!

I found this idea that was presented that the bodies of Tzadeekem who
have passed away do not impart tummah (ritual impurity) to be quite
revisionist and right wing PC (could there be such a thing?).  The torah
made no exception whatsoever for tumah.  All Jews are alike when it
comes to this.  What is most ironic is that the law of Pesach Shayni
(second passover) was prompted by people who were tamay (having tumah)
and were unable to bring the korban pesach (passover sacrifice) in the
desert.  I forgot the source, but i believe that the fellows who could
not bring the korban pesach were tamay because they were carrying
Yosef's Body (Yes, I know of the midrash that Moshe carried Yosef's
bones out of Egypt.) If he was not tzadik enough I dont know who is.
After all we call him Yosef Hatzadik!


From: Isaac Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 17:12:10 +1000
Subject: Yayin Nesech and Non-Religious Jews

(1) Many religious people use `cooked' wines to avoid problems
(2) There are opinions, see for example, Sheilos U'Tshuvos Binyan
    Tzion that would consider many non-frum people to not be in the
    category of Mechallel Shabbos Befarhesya (MSB).
    I don't recall if it was in those Tshuvos, or it could have been
    in the Mahari Assad, but anyway, the Posek asked, "How can you
    reconcile the person who drives befarhesya to shule to DAVEN
    with the classic lehachisnik MSB of the Gemora. We say they are
    a mumar l'teiovoin [someone who sins because they like to do
    what they like to do, as opposed to someone who sins because he/she
    believes that this (sin) is the `correct' thing, and goes about
    publically making everyone know about their sinning.
(3) This halacha of an MSB having the law of a non-Jew is also
    germane in the halacha of preparing food on yom tov for such
    a person. This is also not permitted. Again, people use the
    aforementioned T'shuvos (there are many more) as the basis for
    leniency. Some tolerate the leniency only for Yom Tov because 
    there is the scant hope that the person will `return'.


From: Joseph Steinberg <steinber@...>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 11:44:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Yishuv HaAretz and Marriage

: The gemara also says that a man can divorce his wife without a kesubah
:if she fails to cover her hair. Is that also a mitzvah?  (The gemarah
:seems to say that it is rabbinic--i.e. Da'as Yehudis; rather than Da'as
:moshe; see Pereck 7 of Kesubos).

1. According to the letter of the law a man can divorce his wife with no 
Ketuba for not fullfilling the requirements of Dat Yehudit.
2. As far as a wife forcing her husband to divorce her WITH a ketuba -- 
see the Rambam on this point and you will see that he implies quite 
strongly that Yishuv HaAretz is a mitzva...



End of Volume 21 Issue 13