Volume 21 Number 36
                       Produced: Tue Aug 29 22:34:03 1995

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Chazak revisited
         [Gedaliah Friedenberg]
Earliest Time to Daven
         [Joseph Brian London]
Following orders
         [Joe Wetstein]
Looking for Paper by Ginsberg on Battey Ha-nefesh
         [David Garber]
Pinchos and Eliyahu, response
         [Joe Goldstein]
Piyon Shevuyim (Freeing of Captives)
         [Steve White]
         [Eliyahu Teitz]
Real Estate Auctions
         [David Super]
Searching to Contact Mordechai Rosenstein
         [Michael J Broyde]
Wedding Customs
         [Rose Landowne]


From: Gedaliah Friedenberg <gedaliah@...>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 1995 14:40:17 -0400
Subject: Chazak revisited
Newsgroups: shamash.mail-jewish

Recap: I posted a few weeks ago regarding the "chazak" which is said by
the tzibur [congregation] and then by the ba'al koreh [Torah reader] at
the end of the shevi'i aliyah which concludes one of the 5 books of the
Torah.  I posted the words of Rav Shlomo Cohen of Monsey who stated that
the ba'al aliyah [the person making the blessing over the Torah] should
NOT say "chazak" with the tzibur, because it becomes a hefsek
[interruption] in his berachos and, in effect, is giving himself a
beracha (the "chazak" words of the tzibur are directed to the ba'al
aliyah as a beracha, and we generally do not give berachos to

I did not follow the whole thread, but someone sent me mail requesting
that I ask Rav Cohen what is the psak when the ba'al koreh is the person
with the aliyah (should he say "chazak" or not?!?).  I asked him this
shabbos, and he told me the following which he heard from his Rav (who
said it in the name of Reb Yaakov Kaminetzki): The ba'al koreh should
avoid accepting the shevi'i aliyah in parshios which end one of the 5
books of the Torah so that he will not come to be placed in a situation
where he will either create a hefsek in his beracha (by saying "chazak")
OR by infringing on the strong minhag of saying "chazak" (by not saying
"chazak" in order to avoid the above mentioned hefsek).

Here is the source for this issue: Tur, Orach Chayim, Hilchos Krias
Sefer Torah (daf Kuf Lamed Tes) in the Bais Yosef.



From: Joseph Brian London <jlondon1@...>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 20:03:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Earliest Time to Daven

The question comes up every year about the earliest time to daven in the
morning.  Washington, DC where I work is an "early" town where people
are at their desks at 7 am. If morning davening time was based soley on
"x" minutes after or before sunrise, that would be difficult to argue
with.  But I seem to recall, I think gemorrah berachos, saying that one
can daven when one is able to see folks on the street.  Needless to say,
with street and highway lights one can see thousands of people quite
early in the morning.  Indeed there a traffic reports starting at 5:30
in the morning and traffic jams.  So people are out, unlike the days
perhaps on farms or small villages where life was pretty dead at 5:30.
Does anyone know of any "lenient" authorties that permit early winter
                         Larry London


From: <jpw@...> (Joe Wetstein)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 12:01:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Following orders

> >From: Adam P. Freedman <APF@...>
> To carry this question to a different context. Here in California, we
> are constantly called to jury duty. Is it simply my "civic duty" to
> perform the job as well as I can (and is there a halachic basis for
> civic duty, e.g.  dina d'malchuta dina), or does the fact that I get
> paid $5 per day obligate me halachically to do the best job that I can?

Besides dina d'malchusah, you are helping the non-jewish population be
m'kayem (fulfill the obligation) their requirements under the Shevah
mitzvos b'nai Noach (Seven Noachide laws).

Sounds like a pretty good way to be Ohr LaGoyim to me.



From: <garber@...> (David Garber)
Date: 28 Aug 1995 13:03:43 GMT
Subject: Looking for Paper by Ginsberg on Battey Ha-nefesh


We are working on a paper concerning history of Jewish mathematics,
and have a problem one of you might have the solution for.

A paper

   "Levi Ben Abraham Ben Hayyim (a mathematician of the XIIIth century)"

was published in "Scripta Mathematica", by Israel Davidson. (Unfortunately 
we do not have the volume number or the year it was published.)

The paper consists of the 7th chapter of "Botte Ha-Nefesh" (actually it
should read "Battey Ha-nefesh"). 

It says there: "The interpretation and discussion of the mathematical 
aspects of this chapter will be done entirely by the skilful hands of 
Prof. Ginsburg." 

Prof. Ginsburg, the editor of Scripta Mathematica, comments at the end
of the paper: "Editor's Note: An article containing a discussion of the 
above text from the point of view of history of mathematics will be 
published in a subsequent issue."

Our problem is, that we could not find this promised article. We also looked
on "selected papers of Prof. Ginsburg (Hebrew)" and did not find it there.

Could you please help us with this?

Thanks in advance,
Boaz Tsaban and David Garber
P.S. please reply via e-mail.

Department of Math. & CS.
Bar-Ilan University
52900 Ramat-Gan
E-mails: <tsaban@...>, garber@bimacs.cs.biu.ac.il


From: Joe Goldstein <vip0280@...>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 95 15:07:25 
Subject: Pinchos and Eliyahu, response

> Mr. Goldstein's post was confusing. I was always under the impression
>that Pinchos and Eliyahu shared the same soul but different bodies
>i.e. Eliyahu was a separate birth). Some people seem confused and
>expect that Eliyahu HAS to be a Cohen since Pinchos was..Conflicting
>Midrashim/Gemaras aside, let us examine another example well known to
>people.... In the Haggadah, Elazar ben Azaryah says that he is LIKE a
>man 70 years >old.... and besides the answer that he was 18 and his
>beard turned white overnite is the answer that he was a gilgul of
>Shmuel HaNavi who >died young at 52 (18 + 52 = 70, hence the DRUSH)

   I do not know what you find confusing. I said, I Think, that Pinchas
and Eliyahi were one and the same person. Why the name change? How did
he "lose" being Kohain Godol? Any other questions? I am not sure I have
the answer to them. However, I did not find ANYPLACE, ANYONE that says
they were not the same body and soul! Please read the Zemirah after
shabbos about Eliyahu. The first several stanzas refer very clearly to
actions taken by Pinchos. See the Avudraham and he is also very clear
that this refers to Pinchos.

   I am familiar with the Pshat that Reb Elozor be Azaryah had Shmuel's
Neshomah. The concept is a valid one, as pointed out by Carl Sherer in
his posting. I just question your, and Carl's applying that concept
here. I am very traditional and unless you can show me a traditional
source to say they were not the same, then I will say that according to
the medrashim quoted that PInchas is Eliyahu and the gemmorah in Bava
Metziah quoted previously, they were the SAME person, body and soul.

The other Medrashim, that say he was from Gad, may argue. That is fine.
We find many medrashim that disagree with one another.

I hope this clears things up

A Guten Shabbos and a Guten Chodesh



From: <StevenJ81@...> (Steve White)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 1995 19:32:03 -0400
Subject: Piyon Shevuyim (Freeing of Captives)

This afternoon, a pair of Israeli tzedaka-collectors happened down our
street in Highland Park, NJ.  (This happens pretty frequently.
Unusually, this time, it was a married couple, not men-only.  That I
think was great.  On the other hand, they repeatedly ignored our
requests not to go the wrong way on our one way street.  That was not
great.  Dina d'malchuta . . . but that's not the subject of this post.)

Interestingly, they were collecting on behalf of a rabbi (whose name is
irrelevant to this) who has been imprisoned for helping protesters who
are fighting against the program of the current government in Israel.  I
do not know the nature of the specific offense with which this
individual is charged.

This couple invoked "pidyon shevuyim" -- freeing of captives -- in
asking me for monetary support.  Normally, of course, this is thought of
as a case where Jews are being freed from non-Jewish captivity.  And the
question of whether the person has been imprisoned for violating dina
d'malchuta, especially if non-Jews would be similarly imprisoned for
similar offenses, is also an issue.

Importantly, "pidyon shevuyim" is a _very_ important mitzvah -- so much
so that individuals and communities may be forced to sell sifrei torah
and the like in order to accomplish it.  (Rambam?  Anyone with a source
here would be helpful.)  Hence, I cannot imagine that one can invoke it

So . . .

1)  Is it appropriate to invoke "pidyon shevuyim" here?
2)  Does such a person have the right to ask for tzedaka from the tzibbur
(community) at all, and to receive it like anyone else in need?  

Steve White -- in the middle of a life where, b''h, there's never a dull


From: <EDTeitz@...> (Eliyahu Teitz)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 15:27:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Prenuptials

I shall give a short analysis of this issue.  If anyone would like
copies of the actual documents being used, kindly send me an e-mail and
I'll get them to you.  If there is sufficient interest I shall submit
them to the moderator for insertion here.

The main idea behind the prenuptial agreement, or as some prefer to call
them 'marriage protection agreements' to differentiate them from secular
prenuptials, is to guarantee as best possible that if the need arises
for a get to be given, that it will in fact be given.

The driving force behind this guarantee is an obligation that the
husband undertakes at the time of his marriage to support his wife.  The
ketuba obligates the husband to support his wife in 'the manner of
Jewish husbands' but does not stipulate what that is.

The prenuptial states that the husband will support his wife to a fixed
sum each and every day.  This sum only becomes collectible when the
husband and wife no longer share domestic residence ( or in another
version after the civil divorce is completed ), until such time as they
are no longer halachically married.  The amount is decided on by the
wife and husband.  It should be a large enough amount that the husband
would be significantly inconvenienced to have to pay it, but not so much
that it would be impossible for him to pay.  ( To stipulate $1000 per
day for a person earning $50K a year is ridiculous, likewise to
stipulate $100 a day for a person earning $500K a year, is ridiculously
low- it serve no purpose ).

Rather than pay the amount agreed to, the husband will give a get.
There is no mention of get in the entire document.  Only an obligation
to support for the duration of the halachic marriage, just like the
other obligations in the ketuba.  That is why many feel there is no
problem of a coerced get ( issuy ).  Just as the many obligations of the
ketuba which are financial are not seen as hampering a person's ability
to choose to give his wife a get ( if he gives a get he is free of those
obligations, and this is not seen as the reason for his giving the get
), so too the obligation in the prenuptial, or the freedom from it, is
not seen as the the husband is giving the get.  This is different from a
person who specifically states that he will pay a fine if he does not
give his wife a get, where he directly links the payment to specific
actions concerning giving the get.  Here there is no connection.  Just
an obligation for the duration of marriage.

There is a second document which is used in addition to the prenuptial,
and it is possibly more important. This is an agreement to go to binding
arbitration in matters concerning the get.  The couple designates a Beit
Din to which they will go with all matters concerning a get.  This can
be signed at any time in the marriage, not only at its inception (
unlike the prenupial which is an obligation enter into upon marriage ).
So in reality everyone should sign an agreement of binding
arbitration. It causes no harm, and in those cases of precarious
relationships it can only smooth the way to a more peaceful resolution
of a difficult situation.

Eliyahu Teitz


From: David Super <dsup@...>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 95 23:25:44 +1000
Subject: Real Estate Auctions

In Australia, and I imagine other places too, it's quite common for real
estate auctioneers or vendors to arrange false auction bids with the
intention of raising the price of the property.

How would Halocha view such a thing?

Does it make a difference if the auctioneer announces that not all bids
are true bids?  (This is in fact the way it is done in Australia) Would
there be a difference if none of the buyers were Jewish?

If this this practice is forbidden, would one be permitted to bid at
such an auction if the vendor was Jewish?

Dovid Super


From: Michael J Broyde <relmb@...>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 20:11:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Searching to Contact Mordechai Rosenstein

	I am looking for a way to contact the artist Mordechai 
Rosenstein, who drew a poster entitled "Justice" that has the verse 
"tzedek tzedek terdof/ Justice Justice shalt tho Pursue" Dev 16:20.
I am interested in using that poster for an event, and need copyright 
permission from the artist or owner of the copyright.
Michael Broyde
404 727-7546
or Emory University School of Law, Atlanta, GA 30322)

P.S. For those who are interested in the halachic basis for copyright,
Nahum Rackover's fine work on copyright Zechut Hayotzrim is an excellent
source for a review of the many issues involved.


From: <ROSELANDOW@...> (Rose Landowne)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 20:00:29 -0400
Subject: Wedding Customs

In response to Tova Tarigin's posting about wedding customs. The
raincoat over the kittle is not a new minhag.  I was at a wedding in
1969 where the chatan wore a raincoat over the kittle, explaining that
it was the minhag of Rav Gifter of Tels: The kittle is a private symbol
of "day of death", which only the chatan himself is supposed to be aware
of, so the raincoat covers it so that the assembled crowd is aware only
of simcha .  About the bride not wearing jewelry, I heard it was so that
the ring used for the kidushin would stand out and be clearly visible
and recognizable to the witnesses.

Rose Landowne


End of Volume 21 Issue 36