Volume 22 Number 12
                       Produced: Tue Nov 21 20:05:09 1995

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

         [Zemira Shaindl Wieselthier]
Codes -- Caution!
         [Stan Tenen]
On Rabbinical prohibitions
         [Norman Tuttle]
         [Gershon Dubin]
President Weizman
         [Jerrold Landau]
Rossi (was: Aleinu) in m-j 21:72
         [Andrew Marc Greene]
Use of term - The Rebbe
         [Esther Posen]
Walking Down at Weddings
         [Simmy Fleischer]
Women asking Kitchen Questions
         [Ellen Krischer]


From: Zemira Shaindl Wieselthier <zsw2@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 13:36:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Churches/Mosques

What exactly is the halacha (and its source) regarding entering or
praising a church? Does the same hold true for a mosque?  I once heard
that entering a church or even using it as a landmark is frowned upon,
yet that it is permissible to pray in a mosque.  Is this correct?

Zemira Wieselthier


From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 05:59:29 -0800
Subject: Codes -- Caution!

I completely agree with Andy Goldfinger's posting and with Avi's note
also.  The "Rabin" "code" is not statistically meaningful and it should
not be confused with the more serious codes work.

Everything is assuredly in Torah, but, then, _after-the-fact_, so is
everything in the decimal expression of Pi.  That does not prove
anything about Torah -- except that something that proves nothing is
being presented as if it does mean something.  This obfuscates the real
issue of the origin and meaning of the real codes.  "Proving" (or
seeming to prove) that everything is Torah, can actually demonstrate, if
done poorly, that Everything is equivalent to Nothing.  This is not

I believe that the codes work is very important.  The real codes should
be examined with the highest intellectual honesty.  That way we can
learn something from them.



From: <ntuttle@...> (Norman Tuttle)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 18:43:11 -0500
Subject: On Rabbinical prohibitions

I am commenting on the following posting:
>From: <manne@...> (Aharon Manne)
>   Having spent Ellul on an Army base, I found a collection of Responsa
>titled "Assia" in the shul there. The chapter on medicine includes a
>review of the issue of grinding, then makes the following point (I
>paraphrase from memory): The prohibition of taking medicine is a
>preventive measure lest one come to grind the ingredients of the
>medicine.  Since we don't normally prepare medicine in this fashion any
>more, and since if the reason for a rabbinic restriction disappears,
>then the restriction is no longer enforced (!)  one would think that one

[stuff deleted]

>far-fetched.  At any rate, I would like a pointer to a source for the
>principle that "if the reason for a rabbinic restriction disappears,
>then the restriction is no longer enforced".  Can anyone think of

I'm not sure of the source of the responsa, etc., or the accuracy of
your paraphrase, but my feeling is that either the paraphrase is
inaccurate or the responsum is deficient.  The members of my Daf Yomi
shiur (including the rebbe) agree with this sentiment.  The proper
statement about Rabbinical prohibitions for which the reason no longer
applies should read like this:

"Rabbinical prohibitions for which the reason no longer applies are
taken out of force only when nullified by a Beit Din equal or greater
than the Beit Din which originally promulgated the prohibition."

The stipulation in the last clause is an essential restriction on the
"principle" mentioned above, which is a huge barrier to its frequent
usage.  I am not sure what the source of this is; it is possibly the
RAMBAM. [You will find a discussion of this in the Rambam Hilcos Mamrim,
I'm pretty sure. Mod.] One of the members of the Shiur said that the
requirement of nullification by Beit Din is because there is often
another reason for the prohibition besides the one which is stated, a
"hidden reason".  One example of a prohibition which was kept in force
despite the nullification of its underlying reason was the "Second day
of Yom Tov" in the Galut (outside Israel).

[I think this may be a bad example. There is considerable discussion on
what is the meaning of the statement in the Gemarah of - Take care of
the minhag of your fathers. It may be a rabbinic decree was enacted at
that time. I think this has been discussed at some time in the "far"
past on mail-jewish. Mod.]

May we only be Zoche to the Ymot Hamoshiach (may we merit the days of
the coming of Moshiach) when we will again be governed by one unified

Nosson Tuttle (<ntuttle@...>)
P.S.  Mazel Tov to me on my wedding this week (Thanksgiving) to Rivkah Dvir!
[Mazal Tov! Mod.]


From: <gershon.dubin@...> (Gershon Dubin)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 95 23:11:00 -0500
Subject: Orthodox

AF> With all due respect, I have trouble with the question.  What
AF> precisely is a Torah Jew?  Am I not one, I believe in halacha, and have
AF> been raised to be frum from birth, and yet I don't count myself as
AF> Orthodox, 
     You certainly have described yourself as Orthodox.  How are you frum
and not Orthodox.  Unless,  of course you are objecting to the pejorative
connotation of the term,  which was its original meaning:  German reformers
considered it an insulting term;  German Orthodoxy a' la Rabbi SR Hirsh
adopted it with pride.  It seems to me that "frum"=Orthodox="Torah Jew" and 
I don't see the distinction you are trying to make.

AF> Or is a Torah Jew a fundamentalist?  I'm not sure that Orthodoxy and
AF> fundamentalism are synonymous.

      What is fundamentalism,  defined in this context?

AF> Or is a Torah Jew one who believes in Revelation at Sinai, and sees
AF> the Torah as the basic written record ofthe covenant with the Almighty,
AF> and that the Torah cannot be understood without the Oral Torah that
AF> accompanied it?

	Sounds like we're getting warm.

AF> I believe, especailly in the aftermath of recent tragic events, that
AF> using Torah as an adjective is divisive and in many ways
AF> sanctimonious. 

	 Pardon my ignorance.  You just stated that a Torah Jew is one
who believes in Revelation, etc.  and by extension in the relevance of
all the laws of the Torah as codified in the Talmud et seq.  Why then is
Torah as an adjective divisive and sanctimonious?  You used it in your
own definition?

	  You have me completely confused as to where you stand.
<gershon.dubin@...>        |
http://www.medtechnet.com/~dubinG   |


From: <landau@...> (Jerrold Landau)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 09:46:26 EST
Subject: President Weizman

Michael Broyde made references to a teshuva by Rav Herzog about the
funeral of President Ezer Weitzman.  President Ezer Weitzman is alive
and well.  I assume that he was referring to President Chayim Weitzmann,
who was the first president of the State of Israel, and an uncle to the
current president.

Jerrold Landau

[Similar point made by others as well. Mod]


From: Andrew Marc Greene <amgreene@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 11:14:01 -0500
Subject: Rossi (was: Aleinu) in m-j 21:72

Well, I'm catching up on m-j and found Steve Wildstrom's comment in
m-j 21:72

  The closest thing I know to Jewish Gregorian chants is some of the
  music of Solomeo Rossi Ibreo (Solomon Rossi the Jew), a 17th century
  composer in Mantua who wrote Jewish liturgical chants very much in the
  style of Palestrina. Recordings are a bit hard to find, but it's
  fascinating stuff.

Those m-j readers who will be in the Boston area on Dec. 24 may want to
attend "The Music of Salamone Rossi and the Italian Renaissance", a
concert that the Zamir Chorale will be holding that night at Temple
Emanuel in Newton in conjunction with the Boston Baroque Ensemble and
Boston Baroque Dancers.

I refer all our readers to the background information about Rossi that
we have provided on our Web site. The main page of the Rossi stuff is

- Andrew Greene
  Web maintainer for the Zamir Chorale of Boston


From: <eposen@...> (Esther Posen)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 09:00:00 -0500
Subject: Use of term - The Rebbe

The Rebbe is not a description of a specific person on a general forum   
like this.

Esther Posen


From: <simmy.fleischer@...> (Simmy Fleischer)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 13:37:22 GMT
Subject: Walking Down at Weddings

In a recent conversation with a friend who is getting married soon he
told us that post Bat-Mitzvah unmarried women do not walk down the aisle
before the chuppah because of tzniut reasons. Has anyone else heard
this? Someone said this is just a Chicago thing. I must say that I find
the "tzniut" reason a bit shaky, b/c the girl in question will be
standing in front next to the chuppah so people will still see her and
even so its not like these young women will not be dressed tzanua-ly. So
wahts the problem?

Any ideas or thought would be appreciated,

PS As someone else who was part of the conversation mentioned, "This is
just another example of the fact that we live in a machmir society"


From: Ellen Krischer <elk@...>
Date: 21 Nov 1995 08:42 EST
Subject: re: Women asking Kitchen Questions

Finally - an easy question on mail.jewish  ;-{

Akiva Miller asks how women know what the important issues are in the
kitchen if they haven't spent time learning them in the Beit Midrash
(study hall).

And the answer is - sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.  It
totally depends on the quality of education they receive in either
school, seminary, lectures, at home, etc.

Personally, I think this is one of the tougher halachik issues facing us
today.  There are many people (and I count myself among them) who often
don't know how to distinguish between "real" halachik issues and "this
is what I saw my parent/friend/whatever do so that's why I do it."

One example that always gets me is having 2 different drain racks for
meat and milk dishes.  I grew up that way and figured that was the way
to keep a kosher kitchen.  Then I went to a friends house, and I figured
her parents must not be particularly observent because they only had one
drain rack.  Well, years later, in a shiur (class) on cooking issues, I
learned that cold dishes sitting together in a rack don't make each
other treif (not kosher)!

And even if people are educated, they are almost always educated in one
school of thought, without being taught that there are other opinions.
This is especially true in classes on dinim (laws) where the
argumentation and various opinions found in the Talmud are stripped out.
This creates a real potential for intolerance and conflict when "what I
learned" is different from "what you learned".

Ever watch what happens when 3 or 4 women are all in the kichen helping
to prepare on a Shabbat?  Is it okay to use a peeler for the salad or in
this house do you have to use a knife?  Who opens or doesn't open soda
bottles?  Is it okay to warm something up or not?  Is there a separate
set of glasses to use for a meat meal or only one?

I'll bet most of the time, the people involved don't know the difference
between differing halachik opinions and simply different minhagim.

Just my two cents.

Ellen Krischer


End of Volume 22 Issue 12