Volume 23 Number 66
                       Produced: Tue Apr 16  7:52:25 1996

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Adding to the Hagadah
         [Micha Berger]
Buying Coffee in a Deli
         [Elanit Z. Rothschild]
         [Jeff Mandin]
Korban Pesach
         [Yisrael Medad]
Sacrifices on a Private Altar (5)
         [Jerome Parness, Moshe Goldberg, Robert Israel, Perry Zamek,
Edwin R Frankel]
Two-Day Yom Tov in the Diaspora
         [David J. Portman, M.D.]
Why 2 days of Shavuot?
         [Zvi Weiss]
Yom Tov Sheni - Shavuot
         [Joseph Steinberg]


From: Micha Berger <aishdas@...>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 06:47:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Adding to the Hagadah

Now that it's a bit late for the question about adding in references to
current events to the hagadah, I'd like to raise the question with
regard to the larger issue.

One of the main distinctions between R and O is our treatment of ritual.
To us, mitzvos are forms created by Hashem, or those more embued in
da'as Torah by virtue of being historically less removed from Har Sinai.
If a person doesn't feel in touch with a given mitzvah, one would keep
it anyway -- mitoch shelo lishmah, ba lishmah, from doing the mitzvah
without proper motivation, one comes to do it with motivation.

R on the other hand, rewrite ritual to fit the religious tone of the
era. For this reason, I think many O Jews are uncomfortable with the
idea of contemporizing mitzvos.

The question boils down to asking if mitzvos are supposed to be an
expression of what we feel, and therefor shouldn't be done
hypocritically, or if mitzvos are intended as exercises to develop a
desired set of feelings, and therefor should be performed in any case.

But in the case of tephillah (prayer), both answers have some
validity. On the one hand, lehitpallel is in hitpa'el reflexive
form. It's something we do to ourselves. As R. YB Soleveitchik zt"l
explains, the key to the formalized text of tephillah is that it
provides us with what our requests ought to be, what should be our

But after the formalized tephillah one is supposed to add tachnunim,
personal expression. Connecting to G-d by asking for His help on the
real concerns that we have every day.

The problem I see with haggados that add reference to current events is
not the reference, but the presence in a hagadah. By printing the text
in the hagadah, the reference is being portrayed as formalized
tephillah, not as personal expression. Personal expression is, after
all, personal, and not the text read out of some book.

On the other hand, the idea of contemporizing the formal text represents
more of an R approach to ritual.

Micha Berger 201 916-0287        Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3427 days!
<AishDas@...>                     (16-Oct-86 -  8-Apr-96)
<a href=news:alt.religion.aishdas>Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed</a>
<a href=http://haven.ios.com/~aishdas>AishDas Society's Home Page</a>


From: <Ezr0th@...> (Elanit Z. Rothschild)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 20:55:38 -0400
Subject: Buying Coffee in a Deli

I have not been following the discussion on Starbucks Coffee so well, so I
don't know if my quesion was asked.  It does not directly have to do with
Starbucks, but coffee.  Are you allowed to go into a Deli, lets say, and buy
regular coffee, not knowing what kind of coffee they use?


Elanit Z. Rothschild


From: Jeff Mandin <jeff@...>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 01:28:52 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Discipleship

I think it can be argued that the Jewish model of discipleship is one
which encourages originality, rather than passivity, on the part of a

The talmidim considered by posterity as the greatest are generally the
ones who departed in some aspect from their teachers - eg. the chain of
the Baalei Tosefot or Hasidic schools.  Even disciples who closely
follow the master make an active original contribution - such as
R. Boruch Ber's explanations of R. Chaim.  As a contrast, consider a
passive disciple such as R. Noson, the student of R.  Nachman of

Consider as well the ranks of those who would not appear to be disciples
in this sense: Chazon Ish, Netziv, Gra etc.

Jeff Mandin 
New York City 
212-560-7891 <jeff.mandin@...>


From: <isrmedia@...> (Yisrael Medad)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 96 01:03:37 PST
Subject: Korban Pesach 

 If I am not mistaken, I previously (two years ago?)  posted the name of
the best comprehensive work on the history of Korban Pesach, especially
after the Hurban (Destruction) of the Temple.
 It is called "Pesach K'Hilchato" and was privately published by Meir
Meizlisch in Bnei Brak in 1967.  He covers all opinions and developments
until then and was very much in favor, even without the Temple standing
or the Altar being in place or any other technical Halachic impediment.
 Yisrael Medad
E-mail: isrmedia


From: Jerome Parness <parness@...>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:45:05 EDT
Subject: Sacrifices on a Private Altar

In v23n62 Alan Silver wrote:
> As far as I know (and I am fairly certain of this), once the Torah had
> been given, Hashem gave a specific commandment that offerings could
> *only* be brought in the Beis Hamikdosh and not on a private (ie
> non-temple) altar. If you look through Tanach, I am pretty sure that you
> will not find any offerings after Mattan Torah except in the Mishkon or
> Beis Hamikdosh.

	In this I beg to differ.  Please see the Haftarah for the
seventh day of Pesach, from 2 Kings, (I do not have it here in front of
me, so forgive me for not having the verses as well).  In short, if you
read the haftarah, as well as all of nevi'im (Prophets) prior to this
chapter, you will see that B'nei Yisrael did bring korbanot on Bamot,
during various times and periods, up until the writing of that portion
of the nevi'im.  Indeed, it states that from the time of the Shoftim
(judges) until that time, Sefer Habrit (another name for Deuteronomy)
had been hidden away in the Ohel Mo'ed and only that Pesach was the
scroll found, read, and determined to state that the Korban Pesach be
brought in the "place that I have decided to have may name rest there"
(very rough translation).  It further states that this was the first
time that there was a centralized korban Pessah.  This has been used by
some, notably the excellent historian Paul Johnson, to claim that this
was part of the power centralization plan of the House of David.  In any
case, it is clear evidence that the Jews did bring the korban Pessah on
bamot, private altars, for a very long time!

Jerome Parness MD PhD           <parness@...>

From: Moshe Goldberg <mgold@...>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:04:17 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Sacrifices on a Private Altar

Ed G. asks about sacrifices being limited to a specific site, while
before the Torah was given there was no such limit. There is no problem
with this, it simply describes the situation. From the time the Torah
was given, the Jews (and the Jews only -- see below) were forbidden to
offer a sacrifice anywhere but in the Temple (except for the time when
the Tabernacle was in Shiloh, when private altars were permitted).

Rabbi Elitzur Segel wrote an article in Techumin, volume 14 (1994), page
501, where he describes the law for a non-Jew offering a sacrific today.
His conclusion is that a Gentile is permitted to bring some types of
sacrifice, and that he is not confined to the Temple site. He quotes
various sources. For example, Tosefta Korbanot 13:1, which says:

"Till the Tabernacle was built, the bamot [private altars] were permitted
.... Only 'Olah' sacrifices were offered ... The Gentiles are permitted to
do this at this time [bazman hazeh]."

Another source is Zevachim 116b: "'Speak to ... Bnei Yisrael ... whoever
slaughters outside of the camp ... will be cut off from the nation'
[Vayikra 17:2-4] -- Bnei Yisrael are forbidden to sacrifice off the site
of the Temple, but Gentiles are not prohibited. Therefore, any Gentile
is permitted to build a private altar and offer any sacrifice that he
wants."  The Talmud then goes on to discuss whether a Jew is permitted
to help the Gentile in his sacrifice or give him advice.

From: Robert Israel <israel@...>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 10:27:35 -0700
Subject: Sacrifices on a Private Altar

As far as I know, that prohibition only took effect after the building
of the Beit Hamikdash.  In the book of Judges, for example, we find
sacrifices at Bochim (2:5), by Gideon at Ophrah (6:19-27), and by Manoah
(Samson's father) at Zorah (13:16-20).

Robert Israel                            <israel@...>
Department of Mathematics             (604) 822-3629
University of British Columbia            fax 822-6074
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Y4

From: <jerusalem@...> (Perry Zamek)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:10:59 +0300
Subject: Sacrifices on a Private Altar

In fact, the chronology is a little more complex than that:

1. Prior to the Mishkan -- all offerings were brought on private altars (Bamah)
2. From the establishment of the Mishkan until the entry into Eretz Yisrael
-- no private sacrifices were permitted outside the Mishkan.
3. From the entry into Eretz Yisrael (more exactly, the establishment of the
Mishkan at Gilgal), private sacrifices (shelamim/"peace" offerings) were
permitted on private altars.
4. During the time of the Mishkan in Shilo (till the death of Eli) --
private sacrifices had to be brought at the Mishkan only.
5. From the destruction of Shilo till the establishment of the Beit
Hamikdash by Shlomo Hamelech -- private sacrifices could be brought on
private altars.
6. After the dedication of the Beit Hamikdash, private sacrifices were
forbidden (for all time) outside the Beit Hamikdash.

During all of those periods, the Korban Hatamid (daily sacrifices) and
other communal sacrifices could only be brought at the "central" altar
(i.e. the Mishkan). However, its status was that of a Bamah rather than
that of the Altar in the Beit Hamikdash (except the Shilo period).

Note: there is one instance where a sacrifice was made outside the Beit
Hamikdash after its construction -- the "challenge match" between Elijah
and the prophets of Baal at Mt. Carmel. Our rabbis hold that it was
permitted as a "Hora'at Sha'ah" (temporary provision).

May we merit soon to bring sacrifices in the Holy Beit Hamikdash.

Perry Zamek   | A Jew should live his life in such a way
Peretz ben    | that people can say of him: "There goes
Avraham       | a living Kiddush Hashem".

From: <frankele@...> (Edwin R Frankel)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 07:51:52 -0700
Subject: Sacrifices on a Private Altar

I don't think it is quite as simple as it may seem.  Yes, once built the
Temple became the primary sacrificial center of our people, but until
the time of King Josiah and his reforms it is unclear from
historical/biblical records whether or not it was the only allowable
site, although it ws certainly the primary site.

Certainly, however, after his time, there were not any other sites, and
certainly not after Shivat Tsion.

Perhaps the destruction by the Romans of the Bayit Sheni also brought an
end to an era that Chazal recognized.  Until that era is retored with
the building of the next Temple, it would be inappropriate, if not plain
wrong from a halachic view, to even consider sacrifice anywhere.

Ed Frankel


From: <portman.1@...> (David J. Portman, M.D.)
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 22:16:16 -0500
Subject: Two-Day Yom Tov in the Diaspora

This is my first posting on mail-jewish.  I have been reading for the
last month and have a question that may have been covered in other
forums. It is my understanding that we keep two days of Yom Tov in chutz
l'aretz because of s'pheka d'yoma (the doubt of the day), mainly because
of the distance we are from Israel.  The aydim who testified as to the
new moon may not have reached the bet din in time for the word to have
gotten out to distant areas.  Why is it then, that people from the
diaspora, when in Israel often celebrate two days of Yom Tov where all
around them, it is not a day of kiddusha? And conversely, how is it that
Israelis in galut can be doing melacha on a day that is clearly Yom Tov
to others at that very same location?  I have heard some explain that
Minhag Avotanu B'yadenu--that the custom of our forefathers is
obligatory upon us, and that if you keep two days because this is your
custom, then where you are (ie Israel) should not impact upon your
observance.  This is troubling, in that the individual, and not the
makom (place) is determining the kiddusha of the day.  Is it, or is it
not truly Yom Tov on the second day in diaspora?  How can it be Yom Tov
for some and not for others based solely on place of origin and not on
actual location during the holiday?  This seems to create a relativity
to the day inconsistent with the usual precision of the halacha.  If
anyone has sources on this matter, I would be quite interested.


From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:41:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Why 2 days of Shavuot?

> From: Gary Goldwater <GOLDWATER@...>
> The date of Shavuot is determined by the 7 week Omer count. How, then,
> could there develop a 2nd day of Shavuot? There could be no doubt about
> the exact date even in days of yore.

 I believe that the Rambam alludes to this and offers a reason that 
Shavuot was observed for 2 days so that people would not regard it less 
"stringently" than the other holidays.


From: Joseph Steinberg <steinber@...>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:25:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Yom Tov Sheni - Shavuot

The second day of Shavuot was created at the time of the Takana -- there
was never a safek on it. The Rabbis made a Lo Plug -- so as not to cause
confusion or lower people's respect for the other second days of Yom

    | | ___  ___  ___ _ __ | |__      Joseph Steinberg
 _  | |/ _ \/ __|/ _ \ '_ \| '_ \     <steinber@...>
| |_| | (_) \__ \  __/ |_) | | | |    http://pages.nyu.edu/~jzs7697
 \___/ \___/|___/\___| .__/|_| |_|    +1-201-833-9674


End of Volume 23 Issue 66