Volume 24 Number 06
Produced: Mon May 20 8:03:48 1996
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Creation of Eve and Genetics
[Zvi Weiss]
Creation of women
[Aryeh Frimer]
El Al Kashruth
[Percy Mett]
Guests Driving on Shabbat
[Mandy G. Book]
Guests who MIGHT drive on Shabbos
[Elayne Gordon]
Guests who might drive on shabbos
[Shaul Weinreb]
Guests who might drive on Shabbos
[Gary Kaufman]
Mishna In Avot (Women)
[Joseph Steinberg]
Social Interactions
[Warren Burstein]
Temple/Shabbas
[Israel Rosenfeld]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 08:50:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Creation of Eve and Genetics
> From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
> Stan Tenen writes:
> > because of a misapplication of the Pshat meaning of Torah. The midrash
> > about Adam and Eve being created back-to-back alludes to a specific
> > kabbalistic image of creation and has nothing whatsoever to do with
> > human anatomy.
> While there is a clear Kabbalistic understanding of the concept of
> "back-to-back" in the building of the Sefirot, and that is how to
> understand that Midrash ina Kabbalistic sense, it is by no means clear
> to me that it is the ONLY way to undrstand the Midrash, and a much more
> "literal" type understanding involving the physical Adam consisting of
> dual (male/female) nature is not a ruled out method of interpretation of
> the Midrash.
I would add that the very fact that the gemara has a pretty extensive
discussion as to "how" Eve was created (including the citation of verses)
would strongly indicate that this matter need NOT be handled on a
"Kabbalistic" level. As we know, the gemara does not ususally have
extensive discussions about such matters -- at least not "openly". To
insist upon an "Adam Kadmon" explanation as the **ONLY** explanation
seems -- imho -- an unwarranted distortion of the gemara, in question.
--Zvi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aryeh Frimer <F66235%<BARILAN.bitnet@...>
Date: Thu, 16 May 96 16:11 O
Subject: Re: Creation of women
One of the issues that bothered me in my original post was the
Torah's use of the word "va-Yiven", which suggest no profound change. A
geneticicst friend here at Bar Ilan noted that since man has an XY
chromosome, "all" Hashem would have to do is to splice out the "Y" and
replicate the X and get XX. Thus Hashem without doing something ab
initio could create women from man. The same would not have worked in
the opposite direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Percy Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 15:56:40 +0100
Subject: El Al Kashruth
Neil Peterman writes >
>here in Israel. Two examples are Amsterdam and London. The kosher food
>supplied on El Al flights out of Amsterdam is under the supervision of
>(a very close friend of mine) the Av Beis Din of Amsterdam, Rabbi Yehuda
>Leib Lewis and is universally regarded as a very reliable hechsher.
>Likewise the Federation of Synagogues, Av Beis Din Dayan Yakov
>Lichtenstein, who give the hashgocha to El Al in London. That having
>been said those who are makpid should always order the
>glatt/medahrin/special kosher option as it only these meals that are
>guaranteed to be served on new utensils.
This is not an option on El Al flights out of London. the only meals
served on these flights are from the El Al Kitchens at Heathrow Airport,
and no alternative is available.
I have been advised that as from next week a third alternative will be
available on El Al flights out of Tel Aviv - apparently it will also be
possible to order a meal under BaDatz (? Eda Charedis)
Hashgocho. Perhaps Neil can check it out. (I intend to check it out
myself next week.)
El Al flights out of Manchester offer the same choice of meals as those
out of Tel Aviv.
British Airways flights offer meals supplied by Hermolis of London
(under Kedassia supervision).
Perets Mett * Tel: +44 181 455 9449
5 Golders Manor Drive *=20
London * INTERNET: <P.Mett@...>
NW11 9HU England =20
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mandy G. Book <mbook@...>
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 10:34:13 -0500 ()
Subject: Guests Driving on Shabbat
My husband and I have also on occassion considered whether we should
refrain from inviting a guest to a Shabbos meal where we know that guest
will likely drive to our home. Our first approach, generally, is to let
our guests know they are welcome to spend the night if they wish.
Failing that, though, I tend to think that when a person is not shomer
shabbos, my not inviting him to my home is not solving anything. It
most likely does not keep him from driving on Friday night (if not my
house for Shabbos dinner, than a bar with some friends?) I don't feel
that my inviting him/her to dinner casues that person to violate Shabbos
-- that person will be doing things in violation of the Shabbos with or
without my help.
The real question is whether, as a community, we are willing to allow
people to "feel their way" around -- whether we are willing to let
people explore observant Judaism (and return to their roots, in those
cases), at some pace slower than we would prefer. Or, are we saying that
we are unable to share our Shabbos table with someone who has not
observed particular commandments? It is quite likely that we each have
not observed some particular commandment, and I suspect we would not be
willing to exclude from our Shabbos table, say, every person who speaks
loshon hara the Friday preceding the meal!
>From the gentleman's posting, it seems that he has made his disapproval
quite clear to his friend many times. Beyond that, if I were in his
shoes, I think I would make my friend welcome at my table any time, no
matter what, no questions asked. I wouldn't provide him with an
opportunity to gloat about his various transgressions, but I also
wouldn't effectively shut him out because of them. I don't feel that
approach is effective in the long term. On the surface, it cannot be
good for what probably has been a long and important friendship. (Please
don't forget that the man is a friend, or at least he has been. He is a
person first and foremost before he is a "transgressor.") Beyond that,
the man is not likely to return to frumkeit full force one weekend on a
whim as when he left. It is always harder to restrict a lifestyle than
to loosen it. If he finds that his friends and his community reject him
outright for events like Shabbos lunch, he is so much more likely to bag
the whole "Jewish" thing entirely than he would be if his friends
remained supportive of him, even if not of his behavior.
That said, there are probably people I would not allow in my home if I
did not approve of their behavior. I would not entertain a child
molestor at my table. I would not allow someone to speak to my children
about ideas that directly contradict my own teaching on the subject
(i.e. I wouldn't allow this friend to discuss his Friday night
escapades at the Shabbos afternoon table). But, assuming that he
respects my wishes to have my home a certain way with a certain
environment, I have to respect his as well. I know that does not hold
true for all things -- but with the particular issue of Shabbos
observance, the only person the man hurts is himself and his
relationship with HKBH. And so what if the man drives through the frum
neighborhood on Shabbos? The only one really hurt is himself.
That's my 25 cents for today . . .
Mandy Book
<mbook@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <SGordon724@...> (Elayne Gordon)
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 18:17:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Guests who MIGHT drive on Shabbos
This issue came up at a women's discussion group with Rabbi Manis
Friedman I recently attended in Houston. For those who might not know,
Rabbi Friedman runs the Bais Chana school for women and girls and is
highly thought of in the Lubavitch Community (and elsewhere). His
response to this question was as follows: (a paraphrase)
The mitzvah of having guests on Shabbos outweighs any other issue.
His feeling was that it was necessary to make it possible to invite
guests and have them observer the Shabbat by inviting them to arrive
prior to Shabbat beginning and extending an invitation for them to stay
until Shabbos ends. What they then choose to do is their own decision
and out of your control. Your responsibility is in providing a Kosher
invitation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <SaulJE@...> (Shaul Weinreb)
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 00:14:30 -0400
Subject: Guests who might drive on shabbos
In response to Chaim Shapiro's question about inviting his friend for
shabbos, may I say some guidelines that I have heard regarding this
issue.
In order to be "omer dovor b'shem omro" my father heard these
guidelines from R' Yitzchok Lowenbraun of Baltimore, an experienced
person in the "field" of Kiruv who if I'm not mistaken was told the
following by HaRav Yitzchok Ruderman ZT'L. As long as you make it clear
to the individual that he is welcome to sleep in your home and all
arrangements have been made for him, it is no longer your responsibility
to make sure that he or she does not drive if it is their wish not to
spend the night or afternoon. However, in your case, it sounds like
you're almost affording him the opportunity to show off his new found
"freedom." I don't know how this would apply to someone who apparently
is a bonified Mumar Lehachis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gary Kaufman <kaufman@...>
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 11:34:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Guests who might drive on Shabbos
Chaim Shapiro wrote about a friend that went off the derech (and shows
it off proudly) and might stop by for a shabbos meal. His concerns
about his driving are very problematic. In the first case, it is not
permitted to invite someone over on shabbos if he will drive. In the
second case, as he boasts about his new found life openly, what effect
will this conversation have on the children who are listening ? In my
opinion, he should tell his friend that he is welcome to his home only
if he follows certain rules:
1. You may not drive over to the house
2. You must wear a Yarmulke and make all brochos
3. You must behave like an "Ehrlicher" Yid
If this friend is truly interested in experiencing Shabbos again, and
his "pintele yid" is starting to grow, great, he will comply out of
respect of the friendship.
Gary R. Kaufman <kaufman@...>
United States of America
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Steinberg <steinber@...>
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 10:10:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Mishna In Avot (Women)
> 2) Someone wrote:
> The Mishna that I remember says 'al *TARBEH* sicha im *HA*ishsha' --
> and not 'al t'socheach' and 'im nashim' or 'im ishto'...
> If the author of this mishna had wanted to write
> 'avoid social intercourse with women'
> he would have done so -- but, he did not.
:
:The full mishna reads: Yose ben Yochanan of Jerusalem said: ...
:and do not gossip with women. This has been said even with regard
This is NOT what the Mishna syas. I do not know what translation you are
reading from but 'Al Tarbeh Sichah' does not mean 'do not gossip' -- it
never did, and it never will. TARBEH by definition means that the author
had no problem with speaking with women, just with speaking TOO MUCH with
women (whatever that means).
| | ___ ___ ___ _ __ | |__ Joseph Steinberg
_ | |/ _ \/ __|/ _ \ '_ \| '_ \ <steinber@...>
| |_| | (_) \__ \ __/ |_) | | | | http://pages.nyu.edu/~jzs7697
\___/ \___/|___/\___| .__/|_| |_| +1-201-833-9674
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <warren@...> (Warren Burstein)
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 22:33:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Social Interactions
Jeremy Nussbaum translates the phrase "al tarbe sicha im haisha" from
Avot 1:5 as "do not gossip with women". It seems to me that the words
mean "do not engage in too much conversation with women" (leaving open
the question of how much is too much), I'm curious why the notion of
gossip, absent in the original, was introduced into the translation, and
why a warning not to exceed a limit has been turned into a total
prohibition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <iir@...> (Israel Rosenfeld)
Date: Thu, 16 May 96 17:53 +0200
Subject: Re: Temple/Shabbas
>From: Eli Lansey <Rlansey@...>
>This posting is from my son, Eli:
> I have learned seder Moed in mishnayot and all throughout it
>this question has been bothering me. Why can you be mechalel Shabbat
>and even Yom Kipper for certain things in the avodah? I would like to
>use this subject for my siyum and bar-mitzvah drushah. Please provide
>any reference material to help me give an answer.
I quote the Rambam, Laws of Passover Sacrifice -
1:16 - If the fourteenth (of Nissan - day of the sacrifice) comes out on
Shabbas, actions outlawed by the Oral Law on Shabbas are done,
e.g. washing the floor of the Temple Court, because Rabinical
decrees don't include the Temple, EVEN if the action is not
mandatory for the service.
1:18 - Slaughtering the lamb, burning the sacrificed parts, etc., are
done on Shabbas because the Torah says to do them
"on the specified day" (Bamidbar/Numbers 9:2).
Anything that can be done before Shabbas, e.g. bringing the
lamb from outside the city, or after Shabbas, e.g. roasting the
meat, is not done on Shabbas.
Note - the translation is not word for word, I tried to convey the intention...
In conclusion, daily services are done on Shabbas because the Torah
says "daily".
Services connected to Holidays (New Year, Yom Kippur,
Passover, Omer, Shvuot, Succot) are done on the holiday because
the Torah said to do it on that date.
Actions in support of the services -
if forbidden by the Torah, they are not done on Shabbas;
if forbidden by the Rabbis, they are done on Shabbas.
Behatzlacha rabba,
Yisrael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 24 Issue 6
