Volume 24 Number 09
                       Produced: Tue May 21  7:04:32 1996

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Correct Stress etc during layning
         [Mr D S Deutsch]
Deposits on Pop Bottles
         [Chana Luntz]
Deposits on pop bottles
         [David Charlap]
Deposits on pop bottles  Vol. 23 #99
         [Neil Parks]
Layning, continued
         [Joseph P. Wetstein]
         [Ira Y Rabin]
         [Percy Mett]


From: Mr D S Deutsch <dsd3543@...>
Date: 16 May 96 12:45:00 GMT
Subject: Correct Stress etc during layning

Israel Pickholtz wrote:

>I can never understand how otherwise intelligent people will allow a
>ba'al korei to read Shemot 3 v.15:Vayomer     od elohim     el-Moshe
>(rachmana litz'lan) instead of:Vayomer od   Elokim         el-Moshe.

Well I've been layning for over 25 years and I have spoken to several
highly experienced Baalay Keria about this.
If the Mesora has a Kadma V'Azla on 'OD ELOKIM' that is how it should be
read, i.e. together. The problem only arises where the meaning is
distorted by stress, punctuation or cantillation which was not intended.


From: Chana Luntz <heather@...>
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 07:42:34 +0100
Subject: Deposits on Pop Bottles

<frisch1@...> (Jonathan Katz) writes:
>>>       I am an advid pop drinker, usually downing several bottles a
>>>day.  Recently, I noticed that many bottles of pop in the Chicago area
>>>say that there is a $.10 refund for your deposit in the State of Michigan.
>>>My question is simple.  Can I take bottles purchased in Illinois without
>>>a deposit, to Michigan and recieve a refund?
>>NO! It is illegal (and therefore against halacha), dishonest and could
>>create a Chilul HaShem(desecration of G-d's name).
>I wasn't really going to comment on this until I saw the range of answers
>this question elicited.
>I don't think that it is illegal under American law (someone correct me if
>I'm wrong). So, that line of reasoning is moot.

I am not an American lawyer - but I would assume that making such a
transaction illegal would itself be illegal in that it would prohibit
free commerce among the states and hence be in violation of the American
constitution in the same way as it would be in violation of the
Australian one  (I know the two identical clauses have been interpreted
completely differently, but I would think that this far the difference
could not go).

>As for whether it is unethical/anti-halacha, I think that comes down to a
>basic question regarding the purpose of the 5-cent refund. There are two
>1) The state is willing to pay 5 cents for the aluminum can in and of
>itself (I can think of 2 reasons off the top of my head - either it is
>worth 5 cents to the government to prevent pollution, or the scrap metal
>itself is worth 5 cents). The extra 5 cents the consumer pays when buying a
>soda goes toward supporting this activity.
>2) The government has no interest, a priori, in your aluminum can. However,
>the government is willing to support a program which encourages recycling
>by taking a 5 cent deposit from the consumer and then repaying this money
>when the can is turned in.

I think there is a third possibility though. What the government is
interested in is preventing litter and increased waste in *its* state.
It is giving the deposit in order to encourage its inhabitants not to
through the cans into the regular garbage or to throw them on the
street.  If this is the accurate reason - it really does not want cans
from other states coming in - because they means it has to deal with,
and have the trouble of recycling more litter than in fact it generated
and is responsible for.

If this is the accurate analysis (and my limited knowledge of the
purpose of recycling schemes would lead me to think so- collection and
disposal of litter and waste is one of the primary functions of
government today, and one that is increasingly costly), then by taking
your can across the border, you are relieving your own State of its
litter burden and burdening the other State.  If everybody did it, then
it would place the entire litter burden on the recycling State, and they
would no doubt be unable to cope, forcing them to abandon their
recycling (and particularly deposit) scheme and continue to use up
landfill with aluminum cans.

>In case #1, it would be allowed to buy a can in one state and return it in
>the other; in case #2 it would not be allowed.

If #3 were the case, well morally perhaps one should not do it (rather
lobby one's own State to set up a similar scheme) - halachically, I have
no idea.

>Aside from the above ruminations, let's look at it practically. The fact
>is, any state with a 5 cent refund bordering a state with a 10 cent refund
>must know that some people are going to drive over to the other state -
>obviously, the first state is not worried, or else it would change its

Or because it thinks that the issue is too important and the incentive
is not enough to be left with 5c as an incentive, even if they get a few
more cans from across the border.

Especially though - as the above scenario is not actually economically
sensible.  Even with the ridiculously low petrol (gas) prices in the US,
it is still going to very rarely be economic to drive over a State
border in order to get an extra 5c refund.

>Just my 5 cents =)
>Jonathan Katz



From: <david@...> (David Charlap)
Date: Thu, 16 May 96 10:46:27 EDT
Subject: Re: Deposits on pop bottles

Steven R Weintraub <stevenw@...> writes:
>Of course if retailers in Michigan lose too much money because of this
>it is more likely they will lobby their state legislature to repeal the
>deposit law (and the bureaucracy that goes with it) than they would go
>lobby Illinois legislature to enact a deposit law. :-\

Assuming the retailers lose any money.  I'm not certain how these laws
actually work.  I'd be surprised if the stores collect the extra 5 cents
and pocket it, only to pay it out when the can is returned.  This would
create problems from people buying from one store and returning the cans
at another store, even within the same state.

More likely, the store collects the 5 cents on behalf of the state,
which collects the money along with the store's taxes.  The stores would
then be reimbursed (in the same manner) for the 5 cents they pay out for
the cans when they're returned.

In other words, the retailers probably don't gain or lose anything from
deposit laws, regardless of what states/stores you buy/return your cans
in.  The only ones affected would be the state governments themselves,
and there would only be loss/gain from the people transporting cans
across state lines.

>It is best to follow the law (which says you should not do this).  It a
>requirement as a Jew and to blantantly ignore the law bring disgrace to
>your people.

Unless, as others have said, there may not be any such law.  I know that
when New York started their deposit law, I never heard any mention of
forbidding you to transport your cans to/from other deposit states (like
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusettes, etc.)  If there is such a
law, it's one the states keep rather quiet about.

-- David


From: Neil Parks <nparks@...>
Date: Thu, 16 May 96 18:04:16 EDT
Subject: Deposits on pop bottles  Vol. 23 #99

Chaim Shapiro asked:
>>My question is simple.  Can I take bottles purchased in Illinois without 
>>a deposit, to Michigan and recieve a refund?
I replied:
>> If the stores in Michigan will take the bottles, sounds like a good 
>> idea to me.
Steven R Weintraub said:
>It is best to follow the law (which says you should not do this).  It a
>requirement as a Jew and to blantantly ignore the law bring disgrace to
>your people.

If the law does expressly say one should not do this, then I would agree
that a Jew should not do it.  But I don't know that the law says any
such thing.

I know that some of the deposit/recycle schemes allow bottlers to use
specially marked caps to identify bottles that were sold with a deposit.
To get a refund of the deposit, you have to return the bottles with the
caps on.  That prevents exactly the kind of interstate transaction that
Chaim was contemplating.

If Michigan uses such a plan, I don't advocate trying to get around it.
Scrounging in Michigan wastebaskets for caps to put onto Illinois
bottles is definitely not proper conduct.

But if the Michigan and Illinois products are physically identical, and
the Michigan retailer will therefore accept unmodified Illinois bottles,
then I don't see any harm.

....This msg brought to you by NEIL PARKS      Beachwood, Ohio    
 mailto://<nparks@...>       http://www.en.com/users/neparks/


From: <jpw@...> (Joseph P. Wetstein)
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 07:51:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Layning, continued

I wanted to comment on the newest set of leyning/bar mitzvah questions.
First, for all of the experts out there, they should be at least
pronouncing it 'baal kriyah' and not 'bal koreh'. Does it matter? Only
if you are calling yourself an expert!

Second, if one makes a mistake, says a Shem Hashem, one completes the
pasuk, but then REPEATS the pasuk correctly. It is not ignored. Mistakes
were never meant to be ignored.

Third, there is NO PROHIBITION, NO STIGMA, NO CHEREM over the
tochacha. It has been made a terrible thing: with people not only not
wanting the aliyah, but now leyning it without a bracha in many places
because of the ayn harah. I'm _sure_ that people will write to 'correct'
me, but there is no VALID mesorah to stop at "v'olech eschem komimius"
and make the bracha, leyning w/o a bracha.

I was never makpid to NOT get that aliyah. In fact, at a bar mitzvah
once that aliyah was given to me because everyone else was 'scared' of
it - the b.m. boy didn't know the difference or even care. Should we be
afraid of a single guy getting the aliyah of Yehuda/Tamar? Of a ger
getting any particular aliyah? Or maybe we should make sure that a bar
mitzvah boy doesn't get ben-sorr-er u'morehr just in case!

Don't be afraid of a piece of Torah. It won't bite.

Yossi Wetstein


From: <irabin@...> (Ira Y Rabin)
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 13:14:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Leyning/Troupe

	This is regarding the leyning/troupe discussion and the
discussion about a good tikkun.  My comment about the kadma and the
pashta (which Mr. Perl asked about) is a musical one. There is a
difference in the way they are sung, yet most balley kriah (myself
included :) ) often don't make the distinction (as is often the case
with a t'lisha k'tanah and a t'lisha g'dolah). Compounding the problem
is that the kadma and the pashta look the same, so distinguishing
between the two is not so simple. I also remember hearing that a pashta
will accent a word mil'lera (unless there is a double note), but I'm not
100% sure about this, and others may have learned differently.
	There is absolutely nothing wrong with a bar mitzvah boy leyning
either tochicha. Many shuls give the gabbai that aliyah anyway, and not
the bal kriah, so that isn't really a problem.  While leyning it may
require extra skill in that it is leyned faster and quieter, there is
nothing wrong with him leyning it. How ironic it would be that on the
day a boy enters gil mitzvos, that we are telling him not to read a
section of the torah, and the consequences of not following the mitzvos.
Yet, I am NOT a rabbi, and in NO WAY trying to give a p'sak.
	As far as the tikkun discussion. The famous blue 'tikkun
lakorim" that most of us use- it is true the columns do often match the
way they are in the torah. However, this is only a recent phenomeonon.
Many torahs, especially older ones are not lined up the same way- they
are 100% kasher, just lined up differently. In fact, many older torahs
don't even have their cloumns starting with a vav, and the 6 columns
which aren't supposed to start with vav, may start with a vav (the 6
being- Breishis; Yehuda-parshas va'yichi; Haba'im- parshas be'shalach;
Shemar- parshas ki sisa; Shnei- parshas acharay mos, adn Ma tovu-
parshas balak).  the point is, don't memorize! don't say "well I know at
the top of the column there is a t'lisha," b/c it might not be in the
same place in the actual torah.  There is also a mistake in parshas
va'yakhel. In the pasuk "es hamishkan es olaho, v'es michsayhu... there
is a vav missing from a "v'es." if you compare both sides on the tikkun
carefully on that pasuk you'll see the error.

Respectfully submitted,
Ira Rabin


From: Percy Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 16:14:24 +0100
Subject: Trop

In mail-jewish Vol. 24 #02, Michael Perl wrote:
>Ira Rabin rightly comments on the distortions in meaning that may occur
>due to incorrdetly singing the troupe. He comments that some baalei Koreh

>don't know the difference between a Pashta and a Kadma. When you say
>this, Ira, I presume you mean in the way it is sung. Did you mean
>anything other than that?

Two important differences between kadmo and pashto.  Pashto is a melekh,
or ta'am hamafsik it serves as a minor pause within the posuk. Kadmo is
a meshores( servant) ; it is ancillary to some other trop and must
always be read in conjunction with the following word.  Note that for
this reason if aword has a pashto the first letter of the following word
cannot lose its dogesh.

The way to tell the difference in print is that pashto is always printed
(but not cantillated) on the last letter; kadmo is printed on the letter
which carries the stress.

It is worth noting that neither kadmo nor pashto can ever be stressed on
the first syllable of a word. If a word carries its stress on its first
syllable, kadmo mutates to ( a form of) munach and pashto mutates to

Perets Mett                             * Tel: +44 181 455 9449
5 Golders Manor Drive                   *
London                                  * INTERNET: <P.Mett@...>
NW11 9HU England                        


End of Volume 24 Issue 9