Volume 24 Number 50
                       Produced: Thu Jun 27  7:48:44 1996

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

613 Mitzvot
         [Stan Tenen]
Consecutive Pashtot
         [Shimon Lebowitz]
Hebron and Cowards
         [Binyomin Segal]
Limud Torah
         [Tzvi Cohen]
Maaser Newbie Question (3)
         [Josh Backon, Warren Burstein, David Goldhar]
         [David Mescheloff]


From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 613 Mitzvot

The 613 Mitzvot represent all the directions we need to "navigate" in
space and in time.  The time dimension is modeled by the yearly cycle of
365 days.  ("Year", Shanah, from the name of the letter Shin, meaning
"tooth"-tetrahedron, notch, step, or distinction in time.)  Each day
reflects a different aspect of HaShem's light in the world.  Each "day"
has its mitzvot.  These are the 365 "negative" (time, invisible)
  (Gid = Gimel-Yod-Dalet = cyclic/gimel dispensation of Will/Yod-Dalet.)

The space dimensions are also represented by a cyclic geometry.  But 
this is more personal.  The year goes by whether we are here or not.  It 
is eternal and it is external to us.  Our personal dimensions are the 
space in which our bodies reside.  This is the space of Continuous 
Creation.  It is modeled by 3-lobed (or 3-eared, or 3-cycles of) torus 
knots.  These knots take on the spatial form of our bodies.  Each of the 
3-cycles (lobes, ears, etc.) of the model has a "circumference" of 2Pi 
(when all radii are set to unit length).  The three independent 
(circular, phase-) dimensions are multiplied by each other to represent 
all degrees of spatial freedom simultaneously.  Thus (2Pi)exp3.  (You 
can think of this as a sort of higher dimensional sphere or torus.)  
(2Pi)exp3 = 248 (or very nearly so).  Thus there are 248 natural 
divisions to our bodily space.  These are the "positive" (bodily, visible)
 commandments.  (Ever = Alef-Bet-Resh = a wing or limb.  The three
"lobes" or "ears" are the 3-limbs or wings.  They actually take the
shape of wings in the model of Continuous Creation.)

As a complete science of consciousness, Torah Judaism must describe a
complete system.  All the limited temporal aspects and all of the bodily
physical aspects must be included.  No more, no less.  Thus 365 + 248 =
613 - no number adjustments nor fudging required.

The teachings of our sages and the halacha we follow are descended from
the science of consciousness in Torah known to previous generations.
Remnants of this science can be gleaned from a close (letter level)
reading of kabbalistic and talmudic texts.  The whole science of
consciousness remains complete in Torah.

Good Shabbos,

P.S. As usual, I do not expect anyone to be able to make much sense of 
what I have written without seeing the model of Continuous Creation.  
Until our Web site is up, those who are interested in seeing the models 
can receive an introductory packet on this work by sending me their 
surface mail address.  There is no charge or obligation. <smile>  


From: Shimon Lebowitz <lebowitz@...>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 03:58:06 +0300
Subject: Consecutive Pashtot

Recently, someone here commented on the 'strange' set of trop assigned
to the haftara brachot, which include 2 consecutive pashtot, supposedly
a construct not found in 'real' trop (on psukim in tanach).

This last shabbat i was surprised to see *several* cases of consecutive
pashtot! :-)

I am referring to REAL consecutive pashtot, not to:
 1) a kadma (often confused with a pashta, but discernable in 
    2 ways. a: a pashta is always printed on the LAST letter
    of the word, kadma NEVER on the last letter.
    b: in the koren tanach, a kadma narrows to the top, 
    but a pashta widens to the top).
2) trei pashta - a pair of pashtot on a single [logical] word, used to 
    show the correct accent, by putting one on the final letter,
    to define it as a pashta, and one on the accented letter.
    these are really only ONE pashta, sung once. (i dont know
    history of trop, but this 'feels' like a printers idea, can anyone 
    elaborate on the background of this?)

The cases I saw were in the parasha, bamidbar 20:8 (second pasuk in
shlishi), and twice in the haftara: shofetim 11:8 and 11:9. (turning a
page, my eye just caught another, 12:3).

well, i guess the brachot arent so way-out after all. :-)
Shimon Lebowitz                   Bitnet:   LEBOWITZ@HUJIVMS
VM System Programmer              internet: <lebowitz@...>
Israel Police National HQ.        IBMMAIL:  I1060211
Jerusalem, Israel                 phone:    +972 2 309-877  fax: 309-308


From: <bsegal@...> (Binyomin Segal)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:13:16 -0500
Subject: Hebron and Cowards

In a recent post Eli Turkel makes a reasonable argument for the right to
defend yourself - even (or especially) in the face of danger.

For the most part I think Eli makes good and reasonable points. However at
the end of his post he steps outside of the present and says...

 * in my opinion Ben Gurion was right and the
 * Brisker rav was wrong as proved by history. If the Brisker Rav had been
 * followed there would not be the Torah community that presently exists in
 * Israel. Instead there would still be a few thousand poor Jews in the old
 * yishuv.

This comment bothers me on a few levels. But the most basic point is one we
have discussed recently. History proves nothing.

(Lu yitzur) even if Eli is correct that ultimately it is Ben Gurion that is
responsible for the wealth and growth of the Torah community in Israel, I
am not _sure_ that the Brisker Rav would have seen this as an improvement.
Consider that without Ben Gurion Israel would have remained for us a place
where only the most dedicated and elite spiritually would go. Only they
would brave the poverty. Further all the jewish money from the US that went
to Israel would have been available for jewish needs in the US. It might be
true that more would ultimately have supported Torah learning (rather than
buying jet planes and planting trees - two things that in our reality are
clearly needed - but would not be without the state).

Im _not_ saying my scenario is _true_. Merely that history has proven
nothing - and between Ben Gurion and the Brisker Rav I'd still bet with the
Brisker Rav.



From: <TFls@...> (Tzvi Cohen)
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 00:34:10 -0400
Subject: Limud Torah

I am trying to get a handle on the issue of women and Torah learning.
While it seems to be widely accepted today for women to learn Torah, if
we are to look only at Torah sources, how is this idea veiwed? We know
that while there is a concept of Sha'at had'chak, (exceptions that may
be made for extenuating times or circumstances), the reality of a Torah
veiw is 'L'maalah min haz'man', superceeding time restraints and the
generation gap.

Here is some information that I accept as fact:

- The Rambam says that women are not mekabelet schar k'ish (do not
aquire reward) for torah learning in the same way men
do. (Rambam,Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:13)

-Gemara Sotah, 21, states that if you teach your daughter Torah,
(interpreted by some as all Torah, and by others as Torah Shebe'al Peh)
it is equated with teaching her tiflut (immorality).

There are still these issues which I would like to understand.

1- Is it mutar for women to learn gemara, (and if there is a
disagreement between Poskim [halachik authorities], who says what?)

2- Is a women who sits and learns Torah in her every spare moment
greater than a women who involves herself in projects of chessed, or is
there any way for us to measure this?

3- What if this same women learned in every spare moment only those
topics which pertained to Mitzvot to which she is obligated to keep?
Would this change any part of the above question or answer?

Hoping to hear from you soon,

Tzvi Cohen


From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Fri,  21 Jun 96 11:46 +0200
Subject: Re: Maaser Newbie Question

In Jerusalem, all the major supermarket chains (Co-op Jerusalem and
Supersol) are under the hashgacha of the Moetza Datit of Jerusalem.
There will always be a small sign next to the fruit and vegetable
section indicating that Terumot and Maasrot have been taken. BTW these
are taken by the Tnuva marketing board directly at the wholesale market
in Tel Aviv.

The Rabbanut in Jerusalem puts out (in its annual Pessach issue) a
kashrut guide and this includes information on trumot and maasrot as

The head of the kashrut division is Harav Yosef Efrati and the head of
the section on trumot and maasrot is Harav Shlomo Shmulevitz. Questions
can be asked (in Jerusalem) by phone/fax at 02-233655.

Josh Backon

From: <warren@...> (Warren Burstein)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:36:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Maaser Newbie Question

Aaron D. Gross writes:
>I will be coming with my family to Jerusalem for the months of July and 
>August.  We will be staying in Har Nof, near the Supersol.  Can we assume
>that maaser has already been taken from all produce at that market?

I think it's safe to say that if the Har Nof Supersol doesn't have a
teudah (certificate) that the produce has had trumot and maasrot
separated, I would have heard the screaming over here on the other side
of town.  Nonetheless, it's always a good idea to look for the teudah.

>Are there market chains in Israel that can be trusted?

I'm sure that for each teudah-granting organization there are some
people who say yes, some who say no, and someone who says you have to
take maaser separately from each orange you eat (I know someone who
holds this way personally, although he doesn't tell others to do so).

This is a question for a rabbi who lives in Israel.  Ask your LOR to
refer you to one.

From: <dgoldhar@...> (David Goldhar)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 15:53:43 +0200
Subject: Re:  Maaser Newbie Question

Regarding the questions raised in V24#44 dealing with the separating of
trumas and maasros in Israeli markets:

Nowadays most Israeli supermarket chains separate T & M for you by the
local rabbinate (a certificate atesting to this should be prominent in
the grocery section, and updated daily). The same is true for many green
grocer shops in the shuk. So the opportunity to separate these items
from produce is rare, unless you buy directly from a farm. Even then,
the obligation is widely regarded as only rabbinic today.

Also, nowadays, as we are uncertain who is and who is not truly a Cohen
or Levi, and so cannot allow them to claim the separated trumas or
maasros, we do not separate the required amounts. Instead only a token
amount is separated, which is usually discarded.

The Beit Midrash L'Halacha B'Hityashvut - Keren L'Hilul Maaser Sheni,
POB 50100, Jerusalem, tel 02-383123, can supply you with all the
information you may need regarding the practice of separating T&M, as
well as on the more problematic (and actual) issue of orla fruits.

David Goldhar


From: David Mescheloff <meschd@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 01:32:22 +0200 (WET)
Subject: Re: Raspberries

In Mail.Jewish Volume 24 Number 45, Shimon Lebowitz responded at length to
a question of Brian A. Kleinberg as to whether "orlah" applies to
raspberries.  Quoting an authoritative work with good haskomos, he showed
that the brocho for raspberries is "hoadomo" and that orlah does not
apply.   More precisely, in light of the apparent dispute on this question
among poskim, he refers to the author's writing that he "heard from
hagaon rav shlomo zalman shlit"a that by logic it is not called a tree"... 
"however, lema'aseh, since the poskim were in doubt, and many held that is a
 tree, and we cannot decide definitively against them, therefore out of doubt
 we make bore pri ha'adomo, and for orlah: outside of israel, where sofek-orlah
 is permitted, one may be lenient, but in eretz yisrael, where
 sofek-orlah is prohibited, further study is needed (tzorich iyun) and we
 cannot decide neither leniently nor stringently.  and i heard ...
 from many (great rabbis)  to say borei pri hoadomo, and so decided
 hagaon rav elyashiv shlit"a.... "

I have reason to believe a serious misrepresentation of the issue has
been made here.  Raspberries and papaya have been lumped together, and
the footnote from which the above was taken was applied to both.  I am
very hard pressed to believe that HaRav Shlomo Zalman ZT"L and HaRav
Elyahiv YIBLHTV"A said what they are quoted as saying about raspberries.
Papaya is, indeed, an anomaly, and the above quotes in relation to
papaya are quite reasonable.  Here is another instance where reading a
book of halachic summary can be misleading, and where there can be no
substitute for an LOR familiar with the issues at hand in the original
literature and in botanic reality.

Since Brian Kleinberg's original question related to raspberries, I will
not address the papaya issue here - it is also a much more difficult
issue.  Many poskim, indeed, have dealt with the question of
raspberries.  Among them: Responsa Divrei Yissachar (Bendin), 109;
Resp. Vaye'etar Yitzhak OH 4 - he makes a very strong case for saying
"hoadomo", but concludes: "yet there are some varieties that grow on
plants which last for many years - on these it is certain that the
brocho is "hoetz" and that "orlah" applies; and so is it clear from
Hayye Adam 51, 9"; similar conclusions are in Aruch Hashulkhan (203, 5),
Resp. Maharsham part 1, 136, and more.  In 1941 R. Eliezer Yehuda
Waldenberg Shlit"a addressed the question of raspberries at length
(Resp. Tzitz Eliezer part 1, 17), concluding (in a different context)
that raspberries are definitely to be considered a tree, and the then
Sephardic Chief Rabbi, who had written a contrary opinion, conceded the
point to R. Waldenberg Shlit"a.  Part of the problem in the halachic
discussion of this issue has to do with the fact that the term used for
raspberries in the literature is similar to the term used for other
plants, which are "hoadomo".

All things considered, if the raspberry plants Brian Kleinberg asked
about are the ones usually referred to today, which consist of a plant
above ground which survives year after year, putting out new leaves and
flowers each spring from its above-ground branches, there is not the
slightest doubt that the brocho on its fruit is "ho-etz", and that
"orlah" applies to it, in Israel and elsewhere.  The above-mentioned
scholarly response, albeit impressive, credentialled, and logical, has
nothing to do with raspberries.

David Mescheloff


End of Volume 24 Issue 50