Volume 24 Number 88
                       Produced: Sun Sep  8 23:37:33 1996

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Alef bet cookies
         [Louise Miller]
baby using radio on Shabbat?
Calling a Jesuit Professor Father
         [Larry London]
Father, Women's Head Covering
         [Michael and Abby Pitkowsky]
Jewish and non-Jewish souls
         [Yitzchok Adlerstein]
Looking for quote
         [Stew Gottlieb]
New Year Socializing: A preparation for the Mitzvah of Marriage
         [Russell Hendel]
Selichos between Rosh Hashannah and Yom Kippur
         [Alan Davidson]
         [Moshe Freedenberg]
Without Shoes
         [Meylekh Viswanath]


From: <miller@...> (Louise Miller)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 96 16:05:46 PDT
Subject: Alef bet cookies

I've been searching with no success for cookie cutters or chocolate
molds or something similar, to make alef-bet cookies or candy for my
son's birthday in October.

I've called all of the Jewish gift shop 800 numbers I could find, as
well as some of the more obvious places in Los Angeles and New York.

I don't have the decorating skills to paint letters on plain cookies!!

If you sell such a product or know where I can find it, (or you can
think of a better idea,) please e-mail me.

Thanks in advance,
Louise Miller
La Jolla (San Diego) CA


From: <j0ja@...>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 14:20:19 GMT
Subject: Re: baby using radio on Shabbat?

>What would be pro/contra for using radio equipment to monitor baby that
>sleeps in a different room so that the mother can enjoy her shabbos by
>spending time with other kids and guests?

>I understand that would an adult produce sounds that will be transmitted
>it would be forbidden midrabanan if there are no lights on the
>equipment. But what if the baby is in a special room, where adults come
>in taking care not talk to make noise [ additional precaution can be
>taken by using a sensor that is invoked only by a certain level of the

How would this differ from using an electric voice activated microphone
to project the rabbi's voice in shul?




From: Larry London <llondon@...>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 16:14:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Calling a Jesuit Professor Father

Re: Calling a PhD professor at a Jesuit University, "Father".

     Granted some orthodox rabbis do not call a reform rabbi, "Rabbi,"
but that seems to be the minority opinion.  A better example is the use
of the word "lord" or "L-rd."  No one would suggest not calling a "lord"
by his honorary title because of confusion with L-rd.  What is the
problem with calling a professor at a Jesuit University "Father" when
that is the name he wishes to go by?  Does it violate kibud av, respect
for one's personal parent?  Or by calling a man "father" does it go
against our Real Father?  We in the Jewish world, and especially the
orthodox world ask a lot of tolerance from others. Addressing a Jesuit
clergyman at a Jesuit University by his perferred title is the least we
can do for mutual tolerance.



From: Michael and Abby Pitkowsky <pitab@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 96 21:41:43 PDT
Subject: Father, Women's Head Covering

	One of my Profs at my new school, a Jesuit University, is a
>priest.  I've been informed that although he has a Phd he will not
>respond to Dr. as he wants all his students to call him father.  What
> do I do?

What is the problem with calling him father.  It is obvious that the
title has no connection to any blood relation.

Regarding women's head covering, there was a series of interesting
articles in the journal Judaism, Spring 1990 and Winter 1991. Two rabbis
which permitted it are R. Joseph Mashash the former chief Sephardic
rabbi of Haifa (d. 1974) and R. Isaac S. Hurewitz, author of Yad HaLevi.

Name: Michael Menahem and Abby Pitkowsky
E-mail: <pitab@...>


From: Yitzchok Adlerstein <yadler@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 22:14:42 -0700
Subject: Jewish and non-Jewish souls

Yehoshua Kahan cited Rav Yoel Bin-nun (an established expert on the
thought of Rav Kook) to the effect that " Rav Kook held that while on
the level of one's individual soul, non-Jew and Jew are equivalent, on
the level of the national (over-)soul [in which all indivuals partake as
a constitutive element] there is a difference: Am Yisrael is the only
nation to possess a national Neshama, with all that that might imply on
a national level."

Now, the last thing I am is an expert in the works of Rav Kook.  I am
puzzled by the above contention, however.  Rav Kook on Pirkei Avos (Olat
Re'ah, pg. 156) is altogether clear in his view of the difference
between individual Jewish and non-Jewish souls.  He is so clear IMHO,
that I use this passage as the clearest example I know of to actually
define what the difference is (within the approach of the kabbalists
who, as Yehoshua points out, assume such a difference).

Rav Kook considers non-Jewish souls "undifferentiated" - souls of
"potential" to understand and become perfected.  If these souls are not
worked with, if not perfected through understanding and action, they do
not possess "complete existence."  Jewish souls, on the other hand, come
from a holy source, already partially formed and shaped.  Even if they
are denied the specific development appropriate to them, they do not
lose the a priori greatness that they are endowed with.


From: Stew Gottlieb <shmuel@...>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 11:42:19 -0400 (edt)
Subject: Looking for quote

I am looking for the exact wording and/or the source for a quote that I 
once saw.  I think it may come from the Gemarah.  It say somthing like: 
'Those who appease evil men are destined to be ruled by them.'
Any help would be appreciated.

Stew Gottlieb


From: <rhendel@...> (Russell Hendel)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 13:29:10 -0400
Subject: New Year Socializing: A preparation for the Mitzvah of Marriage

I am responding to the rich variety of postings on whether members of
the opposite sex should socialize on Rosh Hashana on tashlich.

My answer is simple. It should be encouraged.  Marriage is a Mitzvah.
What better time to meet people then by a religious symbolic ceremony
making us new and refreshed.  Certainly people who go to Movies and bars
might find this a welcome switch!!  Furthermore, if say a boy and girl
had a falling out or a misunderstanding what better time to make up.

How then do I account for those occasional acharonim who prohibit
because of the excesses of Socializing?? Simple.  Let me give you an
analogy.  My mother once told me that she had stopped going to one of
the nearby Mikvah's in our neighborhood because "there was too much
socializing" when people met there (have you seen so and so etc). It was
too gossippy so she went to a more distant mikvah.

Now my mother was NOT giving a Pesak not to go to Mikvahs.  She was
personally assessing a situation and acting on it.  In a similar manner
if a particular rabbi sees that IN HIS congregation people are too
gossipy at Tashlich and more harm is being done than good and he can't
stop it then HE might try to prohibit Tashlich.  In other words Tashlich
prohibitions MUST be perceived as HORATH SHAaH in a particular
situation. It cannot however be imagined that any Rav would try and stop
people from socializing for marriage.

In a similar vein one person posted on the fact that Beith Yaakov girls
who say good shabbos to someone in the street get a bad reputation. This
is news to me.  But again any such policy must be regarded as temporary
with a particular girl and boy involved. Indeed saying Hello is so
important that I can interrupt Kriath Shema to return a greeting!  In
fact it would seem to me that abstaining from returning a greeting would
violate the Biblical law of Onaah --hurting someone elses feelings.

The underlying theme in these two comments is the same: A biblical
commandment cannot be set aside because of some vague "atmosphere" goal
of Tzniuth. Thus the commandment of marriage encourages people to talk
during Tashlich (except if a community misuses this) and similarly the
prohibition of Onaah obligates Beth yaakov girls to say good shabbos
(unless the boys in the community are so hyper that even a good shabbos
leads to "sinful responses" a possiblity that I really dismiss as

I conclude by noting that the Rambam in his great introduction to his
commentary on Pikay Avoth---the so called "eight chapters" which discuss
Jewish views on psychology-- clearly states that a person who is
momentarily not on the "middle road" has the right to abstain from
permissable things (such as socializing during tashlich and saying good
shabbos) BUT ONLY till he returns to normal.

I believe that this "temporary" concept will spread sufficient light on
the occasional strigencies we see in Tzniuth to prevent us from getting
entangled in unacceptable practices.

With this in mind I wish a happy new year to all Jewish singles and hope
they meet their bashert a few weekends from now!  Just think of the
great Kiddush Hashem if a MJ discussion could lead to breaking a bad
trend and to many couples getting married!

Russell Jay Hendel,Ph.d, ASA, rhendel @ mcs . drexel . edu	


From: Alan Davidson <DAVIDSON@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 96 21:40:50 EDT
Subject: Selichos between Rosh Hashannah and Yom Kippur

I have become aware of a minhag, at least among Lubavitchers and perhaps
other Chasidim NOT to say Selichos from 4 Tishrei to 9 Tishrei (unless 4
Tishrei is Tzom Gedaliah deferred from Shabbos).  I was wondering about
the reasons and sources for this minhag.  I do know that Rambam in
Hilchos Teshuvah mentions the custom in a footnote, and other potential
reasons include the inclusion of reminders of the holiness of the time
period in Shemonah Esrei and by reciting Avinu Malkenu, the usual
inclusion of Vidui in Tachanun by Chasidim, and the emphasis on reciting
Tehillim daily and on Shabbos Mevarchim.


From: Moshe Freedenberg <free@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 23:37:33 +-300
Subject: Socializing

I am replying to two separate letters in the same digest.

>Basically, these men are not willing to relate to women in a platonic
>fashion as their peers. It seems that these men only want to treat women
>properly when the women are conveniently tucked away into their proper
>role, but there are some women who want to be related to not as a mother,
>sister, aunt, or wife, but as a person.
>        I don't know if any of the subscribers are familiar with Bnei
>Akiva,... These young boys and girls learn important values of Judaism
>while viewing each other as peers. They are not scared of each other, and
>the males don't quote Pirkei Avot as to why women are "bad" to talk to.

I think that the above statement is a bit confused.  All people are a sum 
of their roles.  This means that women are a combination of wife, mother, 
sister, aunt, student, teacher, and many more roles they play in everyday 
life.  I am not sure how on earth one *could* relate to a woman if not in 
the context of her role(s).  This is what being a person is.  I am not sure 
what the poster of the above means about people who quote Pirkei Avot, but 
it is typical gaivah (pride, arrogance) to think that you are so brilliant, 
special, etc. that you don't need the guidelines that chazal have set out 
for us to follow in human interactions.  I don't believe that Chareidi 
young men (who would never participate in a Bnei Akiva activity) are in the 
least bit frightened of girls.  They are very busy learning Torah and they 
regard their relationships with others (girls as well as everyone else) in 
the context of that Torah.  The idea that young men and women (or even 
older ones) should feel free to socialize with other unrelated women and 
men is not a Jewish one.  Bnei Akiva is generally associated with what is 
called "Modern Orthodox" hashkafa.  The "modern" comes from incorporating 
ideas from their current residence in golus into their behavior to better 
fit in to the society around them.  Most of these ideas cannot be accepted 
on a l'chathila* basis, but are instead more of the b'dieved** variety.

*l'chatchila--what the preferred action is in the first place
**b'dieved--after the fact

>If a girl goes to Bais Yaakov her whole life where if she talks to a boy
>even to wish a passerby good shabbos she is given a negative reputation,
>and her brother is supposed to be at yeshiva the whole day, and is also
>not allowed to speak to girls even their sisters in public, how is this
>sheltering positive?

Well, I can only say that if a boy is in yeshiva all day and is not 
speaking with girls (though I am not sure what you mean about talking to 
their sisters) in public or private or wherever and girls never speak to 
unrelated boys, then they are never put into a situation where things get 
out of hand.


From: Meylekh Viswanath <viswanat@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 15:19:02 -0400
Subject: Without Shoes

>From: Mordy Gross
>>There are many very good reasons not to walk around w/o shoes:
>>1) Mourners walk around w/o shoes. It is a Symbol of Mourning, and
>>therefor should not be done by Non-Mourners.

I have heard that R. Abraham ben Maimun, the Rambam's son davened
barefoot.  The reason for not davening barefoot, that I have heard, that
just as one does not go barefoot before a king, one should not go
barefoot before hashem.  On the other hand, Hindus may not pray wearing
shoes, because shoes are dirty: we walk around them outside in dirty
areas--one is required, in fact, if possible, to wash one's feet before

Muslims, I don't know why, also take off their shoes before going into a
mosque.  BTW, the Rambam and his son lived in Muslim countries.  What I
am suggesting is that the halakhah on davening in footwear may have to
do with subjective considerations: what does one consider more bekovedik
towards hashem--to daven with shoes or without shoes.

Meylekh Viswanath
P.V. Viswanath     Voice: (914) 773-3906  Fax: (914) 773-3920
Lubin School of Business, Pace University, 861 Bedford Rd., Pleasantville,
NY 10570
Email: MAILTO:<viswanat@...>         WWW: http://library.pace.edu/~viswanat


End of Volume 24 Issue 88