Volume 25 Number 61
                      Produced: Tue Dec 31  7:03:39 1996

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Administrivia - "Archive" edition
         [Avi Feldblum]
Correct Pronunciation
         [Chaim Wasserman]
G-d's name on computer screen
         [Israel Botnick]
Garlic & Sugar at Pidyon HaBen
         [Yechezkal-Shimon Gutfreund]
Name of Hashem on Screen or by Printer
         [Jeffrey H. Miller]
Nusach Mistakes
         [Joseph P. Wetstein]
         [Tova Taragin]
Pronunciation of the word "bechol"
         [Chaim Wasserman]
Question on a Targum Yonatan
         [Mechael Kanovsky]
Thermostatic Control, Gramma, Processor Chips
         [Israel Botnick]
Thermostatic Controls, Gramma and Processor Chips
         [Yisrael Rozen]
Yeshiva Tuition
         [Chaim Stern]


From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 13:59:07 -0500
Subject: Administrivia - "Archive" edition

This edition contains older postings that have been sitting in my mbox
and I am now getting to read and submit to the list.



From: <Chaimwass@...> (Chaim Wasserman)
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 13:18:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Correct Pronunciation

In a message dated 96-07-11 00:11:57 EDT, you write:
Rabbi G. Shishler writes (Vol 24#60)
<< It seems to me that the greatest exponents of this corruption
(Ashkesphard) are to be found in America and it's being done with the
active encouragement of Artscroll. >>

America is the sloppy source for Ashkesephard, no doubt. But Artscroll
was faced with a dilemma. To write Kabbawlas Shabbaws which may be a
more accurate transliteration than Kabbolas Shabbos since the "aw" would
rhyme with the English "law" or "saw", was just two cumbersome. They
opted for the closest, it seems to me. Moreover, I believe they wrote
about this in one of their early editions. Clearly, sepharadit is way
beyond the pale of acceptable Artscroll hashkafah.

He also correctly opines:
 <<On a recent visit to the United States (my first) I was very
distressed to hear how many people lead the service or quote Hebrew
using this utterly jumbled up version of the Holy Tongue.>>

You're on the money. This stems from a pedagogic problem in America. The
American trained rebbis and male teachers and some women educators just
don't know proper Ivrit. Simple. Now, Israeli teachers do know, by and
large, Ivrit (not nikkud, vocalization) but are they acceptable
pedagogues for the American yeshiva student? Can they relate to
Americans and inspire them?

The chareidi yeshivos have no such problem. Their emphasis is wholly

Coincidentally, Golda Meyerson, later known as Golda Meir, was a Hebrew
school teacher in Milwaukee before going on aliyah. Did anyone ever hear
her pronounced Ashkesephard? Stangely enough, she made it to the
premiership. But this is not to say that I value an
"everything-in-the-kitchen- ink" approach to Ivrit. Then again, if
American students were to only speak, read and write a proper Ashkenazic
Ivris, let us say the kind the Bialik wrote and spoke, I would be
totally satisfied. Then again, if that would happen what would be with
all the Artscroll and Feldhim works in translation? Who would need to
buy them?

I better keep quite at this point for if I pursue the matter any
further, I may be hauled to a din Torah for endangering the parnosoh of
very fine and reputable Jews.

P.S. And, moshiach - what will he speak? Sepharadit, Ashkenazit Litvish,
Ashkenazit American, Ashkenazit
Ashkenazit Lubavitch??  Again, I better stop while I'm ahead.

chaim wasserman 


From: <icb@...> (Israel Botnick)
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 16:41:59 +0500
Subject: G-d's name on computer screen

From: Hillel E. Markowitz <hem@...>

< It has been discussed in this forum, on Torah-Forum from Genesis and on
< Ask the Rabbi from Ohr Sameach.  The conclusion (and Ohr Sameach is an
< actual psak) is that as long as it is on the screen there is no problem
< since it is a series of dots and only persistence of vision gives the
< illusion of the letters.  Of course, if you print it out, it is treated
< as any other printing of Hashem's Name.

If human vision identifies the series of dots as contiguous letters,
then they should be considered as letters and not individual dots.
In other areas we determine an object's existence based on human vision,
such as if G-ds name is written so small that noone can see it, it is
considered non-existent and can be erased. Bugs in water or vegetables
that cannot be seen, are not considered to exist.
If a series of dots is percieved by the human eye from close up
as a continuous letter, then it should be considered as that letter.

Israel Botnick


From: Yechezkal-Shimon Gutfreund <sgutfreund@...>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:33:15 -0400
Subject: Garlic & Sugar at Pidyon HaBen

I was at a Pidyon HaBen last night.

The baby was brought out covered with gold chains. Garlic and Sugar
cubes were placed next to him.

Afterwards the Garlic and Sugar cubes were given out to guests as a

Anyone know any of the meanings behind these minhagim?

(cc: your replies to me also please).

Yechezkal-Shimon Gutfreund		 	            <sgutfreund@...> 
GTE Laboratories,Waltham MA     


From: <JMille7592@...> (Jeffrey H. Miller)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 10:36:02 -0400
Subject: Name of Hashem on Screen or by Printer

In a recent issue, you maintained that Hashem's name on the screen isn't
made up of "continuous strokes" and therefore can be erased, scrolled,
deleted, etc.  This is a classic example of a bad answer to a good
question.  The answer certainly implicates the use of printers.  Laser
jet, ink jet, dot matxix, etc. printers work on DPI (dots per inch,
whereby the characters of the letters are not continuous rather they are
formed by dots on the page.
 The higher the DPI, the more continuous the letter LOOKS.  Still it is
not a single stroke.

The answer permitting the screen would require the same permissible
treatment of Hashem's name off a printer.  I would hardly advocate such
a position.
 Try a better answer to the screen problem.

Rabbi Jeffrey H. Miller


From: Joseph P. Wetstein <jpw@...>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:20:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Nusach Mistakes

Please feel free to send me all of your favourite nusach, davening, and
leyning 'common' mistakes.

I am compiling a list which I will then make available on the Web.

Kol Tuv and gut shabbas,



From: Tova Taragin <tovt@...>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 08:26:22 -0400
Subject: Plagiarism

I would like to know, I would like to know, from people in yeshiva
circles, what the rationale is behind plagiarism when doing term papers
while in college.  I know, first hand, that this occurs, and it is very
annoying to me, as I feel there is a chilul Hashem involved which is
greater than the excuse of "bitul Torah".


From: <Chaimwass@...> (Chaim Wasserman)
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 13:18:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Pronunciation of the word "bechol"

Dr Russel Jay Hendel writes: (24#69)
 << Believe it or not I just found a davening error which many people
perform every day and yet according to one Posayk it is a blatant error.
I refer to the words in Keriath Shemah..."BECAL LEVAVCHAH...". >>

Before going on to the slurring of the lamed atthe end of one word and
the second lamed at the beginning of the second word, let's clear up the
one vocalized vowel in the word "bechal".

The khaf has the vowel known as a kamatz under it. This particular
kamatz is pronounced even according to sepharadim as if it rimed with
"law" or "saw" - in other words "Bechol" (be-chawl). This is one of the
most blatant inaccuracies of those who play with Ashkesephard - not
knowing wihich is a kamatz katan and which is a kamatz gadol.  (In one
siddur, Israel's Rinat Yisrael, they've printed the one vowel with an
elongated leg and the other with a shorter leg to be able to quickly
distinguish one from the other.)

chaim wasserman


From: <KANOVSKY@...> (Mechael Kanovsky)
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 12:34:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Question on a Targum Yonatan

[Not this weeks torah portion, but think of it as preparation for next
year's study of that parsha - either Balak or Pinchas I would
guess. Mod]

When I was going over this weeks torah portion (parshat shavuah) I came
accross a strange targum Yonatan ben Uziel. In the parshah that talks
about the revenge of bnei yisrael on midyan there is a pasuk that lists
the five kings of midyan.  On that pasuk there is a long targum Yonatan
ben Uziel and he says that one of the kings (tzur I think) is actualy
Balak. My question is that BAlak was from Moav and not from Midyan? and
furthermore these two countruies hated each other as Rashi states in the
beginig of parshat Balak and the only reason that they got together was
to fight the jews (just like todays arab countries). The comentary that
is on the targum doesn't say a word about that problem. Any help is
 Mechael Kanovsky


From: <icb@...> (Israel Botnick)
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 17:31:24 +0500
Subject: Thermostatic Control, Gramma, Processor Chips

From: Adam Schwartz <adams@...>

< Today, millions of transistors are packed into a single chip.  the
< processing power/speed of these guys is huge.  But what is actually
< ocurring are thousands of linked sequenced events in the time of a
< millisecond.  You can't let the small size and incredible speed lull you
< into thinking that not too much is going on in that chip.  At what point
< in the sequence to we stop caring about the initial cause?

There are many poskim who say that Grama [causing of forbidden work]
on shabbos is prohibited if it is an established and productive way
of doing the melacha. The term Meleches Machsheves [thoughtful work]
is defined according to this as work that achieves a result in a
productive way, without much concern how it actually gets done.
The Achiezer discusses how even if turning on a light is technically
considered grama it would still be forbidden, because it is an established
way of making light. This would theoretically mean that even if there
are many sequenced  events going on, it makes no difference because
the result is the same and we are unconcerned with the way it gets done.

Even without modern technology there are many things which are forbidden
on shabbos and seem very direct, but really involve a number of steps.
Pouring water on a fire does not directly put out the fire.
First the water is vaporized and absorbs some of the heat of the
fire causing the temperature to drop which extinguishes the fire...

Israel Botnick


From: Yisrael Rozen <zomet@...>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 10:35:47 GMT
Subject: Thermostatic Controls, Gramma and Processor Chips

1. I would like to clarify unequivocally that a chain of events which is
set off by man is considered his repsonsibility, as regarding the laws
of Shabbat and the laws of damages. Someone who pushes a button in NASA
Mission Control and thus activates a motor on the moon or on Mars is
responsible for the result even if there are a billion steps in between.

2. The concept of "gramma" relates to a "dead" action which is detected
by another independent force (which already exists and was not "created"
by man's actions), and only after a "delay" does the desired result take
place. The Talmudic example is of someone who places barrels of water
near a fire which then spreads, reaches the barrels, cracks them open
and thus extinguishes the fire. The modern example: pushing a switch
which at the time is "dead", when the voltage "arrives" later on , as a
result of a timer, the switch is activated.

3. The term "later" in the previous paragraph refers to a percepible
delay, thus the term "immediately" is not used. The source for this can
be found in the gemara and the rishonim. Thus, there must be a delay of
a few seconds and not just a few milliseconds.

4. "Gramma" itself is not permitted in all cases but rather only in
cases which involve financial loss, security issues, medical equipment
or unusual circumstances.

5. The "heter" for using thermostatically-controlled equipment (such as
home refrigerators, air conditioners etc.) is not based on "gramma" or
on causing a long chain of events. The "heter" is related to the concept
of "aino mitkavein", "lo nicha lei" and "safeik pesik reisha" and the
fact that we are dealing with problems which are of rabbinic origin,
along with other halachic concepts which deal with resposibility and
intent and not to physical, mechanical or electronic considerations.

6. The Zomet Institute of Torah and Science in Alon Shevut, Gush Etzion
is a non-profit institute which specializes in these problems and
designs applied solutions to techno-halachic problems mostly in the
fields of security, medicine and public health, agriculture etc.

7. The challenge facing Zomet is the integration of the two worlds of
Halacha and technology through a deep understanding of these two worlds.
However, we do not believe that the posek must be an expert in
technology.  Rather he must be intelligent enough to consult with
honest, competent people in the related fields.

Rav Yisrael Rozen eng.
Director - Zomet Institute


From: Chaim Stern <Chaim_Stern@...>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 13:03:56 -0400
Subject: Yeshiva Tuition

> Dr. Twersky says that the "problem" of the high yeshiva tuition bills is
> not a real problem because it is charity and we are guaranteed that
> G-d will repay whatever we spend on charity. 

This statement is found in the Gemorah, where it says that whatever
money you spend to teach your son Torah, you'll get back.

According to this, why do Yeshivos charge more tuition to some and give
a "break" to others based on financial considerations ?  Shouldn't
everyone pay the exact same amount, if everyone gets it back ?

Chaim Stern


End of Volume 25 Issue 61