Volume 25 Number 99
                      Produced: Mon Feb  3 21:55:59 1997

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

         [Gershon Klavan]
Black Box on Hand Tefillah
         [Danny Schoemann]
Candy (was Holy Minhagim)
         [Dov Teichman]
How Shabbath Melachas are Made:Cold Cream
         [Russell Hendel]
Identity of the Tzemah Tzedek
         [Zev Sero]
Identity of Tzemach Tzedek
         [Bacon Gershon]
Illness and Shidduchim
         [Carl Sherer]
Little Black Boxes on the Shel Yad
         [Ezriel Krumbein]
More Appropriated Titles
         [Yitzchok Adlerstein]
Sephardic Minhag
         [Fred Dweck]
Shared Names
         [Manny Saltiel]


From: Gershon Klavan <klavan@...>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:23:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Appropriation

Another famous name appropriation was the Tanya.  The original Tanya was
written by a Rishon (scholars are unsure if he was the nephew or
grand-nephew of the Shibbolei Haleket) in Italy and patterned after the
Shibbolei Haleket.  In fact, most of the work just repeats psakim of the
Shibbolei Haleket.  

Today, the few people who know about this work refer to it as the "Tanya
Rabbasi" in order to distinguish it from the later work of the "Ba'al

Other recent appropriations include the Eglei Tal: (I'm not sure of which
came first) 1) The famous work on Sidura D'Pas by the Sochatchover ZT"L
2) A philosophic work (actually quite academic work for the time) by Rav
Yehoshua Yosef Preil ZT"L - former chief Rabbi of Dublin, Ireland. (copies
of the latter are probably available through Rav E.M. Teitz of Elizabeth.)


From: Danny Schoemann <Dannys@...>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:54:43 +0200
Subject: Re: Black Box on Hand Tefillah

On  2 Feb 97 in mail-jewish Vol. 25 #96 Digest, Eliezer Finkelman wrote:

> I therefore continue to believe that the little box serves to
> protect the hand tefillah from losing its blacking to the friction
> of the sleeve.  The head tefillah, warn uncovered, needs no such
> protection.  I do not have any proof for this belief.  

I recall seeing Rav Scheinberg shlita (who wears tfillin all day) having
his Tefilla shel ROSH covered with a little black box. This would
reinforce the "protection" theory.

 Danny Schoemann                  /| 
 Setup Software Engineer;  Accent Software International, Ltd.
 28 Pierre Koenig St., POB 53063, Jerusalem 91530 Israel
 Tel +972-2-679-3723 Ext 273;  Fax +972-2-679-3731


From: Dov Teichman <teichman@...>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 16:25:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Candy (was Holy Minhagim)

In Vol. 25 #96, Yisrael Medad writes:
> Our Rav, Elchanan Bin-Nun, prohibits throwing candy altogether as it is
> "bal tashchit", contributing to the destroying of edible food.
> When we pointed out that Rav Mordechai Eliyahu permits wrapped candy to
> be thrown, he indicated that the schule decorum is upset by the throwing
> and resultant commotion created.                                      

I wonder what Rabbi Bin-Nun would say regarding the making of noise during
the Meggillah on Purim. Regarding that custom the Ramo in Shulchan Aruch
says explicitly that it is a ancient custom not to be abolished. 

--Dov Teichman


From: <rhendel@...> (Russell Hendel)
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:25:04 -0500
Subject: How Shabbath Melachas are Made:Cold Cream

Mark Feldman asks the basis for Rabbi Soloveitchick holding that
smoothing a paste is prohibited on Shabbath Biblically provided there is
a new surface created. This affords the opportunity to demonstrate the
methodology in analyzing the very complex world of Shabbath Melachas.

The first step is to list the essential attributes of the so called
"FATHER" prohibition. In this case (as Mark points out) the "Father
prohibition" is the prohibition of "ERASURE" (Say the erasure of ink
markings from wood). Erasure in turn seems to have 4 attributes:

1) It is created by a rubbing motion
2) It makes disappear an unwanted surface
3) It allows the emergence or appearance of a new surface
4) This new surface was an intrinsic part of the object(in fact covered
by the old surface)

I should hasten that different authorities may differ on the list of
essential attributes in any particular "FATHER" prohibition. The above
list are simply my own thoughts which seem to defend the Rav.

The "CHILDREN" prohibitions (which are prohibited Bibilically) are
simply prohibitions which have many of the attributes of the "FATHER"
but not necessarily all. Let us consider applying a "cream". We see that

1) The motion use to apply it "resembles" that of the "erasure" motion
2) It makes disappear an unwanted surface (by covering it up)
3) A new surface emerges (if the cream doesn't get absorbed)
4) Obviously this new surface is an addition and NOT an already existing
part of the old

Since ERASURE and APPLYING a CREAM resemble each other in 3 of the 4
attributes we say APPLYING a CREAM is a CHILD of the FATHER
erasure. Perhaps this was the Rav's reasoning.(Note:If the cream is
absorbed all we really have in common is 1) and maybe 2)..so that the
CHILD status does not happen)

As to Rav Brown's comments on absorption: 1st) The skin smoothness is a
new surface but comes after a while from physiological changes beneath
the skin (so it is not like erasure). Also Mark may want to check
Rambam, Property Damage, 13:12-13 where absorbed liquid is perceived as
smoothing a surface..the point with spit may be that it is a small

I hope this small introduction clarifies this rich but intricate topic

Russell Hendel, PH.d,ASA, rhendel @ mcs drexel edu


From: Zev Sero <zsero@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 02:17:28 -0800
Subject: Re: Identity of the Tzemah Tzedek

dg = David Glasner <DGLASNER@...>
ec = Eli Clark 

ec>I came across a teshuvah (responsum) of the Shevut Yaakov (Yoreh Deah,
ec>siman 74) [...]
ec>R. Reischer also cites a teshuvah of the Tzemah Tzedek, siman 2 (R.
ec>Menahem Mendel of Krokhmal) [...]

dg> The attribution of this teshuvah quoted in the Shevut Yaakov to R.
dg> Menahem Mendel (the third Lubavitcher Rebbe) is clearly problematic
dg> since R. Menachem Mendel was born around 1790 and, according to Eli,
dg> the Shevut Yaakov was written in the late seventeenth or early
dg> eighteenth centuries.

Which is precisely why he didn't attribute it to R Menachem Mendel of
Lubavitch, but rather to R Menachem Mendel of Krokhmal, the author of
the original Tzemach Tzedek, as opposed to the Lubavitcher's teshuvot
which were known in contemporary literature as `shut Tzemach Tzedek

dg> The more likely source for the Shevut Yaakov was the original book
dg> of responsa published under the name Tzemach Tzedek which was
dg> published in the seventeenth century


dg> by R. Yom Tov Lipman Heller, nowadays known as the Tosafot Yom Tov,
dg> who as it happens was also from Prague. But at least until the
dg> nineteenth century the Tosafot Yom Tov was also widely known not
dg> only as the Tosafot Yom Tov, but as the Tzemach Tzedek.

No, I've seen a copy of the original Tzemach Tzedek, and I'm pretty
sure that the author's name was Menachem Mendel.  Why would the Tosfot
Yom Tov call a sefer Tzemach Tzedek, which is gematria for Menachem
Mendel?  BTW, there's a later book called Tzemach Tzadik, by a R
Menachem Mendil from Poland, where they spelt Mendil with a yud.

dg> Does anyone know of another instance in which the title of
dg> a famous work by an earlier author has been appropriated by
dg> a later one?

How famous was the original Penei Yehoshua (by *the* Penei 
Yehoshua's father)?

I've seen a sefer called Keter Shem Tov, which contains the teshuvot of
a Sefardic Rabbi Shem Tov.  Did he know that there is another sefer of
the same name containing teachings of the Baal Shem Tov?

Likutei Torah has been used several times.

Zev Sero		Don't blame me, I voted for Harry Browne


From: Bacon Gershon <GBacon@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 97 11:44:00 PST
Subject: Identity of Tzemach Tzedek

Eli Clark correctly identified the author of Resp. Tzemach Tzedek as R.
Menahem Mendel Krochmal (c. 1600-1661), who was chief rabbi of
Moravia. He was a student of R. Yoel Sirkes (author of Bayit Hadash).

David Glasner's claim that "the name Tzemach Tzedek has since pretty
well become the EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION of Lubavitch [ my emphasis - GB]"
is questionable. There are instances of books with the same title - look
at any catalog of Hebrew books, such of Otzar Hasefarim of Ben-Yaakov or
Bet Eked Sefarim of Friedberg. How to prevent such confusion as occurred
in this case?  The usual method is to provide some additional
identifying sign. Thus the two books under discussion are referred to as
Resp. Tzemach Tzeded ha'rishon or ha'sheni or Resp. Tzemach Tzedek
(Krochmal) and Resp. Tzemach Tzedek (Schneerson).

Gershon Bacon
Bar-Ilan University


From: Carl Sherer <sherer@...>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:07:32 +0200
Subject: Illness and Shidduchim

Tara Cazaubon writes:
> Carl Sherer writes:
> "We had a Shabbos guest this week who has made a video for an
> organization which helps people to obtain medical care.  She told us
> that she was asked by the organization's founder (a *very* prominent
> Rav) to update the video, but of the hundreds of families that this
> organization has helped only two are willing to participate in the
> video.  The reason (to us at least) is obvious - fear of ruining
> shidduchim in the future."
> I think this is so sad, that people have to suffer in secret so that
> their future spouse should not know that they had been ill in the
> past. What does this say about our community that judgements are
> made on this basis?  I find this a shame.

I have to agree in part and disagree in part with what Tara wrote.
Rightly or wrongly, fruhm society places an emphasis on bearing
children.  For men at least, there is also an obligation to bear
children, which means that they need to know where a woman is unable to
bear children, and make that decision on an informed basis at the
outset.  As such, where one party to a potential marriage is (and knows
him or herself to be) unable to bear children, it would be unfair (and
worse) for that party not to give the other a realistic picture of the
state of one's health.  I would not attempt to deceive others about my
children's ability to bring children into the World, and I would be hurt
by anyone else's attempt to do the same to any of my children.

Having said that, I think that fruhm society has become positively
paranoid about this, to the extent that it affects siblings, to the
extent that shadchanim do not bother to look into the medical situation
before refusing to seek shidduchim for people (or limiting them to
certain "types" of shidduchim), and to an extent that results in people
being afraid to seek others' help for illnesses in their family for fear
that their attempts to seek help will come back to haunt them when it
comes time to seek shidduchim.  That, IMHO, is wrong.

-- Carl Sherer

Thank you for davening for our son, 
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya. Please 
keep him in mind for a healthy, long life. 

Carl and Adina Sherer


From: Ezriel Krumbein <ezsurf@...>
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 21:22:07 -0800
Subject: Little Black Boxes on the Shel Yad

From: <Finkelmans@...> (Eliezer Finkelman)

>Someone asked me about the history of the little black box which many
>men have on their hand tefillah, but not on their head tefillah. ...

>I therefore continue to believe that the little box serves to protect
>the hand tefillah from losing its blacking to the friction of the
>sleeve.  The head tefillah, warn uncovered, needs no such protection.  I
>do not have any proof for this belief. ...

I also believe that the boxes are there to protect the sel yad which is
not required for the sel rosh. But it is not just to protect the color
of the box but the shape.  The edges should not be come worn and the
shel yad will lose it's square shape.  As an aside the actuall shel rosh
and sel yad are not required to be black just the straps (retzuos)

However there is another detail - the sel yad is not supposed to be
completly covered.  I do not know the source at the moment.  For that
reason you will note that the top of the black box has a hole in it.  It
is the oppinion of some authorities today that all sides of the sel rosh
must be accessable therefore there are some people who have holes also
on all four of the sides of the black box.

Ezriel Krumbein


From: Yitzchok Adlerstein <yadler@...>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 09:01:48 -0800
Subject: More Appropriated Titles

>Does anyone know of another instance in which the title of a famous work
>by an earlier author has been appropriated by a later one?

How about Milchemes Hashem,  the title of both Ramban's early work 
defending the Rif against the Ba'al HaMaor, and the philosophical tract of 
the Ralbag?


From: Fred Dweck <Fredd@...>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 12:37:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Sephardic Minhag

Michael Shoshani wrote in MJ 25#97:
>There is one Sephardic "Sheheheyanu" minhag pretty much unknown outside
>its community: Persians have the minhag of lifting the Sefer Torah and
>reciting "Sheheheyanu" on the night of Yom Kippur, right after Kol Nidre.
>No other Sephardic group does this.

That is incorrect. To the best of my knowledge all Middle Eastern
Sepharadim say Sheheheyanu after Kol Nidre. The Syrian Jews certainly do.

Fred E. Dweck


From: <saltiel@...> (Manny Saltiel)
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 19:00:55 -0800
Subject: Re: Shared Names

David Glasner wrote about different authors using the same names for
their books.

There are many examples.  In Artscroll's "The Early Acharonim," in the
back of the book, one can find several very useful indices.  One (page
207), is a collection of sefarim by the name of the work.

Thus, for example, no less than 5 sefarim are called the Be'er Mayim 
Chayim (authors: R. Chaim ben Betzalel, R. David Lida, R. Shmuel Vital, 
R. Yaakov ben Yitzchak Shapira, and R. Yissacher Ber Eilenberg).  
Another example is the Be'er HaGeulah, one written by the Maharal and 
one by R. Moshe Rivkah's (born 1595 in Prague, d. 1671 in Vilna).


End of Volume 25 Issue 99