Volume 26 Number 88
                      Produced: Wed Jul 30  8:25:00 1997

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Captial Punishment
         [Daniel Eidensohn]
Charesh and shoteh
         [Chaim Shapiro]
Eruv and Rivers
         [Marc Schwarzschild]
Karney Farah
         [Josh Jacobson]
Ksuvim Written on Parchment
         [Elimelekh Milton Polinsky]
Memorial Plaques
         [Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Music During the 3 Weeks
         [David Schiffmann]
New Garmet for Shofer Blower
         [Thierry DANA-PICARD]
Paternity testing and mazaros
         [Chaim Shapiro]
         [Yehuda and Rebecca Poch]
Wigs (3)
         [Russell Hendel, Rachel Rosencrantz, Matthew Pearlman]


From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@...>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 12:12:26 -0700
Subject: Captial Punishment

It is interesting to note that Reb Moshe (Choshen Mishpat II #68 page
293) in his discussion of capital punishment does not mention any of the
factors which have been presented in the present discussion.  In his
letter responding to the Governor of New York he notes "that capital
punishment according to the Torah is severely restricted in
applicability. It requires the existence of a beis mikdash, a court of
uniquely qualified judges who require direct testimony on the crime from
witness (not circumstantial evidence). There must be proper warning etc.
So consequently capital punishment is not done today even in a country
where Jews have control over their own courts according to Torah law.
Nevertheless - it is extremely rare in history to find Jewish murderers
because of the severity of the crime which has been inculcated from
Torah education and not because of fear of punishment."

	"All the above considerations however only applies when killing
is not a common occurrence but is [an isolated] crime of passion or
arguments over money or insults. But when killings are done because it
has no significance...and when murder is a common crime - then capital
punishment can be instituted because of migder milsa (emergency
measures) to prevent murders to save society."

[BTW There is a discussion of the Rosh #17.8 where he agrees that it is
permitted to kill a blasphemer because this the expectations among the
non Jews in Spain for such a crime.]

This approach of bypassing the requirments of the legal system because
of the needs of society is codified in Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat
#2. The Aruch HaShulchan there says "...Jerusalem was not destroyed
except because of their insistence on following the straight letter of
the law." He adds, however, that the validity of emergency measures are
only to be decided by the greatest rabbis of the time - with the
approval of the secular government.

				Daniel Eidensohn - Jerusalem


From: Chaim Shapiro <ucshapir@...>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 14:00:18 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Charesh and shoteh

  The gomrah often talks about three categories of people that are pator
from certain obligations , a charesh (deaf mute) shoteh (insane) and a
katan (child).
  All three groups of people certainly exist today.  But, there are some
differences.  What of a deaf mute who speaks fluently in sign language?
Is he considered a halachick cheresh?
  I see the question in this way.  if the reason for the status of a
cheresh is because a deaf mute is out of the loop, having no way to
communicate and therefore understand what is going on, then I would
argue that a cheresh who does know sign language is not considered a
halachik charesh.
  If, on the other hand, the reason a charesh has his status is becuase
he has a deficiency, that being that he can not hear or speak, then I
would argue his halachick status remains.  For, althoguh signing is a
method of communication, I do not believe it is a form of speech.  Think
of it this way, Is one allowed to use sign language during tekias
shofar, or after having washed?  I would think so Spech then, from a
halchick perspective is based on sounds that come from the mouth and
nothing else.
  And what of a shoteh that can be medicated?  Is that individual
considered a shoteh when he is not medicated, and then bccome a
"normal"perso, fully obligated in halachick observance, n when he is,
And if that is the case, does he revert back to a shoteh if he
discontinues his medication?



From: Marc Schwarzschild <ms@...>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:22:03 -0400
Subject: Eruv and Rivers

We are planning to build an Eruv in Dayton OH.  There are many rivers
here that could be conviently used as part of the Eruv.  I would like to
know of other Eruvs that use Rivers and which Rabbi's approve them.

Please send replies to me: <ms@...>

Thank you,
Marc Schwarzschild


From: <JRJ4859@...> (Josh Jacobson)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 07:43:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Karney Farah

The ta'am karney farah is constructed of a telishah ketanah and telishah
gedolah, and thus it is sung. It is also known as pazer gadol. The ta'am
that we call pazer is known as pazer katan. Pazer gadol is sometimes
substituted for pazer katan, but the reasons for this substitution are

Yerah Ben Yomo is a day-old moon, or a crescent moon, which it resembles
in shape. It is also known as galgal, again "kishmo, ken hu."

-Josh Jacobson


From: <mpolinsk@...> (Elimelekh Milton Polinsky)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 10:41:13 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Ksuvim Written on Parchment

>  Does anyone know of an instance (since the time of the Gra who, I
> understand, had a set) of a set of ksuvim written on parchment like a
> sefer torah?

Rav Dovid Cohen's shul, Cong. Gvul Yaavetz, in Brooklyn, recently acquired a



From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 10:52:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Memorial Plaques

Joseph Mosseri suggests that the meaning of  T. N. Z. B. H. is:  "Tihi Nafsho
Seroura Bissror Hahayim." This is one possibility which is based on Samuel I:
25, 29. However, Both the Gur and Even-Shushan dictionaries suggest that it
is Tehe Nishmato/a Tzerurah Bitzror Hachaim. Thus they have Nishmato/a
instead of Nafsho/a. The meaning is the same.

Gilad J. Gevaryahu


From: David Schiffmann <das1002@...>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 17:59:23 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Music During the 3 Weeks

Dovid Neuman wrote:

>There was discussion in previous mail that some poskim give a heter to
>listening to music during the S'fira as long as it is not lively music.
>Does any know if the same applies to the three weeks and the nine days?
>Thanks,  Dovid Neuman,    <DAV_EL_SVC@...>

This is discussed in an article on the Yeshivat Har Etzion WWW site; the
article can be found at:

This article is a student summary of a shiur on the halachah of the 3
Weeks and the 9 Days; if I understand it correctly, the prohibition
against listening to music during the 3 weeks applies to all styles of
music, whether they could be classified as 'happy' or 'sad'. For more
details on this, I suggest you look up the article.

see also:
Yeshivat Har Etzion - Homepage

"Three Weeks" Journal


From: Thierry DANA-PICARD <dana@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:07:03 +0300
Subject: New Garmet for Shofer Blower

In a recent posting Saul Mashbaum says:

In passing, I would like to note that the poskim mention that it is
preferable for the baal tokea (shofar blower) to wear a new garment the
second day of Rosh Hashana to make the sheheheyanu he makes on shofar
blowing needed beyond doubt (although, according to Ashkenazic practice
at least, he makes the bracha even if he is not wearing a new
garment). I think most baalei tokea are not makpid (strict) on this. Can
any MJ readers enlighten me on this point?

The Sephardic practice is that the tokea makes the bracha of sheheheyanu
only on the first day; on the second day of Rosh Hashana, he blesses
only two blessings. Of course, this is not true when the first day of
Rosh Hashana is a Shabat; in that case, the tokea says the three brachot
on the second day.

Thierry Dana-Picard


From: Chaim Shapiro <ucshapir@...>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 14:06:55 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Paternity testing and mazaros

   Halchickly if a woman is chas vasholom raped when her husband is in
town, and has a child nine months later, we assume the child belongs to
the father because of the chazaka rov biah achar habaal.  But, does that
apply today when the father can simply be subjected to a gentic test?
  While it is true that these tests can only garantuee 99.9% as to the
identity of the real father, they can often determine with 100%
certainty that an individual is NOT the father.
  Two questions.  In such a case, should the father utilize the testing
to determine if indeed the child is his?  And, second, if the testing
was done, and it is determined that the child could not belong to the
father, does that child gain the status of a mamzer?


From: Yehuda and Rebecca Poch <butrfly@...>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 15:56:51 +0300
Subject: Re: Pizza

>Our LOR said to check what the pizza dough is made from.
>If it is kneaded with milk then it is mezonot.
>If it is kneaded with water then it is hamotzi even on 1 piece. 1 piece
>weights more then 30 grams.

I was priviledged to hear Rav Zev Leff give a shiur on this issue this past
winter.  (Feb. 15, 1997)
He mentioned that if the dough is kneaded in such a way that if you take the
total amount of liquid (including eggs) and figure that less than half the
liquid is water, then the bracha is mezonos.  If half or more is water, then
the bracha is hamotzi.
Regarding the amount of slices necessary for hamotzi when more than half is
water, he said there are different opinions, ranging from any amount, to two
slices is mezonos while three is hamotzi, to the opinion that it depends on
whether you are being kovea seuda or not, up to a certain amount.
Basically, elu vaelu divrei elokim chaim in this regard.  He also said that
if the dough is less than half water (ie mezonos) then hamotzi is not said.

   \ o \||/ o /   Benekhemat Tzion ViYerushalayim  \ o \||/ o /
    \ ^ || ^ /        Yehuda and Rebecca Poch	    \ ^ || ^ /
     >--||--<             Rehovot, Israel	     >--||--<
    / v || v \         <butrfly@...>	    / v || v \


From: <rhendel@...> (Russell Hendel)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 13:01:38 -0400
Subject: Wigs

Ben Waxman [Vol 26n83] asks for sources concerning women wearing wigs vs

As long as this is under discussion perhaps someone can give me a source
for something I heard several years ago: I was told that during one
pogram women were allowed to wear wigs (vs head coverings) so that the
plunderers should not be able to recognize them as Jewish. I was told
that this allowance gradually filtered down into the general allowance
of women to wear wigs.

Since I am against wigs I "jumped" at the opportunity to "justify" my
opinion with a good story. But does anyone know of a source for this?
Did this happen more than once? How did the allowance during pogroms to
wear a wig effect the general custom.

Russell Jay Hendel; PH.d;ASA rhendel @ mcs drexel edu

From: Rachel Rosencrantz <rachelr@...>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 13:19:35 -0400
Subject: Wigs

>From: Benjamin Waxman <benjaminw@...>
>There was a discussion a few months ago regarding hair covering.  I have
>a different question: Does anyone know sources regarding the
>permissibility of a woman wearing a wig in place of a hat/scarf?  I know
>that there are poskim who are dead set against it (e.g. Rav Ovadia).
>But Minhag Yisrael is that wigs are permitted (lehatchila).  Can anyone

Well, the Lubavitcher Rebbe not only permits the wearing of a wig as a
head covering, but recommends wearing a wig over wearing a scarf.  I
don't have my references handy but I might be able to find them at home.
He has stated this in talks and in letters.

The Rebbe says that when a woman wears a scarf or snood she might come
to feel uncomfortable about her hair covering and push the scarf back to
show some of her hair.  However, when wearing a wig a woman is careful
to make sure all of her hair is covered.  The Rebbe has even gone so far
as to send a woman money so that she might buy a wig to properly cover
her hair.


From: <matthew.pearlman@...> (Matthew Pearlman)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 9:18:59 +0000
Subject: Wigs

Benjamin Waxman in #83 asked about the permissibility of wearing wigs as
opposed to other hair coverings.  I shall restrict this response to the
sources for and not mention those against (I have not seen the previous
discussions, so please remove anything that has already been said)

My sources are from R. Getsel Ellinson's book "Woman & the Mitzvot",
although interpretations are generally my own:

The Mishna (Shabbat chapter 6) discusses women going out in wigs (peah
nochrit) on shabbat.  Those that allow wig-wearing interpret this as
referring to married women, and therefore that married women may wear

The Shiltei Gibborim clearly interprets this as meaning that woman may
wear wigs, whether made of their own or others' hair, provided that the
covering is not connected to the scalp.

The Rema (Orach Chaim 75), the major ashkenazi posek follows this view.

R. Moshe Feinstein (Even Ha'Ezer 2:12) was asked (I surmise) whether a
man may force his wife not to wear a wig (ie but to cover her hair in
another manner).  His answer is clearly no, and that the prohibition of
mar'it ha'ayin (others may interpret it as looking wrong) for three
reasons.  As these have very major impact in other areas of halacha, I
spell these out briefly below:

1.  if a particular case does not appear in the talmud, we have no power
now to confer the prohibition of mar'it ha'ayin to it;

2.  generally people can tell anyway that it is a wig rather than real
hair - apparently women especially have this knack;

3.  everyone will assume that such a woman who generally keeps within a
halachic framework is covering her hair, rather than showing her own.
This may seem to go against the idea of mar'it ha'ayin, but he mentions
also the idea of men shaving - we do not prohibit men from using
electric shavers because other people may assume that they have used an
open razor, which is a Torah prohibition.


End of Volume 26 Issue 88