Volume 27 Number 15
                      Produced: Mon Oct 20  0:46:47 1997

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Answering Kaddish on real time t.v. (Siyam Hashas)
         [Chaim Z. Shapiro]
Artscroll, History, and Assara Harugei Malchus
         [David Riceman]
Baruch Dayan Emet - Prof. Twersky
         [Freda B Birnbaum]
Bentching on Chol Hamoed
         [Zvi Goldberg]
Buttle b' SHeeshim
         [Carl Singer]
Dini's Surface Graphic
         [Stan Tenen]
Esoteric writings and the Masses
         [Michael & Bonnie Rogovin]
         [Meylekh Viswanath]
More on  Kaddish
         [Richard Wolpoe]
Organisation of the Tanach
         [Warren Burstein]
Recycled Sifrei Kodesh (2)
         [Shlomo Katz, Tzadik Vanderhoof]
Sefer "Ezra"
         [Al Silberman]
Yom Kippur as Judgement Day for all Creatures
         [Saul Newman]


From: Chaim Z. Shapiro <cshapir@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:53:36 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Answering Kaddish on real time t.v. (Siyam Hashas)

	I has the extreme honor of being able to attend the wonderful
Siyam Hashem program in Chicago.  Ever minute of it was an incredible
kiddush hashem, and it was truly a program to see.
	During the program, I had one halachik question.  We had a live
real time broadcast from New York.  Part of that broadcast was the
recitation of kaddish.  My question, does one respond amen etc to a
bracha/ prayer one hears on a live real time broadcast?
	One individual with whom I discussed this issue mentioned that
it may not be different than responding to a kadish heard on a
microphone.  However, there is indeed a difference (but whether that
difference matters I don't know) While using a microphone, the baal
tefilah can hear and see those who are responding.  That is not the case
by a live tv (one way) broadcast.
	Anyone know the halacha??
Please note the new email :-)


From: David Riceman <dr@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:34:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Artscroll, History, and Assara Harugei Malchus

  The piyut (liturgical poem) eileh ezkarah which we read before vidui
on mussaf of Yom Kippur is, to put it politely, a conflation of several
generations of murders or, to put it rudely, a lie.  Nonetheless it has
been a central part of the Yom Kippur liturgy for quite some time (on the
order of a millenium?).  This seems to be a nice precedent for ArtScroll.
  On the other hand, we all know what the Rambam thought of liturgical poets
(and historians) . . .

David Riceman


From: Freda B Birnbaum <fbb6@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:01:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Baruch Dayan Emet - Prof. Twersky

[From another list, cross-posted here for Info - Mod.]

Readers of this list will be greatly saddened to learn of the death Oct
12th of Prof. Yitzhak (Isadore) Twersky, the Nathan Littauer Professor
of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy at Harvard University.
Prof. Twersky was one of the giants of Jewish Studies, the world's
leading expert on Maimonides, and mentor to a generation of Harvard
students.  As the Talner Rebbe, he also served for two decades as one of
the leading Orthodox rabbis of Boston and as the spiritual leader of
Boston's Maimonides School.  His funeral will take place at 11 AM on
Monday at Maimonides.
   -- Jonathan D. Sarna, Brandeis University


From: <zg@...> (Zvi Goldberg)
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:53:55 -0400
Subject: Bentching on Chol Hamoed

	While reciting Birchas Hamazon on Chol Hamoed (Succos or Pesach),
does one say "magdil" or "migdol" ? All the bentchers I've seen say
"migdol" is said only on Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh, or Yom Tov. But if you
say "yaaleh v'yavoh" and the special "harachaman" on Chol Hamoed, why not
"migdol" ?



From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 97 20:46:55 UT
Subject: Buttle b' SHeeshim

The note re: Kosher Maple Syrup brings up this question.
How do the various kashrut organizations deal with Buttle b' Sheeshim
(something being nullified because it is less than 1/60th of the mixture)
(a) this ingredient is accidentally introduced into the mixture
  (as in tradition, a drop of milk splatters into fleishig soup) vice 

(b) when this ingredient is purposely added (per the maple syrup example, or 
the add 1 tsp. of milk to every gallon of chicken soup -- per some mythical 

Is there a difference?

Carl Singer


From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:16:02 -0400
Subject: Dini's Surface Graphic

For those of you who expressed interest in the graphic of Dini's Surface
mentioned in my previous post to mail-jewish, this is now available on our
website at:



From: Michael & Bonnie Rogovin <rogovin@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 20:48:40 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Esoteric writings and the Masses

Daniel Eidensohn writes (in pertinent part):
>The fact, however, is that the rulings of Reb Moshe have
>become major topics of conversations of the masses. If the rabbis and
>scholars misunderstand Reb Moshe's writings, then we can say it is due
>to the lack of clarity of the author. In fact, however, the
>misunderstandings are primarily from people who have never actually read
>the original discussion in the Igros.
>In sum, the Igros Moshe was written for highly trained specialists who
>are fully aware of the ramifications as well the context of the issues.
>I don't think it is fair to blame an author when his esoteric writings
>are misunderstood by those who were not his intended readers.

I *meant* to refer to myself, *not* Rav Moshe. My point was that *I* had
no right to complain that *my* words were misunderstood by others. That
is, I (in my original message) did not intend to imply that Rav Moshe
was dishonest in his rulings. I thought this was clear because (1) of
the context (the paragraphs immediately preceding and following that
phrase were focused on what I wrote, not what Rav Moshe wrote), and (2)
the original quote by Rav Haym was one of self-crtiticism, followed by a
clarification of his original intent, which is what I intended to

While I can understand why in the context of discrediting my use of my
Rav's reading of Rav Moshe's teshuva, Mr. Eidensohn would interpret my
words to refer to my blaming Rav Moshe, rather than those who interpret
his writings, for the problem of Rav Moshe's rulings being
misinterpreted, I hope my post is clear that that was not the intent.
If not, I hope it is clear now.

I would never attempt to interpret Rav Moshe's writings on my own --
that is left for Torah scholars, of which I am not one.&nbsp; But this
discussion list is for people who, for the most part based on postings,
are not Torah scholars. If only Torah scholars can discuss these issues
and rulings, the discussions here will be more limited. Perhaps that
should be a new rule on the list -- I leave that to the moderator. For
the record, I checked with my Rav (Rabbi Saul Berman, who, needless to
say, *is* a leading Torah scholar), and he confirmed the substance of
what I wrote in the original post.

Nonetheless, from now on, I may have others proof my posts first (and
get citations when possible), lest I unintentionally write one thing
while meaning another, get intemperate in my remarks or risk misquoting
an authority. I will, however, continue to ask questions and comment on
issues of import. Too much self-censorship will lead to very dull

Shana Tova to all.

Michael Rogovin


From: Meylekh Viswanath <viswanat@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:43:38
Subject: Re: Mamzerim

Hillel Markowitz writes:

>I have read that lchatchila (originally) Rav Moshe stated that a get
>should be granted in all cases.  The purpose of his ruling was to handle
>the case where a woman had divorced (via a secular court) and then
>remarried.  He wanted to prevent the birth of mamzerim.  Whenever faced
>with that question he would attempt to find a reason to void the first

Apparently, the rabbis went to great lengths to avoid mamzerut.
Including, inter alia, allowing for the possibility that a fetus may
remain in the womb for 12 months.  Hence if there was testimony that the
husband was away from the wife for 10 months before the birth of the
baby, the baby would still not be classified as a mamzer on the basis of
the possibility that procreation took place prior to that, and the
khazoke that the child of a woman is her husband's child.

I have also heard that rabbis simply refused to hear testimony that
might lead to a child having to be declared a mamzer.

The question I have is the following: is mamzerut a status like rosh
khoydesh?  Does a rabbinical court have to declare a child a mamzer,
failing which he is not a mamzer, metzies [reality, physical situation -
Mod.] nothwithstanding?  If so, I can understand the approach of the
rabbis.  (Of course, we don't need any such svore [logic - Mod.] to
understand approaches like that of R. Feinstein above, since all Jewish
marriages are subject to rabbinic approval, and as such can be undone in
the appropriate way.)  If not, isn't there a problem?  The isser
[prohibition - Mod.] to marry a mamzer is de-oraysa [from the Torah -
Mod.]; shouldn't we be makhmir?

Meylekh Viswanath


From: <richard_wolpoe@...> (Richard Wolpoe)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:27:54 -0400
Subject: More on  Kaddish

Avi Feldblum writes:
>I believe that the generally accepted opinion among the poskim is 
>that only the kaddish following Alenu is considered a part of the 
>Tefilah (Prayer) itself, and should be said in the absence of a 

Dear Avi,
   In the Syrian/Sepahrdic Minyon that I occasionally attend there is no
Kaddish following Alenu whatsoever.  I am told that in Frankfort, they
also di not say kaddish following alenu although KAJ does in the USA.
The origin of kaddish was following any Torah shebichsav such as a
Mizmor (e.g. the Shir shel Yom) or a Megillo - (e.g. Kohelles).  Kaddish
d'Rabbonon is recited after Torah sheb'alpe such as the braiso of Rabbi
yishmael, Bameh Madlikin, etc.  These kaddish'es were not originally
said by mourners.
   My understanding is that the kaddish, which makes no mention of
death, is a form of "tsiduk hadin" in that the mourner publicly accepts
that Hashem runs the world "kirusei", etc.  Note that kaddish is said on
a yahrzeit and that this does not involve any aveilus per se.
   Undoubtedly the kaddish is also said in z'chus of the niftar and as
such will enhance the niftar's z'chusim in general which may indrectly
remove them from gehinon.  Thus saying kaddish on Shabbos would
indirectly benefit the neshomo during the week.  These zchuyos may
therefore give the neshama an "aliyo".  Therefore, it is not in a sense
of mourning that kaddish is recited, rather it is a chesed shel emse in
that a zchus is being given the niftar, something the niftar cannot do
for themselves.

Gmar Tov

Richard Wolpoe   


From: Warren Burstein <warren@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:25:45 +0200
Subject: Re: Organisation of the Tanach

I have noticed (although I don't recall where) at least once that the
division into chapters is different in a Tanach and in a non-Jewish
translation.  How did this happen?


From: Shlomo Katz <skatz@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:42:31 -0400
Subject: Recycled Sifrei Kodesh

In Volume 27 Number 13, Shmuel Himelstein wrote: 

>No, this is not a Purim joke - although it's not exactly a Hechsher
>either.  I just bought a package of locally made toilet paper (i.e.,
>Israeli), and on the outer plastic bag there stands the declaration,
>"Lelo Chashash Genizah" - i.e., that one has no need to be afraid that
>this toilet paper might have been made from recycled Sifrei Kodesh.

>When one thinks about it, there is even a certain logic in the
>declaration, because it would be tragic if Sifrei Kodesh were indeed
>recycled this way.

I actually did find a piece of toilet paper (in Israel) that had a
yud-keh-vav-keh unmistakably printed on it.

From: Tzadik Vanderhoof <stvhoof@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 23:47:04 +0200
Subject: Re: Recycled Sifrei Kodesh

Unfortunately, there is a history to the tendency of toilet paper
manufacturers in Israel to put, "Lelo Chashash Geniza" on their wrappers.
At the beginning of the state, some manufacturers were found to be actually
using old sifrei kodesh to make their toilet paper.  Sometimes the quality
was so bad, you could actually make out the letters, and this was how it was
discovered.  The process is much different nowadays, and there is not the
paper shortage there was in those days (in fact there was a shortatge of
just about everything), so there really isn't much of a "chashash" at all
nowadays.  But for historic reasons, the "hechsher" has stuck.


From: <alfred.silberman@...> (Al Silberman)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 97 07:54:07 EDT
Subject: Re: Sefer "Ezra"

In MJ v27n06 Yisrael Dubitsky on the subject of Ha-LHashem wrote:

> My question, however, refers to the Mesorah note by CD Ginsburg: he
> writes that "...ken le-Suarai heh le-.hud, le-Hashem le-.hud;
> le-Neharde`ai Hal le-.hud, Hashem le-.hud.  Ve-KHEN BE-SEFER `EZRA.
> uve-sefarim a.herim HalHashem mila .hada."
> 1) What is the meaning of the reference to sefer `Ezra?

The Encyclopedia Judaica has supplementary entries on several topics
after completing the alphabetic entries. There is a huge entry on the
topic of Masorah. On page (column) 1474 the Encyclopedia refers to a
work on Masorah called by one source Tokhen Ezra which the author of the
article identifies as being identical with a work on Masorah entitled
"Horayat ha-Qore" (The Direction of the reader). Perhaps this is the
reference noted.


From: Saul Newman <Saul.Z.Newman@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:50:37 -0700
Subject: Yom Kippur as Judgement Day for all Creatures

If it is correct that Hashem judges all his creations on Yom Kippur, why
do we not make any effort to publicize this fact?  At least for those
who are Bnai Noach, does anyone know if they do some type of tshuva
process at this time of year?
                                      Chag sameach


End of Volume 27 Issue 15