Volume 28 Number 51
                 Produced: Thu Feb 18 23:24:04 US/Eastern 1999

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

"With Love" in Birkhat Kohanim
         [Yeshaya Halevi]
         [Yitz Weiss]
Electronic copy of the Dr. Haym Soloveitchik's article
         [Lawrence Feldman]
Girls in the men's section (4)
         [Yitz Weiss, Lisa Halpern, Deborah C.K. Wenger, Stuart Wise]
K'dusha: Bowing at "V'Kara Ze El Ze V'Amar"
         [David Ziants]
Ordering coffee from non-kosher (treif) establishments
         [Joe Harlin]
Payment for Torah
         [Meir Shinnar]
         [Bob Werman]
Swimming on Shabbat
         [Eliot Shimoff]


From: Yeshaya Halevi <CHIHAL@...>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 22:28:21 EST
Subject: "With Love" in Birkhat Kohanim

Shalom, All:

        With regard to the words "With Love" in Beerkhat Kohaneem (the
priestly blessing), I have a question and some comments.
        The question is, since the wording is "bi'ahava," and not "eem
ahava," does this era's Hebrew support saying that we should translate
it as blessing God's nation, Israel, **IN love,** and not "with love?"
         One comment is that because the Kohaneem stand "in loco
parentus," in the place of the Parent -- God, our Father -- they must
accurately represent God, who is Love Incarnate.
        Secondly, the Beerkhat Kohaneem is said (depending upon your
place and custom) on Shabat and Yom Tov, days when we say during the
Keedush that God gave us these Days "bi'ahava" -- in/with love.
         Thirdly, dunno if anyone else glommed onto this, but the
Artscroll Seedoor says that the phrase "bi'ahava" is based upon Zohar
(Naso 147b).  It also says a bit more, and maybe someone with more time
than I have can type it.
   Yeshaya Halevi (<Chihal@...>)


From: Yitz Weiss <YitzW@...>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:32:42 EST
Subject: Re: B'Ahava

A possible explanation is the fact that you can't give someone a
wholehearted bracha with animosity in your heart. That is, the cohanim
couldn't fulfill the mitzva of "levarech et amo Yisrael" *unless* it was

Yitz Weiss


From: Lawrence Feldman <lpf1836@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:36:53 +0200
Subject: Electronic copy of the Dr. Haym Soloveitchik's article

Does anyone have or know where I can find an electronic copy of the Haym
Soloveitchik Tradition article, "Rupture and Reconstruction?"

Thanks, Larry Feldman


From: Yitz Weiss <YitzW@...>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:32:43 EST
Subject: Re: Girls in the men's section

<< #2 Even if there is no halachic problem with bringing a younger girl
into the men's section, aren't those parents sending their daughters the
wrong message?  Are they not in fact telling them that you are zocheh to
be with us until a certain age, at which time you are relegated to the
other side of the mechitzah?  Is that the proper chinuch message to send
a young bas yisroel? >>

IMHO the message depends on the attitude of the parents. My message to
my kids when bringing them to shul is not that you have to be "zocheh"
to be a man to daven properly, it's that you come to shul to daven - and
you do that in the best way you know how. The halacha of when you sit on
which side of the mechitza doesn't necessarily have to effect that.

Yitz Weiss

From: Lisa Halpern <halpern@...>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:25:55 -0500
Subject: Girls in the men's section

As the mother of a young daughter, I found Chaim's post
thought-provoking.  As my daughter is only two, I must admit I do not
know until what age she will be halachically permitted in the men's
section of shul.  However, two responses to his second question ("Even
if there is no halachic problem with bringing a younger girl into the
men's section, aren't those parents sending their daughters the wrong
message?  Are they not in fact telling them that you are zocheh to be
with us until a certain age, at which time you are relegated to the
other side of the mechitzah?  Is that the proper chinuch message to send
a young bas yisroel?") immediately come to mind.

First, perhaps the only way a young girl can receive parental guidance
in shul is to attend (and sit) with her father - often mothers are home
with younger children and babies who can not be brought into the
sanctuary without disturbing other congregants' tefillot.

My second response is distress and puzzlement.  I am concerned that
Chaim chose the words "zoche" (privileged), "be with us" and "relegated"
to describe a growing girl's changing experience in shul.  A girl should
not feel that it matters in what part of the shul she davens.  All shuls
and their membership should strive to create an atmosphere where
everyone davening together is considered "us", where the chief
activities are properly considered to be hearing the Torah read and
praying together (and not the leadership of these activities), where the
men's and women's sections of the synagogue are structurally and
aesthetically equivalent, and where everyone, together, is privileged to
be striving to come closer to Hashem through our communal tefillot.

Lisa Halpern
Please reply via my permanent email address,

From: Deborah C.K. Wenger <dwenger@...>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 99 08:42:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Girls in the men's section

 I am certainly not going to give a halachic opinion on this (although I
would certainly like to hear one). However, I think that the reason many
girls sit with their fathers during Shabbos davening is that their
mothers are home with younger kids and cannot accompany them to shul;
rather than have them sit alone in the women's section or just run
around in shul, the fathers can make sure that they can daven at a level
appropriate for their age.
 From a woman's point of view: my father did this with me when I was
younger, but with a positive "spin" - rather than giving the message
that girls are "zocheh" to sit with the men until a certain age, it was
more like "when you're old enough to daven by yourself, you'll get to
sit with the other women" - making the goal being more mature so that
you can sit with the grownup women, rather than being "relegated" or
"banished" to the "wrong" side of the mechitza.

Deborah C.K. Wenger, Managing Editor
Leader Publications, 345 Park Ave. South, New York, NY 10010
E-mail: <dwenger@...>
Phone: 917-256-2018, Fax: 212-481-8161

From: Stuart Wise <swise@...>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 99 10:06:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Girls in the men's section

I have had this Shaila for a while. When my wife is at work, I need to
take my daughters to shul with me (8 and 6).  It seems thre is more
concern in chassidishe places that the girls not be there, though only
twice has anyone even suggested they shouldnt be there.

I asked a respected Rav (who I will not name just in case I may have
misunderstood what he said) and i n his shul he allows girls in the
men's section "until they develop" which is an individual thing.  When
you think about why women are behind the mechitzah, you realize it's so
men should concentrate on their davening and not the possible allure of
a woman,.  One would hope that frum men would not be so taken by an
undeveleoped child that they cannot concentrate.  Nevertheless, there
are palces that are makpid not to have girls past teh age of 3, which
many follow as an age at which men shoould not have any physical contact
with girls who ard not related to them (in terms of kissing them)

I'm not sure what you mean by "wrong message."  As we grow, we all have
to lern to adjust to changing situations.  After a while , your child
gets a little too heavy to carry, don;t need their coats zipped or shoes
tied by an adult.  I don't t hink, if the girls are raised properly,
they will be inspired by feminism to demand equal rights in the men's


From: David Ziants <davidz@...>
Subject: Re: K'dusha: Bowing at "V'Kara Ze El Ze V'Amar"

A little while ago, I asked this forum if anyone knows a source for
bowing at: "... Ze El Ze V'Amar" in the introduction to the kedusha.

Although I received a couple of ideas for why this might be done, no one
could actually give a source in any halachic or midrashic literature.

Searching the Bar-Ilan Responsa Project CD didn't come up with anything.

The recently published book "Ishei Yisrael - Hilchot Tefilla", is
supposed to be one of the most extensive works on the laws of tefilla,
and doesn't give a reference to this wide spread practice at all, even
to say it is "right"/"wrong"/"some people do it"/"you do it if everyone
else does it".

If there is no source, should we stop the practice?

David Ziants
Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel


From: Joe Harlin <joeharlin@...>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:46:52 PST
Subject: Ordering coffee from non-kosher (treif) establishments

Living in New York I have seen hundreds of people order and drinking
coffee from non-kosher establishments (Quik Check, McDonalds, highway
rest stops, etc.).

Basically, why should one be allowed to drink coffee from such

Even if we assume the coffee is kosher, the utensils were definitely
washed with hot non-kosher ingredients.

On what do such individuals rely to drink coffee in such establishments?


From: Meir Shinnar <meir_shinnar@...>
Subject: Payment for Torah

>Where do you get the assumption that "schar batala" - "unemployment
>compensation" is valued against a "low paying job like a waiter"?

>The same issue/question should apply to a religious doctor. My
>understanding is that it is also forbidden for doctors to charge for
>their "doctoring" and that their compensation is based on the same
>principle of "schar batala". If so, does that mean that doctors and
>Rabbis should get the same pay scale?

There is a somewhat detailed discussion of the sources on physician
compensation in Nishmat Avraham on Yoreh Deah 336.  schar batala is
defined as the compensation that the person could have obtained by doing
another job, at his current skill level, not what the person could have
obtained if he had devoted himself to another profession.  He brings
down that he spoke with Rav Auerbach zt"l, who said that as physicians
can work at a nonjewish institution, or at a research institute, they
can earn the same by working for a Jewish institution.  (Note that the
basis is a job that they theoretically can obtain with their current
training, rather than stating that someone with this much ability could
have been a lawyer or executive)

Clearly, if the same rules apply to physicians and rabbis, this implies
that the payscale of a rabbi who is trained in another profession should
be substantially different than that of someone who is untrained, and
who therefore should get the pay of an untrained laborer.

The sources for physician compensation are different than for rabbinic
compensation, but that is another discussion.  However, for most
rabbinic positions, schar battala does refer to unskilled labor.
Indeed, the source in the gemara for schar battala for a rav refers to
someone who was a watercarrier, and told the people who asked his help
that he would do it if they would do his job for him.

The rationale for rabbis receiving more seems therefore not to be really
schar batala, but revolve more around notions of kavod hatora, communal
needs, and public policy.

Meir Shinnar


From: Bob Werman <RWERMAN@...>
Date: Thu,  18 Feb 1999 10:04 +0200

A married woman is seriously ill and has her named changed
according to prescribed methods.

Does this affect her ketuba [kesuba]?

The relevent sections of even ha-ezer, 61 and 129 [8] don't seem
to helpful here.

I would appreciate any guidance.  Thanks in advance.

__Bob Werman [Jerusalem]


From: Eliot Shimoff <shimoff@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:53:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Swimming on Shabbat

In looking into the issue of swimming on Shabbat, I came across what
appears (at least superficially) to be an inconsistency in the Shulkhan
Arukh / Mishnah Brurah.  (I am _not_ looking for a halakhic decision; I
am perfectly satisfied with R. Neuwirth's ruling in Shmirat Shabbat

The SA (OC 326:7) discusses washing (presumably for hygienic reasons) in
a river, and permits it provided that the person dry him/herself
completely before walking four amot in a karmelit (i.e., the banks of
the river).  The MB (loc cit., note 21) points out that other (later?)
authorities have ruled against washing in a river on Shabbat, because of
the possible wringing out of the towel (an av m'lakha -- major category
of activity forbidden on Shabbat).

The SA (OC 339:2) rules against swimming (recreational?)  in a pool on
Shabbat, on the grounds that a person might make a "havit shel
sha'yatin" (raft, float), and that swimming might force water out of the
pool and outside the eruv.  But if there is a rim around the pool (so
that there is no possibility of water spilling over the edge), there is
also no concern that the swimmer will make a raft or float.

So ... why doesn't 339:2 raise the question of wringing out the towel?
And what is it about having a rim around the edge of the pool that makes
a person less likely to make a raft or float?  And, if the swimming
forces water out of the pool, what about the potential violations
involved with watering the surrounding grass?  And what is the
difference between the cases considered in 326:7 (apparently washing for
cleanliness) and 339:2 (apparently swimming without touching the bottom
-- perhaps recreational swimming)?

Eliot Shimoff                          <shimoff@...> 
UMBC Dept. of Psychology               410 455-2973 (lab)
1000 Hilltop Circle                    410 455-2567 (dept. office)
Baltimore, MD 21250                    410 455-1055 (fax)         
    Talmud study via email? Visit http://www.umbc.edu/~shimoff


End of Volume 28 Issue 51