Volume 28 Number 64
                 Produced: Mon Jun  7  6:39:37 US/Eastern 1999

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Are men raising children exempt from Time-bound commandments?
         [Russell Hendel]
Correct Pronunciation of Hebrew, and Speed of Praying
         [David Schiffmann]
Direction to Face
         [Susan Shapiro]
Heh with a Dot in it
         [Michael Poppers]
How to deal w/ frum worker abusing the net?
         [Frances Klein-Lehman]
Kaddish after the Shmoneh Esreh of Maariv, Fax & Shabbat
Kesev vs. Keves in Torah
         [Michael Feldstein]
Luach Hashemos
         [Lee M. Spetner]
Mapik heh;  direction of prayer
         [Gershon Dubin]
Scope of being Exempt from Time Bound Mitzvot
         [Wendy Baker]
Scope of being Exempt from Time Dependent Mitzvot
         [Heppenheimer, Alexander]
Tztzit after Shema
         [Jack Hollander]


From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 13:11:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Are men raising children exempt from Time-bound commandments?

Stuart Wise asked the above question in Vol 28#62. I think most people
would regard it as clear that such a person is NOT exempt and the real
point of Stuarts question is for a source.

I found an obscure Rambam on a similar question that arises in Witness
Law: Relatives are invalid as witnesses, so e.g. a brother cannot
testify that his brother made a loan. Presumably the reason might be
because of the strong emotional bond between relatives.

The Rambam answers this in Witnesses 13:15. Presumably the same logic
would apply to Stuarts question:

>>The invalidation of relatives as witnesses is NOT because
>>they are presumed to like each other. Indeed,the invalidation
>>holds whether the relative testifies FOR or AGAINST. Rather
>>the proper perspective is that this invalidation law is
>>a **Divine Decree(without further reason)**. Furthermore
>>it would follow that a close friend or strong enemy are
>>**valid** witnesses even though frieds and enemy's are
>>invalid for being Judges. For the Torah only decreed
>>(witness) invalidation on relatives.

Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA <RHendel@...>
Moderator; Rashi Is Simple; http://www.shamash.org/rashi/


From: David Schiffmann <das1002@...>
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 18:18:25 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Correct Pronunciation of Hebrew, and Speed of Praying

Following on from the discussion about the correct pronunciation of the
'mappik' vowel, I have some more general questions, which I'd be
grateful for people's comments on.

How important is it, from the point of view of fulfilling the mitzvah to
'daven' (pray), to correctly pronounce words and vowels. One example is
the distinction between 'shva na' and a 'shva nach' - using one instead
of the other can make some words sound very different; the 'Ashrei'
prayer, for example, has quite a lot of these.  Unless one memorises the
rules governing these vowels' pronunciation, it seems the easiest way to
distinguish between these two cases is to use an Artscroll siddur, since
it indicates (by the 'bar' above the relevant letter) where a 'shva na'
is to be said.

However, what if one does not have such a siddur available? If one
'mis-pronounces' such words, especially in the Shema, does it still
'count' in terms of fulfilling the relevant commanment to pray? In a
more general case, if one davens quickly, how is it possible to ensure
one correctly pronounces words; I find this more difficult to do when
one is praying quietly - a 'chaf' and easily become a 'hey' or something
similar to it.

On a related note, how is it possilble that those who pray very fast can
correctly pronounce the words? For example, some people say Ashrei in
about a minute, but I would find myself running words together and/or
making mistakes if I were to try to say it that quickly.  Maybe it is
just a matter of how used to it one is.

Thank you,



From: Susan Shapiro <SShap23859@...>
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 13:59:04 EDT
Subject: Re: Direction to Face

<< 	Ideally, one should face in the direction of Yerushalayim, i.e.,
 south in Moscow and Turkey, west in Australia and north in South Africa. >>

I seem to remember that quite often the Shuls in South Africa had the
Aron Kodesh in the "wrong" direction, because of the fact that when the
immigrants came from Europe, maybe there was a lack of knowledge at the
time and they just built the Aron Kodesh the same as it was in Europe.
So, some are facing South and those in the "know" do turn when davening
the Amida.  Also, a previous poster mentioned about the shuls in New
Zealand having seats facing the Aron Kodesh and some facing inwards
towards the Bimah. I think that is a British custom, which went to South
Africa as well.

Susan Shapiro


From: Michael Poppers <MPoppers@...>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:14:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Heh with a Dot in it

In 28:63, Moshe J. Bernstein (a.k.a., to those of us privileged to have had
him as a TaNaCH teacher, MJ) responds:
> there are rare occurrences of mappiq in aleph as well, although the
location eludes me at the moment. <

I can think of two off-hand (although I thought of each one as a dogaish
rather than a mappik): (a) in the k'riah during Chag haPessach, Parshas
Emor (Lev. 23:17): "to'vi'ooh" -- the aleph in "ooh" is noted as
"d'gushah"; and (b) in the davening, last verse of the "u'vo l'Tziyon"
paragraph: "v'ya'dir" -- the aleph in "ya" has a dogaish.  (FWIW, my HS
rebbe, Rav Danziger sh'l'y't'a', made a point of pronouncing the latter
instance's aleph as if, indeed, it was consonantal -- I don't know if he
had a m'kor for this practice, which I know of no one else following, or
if he considered it common sense, given that the dogaish was presumably
present for a reason.)

Michael Poppers
Elizabeth, NJ


From: Frances Klein-Lehman <faygie_klein@...>
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 07:26:06 PDT
Subject: How to deal w/ frum worker abusing the net?


I am a systems administrator for a large company.  The company just
instituted a new policy to monitor network activities and all users
understand that they have no expectation of privacy when using corporate
systems and that their activities may be monitored.

There is a frum guy who has been abusing the net.  He visits adult-sites
and frequests chat rooms.  I know with certainty that it is him, if you
want the technical details about how we monitor this, email me and I
will let you know about the software.

But the bigger issue is, how do I approach him and tell him to stop
without embarrasing him?



From: <RYehoshua@...>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:59:13 EDT
Subject: Kaddish after the Shmoneh Esreh of Maariv, Fax & Shabbat

There are two easy questions that people have brought to my attention,
but for some reason I am struggling to find a definitive answer.
Perhaps someone could help, or at least guide to me to the sources.
 A: Can the chazzan begin the kaddish after the shmoneh esreh of maariv,
even when there are not yet 10 men who have completed shmoneh esreh?  If
so, what are the minimum amount of men that need to be able to respond
before the sheliach tzibbur can begin the kaddish?
 B: Can one send a fax to Israel on Friday afternoon knowing that it
will arrive there on Shabbat; can the receiver read the fax or is this
an issue of nolad?

Thanks to all  we respond.


From: Michael Feldstein <MIKE38CT@...>
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 14:20:17 EDT
Subject: Kesev vs. Keves in Torah

there are several times in the karbanot that the term for a one-year-old
male lamb is mentioned.  certain times the word keves is used; other
times the word kesev is used.  to the best of my knowledge, the words
are interchangeable and there is no difference between the two.
however, the difference in the words does beg the question.  has anyone
ever heard any explanation as to why keves is used in certain sections
to describe a male lamb, and kesev in others?  is there any qualitative
or quantitative difference between the lamb that is being asked to be
brought for sacrifice?  i would appreciate any comments from anyone who
has heard an explanation for this, or from any hebrew grammarians who
can add some insight to this question.  thanks.

michael feldstein
stamford, ct


From: Lee M. Spetner <lspetner@...>
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 20:43:52 +0300
Subject: Luach Hashemos

The book is Luach Hashlemos Hashlem, by Dr. Shaul Barkali, published by
Reuven Mass, Jerusalem The copy I have is copywrited 1967. I bet stores
in Israel that sell school books have it.

Lee Spetner
>From: Cheryl Hall <HallCheryl@...>
>I also have a question my list friends may be to help with.... I am
>taking Hebrew classes with a local woman from the shul.... who happens
>to be Israeli, and a PHD in Hebrew Linguistics.  She wants our class of
>2 to procure a book she remembers Luach HaShemot.  This is a book of
>noun tables, listing all patterns and then all nouns reference a
>pattern.  This is supposed to be like Luach HaPoalim, Verb Tables, which
>I do have and can find.


From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 17:50:46 -0400
Subject: Mapik heh;  direction of prayer

>lamed/holem - heh/patach is *not* "eloha" (unless, perhaps, you're 
>Hawaiian), but rather "eloah" with the final heh pronounced *after* the
	I would like to add to this the fact that this word is
pronounced with the accent on the lamed rather than on the final, mapik

	Ideally, one should face in the direction of Yerushalayim, i.e.,
>south in Moscow and Turkey, west in Australia and north in South Africa.
>However, if the 'aron qodesh is in another direction, the presence of
>sifrei torah takes precedence and one faces the 'aron qodesh.
	This has been discussed in MJ in the past.  The halacha is that
one faces the direction of Yerushalayim, NOT the direction of the aron
or the sifrei Torah if the two directions differ.  Do you have a source
for your assertion to the contrary?



From: Wendy Baker <wbaker@...>
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 15:35:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Scope of being Exempt from Time Bound Mitzvot

I am no Posek, but it is my understanding that the exemtion of women
from time bound mitzvot (those that they are exempt from) does not stem
from child care.  If this were the case why would young, unmarried
women, childless, or older women be so exempt?

In addition, they are not exempt from all time bound mitzvot.  After
all, what is more timebound than lighting Shabbat canbles from which
they are surely not exempt!

men do not get an exemption if they are the primary caregivers of

I shall refrain from making any other remarks on this subject of great
tenderness to some women.

Wendy Baker 


From: Heppenheimer, Alexander <Alexander.Heppenheimer@...>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:26:23 -0600 
Subject: Re: Scope of being Exempt from Time Dependent Mitzvot

Stuart Wise <swise@...> wrote:

>We say that women are exempt from time dependent positive
>commandments, and in general women have fewer mitzvos to perform
>because of their involvement in the caring for young children.
>My question is: what if it is the man who is the primary caregiver of the
>child, either at times when the wife is work, or say, chas v'shalom, if
>the mother dies in childbirth, is a man patur from any mitzvos?

I have never heard anyone suggest that this would be the case, at least not
on a permanent basis.

In other words, it is true that a person is exempted from performing a
mitzvah in a situation where he is forcibly prevented from doing it (say,
for example, a prisoner who has no opportunity to sit in a sukkah) - but the
underlying obligation still exists: as soon as the preventing factor is
removed, the obligation reasserts itself. In fact, it may very well be the
case that the person is obligated to do whatever is reasonably possible in
order to remove the preventing factor (as in the case of the Spanish
Marranos, who were required by halachah to leave the country and move
elsewhere, where they could practice Judaism fully) - but that's a different

In practice, then, this would mean that if there's no one else available to
take care of the baby, then the man would have to stay home from shul
(assuming that it's not possible to take her there, such as that it's
Shabbos and there's no eiruv in town), thus forgoing the mitzvah of praying
with a minyan. But this is quite different from saying that the man has no
obligation at all to pray with a minyan - which is true for a woman.

And, if I may digress a moment, I submit that this is one example of the
danger in thinking that one or another consideration is the _whole reason_
for some detail or other of Torah observance. Any "reason" we can find for a
mitzvah is really just a _moral_ that Hashem wants us to find and apply to
other areas of serving Him - in other words, the reason exists because the
mitzvah does, not the contrary. (This, incidentally, is why our Sages
describe Avraham as celebrating Passover, even though the historical
"reason" for its observance didn't yet exist.)

In this case, the concept that women are preoccupied with children is
perfectly true, but it's surely not the whole truth: if that were the case,
then why would elderly, or unmarried, or (R"L) barren women be exempted from
these mitzvos? (If halachah can differentiate between unmarried girls and
married women as far as covering their hair, why not in other areas too?)

Now in fact, there is at least one other reason I've heard for the exemption
of women from certain mitzvos, namely that women are on a higher spiritual
level than men, and therefore need fewer mitzvos to bring themselves closer
to G-d. Based on this reason alone, then, it would follow that even in the
cases that Stuart described, the man would still be obligated to keep all
the mitzvos in which he was obligated before. But again, I'm sure that there
must be some area of halachah in which this reason breaks down too, leaving
us with the bottom line: that our human reasons are totally inadequate to
explain any part of Hashem's Will.

Kol tuv,


From: Jack Hollander <JackHollander@...>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 07:00:27 -0400
Subject: Tztzit after Shema

Greetings and Shalom,
        My query is why do we release the Tztzit ( Tallit fringes )
after the word " Lo'ad" ( forever ) in the paragraph following the
completion of the third paragraph of the Shema?

Kol Tuv   Jack Hollander


End of Volume 28 Issue 64