Volume 28 Number 72
                 Produced: Fri Jun 11  7:26:02 US/Eastern 1999

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Avos 4:28 questions
         [Chaim Wasserman]
Chalav Stam outside of America
         [Shlomie Rubin]
Direction during Prayer in  New York
         [Philippe Nathan Bamberger]
Eicha Trop
         [Dan Werlin]
Heh with a Dot in it
         [Michael Poppers]
Looking for trustworthy computer vendors in Toronto and Chicago
         [Michael Berkowitz]
Mapik heh (2)
         [Yehoshua Kahan, Percy Mett]
Mechitza (2)
         [Norman Tuttle, Shlomo Pick]
Removing Tefillin on Rosh Chodosh
         [Bill Bernstein]
Tefilin and Chol Hamoed
         [Steve White]
         [Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Work assignments for non-religious Jewish colleagues
         [Josh Backon]


From: Chaim Wasserman <Chaimwass@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:17:52 EDT
Subject: Re: Avos 4:28 questions

Re: Avot 4:28 - the three things which result in "motzi'in es ha'adam
min haolam" The Maggid of Kosenice taught about these three that they
are the reason for the Torah having started before Lech Lecha. For, in
fact, Bereishis and Noach deal with non-Jews,, Lech Lecha being the
first mention of Avraham Avinu, the first Jew. Why, then, include these
two sidrot in the Torah?

His explanation is that there is fundamental necessity for these two
sidrot to teach us of the evils of kin'ah, kavod and ta'avah. [1] Kin'ah
(jealousy) was the reason for the first recorded murder in Cain and
Hevel. [2] Ta'avah (unbridled lust) was the reason for the flood in
Noach's days when the entire world was filled with "chamas" unbridled
lust for things without respect to another's property and [3] Kavod
(desire for honor) is what motivated the building of the Tower of Bavel
as they declared "na'aseh lanu sheim" - let us make for ourselves a

These three things, therefore, come to establish from the Torah itself
that "Derech Eretz Kodmah leTorah", certain universal human traits and
conduct need to be understood even before the rest of the Torah.

As for motzi'im haAdam min haTorah - well using chazal's methodology of
classifying all physical existence into a hierarchy of four divisions,
then, humankind (medaber) in the highest realm of physical existence is
by these three traits cast out of his/her world into the next lower
realm of existence which the the animal realm (chai). Simply stated, a
person who is gripped by any of these three traits is, as the Yiddish
has it, "a chaya", an animal or often "a vilde chaya", a wild animal.

chaim wasserman


From: Shlomie Rubin <Falconhr@...>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 22:19:17 EDT
Subject: Chalav Stam outside of America

I am curious to know what are the halachic implications of eating
"chalav stam" [Milk under US government supervision but no Rabbinic
Kashrut supervision - Mod.] outside of America.  I understand that R'
Moshe's psak concerning the permissibility of eating chalav stam in
America relies to some extent on the american government's supervision
of milk production and sale .  I am traveling this summer to various
countries in Europe whose governments may or may not have the same level
of supervision over milk products.  I would be interested in any
information regarding this area.


From: Philippe Nathan Bamberger <philbamb@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:38:59 +0300
Subject: Re: Direction during Prayer in  New York

To my understanding, the fact that we direct ourself toward Jerusalem
during the prayer has mainly a psychological purpose: directing our mind
toward what Jerusalem and the Temple mount represent. As long as people
in NY will consider Jerusalem being in the east (and not in the north!),
this psychological purpose can only be achieved by facing the east
during the prayer.  It's apparently a fact that people all over the
world have some kind of East-West mental representation of the globe,
that almost totally excludes both non settled poles.

Ph. N. Bamberger


From: Dan Werlin <daniel_werlin@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 99 14:16:44 -0500
Subject: Eicha Trop

When I learned to read Eicha years ago, I was taught to basically ignore
the trop for the third chapter and instead use a three-part chant.  Most
people I've talked to are familiar with this minhag, but no one seems to
know where it comes from.  I haven't been able to find a single source
that explains or even mentions this practice.  Does anyone have any
information on this?

Dan Werlin


From: Michael Poppers <MPoppers@...>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:39:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Heh with a Dot in it

>> [I] in the davening, last verse of the "u'vo l'Tziyon" paragraph:
"v'ya'dir" -- the aleph in "ya" has a dogaish....[II] (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.... <<
 Perets Mett responded:
 > [I] I believe this is incorrect. What was meant presumably is that
the dalet of v'ya-dir has a dogesh as it follows the shvo-nokh on the
aleph....[II] Not becuase it has a dogesh but becuase of the shvo-=nokh
so that it is said as a glottal stop. <
 I believe Perets is correct on both counts.  Thanks, Perets, for the

Michael Poppers
Elizabeth, NJ


From: Michael Berkowitz <mike@...>
Subject: Looking for trustworthy computer vendors in Toronto and Chicago


I have a couple of friends moving for a few years to Toronto and Chicago, 
respectively.  As their local computer consultant, I'm trying to get them 
set up with hardware and Internet connections.

I'm considering just ordering equipment from a major supplier like Dell, 
but I would prefer to find someone both capable and trustworthy in each 
city, and this list seems an appropriate place to do so.  For the Internet 
connection I'd like to ask local people about the providers in their areas.

If anyone is, or knows of, such a person in either city, please contact me 
at <mike@...>

Thanks in advance.



From: Yehoshua Kahan <orotzfat@...>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:38:06 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Re: Mapik heh

As an addendum to the discussion of whether a "heh" with a "mappik" has
its "patach genuvah" sounded before or after it: I think I've found a
fairly iron-clad proof that the patach is indeed the lead-in that I've
always assumed it is - the word "tameah" - to be surprized, spelled
taf-mem-heh.  The sounded "heh" is the third radical of the verb stem,
and the verb is a stative verb, meaning that it follows the vocalization
pattern of other stative verbs: pa'el.  Examples include: ra'ev, tzame',
yashen, zaken.  Thus, "tameh", except that the "mappiked" heh, with its
substantial consonental value, can no more take a preceding tzereh than
can "yodea'", poteach".  Like in those cases, the patach genuvah comes
to smooth the transition to the final gutternal consonent - try saying a
true Sefardic chet or ayin preceded by a tzereh, and you'll see how much
the patach genuvah helps.  The same must be the case with a mappiked

Rav Berachot,

Yehoshua Kahan

From: Percy Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:34:11 +03d0
Subject: Re: Mapik heh

Alexander Heppenheimer <Alexander.Heppenheimer@...>
>for example), then why would we need a mappik? Even without it, we would
>know that the hei is to be sounded, since it has a vowel. (Consider the
>word "verohbam" - Tehillim 90:10 - where no mappik is needed in the hei,
>because the fact that it has a sheva - though it's a sheva nach - makes
>it obvious that it is to be sounded.) Only if the hei does in fact

arvokh arvo tsorikh- your proof needs its own proof.  Why are you so
sure that the hey of verohbom is sounded. On the contrary I say it is a
nohh-nistor and the hey is unsounded.

Perets Mett


From: Norman Tuttle <TUTTLE@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:20:37 -0400
Subject: RE: Mechitza

Micha Berger <micha@...> asserts that
>That gemara could actually be used as a source that mechitzos are NOT
>required for prayer. After all, they put one up for the simchas heis
>hasho'eivah (SBhS), when there was undo levity. But they took it down as
>soon as refular services resumed! 

 No!  The SBhS took place in the Ezras HaNashim ("women's chambers").
The regular temple services (Avodah) did not take place in the Ezras
HaNashim, so there were ample accomodations for the men without being
distracted by the women who could enter the Ezras HaNashim.
 One could use this Gemara for both justifying the Shul which is
structurally built with separate sections (eg. sep. room, balcony) vs. a
Mechitza-type set-up (one room with a temporary or portable division).
It seems that both are Kosher but actually the structural version is
preferable since the Temple (Beis HaMikdosh) used it year-round while a
Mechitza was only for temporary use.

From: Shlomo Pick <picksh@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:28:32 +0200
Subject: re: Mechitza

 MR. R. or Dr. Micha Berger wrote: "This is an interesting
argument. Down to the halachah's basics, it [=mechitza] need only be 3
tefachim (10" or so) high."
 Where does this come from?
If it is a law of reshut - domain - then you would need 10 tefakhim.
if it is a law of tzniut, i.e. modesty, then it may have to be higher.
but where does three come from? what does it have to do with leaving the
realm of lavud?
shlomo pick


From: Bill Bernstein <bbernst@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 12:16:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Removing Tefillin on Rosh Chodosh

MJ 28.69 had a question about Ashkenazim removing tefillin on Rosh
Chodesh before Mussaf, evenm though they don't say 'kesser" in the
kedusha.  My understanding of the reason is that the korbanos of Rosh
Chodesh (or maybe Rosh Chodesh itself) is called "os" so two of them
would be redundant (same reason as Shabbos and Yom Tov).


From: Steve White <StevenJ81@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:36:41 EDT
Subject: Re: Tefilin and Chol Hamoed

May I add a few comments:

(1) I have seen places where the shaliach tzibbur (prayer leader)
*appears* not to take off Tefillin before Hallel, especially on Pesach.
There, the shaliach tzibbur removes the windings from his hand, thereby
*starting* to remove his tefillin and thereby having the status of one
whose tefillin are removed.  But he goes no further because it would be
a "tircha d'tzibbura" -- hardship on the congregation -- for them to
wait for him to remove his tefillin entirely.  (The rest of the
congregation is presumed to have removed tefillin during Repetition.)

In theory, this works on Sukkot as well, but since we bentch lulav at
that point, *everyone* is taking a break, and "tircha d'tzibbura" is not
as big an issue.

(2) I have also seen the halacha that a minyan should not have both
tefillin-wearers and non together, but I, too, have only seen that
halacha followed in the breach.  I understand that if it is a "without"
minyan, tefillin wearers should go without at shul, and then put them on
at home.  If it is a "with" minyan, non-wearers should stipulate they
are merely wearing ornaments and not intending to fulfill a mitzva at

(3) Mishna Berurah as "sefardi" minhag -- huh?

(4) I'm not sure that the mitzva of lulav has much, if anything, to do
with removing tefillin before Hallel.  For the record, though, there is
a difference between lulav and hagba: There is a mitzva to take the four
species in your hands, so tefillin would unquestionably be a chatzitza
(interruption).  For hagba, I'm pretty sure that in theory it is
perfectly permissible to lift with tefillin around your hand.  The
common practice is simply that it is better to remove the tefillin and
not drop the sefer torah than to leave tefillin on.  I think.

(5) Re: Zohar and death penalty: We don't pasken (rule on halacha) by
the Zohar.  Besides, I wonder whether this isn't hyperbole, such as one
sometimes finds in Mishna Avot, for example.  The words of Chazal are
not to be taken lightly, of course, but one isn't *really* subject to
death penalty for not using all available time to learn Torah.  What
penalties may await in Olam Haba for that are a different matter.

Steven White


From: Gilad J. Gevaryahu <Gevaryahu@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:24:38 EDT
Subject: Veragleyhem

Avraham Reiss worte MJv28n69: >>Angels only have one foot, as in
Yechezkel 'Veragleyhem regel Yeshara' (tr: 'and their feet are a
straight foot'). >>

"Veragleyhem" (Yechzkel 1:7) is in plural form and thus it is two, or it
would have been "veraglam". My understanding of this pasuk is that for
both their feet, each foot was straight. We can learn from here that the
foot need be straight from here, but we certainly do not want to have
hooves as the end of the pasuk suggested.

Gilad J. Gevaryahu


From: Josh Backon <BACKON@...>
Subject: Re: Work assignments for non-religious Jewish colleagues

Is the patient load primarily Jewish or not ?

Even if it isn't primarily Jewish, although we should try to avoid
working Saturday shifts (see: Iggrot Moshe OC Chelek Aleph 131) one can
rely on EIVA (see: SH"UT Chatam Sofer Choshen Mishpat 194; Tzitz Eliezer
Chelek Chet 15:6) and permit violating even an issur d'oraita and the
doctor should "yachsov b'da'ato she'oseh ma'asav elu keday l'hinatzel

In any case, I would strongly recommend that you get both the NISHMAT
AVRAHAM on medical halacha in Shulchan Aruch written by Rav Dr. Avraham
Sofer in Jerusalem, as well as the SEFER REFUAT HA'SHABAT: Hilchot
U'Piskei Dinim b'Inyanei Harefuah B'shabbat. You could then advise the
non-religious doctor what is permissible and what isn't.

Good luck

BTW our hospital has a weekly shiur in medical halacha in the form of a
chabura where you're given the bibliography ahead of time.



End of Volume 28 Issue 72