Volume 28 Number 93
                 Produced: Mon Jul  5  7:15:16 US/Eastern 1999

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

40 Shofer Sounds in Mussaf of Rosh Hashana
         [Shlomo Pick]
A Couple of Shvas
         [Moshe J. Bernstein]
A Good summary of principles of NOLAD/MUKSEH
         [Russell Hendel]
Being Obligated in a Tzedekah without your Consent
         [Ed Ehrlich]
Coming late to shul
         [Etan Diamond]
Halichos Shadchanus
         [Percy Mett]
         [Percy Mett]
Number of verses in the 10 Commandments
         [Yosef Gilboa]
Shape of Luchot
         [Warren Burstein]
Women and procreation
         [David Zilberberg]


From: Shlomo Pick <picksh@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 14:09:28 +0200
Subject: 40 Shofer Sounds in Mussaf of Rosh Hashana

Menashe Elyashiv wrote:
>My question is - besides Adat Yeshurun as brought in Shoresh Minhag
>Ashkanz- are there other places that keep the old Ashkanazi way of only
>40 or 42? BTW - that is the Yemanite Baladi way.

42 is the old French minhag, while 40 is the old minhag of France,
Germany, Provence, and Spain, for the most part.  As a boy, I remember
in the 50s and 60s the German expatriate congregation in Hartford, Ct,
sound 40 in the repetition of mussaf, as is recorded in the Heidenheim
makhzor.  Also, one should note that the German teruah is different from
the eastern european and it sounds as if the shofar is vibrating. I
understand that this is also a Yemenite custom.
 Shlomo Pick


From: Moshe J. Bernstein <mjbrnstn@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:32:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: A Couple of Shvas

1) the shva in be'alema (Ashkenazic: be'olemo) is na and the word is to
be accented on the final syllable. the qamatz is a qamatz gadol and is
"paralleled" to the unchangeable holam in hebrew olam (not to be
confused with qamatz qatan paralleled with holam such as in

2) the argument on shtayim has two sides. those of us who pronounce it
as a shva nach (and we do exist, pace Russel Hendel), have the dagesh in
the tav on our side. where else do you find dagesh qal after a shva na?
for further discussion, as alluded to by Dr. Hendel, see the Radaq on
"innaqema neqam ahat mishshetei (written with non-dageshed tav) einai
mippelisthim" in the story of Shimshon in Shofetim. (i'm quoting be'al
peh, so forgive any error there)

moshe bernstein


From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:55:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: A Good summary of principles of NOLAD/MUKSEH

The last few issues brought many further postings/questions on Mukseh,&
Nolad.  Why is a BORN Egg prohibited? How do the concepts of PREPARATION
and DESIGNATION apply? Do they apply to Yom Tov or Shabbath? Is it
Rabbinic or Biblical? Why are there so many opinions?

Although I can't explain all views, I believe the following explicit
citation from Rambam, with examples, will answer many questions.

>(Rambam Yom Tov 1:17) There is a prohibition on Yom Tov that does not
>exist on Shabbath---the Prohibition of MUKSEH. The sages prohibited MUKSEH
>on Yom Tov because Yom Tov is less severe than Shabbath and people might
>treat it lightly--therefore the sages added these extra prohibitions.

>18) How so? A chicken DESIGNATED for eggs may not be eaten from on Yom Tov
>EATING. But on Shabbath everything is considered DESIGNATED.And just as
>MUKSEH (=not designated) is prohibited on Yom Tov so is the NOLAD (lit BORN).

>19) ...An egg BORN on a Yom Tov after Shabbath is prohibited because the
>egg was already completed the day before (Shabbath) and so we would be
>using the Shabbath (on which the egg was completed) to PREPARE for YOM TOV.

>And they prohibited this egg on ALL YOM TOVS (even after a weekday) so it
>should not be used on a Yom Tov after Shabbath. Similarly they prohibited
>the egg born on ANY Shabbath so that out of confusion we shouldn't allow
>usage of an egg born on a Shabbath after YOM TOV.

Thus the Rambam is clear that there are two new categories that are
prohibited (both on Shabbath and Yom Tov): a) "BORN"--like an egg born
on Shabbath and b) "NOT DESIGNATED"--like a chicken which is used for eggs
and is NOT THOUGHT OF as being used for food (I can't slaughter that
chicken and use it for food on Yom Tov since it is not DESIGNATED for food).

Rather than speculate on how to categorize these terms we can cite numerous
examples from Yom Tov Chapter 2 which discusses the meaning of BORN:
The following are prohibited

A) 2:11--branches of wood that fell off the tree
B) 2:3---A temple animal which developed a blemish(& is no longer holy)
C) 2:7--fish in a house pond that requires netting (netting is permitted by
        Rambam on Yom Tov for food)
D) 2:1--a bird that hatched

In all these cases prior to Yom Tov, the objects in question--the branch on
the tree, the temple animal that is holy, the uncaught fish, the unhatched
bird---had a status that precluded me from thinking of using them (because
they were attached to a tree, designated for the temple, uncaught or
unhatched). Hence when they become usable on Yom Tov they are "BORN"--in
other words I don't think of being able to use them till their STATUS

If we apply this to a fax we see that I did NOT think of the blank paper
as being readable before YOM TOV. When the paper receives the fax its
status changes--like a blemish on an animal or branch that falls--it is
this changed status that makes me think of it as something readable--hence
it is BORN and should be prohibited.

Russell Hendel;Phd;ASA;Moderator Rashi-Is-Simple;http://www.shamash.org/rashi/


From: Ed Ehrlich <Eehrlich@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:44:14 +0300
Subject: Being Obligated in a Tzedekah without your Consent

> H Zabari <zbozoz@...> wrote:
> I would like to hear some reactions to something that happened to me
> recently. I recently celebrated the Brit Milah of my son. I looked for
> ...
> chose to make the Milah in. In his MiSheberach he made mention of the
> father giving Tzedakah for the mother and child's wellbeing. 
> ...
> the Rabbi's MiSheberach. The letter claimed that in this MiSheberach
> the father agrees to give Tzedakah to this Rabbi's favorite Charity. I
> will not mention either the name of the Mohel or the Charity so as not
> to cause injury to either. I simply found this to be a highly coercive
> method which did not appeal to my senseabilities at all. 
> 	[Ehrlich, Ed]  ... Material omitted

	I assume for a MiSheberach to be binding, the "bindee" has to
give some form of consent.  I'm not sure that even if someone knowingly
and verbally agrees to make a monetary pledge through a MiSheberach,
it's binding according to halakha.  Doesn't there have to be some sort
of physical act accompanying a verbal pledge to make the pledge binding:
for instance like the holding of handkerchief while selling one's
Khametz before Passover?

	I can certainly understand how Zabari's sensibilities were
violated.  I was much luckier, when many years ago, I asked Rabbi Groner
to conduct my marriage ceremony.  This involved a great deal of
inconvenience for him.  He lived in Binghamton and the ceremony was in
New York City on a Sunday so he had to stay with relatives over Shabbat.
When I asked him, with a bit of embarrassment, how much should I pay, he
told me that I was a member of the congregation and he was my rabbi, so
no payment was involved.  He also said that if I wished to make a
donation to the synagogue that would be fine.  That was the last time
that the matter of money came up and I was glad to make a small
contribution in the rabbi's name to the synagogue.  I think that the
rabbi showed great "derekh eretz" in his handling of the situation.
Also, because of his non-coercive approach, I gave the tzedakah
willingly which is certainly better for everyone concerned.

	Ed Ehrlich <eehrlich@...>
	Jerusalem, Israel


From: Etan Diamond <ediamond@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:36:59 -0500
Subject: Coming late to shul

In reading through various commentaries to the Siddur, I have found numerous
references to prayers that were added for "latecomers."   Does this mean
that coming late to shul was not uncommon in previous generations?   How
does this fit with the image of our "pious" forefathers that is so often
impressed upon us.   Coming late to shul does not seem so pious to me.
Plus, if you always provide "make-up" prayers for latecomers, what incentive
is there to come on time?  (Perhaps, in our desire to emulate our
forefathers, we should actually strive to come to shul late!!)


Etan Diamond, Ph.D.			<ediamond@...>
The Polis Center				(317) 274-3836
425 University Blvd., 301CA			(317) 278-1830 (fax)
Indianapolis, IN 46202-5140



From: Percy Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:45:22 +03d0
Subject: Re: Halichos Shadchanus

The journal Mevakshei Toiro (published in Israel by Rabbi Aharon Roter) has
been running a series on Hilchos Shiduchin venisuin.

Perets Mett


From: Percy Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:45:25 +03d0
Subject: Re: Names

Daniel Stuhlman wrote:
>When my sister was growing up her Hebrew teachers told her that she had
>a man's name.  Before her wedding she changed her name from a masculine
>sounding, Mitel Elisha, to the feminine Michal Elisheva.  My father went

The interesting thing about this is that Michl is widely used as a man's
name! Especially in the combination Yechiel Michl.  (And before anyone
corrects me - yes, I am aware that Polish Jews pronounce this name as
Mechl, as indeed they tend to pronounce most chiriks which precede a chof
or reysh)

Perets Mett


From: Yosef Gilboa <bfgilboa@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:29:47 -0700
Subject: Re: Number of verses in the 10 Commandments

> From: Alexander Heppenheimer <Alexander.Heppenheimer@...>
> > Russell Hendel asks about the custom to read the 10 Commandments as 10
> > verses:
> >But...this goes against the established principle that we have no
> >right to make into sentences verses that Moses did not make into
> >sentences..
> My understanding is that in this case, there are actually two different
> Mesorahs of how to divide the 10 Commandments into pesukim. (Actually,
> there are three: one that divides them into 13 pesukim, as found in our
> standard Chumashim, and which we follow in private reading; another,
> which divides them into 9 pesukim (combining the first two
> Commandments), which is the standard one used in public Torah reading;
> and a third, which separates the first two Commandments, yielding 10
> pesukim - a custom not commonly found anymore, as far as I know.)

The issue of `aseret ha-dvarim as well as the broader issue of
discrepancies between Palestinian and Babylonian masora in general is
discussed in the excellent book "Keter 'Aram Tzova" by Mordechai Breuer
(recently awarded the Israel Prize for his important contributions to
the study of Masora, ta`ame ha-miqra, etc.). The practice of using
"ta`am `elyon" in public reading of `aseret ha-dibrot is widespread.
Correctly unravelled from partly erroneous printed humashim, this
divides the text into ten psuqim, one for each of the ten commandments
(and does not link the two first dibrot into one pasuq!). Contrary to
your impression, the practice of using this corrected, ten-pasuq,
version of ta`am `elyon for all public readings of 'aseret ha-dibrot is
fast taking hold and is now printed separately at the back of Breuer's
humash as well as the tanach Koren. Previously, the German Jewish
communities who used Hildesheim's (known by the acronym, RAVE"H)
well-edited humash, used the ten-pasuq version in public reading, but
only on Shavu`ot, and used ta`am tahton for public reading on Shabbat
Yitro and Shabbat Va-'ethanan. I suppose that this latter, somewhat
inconsistent, practice is now rarely encountered.

Yosef Gilboa


From: Warren Burstein <warren@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 14:19:42
Subject: Re: Shape of Luchot

>The g'mara, howver, notes that the shape of the tablets was actually a
>rectangular prism (a 3-dimensional rectangle).  The top of the luchos
>was actually flat.

I don't know of any source that the tablets were rounded, but is there one
that they were not?


From: David Zilberberg <ZilbeDa@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:17:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Women and procreation

Yehuda Poch <yehudap@...> wrote:

"Regarding the thread of the obligation of women to procreation:
Did anyone ever consider the following possibility?
The commandment of procreation was given before woman was created.
Thus, it is commonly assumed that women are not obligated by this
mitzva, despite the fact that it is NOT a time-bound commandment.
However, when woman was created, she was created as a "help-meet
opposite him", or an "opposite helper".  There is an element necessary
for procreation that only women can provide.  It is a commandment for
men to procreate.
Taking all these into account, has anyone ever considered whether women
are in fact obligated in procreation by the statement of their purpose
as "help-meet opposite him", and that since they are necessary for
procreation, they are required to do it as well?"

I turn your attention to Breishit 1:27-28:
   "27. And G-d created man in His own image, in the image of G-d created He
him; male and female created He them. 
	28. And G-d blessed them; and G-d said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing
that creepeth upon the earth."
	At least according to the pashut pshat, the commandment was to man
and woman.  According to the gemara in yevamos (i think), its restricted to
man, because hashem commanded yaakov subsequently in pru urevu.  This is
also why non-jews are not commanded in pru urevu.  


End of Volume 28 Issue 93