Volume 29 Number 06
                 Produced: Thu Jul 15 20:20:25 US/Eastern 1999

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

An explanation of "Who did not make me a woman" (2)
         [Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer, Gilad J. <GevaryahuGevaryahu@...>]
Answering police questions on Shabbat (5)
         [Donnie Stuhlman, Binyomin Segal, Eliyahu & Sarah Shiffman,
Ronald Greenberg, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Blood in Wine
         [David Charlap]
Kosher Food for Remote Travel
         [David Lichtman]
Observing Traffic Regulations
         [Michael Lipkin]
Prayer in English
         [Michael Rogovin]
Sheasani Yisrael
         [Joseph C. Kaplan]
Talmudic medical recipes
         [Warren Burstein]
Texts or cassette tapes to teach ones-self Talmud
         [Aviva Fee]
Three Steps Back in Shmoneh Esrei
         [Saucee Garfinkel]
         [Mechy Frankel]


From: Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer <frimea@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:17:25 +0300
Subject: Re: An explanation of "Who did not make me a woman"

Abraham Etzion writes:
 > Please it's about time we stop the apologetics

I believe that Aplogetics is a loaded word. It is all in the eyes of the
beholder. One persons apologetics is anothers honest explanation. IMHO,
If the suggester honestly believes it to be true, it ain't apologetics!
It's an honest explanation.

From: Gilad J. <GevaryahuGevaryahu@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:14:06 EDT
Subject: An explanation of "Who did not make me a woman"

I would like to add Etzion Avraham [MJ 29.03] and call the attention to
the counter berach by the women, that is "she'asani kirtzono."
R. Baruch Halevi Epstein in his book Baruch She'amar [page 30] suggests
that women should not say the "she'asani kirtzono" with beracha [beShem
umalchut] since there is a rule, which is brought up by R. Yona to the
Alfasi [Berachot 6] which says: any blessing which is not mentioned in
the Talmud one should not add Shem umalchut to it. Accordingly, since
this berach is nowhere in the Talmud we should instruct the women to
bless only "Baruch ata sheasani kirtzono."

It is evident that this is not followed.

Gilad J. Gevaryahu


From: Donnie Stuhlman <ssmlhtc@...>
Subject: Answering police questions on Shabbat

I believe that news media made a mistake.  No one refused to talk to the
police. Some people refused to talk to reporters because of Shabbat and the
police asked them not to.   I saw a TV crew on the way to shul at mincha
time and they had a hard time getting anyone to talk. The police with held
some of the details while to shooter was at large.  

Donnie Stuhlman
Hebrew Theological College - Saul Silber Memorial Library
7135 N Carpenter Road, Skokie, IL  60077
847-982-2500	<Mailto:<ssmlhtc@...>

From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:31:22 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Answering police questions on Shabbat

* i was shocked to learn that some people believe that talking to the
* police about a gunman on the loose is a desecration of shabbat.

* I would hope that the Rabbis in West Rogers Park saw fit to educate
* their congregants on this matter in the wake of the shootings.

I am saddened to learn that this misinformation made it out of Chicago -
and that this was even believed by educated Jews as well. It is
unfortunate that such a chillul hashem may have been caused through no
fault of the Jewish community here.

Although overall the Chicago Tribune's reporting of our community in
this issue was kind, the paper implied that in fact Jews waited till
after Shabbos to be interviewed by police.


The tribune on later days published numerous letters from participants
in the community that clarified - the community was eager and willing to
help police regardless of chillul shabbos. The only interviews that were
held off till after shabbos were interviews with the press!!

I was - thank G-d - not personally involved in these events. But
everything I saw confirmed that in fact there were no people here that
"our rabbis" needed to educate about this. We all knew we were in
danger, and shabbos did not deter the community from participating in
anything that would make people safer.


[Similar information sent in to the list by : Ronald Greenberg
From: Eliyahu & Sarah Shiffman <shiffman@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:50:55 +0200
Subject: RE: Answering police questions on Shabbat

> I think the operative question is are you potentially saving a life?
> If he has been apprehended (or dead, as in this case), I don't see how
>delaying doing melacha (answering questions is not melacha) to cooperate
>with a police investigation until after shabbos will seriously impede
>the case to the level of pikuach nefesh.

We know now that the individual had no accomplices; we did not know that
then, and we would have no right to assume he did not have
accomplices. In the case of a safek, we must assume that a pikuach
nefesh situation still exists, and render whatever assistance we can.


From: Ronald Greenberg <rig@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:58:39 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Answering police questions on Shabbat

  >Some of the bystanders who had information apparently withheld them from
  >police until after shabbat.

As a member of the community in which the recent shooting incident
occurred, I strongly doubt that this was the case.  The Tribune
included a picture with a caption that read something like the
following: "Possible witnesses are interviewed by a police officer.
Observance of the Jewish sabbath hampered the investigation."  There
were enough other clearly false "facts" in the paper, however, to
provide confirmation of the rule that any time you read a newspaper
article on something with which you have direct experience, you will
find that the newspaper is wrong.  In fact, the picture, as described
in the first sentence, undermines the allegation in the second

I suspect that allegations like this were generated in the press,
because people generally refrained from speaking to reporters who
wanted to videotape and tape record them or at least take notes.  The
Rabbi of the shul in which I davened made clear that there was a
distinction between speaking to the police and speaking to the
reporters (some of whom were even Jewish), and I have not seen any
credible evidence that anybody refrained from talking to the police or
advocated such a thing.  On the contrary, I know of people who spent
much of the night at the police station or on the telephone.

Ron Greenberg

From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:44:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Answering police questions on Shabbat

One of the parents of a boy who was wounded posted on soc.culture.jewish
that this did not happen.  The people involved did speak to the police
and did help with the investigation.  According to the posts in that
thread, the people did not speak to the reporters who came to interview
them (both the newspapers and the telivision) and the reporters began
spreading the story.  Apparently the reporters consider themselves as so
importrant that people are "required" to be mechalel shabbos to talk to

Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore" | Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
 Jews are the fish, Torah is our water | Zovchai Adam, agalim yishakun


From: David Charlap <shamino@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 04:08:58 +0000
Subject: Re: Blood in Wine

I know that the use of blood in wine has never been legal in the US (at
least it hasn't been since the government started regulating it), but as
the article states, it was common in Europe until very recently.  And it
may still be common in other parts of the world.

Just another good reason to only drink kosher wine.

-- David


From: David Lichtman <davidx@...>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:23:36 -0700
Subject: Re: Kosher Food for Remote Travel 

I have heard that some countries like Australia and New Zealand do not
allow food to be brought in with airline passengers.  I don't know if
that is correct or not, but it could provide a complication and should
probably be checked out.


From: Michael Lipkin <Michael_Lipkin@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:31:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Observing Traffic Regulations

In MJ 23:03 Immanuel Burton hit on one of my biggest pet peeves visa vis
the orthodox community in his submission titled "Observing Traffic
Regulations".  There is one simple answer to all his halachic questions,
"Kedoshim T'hiyu"(you shall be "holy").  According to Ramban this means
that we are commanded to always act with an overriding sense of holiness
because without doing so even someone acting WITHIN halachic boundaries
can become a low-life.  So, sure we can dissect Immanuel's case to the
halachic equivalent of a subatomic level, but the bottom line is that we
are exhorted to be "kedoshim", and kedoshim don't go around breaking
basic civil laws.  Not only that but kedoshim should be going OUT OF
THEIR WAY to not even give the appearance of breaking laws or making a
chilul Hashem.



From: Michael Rogovin <rogovin@...>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 22:59:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Prayer in English

Yrachmiel Tilles writes:

> If so, [prayer in English] should not be done from an Artscroll
> siddur, which writes "HASHEM" in place of G-d's name, including in
> blessings. "Blessed are You, Hashem..."  is not a genuine blessing,
> not even in English.

Indeed. The introduction to the Art Scroll siddurim state quite clearly
that when using the English for tefilla, one should substitute "God" or
"Adonai" for "Hashem," but use "Hashem" when using the siddur as a study
text. I always found this to be one of the many absurdities of Art
Scroll (such as the use of Ashkenazy consonants and Sephardi vowels in
the Stone Chumash; which, I am told, they don't even do consistently).
The overwhelming majority of users of Art Scroll siddurim use them in
the course of tefillah, not study (admittedly my presumption) so why
would the editors use Hashem instead og God or a tranliteration of the
Hebrew pronunciation?  It is confusing and is one reason I dislike using
this siddur.  The same use is found in the ArtScroll Haggadot and other
texts where it is not appropriate to use "Hashem" as a substitute for
other names.  Indeed, I suspect that Hashem will one day have the same
status as other names of God and we will have to use "Hash" or some
other silly substitute.  I recommend the Metzuda Siddur, which I believe
is a better translation in any case.

Michael Rogovin


From: Joseph C. Kaplan <penkap@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 20:51:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Sheasani Yisrael

I would be most appreciative if Etzion Avraham would please give us some
sources for his statement that there were rishonim who said "shasani

Joseph C. Kaplan


From: Warren Burstein <warren@...>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:43:48 +0300
Subject: Re: Talmudic medical recipes

>From: Sheldon Meth <SHELDON.Z.METH@...>
>	I have heard that we do NOT use Talmudic medical recipes or
>lechashos [incantations] today because: (1) we are not precisely
>familiar with the ingredients, the quantities, the preparation, nor the
>administrations; and (2) human physiology has changed sufficiently in
>nearly two millenia so as to make these cures, even if we could prepare
>and administer them properly, ineffective, if not harmful.

Would it be wrong to say that the scientific method has also contributed a
number of improvments to medicine?  Also, when was this change in
physiology supposed to have taken place?  Are the Rambam's remedies still
thought to be effective?

>	I have also heard that there are two exceptions, one of which I
>forgot, and the other the famous pigeon-on-the-navel cure (for

Have there been any scientific studies of the pigeon treatment since mj
21.6 when Constance Stillinger called for double-blind tests and Seth
Ness wrote that there is no Talmudic source for this practice.  Also see
http://www.ohr.org.il/ask/ask189.htm which attributes this cure to "A
Jerusalem tradition" rather than to the Talmud.  Has Channah Koppel's
film on this subject (described in mj 21.16) been released?

Another thing I found is http://ianrwww.unl.edu/pubs/Health/g1259.htm
which says that histoplasmosis, a fungus that can be found in the soil
underneath pigeon roosts, can be a cause of a number of ailments,
including hepatitis.
 So make sure to wash your hands afterwards.


From: Aviva Fee <aviva613@...>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 07:56:43 PDT
Subject: Texts or cassette tapes to teach ones-self Talmud

My husband knows a man who is becoming observant and he wants to learns 
gemorah (Talmud).

This guy is extremely intelligent.  Does anyone know of any texts or
cassette tapes that this gentleman could use on his own to teach himself
gemorah?  An in-person chevrusa (study partner) is not feasible for him,
nor is phone calls due to his schedule.



From: Saucee Garfinkel <s.garfinkel@...>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 12:03:08 -0400
Subject: Three Steps Back in Shmoneh Esrei

I know the procedure when saying Shmoneh Esrei is to take three steps
back and then three steps forward before beginning and at the end before
Oseh Shalom. My question is: With which foot do you go back first; and
then which foot do you use to go forward? Is it the same at the end of
the Shmoneh Esrei?  We tried looking it up but none of the seforim we
consulted seemed to address this question--or else we didn't know in
which section to look it up.  Can anyone help?  Sources?

Mrs. S. Garfinkel   <s.garfinkel@...>


From: Mechy Frankel <Michael.Frankel@...>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 09:39:16 -0400
Subject: Yisochor

Yehuda Poch Writes: 
<I would be interested to see how many shuls have the minhag quoted in the
Baal Haturim and what other minhagim are used.>

A summary of the various minhogim and their history may be found in
Jordan Penkower's article in Vol 4 of Iyunei Miqroh U'foroshonus.  the
main focus of penkower's article is the tracing of the relatively new
zeicher-zecher minhog origins, but he has appendices devoted to other
double reading minhogim (in megilas esther) as well as on the yisochor
traditions. it is well worth reading.

Mechy Frankel					H; (301) 593-3949 
<michael.frankel@...>			W: (703) 325-1277


End of Volume 29 Issue 6