Volume 29 Number 24
                 Produced: Wed Jul 28  6:48:43 US/Eastern 1999

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

9 Av conversing & other 9 Av halachos
aliya beginnings and endings
Aliya Beginnings and Endings
         [Shlomo Abeles]
Aliyos in VaEschanan (2)
         [Richard Wolpoe, Shaul Yutav]
Meat During the Nine Days (2)
         [David Feiler, Meir Shinnar]
Tisha B'Av nigunim on Shabbos
         [Joel Rich]
Women=Men (Property, Soul and Life rights)--All Opinions
         [Russell Hendel]


From: Mordechai <Phyllostac@...>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 02:06:30 EDT
Subject: 9 Av conversing & other 9 Av halachos

I would like to add a few thoughts to my previous submission.
 Another possibly less/non problematic alternative re acknowledging
someone on 9 Av might be a small hand motion/wave (without saying
anything) instead of/in addition to Hello.This might be the least
problematic of all options discussed.
 Also-when taking leave of another on 9 Av,what about farewell
greetings,such as goodbye (derived from G-d be with you)?I have not seen
recorded that this would be a problem.Has anyone?
 I did look in the aruch hashulchan,shulchan aruch and gemara trying to
understand the halachos better.It seems that they are derived-at east to
some degree-from hilchos aveilus (the laws of mourning).learned from
hilchos aveilus-
 The Shulchan Aruch in Hilchos Aveilus brings from the Ramba"m that
'vikol shekain liharbos bidvarim assur' (for sure to overconverse is
prohibited)-so there seems to be an intention of limiting 'socializing'
(I am not certain as to at what point it is classified as overindulging
in conversation/chatting).  Perhaps conversation should be limited to
'necessary,urgent,timely,davar haavaid type of talks and new,exploratory
chats should be refrained from/limited.
 Also-If the rationale is because it takes mind off aveilus,a more
restrictive attitude might be justified,as opposed to if it's just to
limit enjoyment from chatting.

On another matter related to 9 Av- I sometimes have seen people sitting
on things like milk containers and soda cases in Shul,as they don't want
to sit on neither a regular chair,as we are instructed,nor on the
floor.It would seem that these should not be taken or even 'borrowed'
from stores (also-I believe some of them belong to milk companies or
bottlers-so perhaps permission from a store owner would not totally
suffice ?-on the other hand,maybe being that the milk company/bottler
sort of loans these things to the stores it seems,maybe the local store
is qualified to give permission to someone who briefly wants to borrow
them) without proper authorization-as there could be a chashash
gineiva/gezel- (problem of taking something without permission) which is
not allowed even for a mitzvah- even if they are promptly returned.Also,
those who don't return them,leaving them in Shul,etc. especially are
causing a chillul Hashem it seems by not returning what they took or
'borrowed' and by leaving them for the Shul to remove.
Parenthetically,kids sometimes collect soda,milk cases,etc.-I think
Sukkahs have been made of them-and seemingly the same problems would


From: Mordechai <Phyllostac@...>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 05:17:53 EDT
Subject: aliya beginnings and endings

Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...> wrote
 << Can anyone tell me when and by whom the printed aliyos in the Chumash
 (Sheni, Shlishi) were established?>>

There is a quite interesting article in 'Torah shebaal peh' # 39 re these 
divisions according to the view of the GR"A.
In the beginning of the article, the author (A.Katzenelenbogen) says that it 
appears that they were set/distributed as suggestions by baalei kria so they 
wouldn't have to determine/decide anew each year where to set these stops (a 
footnote directs the reader to Sinai 119 Shvat-Adar 5757 from p.224 
onwards)(and originally there were various versions extant that varied 

[From second posting. Mod.]

I happened to be at the New York Public Library Jewish division the other 
day, so I looked up the article by Ilana Katzenelenbogen in Sinai 119.It tells 
of a survey she did in various Chumashim/Bibles/copies of Tanach from 
different times and places, to see how they dealt with this matter.She found 
much variation and illustrated this with an extensive chart for the sidros of 
the year, showing the different stopping and starting points she encountered.
Anyone interested further, is directed there....


From: Shlomo Abeles <sba@...>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:40:09 +1000
Subject: Aliya Beginnings and Endings

I recall seeing in one of the Seforim of the Munkatcher Rebbe - the
Minchas Elozor ( I can't remember which one) - that 'Sheni, Shlishi' etc
was created by a Melamed . He therefore felt quite relaxed about
changing the seder in several parshios (See Darkei Chaim Vesholom)


From: Richard Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@...>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:44:25 -0400
Subject: Aliyos in VaEschanan

From: Michael Poppers <MPoppers@...> 

> Re the Shabbos-Chazon laining, I seem to recall that such is also done
> in "Breuer's" (Washington Heights, New York City), and the prohibition
> against mourning on Shabbos may well be a, if not the, reason why.
> However, the "Aili Tziyon" tune is used for L'cha Dodi on that Shabbos,
> possibly because it's used for all bain-ha'm'tzorim ("Three Weeks")
> shabbosos.

A few footnotes:

While Breuer's does not sing the Eicho tune to the Torah reading it does
usie it during the Haftoro.

BTW, the Remo, and general Ashkezna, did not view Shabbos Chazon as
exempt from mourning, and in fact in Germany, Shabbos Chazzon was
reffered to as "die/der shvartze Shabbos".

Re: lecho dodiand the use of a special Sefiro melody, I have
specifically that since lehco dodi is recited BEFORE Shabbos, it was ok
to use a "mournful" melody.  The Sefiro Meoldy of Breuer's is used ONLY
during Iyyar, because (apparently) it would be inapporirate to sing
lecho dodi in a mournful mode in either Nissan or Sivan.

OTOH, the 2 times Av horachimi is recited at Breuer's is the Shabbos
prior to Shavuos (due to the massacres of the crusade era) and Shabbos
Chazon, due to Tisho B'av.

I mean to amplify  Mr. Poppers' remarks, rather than to contradict them.

Rich Wolpoe

From: Shaul Yutav <Tshaul@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:44:03 +0300
Subject: Re: Aliyos in VaEschanan

There is no doubt that the second Alya should not start with Eicha. the
dilemma is whether to stop before Eicha, in the same position where we
stop at Mincha and in Mon and Thu, and repeat the last Pasuk in the
beginning of the second Alya (so as not to start the second Alya with
Eicha), which contradicts the rule of reading every verse in Shabat only
once, or not to stop on shabat at the the same position as In Mincha and
Sheni Vechamishi (Mon and Thu).  The two Minhagim exist. Does anybody
know sources for them.

Shaul Yutav


From: David Feiler <dfeiler@...>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 00:44:02 -0400
Subject: Meat During the Nine Days

 The posting by Richard Wolpoe (Vol 29:19) on the minhag of refraining
from meat and wine during the Nine Days raises the interesting question
of the origin of this custom.  As he points out the original prohibition
was only at the Seudah Mafseket (final meal prior to Tisha Be'Av) (See
Taanit 30a).  Although the common reason given for this prohibition is
that meat and wine are associated with Simcha (happiness) and therefore
since we reduce our simcha from Rosh Chodesh Av it is appropriate to cut
these foods out during this period it is very interesting to note the
origin as brought down by Harav Daniel Sperber in Minhagei Yisrael Vol 1
Chapter 20.  (Eli Clark in Vol 29:20 also mentioned this source in
reference to minhagim of the Three Weeks)

Basically Harav Sperber makes a case for the whole minhag being based on
a faulty reading in the Yerushalmi.  It seems that the original
reference is only to women refraining from eating meat and wine during
the nine days because of the destruction of the Even Hashtia (Base rock
on which the Ark was placed).  Why only women and what is the
connection?  A variant reading of the Yerushalmi has women refraining
from weaving wool during the nine days because of the destruction of the
Even Hashtia.  This makes more sense since according to Chazal the world
was originally woven from the Even Hashtia and since that stone was
destroyed the women commemorate that fact by abstaining from weaving.
According to this theory the whole issue is due to confusion between the
Aramaic terms for wine (chamra) and wool (amra); this is compounded by
the fact that the verb shata can mean both to drink and to weave.  As
supporting evidence Harav Sperber brings the Gemara in Eruvin 53b which
recounts the problems certain residents of the Galil had in
distinguishing between the letters Ayin and Chet which could easily lead
to confusion between chamra and amra.  Once the prohibition against
drinking wine was established the minhag not to eat meat was a natural

Even though the abstention from meat and wine makes sense and has become
a widespread minhag it is interesting to note that its origin may be
mired in such confusion.  Are there any other theories explaining the
origin or is this one widely accepted?

From: Meir Shinnar <meir_shinnar@...>
Subject: Meat During the Nine Days

There is a story about Rav Kook.  A workplace under rabbanut hashgacha
served only milchig on the nine days.  Most of the nonobservant workers
decided to eat at a nonkosher meat restaurant.  Rav Kook then decided
that it was better that the observant workers eat meat and the others
kasher, than that the observant workers eat dairy and the others trafe.
I think it is still the standard in most rabbanut restaurants to
continue to serve meat on the nine days.

There was an offhand comment that mixed dancing might be yehareg v'al
ya'avor - erev tisha b'av is not the time to discuss dancing. However,
in view of the wide acceptance of mixed dancing even in many rabbinic
circles only 20-40 years ago, perhaps we should be more careful,
especially erev tisha b'av, about being motzi la'az on the rishonim
(denigrating earlier generations) and in general, increasing divisions
in Israel.

Meir Shinnar


From: Joel Rich <Joelirich@...>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 08:30:07 EDT
Subject: Re: Tisha B'Av nigunim on Shabbos

 From: Joshua Hoffman <JoshHoff@...>
> In Boston one summer before Shabbos Chazon, I mentioned Rav Ahron
> Soloveichek's ruling not to use Tisha B'Av nigunim on Shabbos to some
> grandchildren of the Rov.They told him about it and he disagreed,saying
> that the tuneof Eli Zion-and I presume he meant Eicha as well-is not
> aveilus.  incidentally, if i remember correctly from my days in Rav
> Ahron's yeshiva, his ruling came from his father R.Moshe.R.Ahron also
> said in the name of R.Chaim that we are not, today, on a high enough
> level to sit on the floor or dip our food in ashes at the seudah
> mafsekes, and to do so would therefore be yuhera.

 Rav Schachter in Nefesh Harav tells a story where Rav Schachter led
kabbalat shabbat at the Rav's summer shul in Onset(cape cod). Rav
Schachter led Lcha Dodi to the tune of Eli Tzion and noone knew it so he
sang by himself until the Rav had mercy on him and joined in, From this
Rav Schachter concluded that the Rav didn't have a problem with this
tune on Shabbat even though it might seem like a public display of
 I have heard ( a report from NCSY Kollel) that the Rav sang Eli Tzion
with a bit of shalosh regalim melody - so maybe this is not a conclusive
proof - anyone know any more on this?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich


From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 19:18:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Women=Men (Property, Soul and Life rights)--All Opinions

I recently suggested that just as we bless God for not making me blind
or naked so we bless God for not making me a woman (The blessings all occur
together). The implication in all these blessings is that I should be aware
that there are helpless people and help them. Thus I should help blind
people get around, or give clothing to naked people or help woman be treated

Etzion Abraham (v29n03) said that (a) this was apolegetic (b) we should
be intellectually honest and admit the truth (c) the "not made me like
a woman" blessing came from Rav Meir not from the Anshay Kneseth Hagedolah
(d) early commentators state this blessing is "an acceptance of judgement
because women have lesser value than men"

First I would like to thank Rabbi Prof Aryeh Frimer (who in v29n06 took
my side).

I would like to address one point: (d) "the blessing is an acceptance of
judgement because women have lesser value than men".

Nobody can seriously have believed that! Why? Because the talmud (Baba Kama
15) EXPLICITLY states that "Women have equal value to men". The Talmud
derives this by generalizing three explicit cases where the Bible equates
Men and women: (1) The need for atonement is equal (Nu 5-5 "A man or a woman")
(2) in the need for protection against monetary loss/damage they are equal
(Ex 21:1 eg see Ex 21:25 "..damages a man or a woman") and (3) punishments
(Lev 20:27 "..a man or woman...). If this is not enough the commentators on
this Talmudic passage explicitly state "The 3 verses were brought so that
we should NOT think eg that women don't usually do business and hence don't
need monetary protection or that eg women do less mitzvoth and hence
their 'value' is less')." Finally even if Rav Meir introduced the blessings
since all blessings were combined in a later period it appears that they
viewed Rav Meirs contribution as a COMPLEMENTARY set of blessings with the
SAME THEME...namely we should help helpless people like the blind, disabled,
or women

Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA
Moderator Rashi Is Simple


End of Volume 29 Issue 24