Volume 29 Number 50
                 Produced: Thu Aug 12  7:17:26 US/Eastern 1999

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Kosher Baby Diets
         [Zev Sero]
Morality of Slavery
         [Barry Best]
Slaves CAN own;They can't be beaten; They do have rights
         [Russell Hendel]
Temple Mount Entrance
         [Cheryl Maryles]
Z"L Gender Based (3)
         [<Phyllostac@...>, Gilad Gevaryahu, Jerome Parness]


From: Zev Sero <zsero@...>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 14:49:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Kosher Baby Diets

Elie Rosenfeld <erosenfe@...> wrote:

> Now a comment regarding older children and waiting between meat and
> milk.  In my family growing up, and now with my own kids, our approach
> was that once a child was old enough to understand waiting, they would
> start with waiting one hour, and then add an hour at each birthday,
> until they were waiting the full six hours at around the age of nine or
> ten. 

This is how my mother did it with me.  Back then I actually thought that
it was a law that children had to wait their age minus 2 hours...


From: Barry Best <barry.h.best@...>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:09:09 -0400 
Subject: RE: Morality of Slavery

> From: Israel Rubin <Israel.Rubin@...>
> Someone rhetorically asked (#11) "How would you evaluate the morality of
> monogamy?  Is that another example of "pop culture morality"?". Answer -
> yes.

	I think that it was I who asked about monogomy, and it was not
just a rhetorical question.  Apparently, Rabbenu Gershom bought into the
"pop culture morality" of his time to the extent that he banned polygomy
for Ashkenazic Jews.

	If a group of Jews existed today who wanted to live according to
Torah law and had the secular power to enforce such institutions as
slavery (I would argue that these two conditions have not existed
simultaneously in at least 1,900 years), do any posters really believe
that the Bais Din or Gadol of that society would not enact a ban on
slavery?  Moreover, is it inconceivable, that, just as Rabbenu Gershon
banned polygomy, Moshiach may *just perhaps* ban slavery, or would
posters sooner believe that Moshiach would undo R. Gershon's ban on

	Also, just to stoke the fires a little more: I'm surprised that
no one has yet brought up the issue of animal sacrifice, the
reinstatement of which we all pray for three times per day.


From: [Anon]
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 17:08:25 -0700 
Subject: Re: Payos

I have noticed that a phenomenon called Fruma Negia (see R. Volbe in the
second sefer of Alei Shor) is taking over the Jewish community these
days.  Big beards, big payos, big tzitzis, cholov yisroel, yashon -
we've got it all, and yet, does it help us get any closer to Ribono shel
Olam?  Whoever wants to learn how to do that should look at Baalei
Tshuvah. There is much more gadlus than you think out there.



From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 01:20:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Slaves CAN own;They can't be beaten; They do have rights

Some recent postings suggest that slaves can't own and can be beaten
as much as a master wants. Richard Walpole countersuggests that slaves
have a POW status. Actually I argue that their status is like that of
children (You can hit children for discipline, but
the children have rights, can sue in courts and can own things).

Let me briefly cite sources:
* A canaanite slave can own things without giving them to his master!!!
(See Rambam Gifts 3,12:13)

* The prohibition against destroying or causing unnecessary pain is
universal and applies to Jews, Non-jews, adults, children and even animals.
Indeed, it is prohibited to torture an animal (which is your property;
how could a slave be inferior to an animal??!?)
(However different prohibitions apply to different groups--also Slaves
do not receive the damage monies for damage to them). The Rambam explicitly
limits the owners right to "hit slaves" to such objects as are normally
used for discipline (Murder 2:14)

* The Rambam explicitly states that ALL JEWS (not just the courts) are
OBLIGATED to help Canaanite slaves live. Furthermore the owner only has
permission to tell the slave "Work for me but you earn for your food
separately" when "there is a market for his work". But in a year of famine
the owner has no such permission. The slave may even have the right during
famine years to say "Either feed me or free me" (See Rambam, Slaves 9:7,
See Gitin 12 and see the discussions in the SA and Kesef Mishnah).

There are many more laws. I believe that this answers some of the comments
in recent issues(V29n29-34). "A slave is property--there is nothing else
you can tell me (Akiva Miller)" or "An owner can beat a slave as much as
he wants provided he doesn't kill him. A slave has no recourse (Zvi Weiss)"

In passing, our religion taught the world that man was created in the
image of God. Therefore I don't think that "every question is justified"
simply because of some phrases or statements used in the Talmud. Such
statements have to be taken against the background that slaves are people
with human status.

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


From: Cheryl Maryles <C-Maryles@...>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:52:26 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Temple Mount Entrance

> From: Yisrael Medad <winkiem@...>
> Re: Gitelle Rapoport's posting on Har HaBayit entrance
> She writes
> >A relatively simple immersion, as is usually done
> >before Yom Kippur, would not necessarily be sufficient.
> Yes, it would as long as we're talking about a "baal keri", i.e.,
> someone who has had an issuance of semen after his 9th year and one day
> and not a "zav", someone who suffers a disease related to sexual
> impurity.

No it wouldn't, First of all you have to deal with issues of tevul yom
which means an immersion must be done a day before you do to the har
habayit. second of all, most people don't check for chatzizas when they
immerse for yom kippur, something they would do before going to har
habyit, the immersion would be closer to a women immersing for niddah.
Finally, it's a moot point since gedolai yisroel have said that it is
improper to go to the har habyit in any case.

> Subject: Tisha B'Av Nigunim
> Some 35 years ago or more, I sang L'cha Dodi to the tune of "Scarborough
> Fair", made popular then by Simon & Garfunkel, at my home schule at
> Holliswood, Queens.  I was interrupted by someone shouting and thought
> that I would be berated for mixing popular music tunes with the sacred.
> To my surprise, when I turned around to see if maybe I could continue, I
> heard him shout: "we used that tune only for Tisha B'Av in Poland, how
> can you use it for Shabbat?".

my bubbe z"l told us that her family sung Dror Yikra to the tune of
scarbourough fare in russia long before simon and garfunkle were alive and
most definitly on Shabbos


From: <Phyllostac@...>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:03:18 EDT
Subject: Z"L Gender Based

In a message dated 03 Aug 1999 09:50:46  Professor Rudman writes:

<< there is a hierarchy of phrases which indicate the level
 (usually in Talmudic and Halachic knowledge) of the individual being
 referred to.  It is well known that for a living person one addresses
 them or refers to them as Amoos (ad me'ah v'esrim, to attain 120 years
 of age) or as Shlita (she'yichyeh l'orech yo'mim to'vim, amen , that he
 should be worthy to live a long good life).  Usually the average person
 is addressed as Amoos and a scholar is addressed as Shlita.  So too when
 referring to a person who has passed away there is a gradation.  A"H is
 used for the average person, one who has not distinguished themselves in
 scholarly pursuits.  Z"L is reserved for a more distinguished person,
 while Z"TZL ( or zecher tzadik livracha) or Z"TZVKL (zecher tazadik
 v'kadosh livracha) are used for even more distinguished people. >>

I would like to make some comments on this topic.
 1)I believe that it is Amoo"sh (ad meah viesrim shanah),rather than Amoo"s.
 2)Another (more common?) explanation of shlit"a is sheyichyeh liyomim
tovim aruchim.
 3)Alav hashalom, although now seemingly used mostly for 'average
people', actually has a more distinguished history. It - and not the
more grandiose sounding z"l,zt"l,ztvk"l,etc.-is traditionally appended
after the names of the Biblical greats such as Avraham Avinu, Moshe
Rabbeinu, Dovid haMelech. A case could be made, based on the fact that
is used for these spiritual giants, that it is actually more respectable
than other appendages.
 4)Z"l (zichrono livrocho) became popular as an appendage for later
(post-Biblical) greats, such as the Rabbis of the Mishna and Talmud, who
are commonly called 'Chaza"l' (from chachameinu zichronam livrocho).
 5)Zt"l (from zecher tzaddik livrocho-the first part of a pasuk in
Mishlei [Proverbs] ) became popular in a later period for later great
 6)ztvk"l (zecher tzaddik vikadosh livrocho) is yet more recent. Someone
I spoke to suggested the the 'vikadosh' was added in cases when the
deceased was killed 'al kidush Hashem' (for the sanctification of G-d's
name). Perhaps that was originally/at one time the case. However,
afterwards (as today), it was usually used to denote general holiness of
the deceased and not necessarily martyrdom. There is also is evidence
that it may have originated in Sephardic/Italian Jewry and was adopted
by the hassidic movement from them.
 7)Another, even more elaborate appendage, is ztvkllh"h (zecher tzaddik
vikadosh livrocho lichayei haolom habo). This seems to be gaining in
popularity for leaders, initially among hassidim perhaps and spreading
to others to a degree.

It seems perhaps that some people think that more letters in the acronym
appended after the name of the deceased indicate a greater person, and
less letters indicate a lesser person (relatively). However, as we have
the klal (general principle) in titles preceding names of Rabbis, gadol
meirabban shmo (greater than the great title of Rabban is the name
alone, e.g.  Hillel, Shammai, etc.), showing that the truly great don't
need elaborate titles, similarly perhaps, in appendages to names of
deceased greats, a case could be made that 'less is more'. I have indeed
heard from some that certain Rabbis indicated a preference for z"l
rather than the longer/more elaborate forms such as zt"l, ztvk"l, as the
greater Rabbis of yore were called z"l (in Chazal), while only
presumably lesser, later Rabbis were given longer appendages such as
zt"l, ztvk"l, etc.


From: Gilad Gevaryahu <Gevaryahu@...>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 09:46:44 EDT
Subject: Z"L Gender Based

Professor Rudman suggested (MJ29#42) that: >> there is a hierarchy of phrases 
which indicate the level (usually in Talmudic and Halachic knowledge) of the 
individual being referred to. >>

I wish to add that often it is politics which dictate the "level" of the 
phrase. For instance. A major scholar Rabbi Zacharias Frankel 
(Germany,1801-1875), who sometimes espoused non Orthodox positions is quoted 
by some as RZ"P (=Rabbi Zacharias Frankel), by others Z"P (=Zacharias 
Frankel) without the Rabbi, while some even use his contributions without 
attribution (=as though he has no rights to his contributions)! Likewise, 
while some Hassidim will give their Rabbi all the superlative titles [Harav, 
haGaon, HaHassid, haKadosh, Mara De'atra, Shelit"a , etc.] the very same 
Rabbi will get few titles or none at all by Mitnagdim, or adherents of a 
different Hassidic dynasty. And last, some of these attributions' meanings 
change over time. For example S"T means today Sephardi Tahor, but till about 
the middle of the 1800s it meant Sofo Tov or in Aramaic Sefa Tava. Likewise 
"hassid" has a different meaning before the Ba'al Shem Tov.

In summary it is hierarchy, politics, timeframe, and style which dictates the 
usage of a particular phrase in a particular case.

Gilad J. Gevaryahu

From: Jerome Parness <parness@...>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:59:29 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: Re: Z"L Gender Based

Using such logic, I would presume that one should use the term Z"L, even
Z"TZL, for Nechama Leibowitz, and Shlita for R. Chana Henkin.  I hope
you all do...

Jerry Parness
Associate Professor and Director of Research
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
New Brunswick/Piscataway, NJ


End of Volume 29 Issue 50