Volume 29 Number 77
                 Produced: Fri Sep  3 12:34:42 US/Eastern 1999

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

'Mi Shebearach' for Cholim Issues
Ba'asher hu sham & Ben sorer umoreh (2)
         [Dr. I. Balbin, Joshua Hoffman]
Demonstrations on Shabbat
         [Sid Gordon]
Dikduk in Ma'ariv
         [Aryeh Frimer]
Glatt Yacht, et al, redux, ad nauseum
         [Akiva Miller]
Grammar Question about a Possuq
         [Lon Eisenberg]
L'David Hashem Ori V'yishi
         [Sid Gordon]
On being counted for a "minyan"
         [Bernard Horowitz]
Previous Generations (2)
         [Lawrence M. Reisman, Deborah Wenger]
Rambam in Egypt
         [Gilad J. Gevaryahu]


From: Mordechai <Phyllostac@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 06:01:12 EDT
Subject: 'Mi Shebearach' for Cholim Issues

 I have been in a Shul,where,in the 'mi shebeirach' communal prayer for
cholim (sick individuals),after reciting a long list of names of sick
people,the reciter added the words 'vichol hacholim' (and all the sick)
before resuming with the text of the mi shebeirach (baavur shekol
hakahal mispalilim baavuram....).
 Although presumably it was meant as a nice gesture to include other
cholim who's names weren't mentioned,and perhaps mollify anyone who
didn't get the names of all their friends/relatives in (perhaps
especially in a congregation in an area with many retirees),I just want
to point out to anyone in a position to stop such a practice that it
seems to be not proper,for the following reasons
 1)other sick that were not mentioned are included by the text of the
prayer a bit further when it states 'bisoch shear cholei yisroel' (among
the other sick of Israel).
 2)'vichol hacholim' is not the proper formulation-rather 'bisoch shear
cholei yisroel'.
 Also-I question if reading long lists of names (or compiling them in
print) is such a good idea/necessary,when they are included in shear
cholei amo yisroel.In some places the lists of cholim-especially with
modern communications and equipment making compiling of giant lists of
cholim more common and easy- seem to have excessively ballooned in size.
 Also-sometimes (often) the lists are not updated and people already
recovered are still being mentioned/considered as ill and are being
prayed for.I don't know if it's desirable to mention well people as
sick-I suspect is it not desirable.
 Therefore,I humbly suggest that the lists be limited to those who are
known to the people of the congregation and who's welfare is monitored
by them-so their names could be removed when appropriate (hopefully when
they have recovered).

Kol tuv-refua shleima bimheira to all cholei Yisroel-


From: Dr. I. Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 09:02:38 +1000
Subject: Ba'asher hu sham & Ben sorer umoreh

> From: Bill Bernstein <bbernst@...>
> A question occured to me and I haven't seen an answer:
>  The ben sorer u-moreh is executed because "better he should die
> innocent than guilty" or similar language.  Yet, about Yishmoel Hashem
> says "I have seen him ba'asher hu sham," meaning that He can only judge
> him based on the way he is right now.  Has anyone seen an answer to this
> steera?

 I have seen several. See the Nosei Keilim (commentators) on the
Rashi's, especially the Maharal (in Gur Arye and elsewhere).  It is
timely that you ask this. Approximately 20 years ago, I heard Rav Zolti,
Z"TL, speak during Ellul here in Melbourne and he asked this question.
 His answer still sends a shiver up my spine. He said that we have to be
more afraid of Midas Hachesed (a more kindness-orented approach to G-d
judging us) then Midas Hadin (a strict interpretation of the law).  He
said that the Ben Sorer Umorer was judged with Midas Hachesed and this
meant that he was killed prior to him actually sinning. This was a
chesed to the Ben Sorer Umorer's Neshomo (soul) in that it would ascend
purer, and those around him who would have suffered as a result of him
sinning.  On the other hand, Yishmoel was judged Bemidas Hadin.
 Rav Zolti went on to beseech Hashem that he judge us Bemidas Hadin and
not this type of Midas Horachamim. It went against the grain of how I
used to think of these Midos, and hence I never forgot it.

From: Joshua Hoffman <JoshHoff@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 14:42:35 EDT
Subject: Re: Ba'asher hu sham & Ben sorer umoreh

I heard this question raised by Rav Zecariah Gelley, the Rov of Breuer's
kehillah.He answered that in the case of the ben sorer u'oreh the seeds
for the eventual higher crimes are alresady there now, whereas in regard
to yishael it was only known through prophect that his descendants would
kill Jews,but Yishael did not at that time have the seeds of those deeds
within him.

I recall seeing a discussion of this problem in Sefer Eretz Tzevi by
R.Aryeh Tzevi Fruer,but I cannot locate where at the moment..


From: Sid Gordon <sgordon@...>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 21:05:58 +0300
Subject: Demonstrations on Shabbat

The recent (and current) hullabaloo here in Israel over moving the
turbines on shabbat, which necessitated many policemen (not to mention
the drivers, which at least by the initial compromise were supposed to
be non-Jews) to be m'chalel shabbat, brought to mind the following

Organized haredi shabbat demonstrations (for example, against traffic on
Bar Ilan street in Jerusalem) necessitate (Jewish) policemen to be
m'chalel shabbat in order to keep order.  Does anyone know of any
(haredi) responsa dealing with this problem?  Are there halachic sources
discussing the issue of whether the "greater good" of preventing the
hillul shabbat of automobile traffic supersedes the potential hillul
shabbat of Israeli police.  I'm not talking about the hillul shabbat
inherent in stoning cars, etc.  - let's assume these actions are
performed by a fringe element and are roundly condemned by halachic
authorities.  I'm asking about rabbinic leaders calling for peaceful,
non-m'chalel, demonstrations on shabbat, which of necessity require
Jewish policemen to operate cars, radios, etc., in order to keep order.
Is this potential halachic problem dealt with anywhere?

I should add that I'm less interested in a discussion of the issue
itself here in mail.jewish; I'm more curious about whether haredi
leaders themselves have dealt with the issue, and if not, why not.


From: Aryeh Frimer <Aryeh.Frimer@...>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:05:44 -0400
Subject: Dikduk in Ma'ariv

Friday evening I noticed that in the first birkat Keri'at shema of
ma'ariv, in the verse "uma'avir yom u-meivi lailah," the word "u-MEI-vi"
is mile'eil. (That's how it appears in the following Siddurim: Rinat
Yisrael, Tikun Meir, and Artscroll).  Could so explain me why?
		Aryeh (in the galut)


From: Akiva Miller <kgmiller@...>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 13:28:00 -0400
Subject: Glatt Yacht, et al, redux, ad nauseum

How long is this thread going to continue? This is *not* a new
subject. I think it's been around for at least a couple of decades,
since the Israeli Rabbinate started denying supervision to hotels which
were not Shomer Shabbos.

It seems to me that every hashgacha has (or should have) an agreement
with each establishment, clarifying exactly what kinds of things will
result in a revocation of the certification. If the type of
entertainment is on the list, then the management has agreed to it. And
if not, then the hashgacha is leaving themselves open to
lawsuits. Either way, it's really not a subject for us to be discussing.

Unless the real topic of discussion is what kind of things OUGHT to be
listed on that contract. If that is the case, I think the effort spent
on posting to Mail Jewish would be more effectively spent on writing
letters to the various kashrus organizations. Perhaps there are
influential people in those groups who lurk on Mail Jewish and have been
influenced by the postings here; if so, I hereby invite them to respond
(anonymously, if they wish), and let us know whether or not our input
has been helpful.

Akiva Miller


From: Lon Eisenberg <eisenbrg@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 18:05:24 -0400 
Subject: Grammar Question about a Possuq

In "Ki Tavo", when talking about bringing the first fruits and giving
them to the priest, the possuq begins:

"weleQAH hakoHEN haTEna' ...".  The "correct" grammar should be:

"weleQAH hakoHEN eth haTEna' ...".  No commentators say anything about
it.  Does anyone have an explanation?

Lon Eisenberg
200 Professional Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20879  USA
+1 301-9218110      fax:+1 301-9487792


From: Sid Gordon <sgordon@...>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 21:02:27 +0300
Subject: L'David Hashem Ori V'yishi

 The daveners in our shul (like many in Israel) are about equally
divided between nusach ashkenaz and nusach sfarad.  The practice for
many years (based on a psak received then) is that since there is no
clear majority, the shaliach tzibur determines the nusach.  The problem
this time of year is whether "l'david hashem ori" is said at mincha or
at maariv.  The practice (also supposedly based on a psak from the LOR,
though I don't know this first hand) is for everyone to say it at both.
The justification I often hear for this is "it never hurts to say
another perek of t'hilim (chapter of Psalms)".

I am bothered by this sentence.  Though in general one can always say
t'hilim, it seems to me that certain t'hilim, having become part of the
liturgy, have a certain status, which is lessened by saying them "too
much" or "not at the proper time".  Kabbalat shabbat is also just a
collection of t'hilim, but does anyone suggest saying these six psalms
every day?  It's clear that if we did, they would lose some of their
effectiveness on Friday night (sort of like eating motza before Pesach).
I feel that those who determined that L'david should be said twice a day
and not three times had a reason for doing so, and we should not be so
quick to "cover all bases" by saying it at shacharit, mincha, and
maariv.  Does anyone have any comments on this question?


From: Bernard Horowitz <horowitz@...>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:50:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: On being counted for a "minyan"

Recently, while visiting a shiva home of a non-orthodox family, I found
myself in a very awkward position.  The avel (mourner) announced that it
was time for mincha.  A quick glance around the room revealed that there
were exactly ten adults present, not all of them men.  Thiw was
perfectly acceptable to the avel and, apparently, to the others present.
I suppose theat I should have anticipated the problem and left earlier
but I didn't.  What should I have done?  Would it make any difference if
I had already davened mincha (I had.)? Out of respect for the avel ( and
the other Jews present), I made the quick decision to stay.  Any
comments would be apreciated.

Bernard Horowitz


From: Lawrence M. Reisman <LMReisman@...>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:54:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Previous Generations

Dr. Meir Shinnar writes that "My father's rav, who was a dayan from Austria
and later came to America, complained about what he called the am
aratzim (ignorami) who thought the normal activities of life - going to
the opera and going to the beach - were assur."  I find this statement
coming from a rav and dayan to be most perplexing.  In view of the large
number of written sources who say just that, how would a rav and dayan
slander so many rabbonim by calling them "am aratzim"?

Levi Reisman

From: Deborah Wenger <dwenger@...>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 99 14:08:40 -0400
Subject: Previous Generations

Both Meir Shinnar and Danny Schoemann make interesting points in
vol.29#69 about the customs of previous generations, to which I'd like
to add my "2 cents."

(1) I attended Orthodox elementary and high schools during the mid- and
late 60s (now you know). At our elementary school graduation, there was
a "sing" in which the girls sang as a group. A number of prominent
rabbanim were in attendance - as parents, honorees, or other invitees -
and NO ONE brought up the issue of kol isha, which leads me to believe
that 30 years ago, there was no question about a group of girls singing
being considered kol isha. Even today, many Orthodox adult groups (not
to mention YU) run theater parties to Broadway musicals.

(2) My high school years coincided with the height of the "miniskirt"
craze. Although, of course, the school did have a dress code, we were
allowed to wear skirts up to 2 inches above our knees; again, there were
NO objections to this dress code. The same school now, of course, does
not allow above-the-knee skirts.

(3) As Meir pointed out, mixed dancing was also much more commonplace in
those days. Shul dinners had mixed dancing, and my parents tell me that
Young Israel and Mizrachi dances were among the preferred venues for
meeting members of the opposite sex.

My point is, were all these people "wrong" 30 years ago? Was the halacha
"wrong" 30 years ago? Or - IMHO - are these issues just all part of the
general movement toward the "right wing"?

Kol tuv, 
Deborah Wenger


From: Gilad J. Gevaryahu <Gevaryahu@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:41:35 EDT
Subject: Rambam in Egypt

Ari Z. Zivotofsky wrote (MJ 29#67):
>>Over the years I have often heard that the Rambam while living in Egypt
would sign his correspondences with "ani Moshe ben Maimon ha'over al
gimmel lavim bechol yom", in reference to his living in Egypt against a
biblical commandment. I also recall once reading something to the effect
that this was merely rumor and had no basis in fact and that none of his
letters found in the geniza had such a statement. Can anyone shed light
on this or direct me to references?>>

The source to this legend is Ishtorchi haParchi (1135-1204) in his book
Kaftor vaFerach (page 64 of the Moshe Lunz edition, Jerusalem, 1897).
According to Ishtori he heard it from one of Rambam decendents. Rabbi
Yehuda Yerucham Fishel Perle in his book Pirchei Zion (Jerusalem 1986,
p. 184) already quotes the Lipsia edition in the name of the Riavatz
which cast doubt on the veracity of this legend. It is quoted in the
Berlin (1851) edition of the Kaftor vaFerach p. xi.

Rabbi Reuven Margaliot (1889-1971) in his book Margaliot Hayam to
Sanhedrin 21b deals with this story in which Rambam is alleged to have
signed his letters saying "ha'over al gimmel lavim bechol yom" and says
the it is illogical since Rambam himself mentioned only one "lav" as to
the prohibited dwelling in Egypt. Margaliot is correct only if "lav" is
narrowly defined as enumerated mitzvat lo ta'ase. But Rambam himself
(introduction to sefer HaMitzvot #9) used the expression "lav" to mean
someting prohibited one or more times, and Rambam listed it only once,
so the internal evidence of Margaliot is not strong.

In summary this story (better call it legend?) is unconfirmed, and
probably never happened. Ishtori himself does not indicate that he saw
such a letter and since he was born 76 years after the Rambam died it
was likely that he would have seen such a letter himself. We also have
many of Rambam's letters and non of them is signed in such a way.

Gilad J. Gevaryahu


End of Volume 29 Issue 77