Volume 29 Number 83
                 Produced: Mon Sep 13 22:15:41 US/Eastern 1999

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

'Mi Shebearach' for Cholim Issues (3)
         [Warren Burstein, Joshua Hoffman, Carl and Adina Sherer]
An Eye for an Eye
         [Joseph Geretz]
Ben Sorer Umoreh
         [Gershon Dubin]
Dikduk: Rule of Nasog Achor
         [Moshe Feldman]
Fundamentals of Faith
         [Isaac A Zlochower]
Grammar Question about a Possuq
         [Joseph Geretz]
Hammurabi code and its relationship to the Torah
         [Len Mansky]
Publications and Objectivity
         [Allen Carl Gerstl]


From: Warren Burstein <warren@...>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 08:21:11
Subject: Re: 'Mi Shebearach' for Cholim Issues

>From: Deborah Wenger <dwenger@...>
>Re Mordechai's posting of various minhagim for making a "Mi Sheberach"
>for cholim: I was once in a very large shul, where, when it came time to
>insert the names of the cholim, the person making the Mi Sheberach would
>stop and everyone would call out the names of their cholim.  I was just
>interested to know whether this is done anywhere else, and what the
>source of the minhag is.

In Kehilat Yedidya in Jerusalem, there is a pause where the names are
usually read and people are asked (before the mi sheberach) to have in
mind those who need healing during the silence.  This minhag, to the
best of my knowledge, originated there.

From: Joshua Hoffman <JoshHoff@...>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:13:28 EDT
Subject: Re: 'Mi Shebearach' for Cholim Issues

This practice has been adopted in many shuls in recent years. I don't know 
the surce offhand but I suspect it may originally have been a Sephardic 
custom. A year or two ago there was an article in the Hebrew journal Ha Darom 
protesting the practice. 

From: Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 00:22:24 +0200
Subject: 'Mi Shebearach' for Cholim Issues

Someone wrote:

> One idea that may whittle down the list to the point where people might
> actually stay quiet. One is not permitted to make requests in Shabbos
> davening, which is why we don't say the middle 13 b'rachos of the normal
> Amidah on Shabbos. R' YB Soloveitchik explains that Mi Shebeirach is
> except from this rule ONLY if the sick person is in a life-threatening
> situation.

Shulchan Aruch OH 288:10 (in the Rema) says that one is permitted to
bless on Shabbos one who is "mesukan l'bo bayom" (someone who is in
danger that day). However the Mishna Brura there in S"K 28 writes
specifically that one may make a Mi Sheberach for one who is NOT in
danger (Choleh she'Ain Bo Sakana) if one adds the words "Shabbos Hi
MiLizok u'Refua Krova Lavo" (we do not cry out on Shabbos and healing
will soon arrive).

If the Rav zt"l disagreed with that Mishna Brura, could someone please
post a source? The only place I saw Mi Sheberach's discussed in Nefesh
HaRav was on Page 143, and that is connected to a different matter
(which has been discussed on this list before).

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.


From: Joseph Geretz <jgeretz@...>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 12:28:07 -0400
Subject: An Eye for an Eye

Jonathan E. Schiff wrote:
> My questions are (assuming this translation is accurate),
> is this [laws of hammurabi] too a tort damages remedy
> couched in poetic terms as has been asserted is the
> meaning of the Biblical text?  Is there a connection
> between the two sources but with a changed meaning
> in the Biblical text.

Regarding Jonathan E. Schiff's question which seems to compare G-d's
Torah with (shudder) the code of hammurabi - Lehavdil Elef Alfei
Havdalos, the difference is obvious.

The Torah comes from G-d, whereas the code of hammurabi was written by
some guy named hammurabi. G-d gave the Written Torah to us along with
the Oral Torah which explains to us how the Written Torah is to be
understood. Thus, the understanding of an eye for an eye as tort damages
is not a new understanding interpreted from the words after the
fact. Rather it is the meaning of the passage as explained by G-d's Oral

Is there some sort of oral hammurabic tradition which explains those
laws as tort damages? If so fine, let them be understood as tort
damages. Most scholars don't think so.

As to why the Written Torah would state 'an eye for an eye' even though
the meaning is 'monetary worth of an eye for an eye', several
explanations were recently submitted.

See the following issues for two suggested explanations.

vol 29, #61 - Eye for an Eye [Wendy Baker]
vol 29, #67 - An Eye for an Eye [Richard Wolpoe]

Kol Tuv,
Kesiva V'Chasima Tova,
Yossi Geretz


From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 09:11:57 -0400
Subject: Ben Sorer Umoreh

> The Sifsei Chachomim asks that exact question in Parshas Ki Seitzei
>(Devorim 21:18) where the Torah discusses the h. He gives two answers:
> However, an earthly court must judge a person on his future actions and
>therefore a Ben Sorer Umore must be killed.

	This is an amazing Sifsei Chachomim.  One would imagine that the
exact opposite is the case.  Where do we see anywhere else that an
earthly court takes **anything** into account except the proximate
situation?  The Gemara says "a judge may only judge based on what he
sees with his eyes".

Ksiva VaChasima Tova,


From: Moshe Feldman <MFeldman@...>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:33:54 -0400 
Subject: Re: Dikduk: Rule of Nasog Achor

Josh Jacobson wrote: 
> >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. 
>  This phenomenon is called "the retraction of the accent" or, 
> in Hebrew,
> "nasog akhor."

As a ba'al kriyah, I certainly appreciate your examples from chumash.
In chumash, it's easy to determine whether a word will be nasog achor
(in response to the following word), since there is generally a dash
between the two words (which tells you that the two words should be read
together).  In tefillah, however, most siddurim do not provide dashes.
How do you know when two words should be read together (and thereby
cause the rule of nasog achor to apply)?

Kol tuv,


From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@...>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 00:16:53 -0400
Subject: Fundamentals of Faith

In response to my recent post on this subject, Akiva seems to have
charged me with accusing G-D of unjustice.  Standing shortly before the
Days of Awe, I would not want that impression to remain.  I merely said
that without a physical resurrection of the deserving dead, justice
could not be said to have been done to those whose lives were terminated
prematurely - particularly if suffering was involved.  I am well aware
and certainly believe that G-D has provided a world of souls as well a
physical world, and that misfortune in this world can be largely
compensated in the world of souls.  However, a principal of the sages of
the talmud (Rabbi Ya'akov) that is expressed in the Ethics of the
Fathers 4:22 states that an hour of repentence and good deeds in this
world is better than the entire world to come.  This is understood to
mean that the elevation and closeness to G-D achieved by dint of effort
in overcoming our selfish interests and desires is greater than that
available in the hereafter where such impediments will not exist.
Therefore, there is a need for physical resurrection wherein those who
have not had the chance to develop this closeness to G-D through
repentence and good deeds in this world will be brought back into a
physical world containing the greatest individuals of the ages to help
them to grow spiritually and to fulfill their potential.  The true
nature of the world of souls and the world after resurrection is hidden
from us - as the sages have said concerning the resurrected world, "No
eye has seen it saving Yours,  G-D".  Nontheless, the great Babylonian
sage, Rav (Berachot 17a) used to say that the world to come is unlike
this world for there will be no physical activities nor envy, hatred, or
rivalries...  It will not be a time for fulfilling mitzvot,  therefore
the laws of the torah may not be applicable in the same sense as
before.  The torah does not speak openly of such a time since it wishes
to emphasize the continued applicability of the laws of the torah to
various times and circumstances.  The belief in resurrection can be
viewed as a necessary supplement to the belief in reward and punishment,
just as the belief that G-D has no form can be viewed as a corollary to
the belief in the unity of G-D.  The creation story is told simply and
poetically in Genesis to give people an understandable picture of how
everything came to be from the one G-D who is not constrained by time or
space and who has unlimited energy, wisdom, and creativity.  The
resurrection story could not be similarly told without producing some
questions about the eternal relevance of torah, as alluded to above.

Have a good year,



From: Joseph Geretz <jgeretz@...>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 12:29:35 -0400
Subject: Grammar Question about a Possuq

Rick Turkel wrote:
> in Psalms 27 (Ledavid H' 'ori...), pasuq 5: "besuko" has two
> problems, (1) it is written with a he' instead of a vav; and, to my mind
> a far greater problem, (2) the "proper" form should be "besukato."

I'm not sure about the grammar, however even if the grammar is strictly
speaking 'incorrect', I saw an interesting interpretation to this
question in the Artscroll anthology, explained by Rabbi A.C. Feuer,
which answers the question by suggesting that this word B'Suka/B'Suko is
actually a Kri U'Ksiv of sorts. I'll quote verbatim:

The spelling of this word is B'Sukah, in a shelter, but it is read
B'Suko, in His shelter. David declares: 'Often when I am in danger *a
shelter* seems to appear as if by chance. I am not misled. I know that
G-d himself has provided this salvation and that it is *His shelter*'.

(end quote)

The only question I'm left with is why in Psalm 31 does Dovid HaMelech
write Tizpeneim B'Suka (protect them in *a shelter*)? I speculate that
when Dovid HaMelech refers to himself he readily recognizes that every
salvation is directly from H-shem. When praying for others however, he
prays for salvation even for those who will not realize the direct
Hashgocha Pratis (Divine Providence) of their salvation.

Kol Tuv,
Kesiva V'Chasima Tova,
Yossi Geretz


From: Len Mansky <Len613@...>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:15:13 EDT
Subject: Re: Hammurabi code and its relationship to the Torah

In a message dated 09/06/1999 10:28:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonathan E. 
Schiff <Jschiff139@...> writes:

<< The Code of Hammurabi, has similar provisions, although much more
 detailed.  I am pasting in just a few of the relevant verses:
     "195. If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off. 
     196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. 
     197. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken."
 My questions are (assuming this translation is accurate), is this too a
 tort damages remedy couched in poetic terms as has been asserted is the
 meaning of the Biblical text?  Is there a connection between the two
 sources but with a changed meaning in the Biblical text.  Reading the
 English, it does appear that it is supposed to be taken literally.  Why
 would the Biblical text be worded similarly if it is meant to denote
 something very different?>>

There is an extensive discussion of the Hammurabi code, and its relationship 
to the Torah, in the Chumash edited and translated by Rabbi JH Hertz. 
(Soncino, Pages 403 to 406).  The gist of it is that the Torah's code is far 
more humane, and Dr. Hertz explains why; chapter and verse.

Shanah tovah tikatevu v'techateymu,
Len Mansky (<len613@...>)


From: Allen Carl Gerstl <cm836@...>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 19:19:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Publications and Objectivity

My wife is a professional journalist and she has introduced me to a
magazine called Brill's Contents. In that magazine the staff analyze the
contents of various newspapers and magazines and point out instances of
shoddy journalistic practice by either writers or the editors of the
articles cited.  Examples include failure by writers to make good faith
efforts to allow persons being investigated the chance to reply and the
failure by writers and editors to check the accuracy of
material. Included also are failures to declare less than obvious
conflicts of interest.

I believe that Brill's approach would be useful; that is, rather than
complain about bias (however valid such a complaint may be ) it would be
more effective to complain about the shoddy lack of professionalism
which usually occurs when articles are slanted.


End of Volume 29 Issue 83