Volume 30 Number 57
                 Produced: Fri Dec 31  8:42:06 US/Eastern 1999

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Accessing Computers located where it is still Shabbos
         [Akiva Miller]
Chilul HaShem
         [Carl SInger]
Cholov Yisrael
         [Josh Backon]
Cholov Yisroel
         [Rachel Smith]
Hair covering
         [Chaim Mateh]
Herman Wouk's "This is my God"
         [Wendy Baker]
Mayim Achronim and Women
         [Shmuel Himelstein]
Torah is m'Sinai
         [Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Tzitzit - In the Middle
Women's hair covering
         [Chaim Mateh]


From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 22:19:53 EST
Subject: re: Accessing Computers located where it is still Shabbos

Many posters have given clear explanations of why it is okay for me to
operate a fax or computer which is in a time zone where it is currently
Shabbos, provided that I am in a time zone where it is NOT Shabbos.

But I understand that very different halachos apply to a situation where
I own Chometz which is in a time zone where it is currently Pesach, even
if I am in a time zone where it is NOT Pesach. I have read in many
places that this *is* forbidden, and many rabbis have arranged their
Sale Of Chometz to include such times and locations.

My question is: Why are these cases different? If it is Erev Shabbos in
New Jersey, I can send a fax to a machine in Israel, or retrieve a
webpage from a server there, even though it well into Shabbos there. But
if it is Erev Pesach morning in New Jersey, it is far too late to sell
any chometz that I might have in Israel. Why is this?

I have not seen any answer offered to this question, so I'd like to
offer an answer an invite your comments on it:

Regarding Shabbos, the prohibition is on the person. *I* may not do
melacha on Shabbos. On Pesach, however, the prohibition is on the
Chometz. "Chometz shall not be seen" on Pesach. Therefore, even if I am
in a location where Pesach has not yet started (or where it is already
over), if it is Pesach for the chometz, then the chometz is forbidden.

Any comments?

Akiva Miller


From: Carl SInger <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 10:23:22 EST
Subject: Re: Chilul HaShem

Indeed it is discomforting when as a minority within a minority we read
of one of our own having done something that brings discredit upon
themselves -- and by implication the community.  Moreso because news
agencies, some of them with nominally Jewish leadership / ownership seem
to delight at this.

Not long ago two stock brokers were killed in south Jersey in "gangland"
style.  The statewide newspaper the Star Ledger was quick to point out
that one was an Orthodox Jew even though that was not that relevant to
the story (yes, it impacted doing an autopsy.)  I published a letter to
the editor to the effect that had those involved been black or Italian
or Irish it would have been considered discriminatory to so describe
them.  Could you see a headline "Irishman robs bank" or "Afro American
steals car" or "Italian accused of mafia links."

I believe there are some organizations that deal with these issues, but
either they do so very quietly or quite uneffectively.  Perhaps they
don't want to draw even more attention to the situation.

Clearly the "cure" isn't better media relations, but better "Torah" 

Carl Singer


From: Josh Backon <BACKON@...>
Date: Tue,  28 Dec 1999 16:40 +0200
Subject: Re: Cholov Yisrael

Even though the SHACH in Hilchot Sfeik Sfeika s"k 17-18 rules that a
gezeira (edict) is similar to a d'oraita (Toraitic) prohibition and thus
one isn't *meykil* (lenient) on this type of rabbinic prohibition if
there is a doubt, in Yoreh Deah 118 s"k 8, he indicates that a mixture
of kosher milk and non-kosher milk is in the category of *min b'mino"
(similar). Since from the Torah *min b'mino* is *batel b'rov* (nullified
by majority) this type of mixture would only be d'rabbanan (rabbinically
prohibited). The Bet Meir rules like the Shach. The Noda B'Yehuda (Orach
Chaim 66) also indicates that non-kosher milk is d'rabbanan.

The problem ? According to R. Akiva Eiger the mixture is *min she'b'eino
mino* (dissimilar) and thus requires *bitul b'shishim* (60:1 ratio).

So there are basically two factors to consider: is non-kosher milk a
gezeira similar to a Toraitic prohibition, and is the mixture min b'mino
or min b'she'eino mino. And what possible proportion of non-kosher milk,
if any, was mixed into kosher milk.

Josh Backon


From: Rachel Smith <rachelms@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 06:25:19 -0800
Subject: Re: Cholov Yisroel

In v30n51,  Yosef Braun <yb770@...> wrote:
>Regarding R' Moshe Feinstein's heter, it should be pointed out that in
>his most recent teshuvah (vol. 8 p. 161) he restricted his heter to
>shaas hadchak only! "vlo bishvil yoker me'at" i.e. the minimal
>difference in price isn't a factor in using this heter. Upon who does
>modern orthodoxy rely on if R' Moshe himself doesn't allow it? 

It should be noted that Vol. 8 of the Igros was selected and published
posthumously, as discussed at length on the Avodah list archives
(Vol. 3, No. 85 - http:// www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n085.html#15)



From: Chaim Mateh <chaimm@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 00:53:51 +0200
Subject: Re: Hair covering

In Vol. 30#44, Janet Rosenbaum <jerosenb@...> wrote:

<<Unless there is something additional in the [Shvus Yaakov] responsum
(which I know only through your explanation of it), wouldn't his ruling be
that never-married non-virgins are required to put up their hair, not all

Correct. But bear in mind that the Shvus Yaakov's view is a minority
view, and the accepted Hallacha is not this way.  IOW, a single woman,
virgin or not, is not required to cover her hair, nor is she required to
braid and/or pin-up her hair.

<<This actually raises the question of how covering the head relates to
covering the hair.  e.g., Is it a leniency that single women do not cover
their heads (especially when davening, etc.), or does the reasoning which
applies to men not apply to women for some reason?>>

Single women not having to cover their hair is the basic Hallacha as
explained in the Tur, Shulchan Aruch, and many other commentators and
Poskim.  It's not brought down as a leniency but rather part of the main
Hallacha.  I personally have never heard or seen written anything that
equates a man's requirement for head covering with a woman's (single or
married).  If anyone has, I'd be interested in the sources.

<<Also, even if women are no longer required to cover their hair anymore
because social standards have changed, >>

Married women are _still_ required to cover their hair, Hallacha
lemaaseh, regardless of social standards.  While some recent (past 100
years) Rabbonim have discuss this possibility, I don't think there is
even a one Posek who has ruled that Hallachah lemaaseh and lechatchila
that a married women isn't required to cover her hair.

<<why would they not still have to cover their heads for the same reasons
men do?  (Did the wives of these roshei yeshiva cover their heads for
davening, etc.?)>>

Dunno on both counts.  I'm waiting for others to enlighten us on these
interesting points.

Kol Tuv,


From: Wendy Baker <wbaker@...>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 11:14:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Herman Wouk's "This is my God"

Just to contribute to the discussion of this book.  I have found it to
be an excellent volme to give someone who is interested in either
learning about observant Jews or in interesting in becoming one.  It is
highly accessible and pleasant to read and doesn't frighten people off
with the enormity of the minutia to be learned and observed.  I don't
know if it would appeal to a 12 year old, but it is a wonderful book for
young and not-so-young adults as a sincerely felt introducion to an
Orthodox outlook. I have given it to several people including a
Presbyterian minister.( Not in an effort to convert her:-))

Wendy Baker


From: Shmuel Himelstein <shmuelh@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 15:27:21 +0200
Subject: Mayim Achronim and Women

If the reason for Mayim Achronim is because of the danger of Melach
S'domit ("Sodomian Salt"), shouldn't the rule of Sakanta Chamira
Mei'Asura ("Danger is more severe than any prohibition") apply to women
as well, and require them to wash Mayim Achronim?

Shmuel Himelstein


From: Anonymous
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 16:06:46 EST
Subject: Tithe

Life used to be simple -- growing up we had a puskeh at home.  You made
a buck, you put a dime into the pushkeh.  Life is now more complicated.
I have several questions relating to how / when / what to tithe.  Can
anyone point me to a source which discusses this in detail?  Here are a
few sample questions:

1 - What is my tithing year -- clearly it's easiest if I use my tax year
(= secular calendar year) But this seems to have no basis in halacha.
Or do I tithe continuously, that is with every paycheck, every capital
gain, etc.

2 - What of investment income -- realized (I buy a stock for $50 and
sell it for $60, do I then put a dollar (10 % of $10) into Tzedukah at
the time of sale.

3 - What of unrealized gain -- my stock has gone from $50 to $60, but I
haven't sold.

4 - What of retirement funds - my IRA account has seen a capital gain or
a dividend, which is reinvested (that is no money comes to me at

5 - Do I adjust for taxes -- the $50 to $60 stock sale nets me, say $8,
not $10 due to taxes -- do I then put only 80 cents into the pushkeh?

6 - What if I give too much -- that is, I'm lazy and guestimate and
round up for good measure.


From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 23:12:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Torah is m'Sinai

> From: Gilad J. Gevaryahu <Gevaryahu@...>
 Since Chazal discussed also the LXX (Septuagint) (B. Megila 9a) and the
> miracle of making the very same changes to the translation of several
> pesukim in order to avert problems, I would not dismiss this translation
> out of hand.  Although, I do not know if the current LXX is in fact the
> very same one that our sages translated in Alexandria, Egypt in the 3rd
> century BCE, maybe some member/s of this group will be able to shed
> light on the authenticity of the current LXX.

The differences mentioned in the Gemoro do not show up in the
translation that we see as the Septuagint.  I have seen references that
what we have now is not the original Septuagint.

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: A.J.Gilboa <bfgilboa@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 16:26:51 -0800
Subject: Re: Tzitzit - In the Middle

> Logically, then, should we not beat our breasts during Amidah at the
> sixth bracha of  "slach lanu"?  Do we "inappropriately pause" when we 
> fall on our arms at the begining, middle or end of the verse at Tachnun?
> I am sure, although the source is not now at hand, that one can make
> hand signs during t'fillot so why not kiss the tzitzit - as the major Poskim
> suggest?

When you kiss the tsitsit, you must stop moving your lips (as opposed to
the other activities that you mention) which forces you to introduce a
pause which contradicts the masoretic (and logical) punctuation as
indicated by the t`amim. The only place where a pause coincides with the
word "tsitsit" is "v-haya lachem l-tsitsit". On the other hand, looking
at the tsitsit without kissing them does not interfere with the
punctuation since looking does not involve the mouth.

Yosef Gilboa


From: Chaim Mateh <chaimm@...>
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 22:40:14 +0200
Subject: Re: Women's hair covering

I had written in a previous message:

<< And yes, he [the Shvus Yaakov] posits that according to his possible
pshat, uncovered hair is not a Torah prohibition. However, he prefaces his
entire pshat with the words "ee lav demistafina miperush Rashi ..
vehaRambam.." ("were I not fearful of Rashi's pshat and the Rambam's
pshat..").  This means that while he thinks he has a good pshat, he does
NOT put it forth as a _the_ pshat, nor as a ruling (psak). >>

To which Yosef Gilboa <bfgilboa@...>, in Vol 30#43,

<<This does not contradict Rabbi Broyde's statement. Shvut Ya`aqov does
represent a valid school of thought that must be considered by other posqim
even if he himself did not find it possible or appropriate to translate
into halacha for his generation.>>

Rav Broyde wrote the following: "One must also note the well-known
school of thought which rules the Torah obligation for women's hair is
limited to disheveled, not uncovered hair (see Shevut Yaakov 1:103)" IMO
it is incorrect to say that the Shvus Yaakov _ruled_ this.  If we study
the Shvus Yaakov inside, it becomes clear that he isn't at all ruling
this but rather giving a pshat.  In the actual ruling, the Shvus Yaakov
uses the accepted views on hair covering (i.e., Biblically forbidden)
and then adds that also according to his pshat the ruling would be the

OTOH, a Posek can and indeed should take into account the various
"schools of thought" when ruling.  I have not yet seen a Posek who was
ruled Hallacha lemaaseh that a married woman does not have to cover her
hair.  Has anyone?  Even Rav Mesas (who is often quoted as a permitter
of uncovered hair) did not rule Hallacha lemaaseh that it's permitted,
but rather was melamed zchus in order to give his questioner a reason to
reunite with his wife (she refused to join him in a different city
unless she could uncover her hair).

Kol Tuv,


End of Volume 30 Issue 57