Volume 31 Number 43
                 Produced: Tue Feb  8  5:21:56 US/Eastern 2000

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Aliya to Save Your Children
         [Rena Freedenberg]
Children's Encyclopedia Question
         [Ellen Krischer]
The collect call game
         [David Charlap]
Jewish newspapers & Lashon Harah
         [Yisrael Medad]
         [Esther Zar]
Parnuseh and Education
         [Carl Singer]
Secular colleges
         [Binyomin Segal]
Shabbat hotel sensor-controlled lights
         [Dov Teichman]
Taking pictures on Shabbas
         [Tzvi Roszler]
Using a Camera on Shabbat
         [Eric Simon]
Yehi Zichro Baruch
         [Dov Teichman]


From: Rena Freedenberg <free@...>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 00:39:06 +0200
Subject: Re: Aliya to Save Your Children

> 3. I can't find work exactly in my field - This is true. You may have to
> make an adjustment in your career path, although the days when they
> would tell nurses to retrain as bookkeepers are thankfully gone (I heard
> that story from a nurse who has been here for more than thirty
> years). But remember that the alternative under discussion was sending
> your kids to the public schools because even all of your disposable
> income is not enough to pay tuition in a Jewish one. IMHO that is
> sufficient justification for a career change.

Actually, it goes further than that. Even people who send their children
to the regular, non-orthodox, non-anything purely public schools here in
Israel are sending their children to JEWISH schools that get out for ALL
JEWISH RELIGIOUS holidays and NOT the goyish tree & bunny pagan
celebrations that one runs into in the States. Whether or not they are
exposed to religion, the religion that they are or aren't exposed to is
Judaism and nothing else.



From: Ellen Krischer <krischer@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 15:53:28 -0500 
Subject: Children's Encyclopedia Question

> ...the excellent secular children's encyclopedias cannot be used by
> Beis Yaakov schools without close supervision.
> Jonathan Rabson

	I'm quite curious about what topics in a secular children's
encyclopedia would require that the encyclopedia have "close supervision."

	Ellen Krischer


From: David Charlap <shamino@...>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 18:01:02 -0500
Subject: Re: The collect call game

I asked a friend who works for a major phone company what his company's
opinion on the "game" is.

His answer is that the company considers those people to be an
annoyance.  In the situation where a call-back is made, and they are
carrying the return call, they are not really concerned.

In the situation where no return call is made, if they could prove that
this was done with fraudulent intent (that is, playing the game), they
would like to get money for the call.

Unfortunately, they can't just bill for it, so it would require going to
the courts and filing suit.  Even if a single person was stealing ten
35-cent calls a day for a year and the phone company had solid proof of
intent to defraud, they'd have to pay something on the order of $12,000
in legal fees to recover the $1277.50 worth of damages.  And even if
they did sue, the courts would see this as 3650 individual 35-cent
crimes, and not as a single $1200 crime, so it could never be escalated
to a felony charge, which would place it in criminal court.

In short, the phone company does look upon such usage as theft, but they
realize that it would be a waste of time and money to try and do
anything about it.  Especially when their legal departments are busy
going after people using stolen credit cards and other more serious

Now, how would halacha look upon this in this light?  I'm not sure, but
a midrash does come to mind.

Before the Flood (the big one - involving Noach and the animals), one of
the sins the population committed was that of stealing amounts too small
to be prosecuted for.  A man would be carrying a basket of peas from the
field.  Many people would each steal one or two peas from his basket -
worth so little that they could not be prosecuted for the theft.  By the
time the man got to market, the basket was almost empty, but nobody
could be punished for the theft.

This seems like a similar situation.  Thousands of people each stealing
a 35-cent phone call (where the actual cost to the phone company may be
less than a cent) is something one could not be prosecuted for, but is
still wrong.  If enough people did this (say, millions, or even
billions), it would seriously hurt the phone company, its employees and
its owners.

In other words, the collect-call game could be seen in a similar light
as a person who eats a single grape off of a stand in a supermarket.
The phone call may cost the phone company even less than the grape costs
the supermarket, but the principal is the same.

-- David


From: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 00:36:33 +0200
Subject: Jewish newspapers & Lashon Harah

Chaim Shapiro <Dagoobster@...> wrote:
>How do Orthodox Jewish newspapers excuse their use of Lashon Haroh
>(gossip) against other Frum individuals who they disagree with solely on
>political grounds?

I've never seen them justify it.  On the whole, the Charedi press is
much more semantically aggressive, not only against other Charedi
factions, but secular persons and/or groups.  The standard of
journalism, and I am speaking of first-hand knowledge and experience, is
far short not only of general demands but surely of Halacha.  The
wall-poster media is surely another prime example of words gone wacky.


From: Esther Zar <ESTABESTAH@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 21:12:00 EST
Subject: Re: Mechitzas

 the mechitza originated since the time of the beit hamikdash during the
simchat beit hashoevah where there was a separation between the men's
and women's section. the arrangement is so taken for granted that it's
not even explicitly stated in the shulchan aruch.  there's 2 opinions as
to where the mechitza was in the beit hamikdash:1)tosfot yomtov -men's
section directly underneath the women's balcony - not in the men's line
of vision. 2) meiri- balcony built above the sides of the men's section
where the men's view of the women is blocked by curtains, mirrors or the
like.  now the purpose of the mechitza:1) reb moshe says: in order to
prevent the men from "gazing" and mingling with the women. 2) satmar
rav: not to look at the women.
 reb moshe rules that the the mechitzah nowadays should be high enough
so that the men can't see or mingle with the women and he specifies that
as being about 5 feet tall. A good sefer to look in to gain some insight
on the origin and ramifications of the mechitza is hatznea lechet (by
Rav Ellenson) in the section titled "hahafrada bein anashim lenashim".


From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 17:54:36 EST
Subject: Re: Parnuseh and Education

<gershon.dubin@...> writes:

<< I would dare say that it's not the choice of university but the home
 that influences the children.>>

<   It should be clear that there are home influences,  outside (e.g.,  but
 not only,  university) influences and peer influences on any child's
 decisions on how much of Judaism to make their own.  If your friend,  who
 has such a fine home,  makes the first quote,  then how can you ignore
 that in making the second quote?>

To the first point, the quote from Jerry (I'll let him speak for
himself) to me enforces the importance of home.  Let's say for
discussion sake that the environment for a YU (Rebbeim, plus school,
plus community, plus peers, plus teachers, plus being away from home,
plus whatever) is 99% positive and 1% negative.  For a well-rooted child
there is no problem or "risk" as you put it.  The child (young adult)
that falls and trips over that 1% negative likely had an 80% negative
home.  ... was falling despite the positive environment -- could even a
Lakewood have saved him?  (And yes there are anecdotal stories in both
directions.)  I'm trying to quantify unquantifiable concepts, but I hope
you see where I'm going.  Clearly, if a child is at risk -- hates his
religious environment (day school? yeshiva? parents?  peers?  shule?),
etc. -- then putting him in a 50-50 environment is problematic.  Even
putting him in a 99% environment may fail (as was pointed out.)

 <  If you say every single morning "al tevienu liydai nisayon" (do not
 bring us into a situation where our values will be tested),  how can you
 ignore the nisayon (test) inherent in a secular university?

    Except for rare circumstances,  the need to make a living will entail
 some exposure to the outside world.  It is our responsibility to make
 that as minimally tempting to impressionable young adults as possible. 
 YU may not be a guarantee,  but how can you justify putting kids in
 situations where their Jewish values will be that much more tested?

    Parnasa is important,  but given that we believe that it comes
 ultimately from Hashem,  can we risk (our own or our children's)
 committment to Hashem to make it "easier" for Him to provide?


HaShem is indeed the source of parnuseh, but we no longer get the munn.
A very old joke Yiddish joke tells of the Father-in-Law who cherishes
his unemployed, son-in-law -- as he puts it "the boy think's I'm G-d --
"what do you mean?" says the straight man -- "He looks to me for
parnuseh and sustenance."

To take the extreme intepretation of "al tevienu liydai nisayon" you
would need to lock yourself in your room and shut the blinds.

Although I'm quite concerned about my environment and my children's
environment, I don't believe that I should be paranoid or an
isolationist.  When I go out into the rain, I wear a raincoat and carry
an umbrella --- I don't seek out rain, but I know it's inevitable.  If
it's a raging thunderstorm I may choose not to go out.  I don't think my
children are at risk, given that they've grown up in their mother's home
and been influenced by outstanding Rebbaim, balabatim, etc.

In my judgment -- and I have to make the decision -- given my children's
background, upbringing and midot the secular university is not a risk.
I didn't say not a "greater" risk, not a risk (period.)  Since I don't
except your premise that the secular university is a nisayon in this

I do believe people have the right to eschew secular education and the
secular world -- but then they've made their own bed.  They've chosen a
lifestyle consonant with their beliefs and / or their fears.  People
make life choices and live with the consequences.

Carl Singer


From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 16:34:42 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Secular colleges

Chaim Shapiro mentions a reality of secular colleges today and their "pc"

  * Following my personality, I was very argumentative in all my classes
  * about just about anything.  Most people accepted my opinion, and fought
  * hard to express their contrary views.  There were two issues, however,
  * which I was not allowed to comment on.  In fact, every time I did, I was
  * told I cannot talk because I have a religious perspective, which has no
  * place in university discourse.  Those two issues were abortion and
  * homosexual rights.  All my arguments to the validity of a religious
  * perspective were completely ignored!

 I had similar experiences years ago in public colleges, but in grad
school now in Loyola Chicago, I find a very different situation. Even
when the students and professor are all self identified as "secular"
they are willing to accept the validity of religious opinion and input.

In general I have found that this Catholic institution has been far more
supportive and accepting of Jewish practice then any public institution
that my friends or I attended. As a result, I often recomend that
students who are staying here in Chicago for school consider Loyola -
and I imagine that students in other cities might want to consider
Catholic schools there, rather than the fully secular public



From: Dov Teichman <DTnLA@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 21:08:26 EST
Subject: Re: Shabbat hotel sensor-controlled lights

Ahron Wolf writes:
 <<I'm not so sure that this is such a problem, isn't it Psik Reishei D'lo
 Nicha Lei?>>

There is also a factor of Grama [indirect action - Mod.] involved here,
which might make it a Rabbinic prohibition and I believe its an argument
between the ashkenazic and sefardic poskim about where Psik Reishei DeLo
Nicha Lei [an inevitable reaction, but one that the doer does not wish
for - Mod.]  is allowed or not on a Rabbinic Prohibition.
  Dov Teichman


From: Tzvi Roszler <TzviR@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 21:12:33 EST
Subject: Taking pictures on Shabbas

Could we possibly consider taking a picture on Shabbas as a "NOLAD"
although the image is not tangible,it was not there "Mibeod Yom (erev
shabbos). In other instances we also consider intangibles as nolad, i.e
light etc.

<TzviR@...>      Tzvi Roszler


From: Eric Simon <erics@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 14:24:29 -0500
Subject: Using a Camera on Shabbat

> I once saw a set-up in a conservative temple where the videocamera was
>set up in the balcony, out of view of any worshiper, which was turned on
>automatically for the duration of the service. No one touches it on
>shabbos; it automatically records the proceedings. Is there an violation
>of halachah in this instance?

Persons moving in and out of camera range could/would certainly effect
any auto-focusing feature . . .

-- Eric


From: Dov Teichman <DTnLA@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 21:16:12 EST
Subject: Yehi Zichro Baruch

Aryeh Frimer writes:
<< Yehi zikhro barukh uTNZB"H. >>

Does anyone know the difference between "Yehi Zichro Baruch" and
"TNZB"H"?  In my experience, the "Yehi Zichro Baruch" is used more
frequently in Israeli/Zionist circles. I have never seen the term used
in reference to any Hareidi/Yeshivish/Hasidic personages. Any ideas why?

Dov Teichman


End of Volume 31 Issue 43