Volume 32 Number 82
Produced: Tue Jul 4 10:08:33 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
2 possible cases of stealing
[Carl Singer]
Announcing the Molad after the event (2)
[Ben Z. Katz, Perets Mett]
The bedrock of the Redemption? (4)
[Edward Ehrlich, Shoshana L. Boublil, Danny Skaist,
Chidekel@aol.com]
Burial on Yom Tov
[Yisrael Medad]
London Times for Shabbos
[Stephen Phillips]
Shir HaMa'alot question
[Shlomo B Abeles]
Uganda
[Shmuel Himelstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:15:56 EDT
Subject: Re: 2 possible cases of stealing
<< > 2) Parking in a lot which is reserved for one store, when one intends
> to shop at a different store. >>
Isn't this trespassing? Could the store / parking lot owner have you
towed away? Is there a lawyer in the house?
More importantly, When the store owner (gentile, or not yet frum Jew)
sees a bunch of visibly frum Jews park in front of his shop and go
across to shop elsewhere, what do you think it does re: his opinion of
Jews in general (or frum Jews) -- you know, those rude, double-parking,
don't say hello, better than us, rich ....
Since I live and work in a "mixed" society when it comes to ben Adam
l'havayroh I take these things quite seriously.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Z. Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 22:45:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Announcing the Molad after the event
>From: Daniel M Wells <wells@...>
>The molad is announced not as an indication of an astronomical event
>that will be (or that was). It is purely a mention of the next
>mathematically calculated molad. ie the addition of 29 days (ie 1 day)
>12 hours and 793 halachim (or 44 minutes and one helek) from the
>previous molad. It has no connection to the true molad and is based on
>...
>derabbonan is open to question. Generally the difference between real
>and calculated molad is very small showing a calendar with an extremely
>high degree of accuracy compared to the civil calendar which had to be
>altered back in the late 1500's and presumably again in the year 4000CE
I hate to disappoint the above correspondent (who with his final remark
seemed to imply that the Jewish calendar is more accurate than the
secular one because it hasn't been adjusted in the last 1600 years), but
the Jewish calendar is also base on approximations that make it
inaccurate when compared with astronomical phenomena. To cite just two
examples: 1) the date when we in galut begin to say "ve-sayn tal
u-mattar le-veracha" moves ahead about one day per century (because of
Shmuel's inaccurate approximation of the length of the tekufot [in fact,
one can calculate that in about 22,000 years we will begin to say
"ve-sayn tal u-mattar le-veracha" AFTER Pesach]), and 2) we observe
Pesach about 4-5 days on average later than it was observed in geonic
times.
[Note that the calculation for ve-sayn tal u-mattar le-veracha has been
discussed in the past and shown that the calculation used for that is a
less precise one than used for the months and various other calendar
items, so probably is not relevent to discussion above. Point 2 may need
to be addressed, I don't remember if it was at that time. Mod.]
Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
Ph 773-880-4187, Fax 773-880-8226
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:09:17 +0100
Subject: Announcing the Molad after the event
In a previous posting I suggested that the general minhog was not to
announce the moyled if the time had already passed. In the course of
checking my sources I must retract that statement.
The correct statement seems to be that there is no minhog to announce
the moyled at all!
The earliest reference that I can find to the moyled in connection with
Rosh Chodesh bentshn is in the sidur of the Baal hatanyo, where it is
stated that it is correct to "know the time of the moyled" when
bentshing rosh chodesh. It is not clear to me whether the whole
congregation should "know the time of the moyled" or whether this
applies to the baal tfilo only. The Shaarey Ephrayim Chapter 10 (Dubno,
5680=1820) refers to this by saying that "some hold it proper to know
the time of the moyled'. Its author (R. Ephrayim Zalman Margulies of
Brod) is equivocal about the validity of this.
Many sidurim published during the past two centuries have repeated the
gloss of the Baal hatanyo's sidur. It is probably correct to say that
nowadays most sidurim include the gloss before/in Rosh chodesh bentshn.
My guess is therefore the announcement of the moyled crept in at a later
stage to save individuals the trouble of having to ascertain the correct
time. Making such an announcement is certainly not universal; I know
shuls where the announcement is not made. The only sidur (AFAIK) which
suggests that an announcement ought to be made is the Artscroll sidur,
and I am sure that the statement there merely reflects the widespread
practice.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Edward Ehrlich <eehrlich@...>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 22:09:26 +0300
Subject: The bedrock of the Redemption?
Perets Mett <p.mett@...> wrote:
> I do not know how one measures the bits of redemption which are coming
> slowly. If it is the resettlement of Erets Yisroel, that began long
> before the Zionists. The talmidim of the Baal Shem Tov and the Vilner
> Goon began their settlement over 200 years ago.
There have been Jews living and returning to Eretz Yisrael (with the
possible exception of the Crusader Period) since the destruction of the
Second Temple. But it was the Zionist movement that was able to create
a State that enabled millions of Jews to settle, live and govern
themselves in Eretz Yisrael.
> With respect to the writer, the early Zionist movement did not even
> care about resettling Jews in Erets Yisroel and would have been happy
> with Uganda and other places.
Herzel reluctantly accepted the idea of Uganda as a temporary
alternative to Eretz Yisrael because of the desperate situation of
Russian Jewry. His idea was rejected by the Russian Jewish Zionists
themselves.
Ed Ehrlich <eehrlich@...>
Jerusalem, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shoshana L. Boublil <toramada@...>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 23:13:48 +0300
Subject: Re: The bedrock of the Redemption?
> I do not know how one measures the bits of redemption which are coming
> slowly. If it is the resettlement of Erets Yisroel, that began long
> before the Zionists. The talmidim of the Baal Shem Tov and the Vilner
> Goon began their settlement over 200 years ago.
Actually Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook, in his writings, dates the beginning of
this new era with the Aliya of the Talmidim of the Vilna Ga'on.
Shoshana L. Boublil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Danny Skaist <danny@...>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:03:09 +0200
Subject: RE: The bedrock of the Redemption?
>slowly. The Zionist movement, which began 100 years ago, set the bedrock
>for the greater redemption that was to come.
<before the Zionists. The talmidim of the Baal Shem Tov and the Vilner
<Goon began their settlement over 200 years ago.
The real bedrock of the geula was a Turkish sultan and a Russian Czar
(the heart of a king is in the hand of G-d). (I have my own personal
view of history).
Prior to 1848 there was a law that guarenteed the rights of tennant
farmers to remain on the land they farmed even if it was sold to a new
owner. This was revoked by the sultan in 1848 (which led to a progrom
in Jerusalem). This permitted Jews to buy land and settle it. When
rebuilding the yishuv slowed down, the Russian Czar made it rough for
socialists. This seems to have brought them to Palestine to try to
build a "new society" here where it was safer.
The geula has its own schedule, and it doesn't really matter who the
"tool" is.
danny
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Chidekel@...>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 15:07:30 EDT
Subject: The bedrock of the Redemption?
A poster wrote
>With respect to the writer, the early Zionist movement did not even
>care about resettling Jews in Erets Yisroel and would have been happy
>with Uganda and other places.
With the approach of the three weeks, it is sad to see that sinat hinam
(causeless hatred) is still so rampant among us, and even sadder to see
mail jewish being used as a vehicle of this hatred.
While there may be legitimate criticisms of the zionists, (as there are
of almost any other group), this is the first attempt I have seen to
deny their importance in the rebuilding of eretz yisrael. it would be
ludicrous if it weren't a tragic reflection of the hatred driving some.
While there were always movements of aliya, of which the students of the
baal shem tov and the gaon mivilna were one more, it was
(quantitatively) an extremely small movement. It is only with the early
zionists, biluim, first and second aliya, and even later aliyot
orchestrated by the zionists that there was any significant number of
aliya, and furthermore, that agricultural settlements were developed.
While some zionists supported uganda because of the perceived need for
an immediate refuge, to say that the zionist movement did not care about
settling Jews in eretz yisrael is an amazing statement. (by the way,
the Uganda movement was rejected by the zionists). Thus, even Aguda,
which was vociferously opposed to the zionists, did not deny their
importance in the building of the land.
Meir Shinnar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 00:15:26 +0300
Subject: Burial on Yom Tov
I discussed the issue of burial of Yom Tov with my local Rav, Elchanan
Bin-Nun here at Shiloh this past Shabbat.
Several points:
1. It was his opinion that as long as non-Jews did all the work, from
A-Z in the matter of the recent Satmar case, then the technical side was
taken care of. This fits with the instruction as found in Para. 526 of
the Shulchan Aruch.
2. Nevertheless, as he recalls, the p'sak of the Rabbis to cease the
custom (not accepted by Satmar & Breuer's) was based on the fact that
now with refrigeration available, the burials should be postponed. The
main reason for the original 'non-waiting' was "bizui ha-met", the
degradation of the deceased. Once this found a solution, the reason for
overiding the Holiday was gone. See the reference top "yasriach" -
smell from decompositon in Sub Para. 1.
3. When I asked him, *lo aleinu*, what would he decide if someone died
in Shiloh, say on first day Rosh Hashana which falls on a Thursday, and
we have no non-Jews here and the wait would be until Saturday night with
no real refrigeration available (well, maybe the Yeshiva kitchen fridge
could be used), would he decide to bury, with Jews doing all the work -
tahara, tachrichim, hair cutting, etc. plus grave digging, he begged out
with a smile saying he'd decide only when the case, *lo aleinu*, came
before him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Phillips <stephenp@...>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:49 +0100 (BST)
Subject: London Times for Shabbos
I've just bought the TES Hebrew Calendar software which can be
personalised according to geographical location. Does anyone know how
the London Beis Din calculate the times for Tzeis Hakochavim [the coming
out of 3 medium stars] and the end of Shabbos? I believe that it is
based on the number of degrees the sun drops below the horizon plus (for
Shabbos) a certain number of minutes for Tosefes Shabbos [the time added
on to Shabbos].
Stephen Phillips.
<stephenp@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shlomo B Abeles <sba@...>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 22:45:31 +1000
Subject: Shir HaMa'alot question
> From: David and Toby Curwin
> > I have tried, without success, to discover the origin of the verses
> > Tehillat Hashem...Va'anachnu Nevareich.....Hodu........and Mi Yemalell
> > being attached to the Shir HaMa'alot before Birkat HaMazon...
> ...Who put them there...?
>
> I heard in the name of my Rosh Yeshiva that the additional verses were
> added to take off some of the emphasis on Eretz Yisrael that appears in
> Shir Ha'Maalot and Al NaHarot Bavel, as well as in the Birkat HaMazon
> itself. It appears that some felt that Birkat HaMazon was becoming too
> "Zionist"! He therefore recommended that we do not add those verses.
I would love some, ANY, substantiation of this amazing chiddush! I have
lived my whole life amongst non- and even anti-Zionist Charedim in
different cities and have rarely even heard the above-mentioned pesukim
added...
Shlomo B Abeles
PS I did a quick check of various siddurim this morning and couldn't
find one that actually has ALL the above quoted Pesukim. One of them
brings in the name of Kitzur Sheloh an old (IIRC over 300 years ago)
Minhag - when one does not have a possiblity of learning Torah during
the meal - to say various Pesukim before benchen.
BTW the Zemiros Divrei Yoel - with Minhogim of the late Satmar Rebbe
zt"l states that he said Shir Hamaalos (only) - both weekdays and
Shabbos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <shmuelh@...>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 18:41:25 +0300
Subject: Uganda
To state that the early Zionists did not care about Eretz Israel because
they were willing to settle for Uganda (at least it was Uganda at that
time) is simply to err. I can only hope that this error was inadvertent
rather than deliberate.
Yes, some Zionists, including Herzl, were willing to accept Uganda - but
only as a way-station until such time as Eretz Israel became available.
Remember, that the era of the turn of the 20th century was fraught with
pogroms in Russia. Getting the Jews out was simply a question of trying
to save them.
Of course, those who claim that the early Zionists did not care about
Eretz Israel "conveniently" overlook the fact that the Zionist Congress
totally voted down that proposal, because its members would only settle
for Eretz Israel.
And I'd like to ask a rhetorical question: had we had even Uganda as an
interim "Jewish State" before Hitler, how many millions of Jews' lives
would have been saved?
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 32 Issue 82