Volume 36 Number 30
                 Produced: Tue May  7  6:16:41 US/Eastern 2002

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

         [Danny Skaist]
Dishes ok next Pesach
         [David Herskovic]
Dishes OK next year?
         [Jonathan & Randy Chipman]
Extra paragraph break in Shema
Holocaust & Children Afterwards
         [Nachman Yaakov Ziskind]
Is this water bottle straw muktzah?
         [Shimon Lebowitz]
Tefillin shel Rabbeinu Tam (2)
         [Zev Sero, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Women and keri'at haTorah (2)
         [Janet Rosenbaum, I Kasdan]
Women and Torah Reading (2)
         [Beth and David Cohen, Jonathan & Randy Chipman]
Women in synagogue lay leadership roles
         [Andy Levy-Stevenson]


From: Danny Skaist <danny@...>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 14:26:22 +0200 
Subject: Chanukah

<<in the Mishna (which hardly mentions Chanukah at all).  Note that in "al
hanissim" which is based on the Tosefta (roughly contemporaneous with
the Mishna, ca. 220 CE) we do not mention the miracle either, just the
Macabean victory.  The first time (chronologically) it is mentioned is
in the Talmud, which is a minimum of 500 years after the events.

The other interesting issue is that Josephus mentions that Chanukah is a
festival of lights, but still does not mention the "pach hashemen".
Ben Z. Katz, M.D.>>

The miracle of Chanukah was the victory.  The gemorra's question is Why
was Chanukah different from all the other holidays that "celebrated
victories" and were discontinued after churban bais.  The answer was
that there was the additional miracle of the pach hashemen.



From: David Herskovic <crucible@...>
Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 01:31:59 +0100
Subject: Dishes ok next Pesach

I've read somewhere that the minhag in Tsanz was that unless the year
following Pesach was a leap year they would kasher their utensils or use
special dishes for Achron shel Pesach.

But in case you thought that this is quite the limits to chumre crazes,
here is one I challenge anyone to beat.

It is told that Rabbi Sholem of Kaminke would kasher all his Pesach
dishes and cooking utensils every year for the following reason.

It is written in the name Ari that one who is guarded from a 'mashehu'
(tiny bit) of chomtez during Pesach is guaranteed not to sin for the
coming year. Since a year has passed and we have sinned it follows that
we must have had some chometz during the last Pesach. Ergo, kasher all
the dishes.

I suppose we can derive some comfort from the fact that while some
religions upon turning frum slam jets into skyscrapers we merely spend
some time dipping our dishes in boiling water or linger over an esrog
with magnifying glasses of ever greater multiplications. Innocuous
enough, methinks.

Dovid Herskovic


From: Jonathan & Randy Chipman <yonarand@...>
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 18:02:14 +0300
Subject: Re:  Dishes OK next year?

     In v36n29 and earlier there has been a thread about how Hasidim use
dishes during Passover which had been used on the last day of Pesah of
the previous year for gebrochts.
   Basically, the answer as I understand it is that they acknowledge
that gebrochts is a humra or hiddur mitzvah, and doesn't really render
dishes unkosher (or un-pesahdikh).  Otherwise, how could they possibly
eat gebrochts even on the 8th day of Pesah when, outside of eretz
Yisrael, all laws of hametz are still in effect, albeit on the
de-Rabanan level?  I recall being told this by many hasidim, years ago.
    Eating gebrochts on the 8th day is a very widespread practice, for
this reason.  I witnessed it at the home of one of the secretaries of
the late Lubavitvcher Rebbe ztz"l, at whose home I was a guest during
the 7th and 8th days of Pesah once during the late 1960's (and
Lubavitchers are particularly strict about gebrochts, not leaving matzot
exposed on the table, etc.);  I observed this at the tisch of the
Bostoner Rebbe and in his circle;  etc.  I've also been told that Sanzer
Hasidim in Israel, in Netanya, who of course have no 8th day, eat
gebrochts at the last meal of Pesah (presumably after nightfall of the
7th day, when they are observing yomtov as a tosefet kedusha).
      Moreover (and this is my own sevara, thinking out loud), according
to basic Talmudic law, after 24 hours all dishes and pots and pans
theoretically no longer transmit non-kosher qualities to the food they
contain, because whatever they've absorbed is "noten ta'am lifgam";  our
use of two sets of f dishes is because of a gezera, so as not to confuse
b'nei yoman and einam b'nei yoman.  Thus, any "hametz" absorbed would
have long gone, even without the twelve-month rule.
   An analogy to this is the case of kitniyot.  In Israel, especially,
where many Ashkenazim have childen married to Sefardim, it is common to
find them eating, at their daughter's homes, food cooked in kitniyot
pots, simply avoiding actual kitniyot.  There are piskei halakha to
support this.
     Yehonatan Chipman, Jerusalem


From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 16:07:26 +1000
Subject: Extra paragraph break in Shema

From: Michael J. Savitz <michaelj@...>
> In many siddurim ...in the second paragraph of the
> Shema ("Ve-haya eem shamoa..."), there is a paragraph break placed
> before the last pasuk ("Le-ma'an yirbu yemeichem...").  In some siddurim
> this pasuk is even printed in a different size type.
> What could be the reason ..

I would say that the printers thought it would be cute to have the first
and second parshiyos of Shema finish with the same words: "Uchesavtom al
mezuzos beisecho uvishe'orecho". (Or those printers were simply
'ameratzim' and decided that just like the 1st parsha ends thus,
similarly the 2nd...)

I think you will find the medukdekdige siddurim and probably the
yekkishe ones don't have this break (as doesn't Artscroll and other
modern day publishers.)



From: Nachman Yaakov Ziskind <awacs@...>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 09:48:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Holocaust & Children Afterwards

| From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
| I remember reading that it is forbidden to procreate during a famine.
| Is that correct?

Only if one has already satisfied the mitzvah of procreation. We learn
this from Yosef, who had two sons before the famine and then stopped
(presumably he also had daughters?)

Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, EA, LLM         <awacs@...>
Attorney and Counselor-at-Law           http://yankel.com
Economic Group Pension Services         http://egps.com
Actuaries and Employee Benefit Consultants


From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 17:09:23 +0200
Subject: Re: Is this water bottle straw muktzah?

> By contrast, something like a rock which is totally muktza (no uses at
> all) has a permitted use when used as a paperweight. Likewise sissors are
> muktza since their main use is melacha, but you can use them to cut food
> on shabbat.

I do not claim to be well versed in hilchot Shabbat, but as far as I
remember, there is a great difference between these two examples. The
(pair of) scissors is a *utensil* (a 'kli') regardless of of your
current use of it, and as such has a much more lenient version of muktza
associated with it. Any utensil of generally prohibited usage may be
used on Shabbat for a permitted usage - 'letzorech gufo'.

However, rocks are *not* a utensil, and can *not* just be appropriated
to be a paperweight. I believe this would only be permitted if the rock
was actually *used* as such, BEFORE shabbat began.

Shabbat Shalom,
Shimon Lebowitz                           mailto:<shimonl@...>
Jerusalem, Israel            PGP: http://shimonl.findhere.org/PGP/


From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@...>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 14:42:18 -0400 
Subject: Re: Tefillin shel Rabbeinu Tam

<nzion@...> (Yehuda Landy) wrote:
> Many sources quote Yadin as saying that both types of tefillin were
> found. This is not accurate. A tefillin shel yad was found written in
> the order of Rashi. Others had the first two parshiot in order, while
> shemah and v'hayah im shamoah began side by side.

What does `side by side' mean?  One on top of the other? 

> This is not rabbeinu
> Tam who has v'hayah im shamoah before Shemah. One shel Yad contained
> Kadesh, v'hayah ki yeviacho and v'hayah im shamoah on one piece of
> parchment, and Shema on another piece (it is currently on exhibit
> in the Shrine of the Book). However the form these two pieces were 
> in while in the box, is unclear. Were Shema and v'hayah im shamoah
> next to each other (as was the case in tefillin found there, or was
> Shema placed after v'hayah im shamoah?

Both of these would seem to indicate familiarity with the requirement
quoted in the mishna, and with the uncertainty over what exactly
`shma and vehaya-im-shamoa on the left' means.  Putting Shema on a
separate piece sounds like an ingenious way to have both parshiot
adjoin vehaya-ki-yeviacha, without one of them being to the left of
the other.

> I should mention that when the forged edition of the Talmud
> Yerushalmi was printed (approx a century ago) it had Rabbienu
> Tam's order for Tefillin. The Chofetz Chayim who felt that the
> Yerushalmi was authentic (long after many other gedolim delared it a
> forgery), began wearing Rabbienu Tam tefillin.

What forgery is this?  Is this different than the standard TY that
is printed nowadays?

Zev Sero

From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahem@...>
Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 11:01:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Tefillin shel Rabbeinu Tam

A recent tape of RabbI Y. Reisman (from his motzaei Shabbos navi shiur)
dealt with the subject of the Tefillin of Rabbeinu Tam.  Please note
that this is from memory as I do not have the tape in front of me to
listen to as I type this.  Any mistakes are due to may faulty memory. He
stated that it is actually based on a machlokes tannaim and the
particular view associated with Rabbeinu Tam was from a mishnaic source.
Another interesting point was that the machlokes between Rashi and
Rabbeinu Tam about putting up a mezuza (horizontal or vertical) also
applies to how the parchments are to be put into the tefillin.  Since we
cannot compromise as we do with mezuza, we follow the ruling of Rashi
(vertical).  As a result, the Vilna Gaon (?) says that the Rabbeinu Tam
tefillin that we have today are pasul according to Rabbeinu Tam (:-) and
that if we really wanted to follow all the possibilities, we would have
to wear at least four sets of tefillin.

That is the two sets we have today and the same two with the parchments
slid in horizontally.  Apparently there are also other disputes hich
could multiply the numbers even more.

Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
<sabbahem@...>, Sabba.Hillel@verizon.net


From: Janet Rosenbaum <jerosenb@...>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:24:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Women and keri'at haTorah

Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer <frimea@...> writes:
> Any attempt to suggest that women are obligated in keriat haTorah based
> on the minority view of the Magen Avraham, O.H. sec. 282, no. 6  
> flies in the face of the vast
> majority of Rishonim and Aharonim who rule that women are freed from
> such an obligation. 

Just to be clear, I didn't suggest that women are obligated, just that
in the bidiaved situation described by Hendel where a woman had leyned
for the congregation, the SA (OC 282 if I recall correctly) would seem
to imply that a man would not have to re-leyn.  Please correct me if I'm



From: I Kasdan <Ikasdan@...>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 22:39:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Women and keri'at haTorah

Apart from the reasons cited by the Magen Avraham, I would like to
suggest the possibility that women have some responsibility/obligation
to attend keri'at haTorah in shul according to the understanding that
there is a comparison/relationship between keri'at haTorah and Matan
Torah.  Cf., Aruch HaShulchan O.C., siman 142:2.  See also Shiurim
L'zecher Aba Mori z'l vol. II, "B'Inyan Takanat Moshe" at pages 210-213.
To the extent that keri'at haTorah is a kind of reenactment of Maamad
Har Sinai and/or a fulfillment in hearing the words of HaShem as spoken
at Har Sinai, because women were part of the tzibbur at Har Sinai they
ought to be/are part of the tzibbur for keri'at haTorah.  See also
Nechemia 8:3 (noting that Ezra's keri'at haTorah took place in the
presence of men and women).

Y. Kasdan


From: Beth and David Cohen <bdcohen@...>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 08:58:13 -0400
Subject: Women and Torah Reading

For an in depth analysis of this issue, both pro and con, see Vol. 1
Issue #2 of the Edah Journal available on line at www.Edah.org

David I. Cohen

From: Jonathan & Randy Chipman <yonarand@...>
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 18:30:24 +0300
Subject: Re:  Women and Torah Reading

    I would add to this discussion that a weekly minyan, which describes
its guiding principle as "loyalty to the halakhah, while realizing the
halakhic possibilities for egalitarian participation [of women] in
prayer and in reading the Torah," has recently opened in the German
Colony in Jerusalem.  In this minyan, women both read and are called on
aliyot to the Torah, as well as leading Kabbalat Shabbat and Pesukei
de-Zimra. The minayn, known as Shira Hadasha, cites in halakhic support
a very interesting article by Mendel Shapira, posted in the internet
journal "Edah" (www.edah.org), along with a rebuttal by Rav Yehuda
Henkin and Shapiros' response.

      Yehonatan Chipman, Jerusalem


From: Andy Levy-Stevenson <andy_twrr@...>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 12:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Women in synagogue lay leadership roles

Does anyone know of situations where a woman has become the president of
an Orthodox synagogue? Our shul has a potential situation with
succession of its executive board.

I know that there are opinions that prohibit this, as well as opinions
that permit it; I'm also clear that our LOR is the one to pasken on
this. I'm more interested to hear from people who have specific
experience of a woman as president of a shul.


Andy Levy-Stevenson


End of Volume 36 Issue 30