Volume 36 Number 45
                 Produced: Tue Jun 11  6:49:33 US/Eastern 2002

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

2nd day minyanim
         [Yitz Weiss]
ArtScroll liturgy
         [Shmuel Ross]
Artscroll Siddurim
         [Shayna Kravetz]
         [Harold Greenberg]
The First Jew
         [Frank Silbermann]
non-Jewish prophets
         [Joshua Adam Meisner]
Old Tephillin
         [Frank Silbermann]
Permissible xamec on Pesax
         [Robert A. Book]
Rashi and Ruach HaKodesh
         [A. Seinfeld]
Shabbat Zmira
         [Beth and David Cohen]
words per Talmud tractate
         [Andrew Klafter]


From: <YitzW@...> (Yitz Weiss)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 09:58:12 -0400
Subject: Re: 2nd day minyanim

<< I heard one opinion whose logic seems to be compelling - the minhag
of 'yom tov sheini shel galios' is to keep 2 days of yom tov in chutz
l'araetz, not Israel, and is thus not dependent on 'daas lachzur'.  Thus
even a tourist in Israel would be exempt from 2nd yom tov b'aretz.  (I
realize that no one, except perhaps Chabad, paskans this way, but it is
an interesting idea.) >>

I agree - the logic is very compelling. In fact, the Chacham Tzvi
paskins that way in his tshuvos and I know of several Orthodox rabbis
who follow that opinion including my father, Rabbi Mordechai Weiss, and
Rabbi Yossie Adler.

Yitz Weiss


From: <EMPreil@...>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 01:51:02 EDT
Subject: Re: Artscroll

      And finally, there's now a presumptive authority to the Art Scroll
      -- what some folks half-jokingly call "Nusach Art Scroll."

Some have given "him" semicha - Rabbi Art Scroll.


From: Shmuel Ross <shmuel@...>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 00:58:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: ArtScroll liturgy

Daniel Stuhlman <ddstuhlman@...> asked...

> Does anyone else has a difficulty with the layout of the ArtScroll
> Siddurim?

   Speaking strictly for myself, only minor nitpicks.  For one thing, I
would rather see Ma'ariv for Motzei Shabbos completely seperate from
Ma'ariv L'chol, the better to prevent one from overlooking Atah
Chonantanu, and to facilitate launching into Vayehi No'am.

   On a similar note, an earlier poster mentioned that Sefirah should
appear right after Ma'ariv; I agree, but that's exactly where it is in
my copies.  (Hebrew/English pocket-sized Sefard, Hebrew-only Ashkenaz.)

   My biggest typography beef concerns indentation: it works well in
most cases, but not for poems presented in two columns.  (See Adon Olam
for the first example.)  In such cases, the indentation ought to be
abandoned.  I also dislike the printing of Az Yashir in the poetic,
brick-wall format, as this makes it hard to read without losing one's
place; on the other hand, I understand that others prefer reading it in
the way it's written in the Torah.  Nevertheless, I approvingly note
that it's printed as a prose paragraph in my Hebrew-only edition.

   I'm also at a loss to understand why the translation is in italics,
which are harder to read than regular print... and efforts really ought
to be made not to have the commentary on a given passage continue onto
the following page, or, worse, pages.  (The siddur is actually pretty
good about this; the machzorim, less so.)

   Finally, while the typeface is extremely clear and readable, it's
also rather utilitarian.  (My favorite type would probably be that found
in the Beis Tefillah Hachadash, but with the addition of markings for
sh'va na and ta'am mile'il.)

   (Also, moving off of layout and onto content, ArtScroll assumes the
reader's in chutz la'aretz.  This is, I think, relevant only for the
Musaf Shemonah Esrei of Chol HaMoed Sukkos, but, for that one purpose,
it's not well-suited for Israeli use.)

   The above having been said, they're nitpicks; on the whole, ArtScroll
has done a fabulous job on its siddurim.  The type is clear; the layout
is generally esthetically pleasing; the instructions are right where one
would need them, and anticipate almost any relevant situation; in cases
of k'ri/k'siv conflict, only the k'ri is printed, rather than
confusingly adding the k'siv in parentheses; instances of a sh'va na or
ta'am mile'il are indicated... and, hey, the paper stock is good, and
the bindings hold up to regular usage.  You could say I'm a fan.



From: Shayna Kravetz <skravetz@...>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:18:27 -0500
Subject: Artscroll Siddurim

Daniel Stuhlman <ddstuhlman@...> asked
>Does anyone else has a difficulty with the layout of the ArtScroll Siddurim?

I certainly do. In particular, I find the grayed-out areas for
occasional additions difficult to daven from. In addition, I am
distracted and thrown off by the various markings used to indicate
pauses between words and those texts orally repeated by the shliach
tzibur. In some really bad paragraphs, the various markings can make the
text look like an exercise in musical notation. Altogether, the pages
are far too busy for me to concentrate on davening.

Carl Singer added about the Artscroll:
>I appreciate the outstanding graphics and the fact the type fonts are
>uniform, not a haphazard mix of big & small with no particular rhyme or

The variance in type size was almost always related to a desire to
emphasize a particular passage or to distinguish between two different
parts of the davening. While there were certainly examples in which the
type variation seems to be misleading, most of the time it was a useful
aid in understanding the "shape" of the davening. I think for example of
the tendence to set the "sh'ma" in larger type, the "baruch shem k'vod"
in smaller type, and the "v'ahavta" in normal type. The loss of these
clues in favour of uniform type size is a shame, in some ways. One could
look at a page of a siddur and get a sense of the rhythm of the

While the Artscroll siddur is a useful reference, my preferred siddur
for davening is the De Sola Pool which has beautiful (albeit uniform)
typography, plenty of white space on each page, a logical organization,
and exceptionally good English translations. Failing that, the Birnbaum
will do fine for me.



From: Harold Greenberg <harold.greenberg@...>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:39:40 +0200
Subject: Chodosh

I assume "the restriction on the use of chodosh" refers to the mitzvah
of kemach yashan (old flour).  I too am puzzled by this.  On my last
trip to Detroit (Southfield) in a kosher bakery there was a sign "The
pumpernickel is not kemach yashan.  (Signed) Rabbi So and So,

I would appreciate it if someone would explain to me the following-
What is the latest that the grain can be planted?
What is the latest that the grain can be harvested?
What is the latest that  the grain can be made into flour?
How many months later does Pesach (the Omer) fall?

For shmurah matzah,  when does the guarding have to begin taking the above into account?

Please note: my reply address is
 PO Box 8263 Eilat, Israel


From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 08:07:48 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:  The First Jew

Most words for "jew" in European languages ("Juede" in German, "Jod" in
Dutch, "zhid" in Slavic languages) stem from the Hebrew word "Yehudi."

I presume that the word "Jew" came into English from the French word
"Jeuf" in the time of the Norman Conquest a thousand years ago -- did
that word also derive from "Yehudi"?

If so, then shouldn't we say that the first Jew among the Ivrim was
Yehudah ben Yosef ben Yitschak ben Avraham?

Frank Silbermann
New Orleans, Louisiana


From: Joshua Adam Meisner <jam390@...>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:20:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: non-Jewish prophets

	Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz quoted the soc.culture.jewish FAQ which
lists a number of sources regarding the identities of the "48 neviim"
and the guidelines that Megillah 14a used to count them.

	Both the Gemara there and Seder Olam count Baruch ben Neiriah
and Neiriah as two of the 48, but many of the commentators on Yirm'yahu
ch.  45 - Rashi, Metzudat David, Radak, and Malbim - explicitly say that
Baruch was not zocheh to nevu'ah, which would eliminate him and Neiriah
from the list (as the latter was included only by virtue of the rule
regarding a prophet mentioned with his father's name, quoted earlier).
I'm not sure how these commentators (as well as the Rambam, whom I've
been told holds similarly) calculate the lists.

- Joshua Meisner


From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 09:10:16 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:  Old Tephillin

As a consideration _against_ the wearing of grandfather's old tephillin,
Y. Askotzky (v36 n41) refers to the issue of keeping "a preferable
halachic standard, which has .. to do with specific ... preferences,
discussed in the halachic sources, of the batim, klaf, lettering and

There seems to be the implication that sixty year old tephillin probably
weren't made to meet the preferable standard.  Why would that be so?
Was this a manifestation of declining halachic standards early in the
20th century?

Or had it always been common practice to ignore the preferred standards,
perhaps on economic grounds?  If so, is there a risk that changing the
prevailing custom might place a heavy burden on future generations that
might struggle in a more difficult economic climate?  (As human
population growth squeezes out grazing meadows, leather and parchment
might again become expensive.)

I know that keeping a higher level of observance might be optional in
_this_ generation, but when an optional practice becomes widespread it
tends over time to become mandatory, doesn't it?

Frank Silbermann
New Orleans, Louisiana


From: Robert A. Book <rbook@...>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:05:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Permissible xamec on Pesax

Jay F Shachter <jay@...> writes:
> > How hasidim living in eretz yisrael who are stringent about "gebrokts"
> > eat knaidlach is a mystery to me ... Perhaps they extend the last day
> > through tosefet yom tov and base the leniency on it not being truly [y]om
> > tov, but even then to anyone extending the holiday in that fashion, all
> > the humrot apply to him!
> This point was addressed in a very recent issue of mail.jewish but
> apparently it needs to be restated.  If you extend the last day of Pesax
> though tosefet yom tom, all the laws of yom tov apply, but the
> prohibition of xamec does not.  Thus, bread can be eaten on the last
> meal of Pesax if it is late enough.

If all the prohibitions of yom tov apply, how would one obtain the
bread?  You can't buy it (and couldn't own it on Pesach).  You can't
accept it as a gift (a kinyan) from someone who's already ended Pesach.
You could bake it if you start late enough, but bread takes a long time
to make, and I'm not even sure you can own all the ingredients on
Pesach.  (Yeast?  Baking soda?)  And of course, the oven would have to
have been on from Chol Hamoed.

--Robert Book    <rbook@...>
  University of Chicago


From: A. Seinfeld <aseinfeld@...>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 03:24:17 -0700
Subject: Re: Rashi and Ruach HaKodesh

Frank Silberman writes:

      Stan's comment, however, is more consistent with my experience, as
      I cannot recall ever hearing any Gadol in our age declaring
      himself to be a Tzadik, much less having Ruach haKodesh.

It is told that when someone actually asked R. Moshe if they should say a
bracha upon seeing the Rav, he said, Yes

Alexander Seinfeld


From: Beth and David Cohen <bdcohen@...>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 08:39:22 -0400
Subject: Shabbat Zmira

<<From: Jonathan Katz <jkatz@...>
<<In the Shabbat Z'mira "Yonah Matza Bo Manoah" the phrase continues with
<<"V'Sham Yanuchu Y'giay Koach" (loosely translated: and there will rest
<<those who lack strength). I just learned that this phrase comes from
<<Sefer Eiyov [Job] where it refers to death! Why was such a phrase
<<appropriated for a song to sing on Shabbos?

The Eitz Yosef (R. Chanoch Zundel b. Yosef who died in 1867) writes that
the phrase "yigiey koach" refers to those who are involved in Torah
study (yigeim b'Torah).

Shabat shalom
David I. Cohen


From: Andrew Klafter <KLAFTEAB@...>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 13:00:07 -0400 
Subject: RE: words per Talmud tractate

>Yisrael Dubitsky <yidubitsky@...> (v36n39) Does anyone know of a
>source, either in print or electronic format, that would help *easily*
>determine (i.e. count) the number of *words* (and, for that matter:
>letters, as well) per chapter or tractate in the Talmud(s)? I am not
>interested in spiritually-interesting gematria or such based on the
>number of occurrences of words or letters, but simply in the
>bibliographical information. (There are various sources that count the
>occurrences of words and letters in Tanakh but I have yet to see such
>in regards Talmud.)

You can easily determine the number of words if you have a talmud
database and a hebrew word processor which has a WORD COUNT function
(e.g. either Dagesh 2000, or Hebrew-English Microsoft Word could
function adequately in this capacity).

Keep in mind that that there are many variant texts of the Babylonian
Talmud and there would be differences in the number of letters per word
depending on each text you use.  I assume you are looking for info on
Talmud Bavli, and not Talmud Yerushalmi.



End of Volume 36 Issue 45