Volume 36 Number 71
                 Produced: Thu Jul 11  6:24:18 US/Eastern 2002

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Gabba'ut Suggestion
         [Shmuel Himelstein]
Melody for Chapter 3 of Eichah
         [Richard Schultz]
Modesty and the Ari's comments
         [Meir Shinnar]
         [Joel Rich]
Rav Nachman Bulman,zt"l
         [Yosef Branse]
Shabbos Tallis and Work on Shabbos or Yom Tov for voch
         [Arieh Kadosh]
Testing and Proof
         [Stan Tenen]
Two comments on ketoret
         [Saul Mashbaum]
Work on Shabbos or Yom Tov for voch
         [Gershon Dubin]
         [Keith Bierman]


From: Shmuel Himelstein <shmuelh@...>
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 05:11:52 +0200
Subject: Gabba'ut Suggestion

If your Shul has the Haftarah read from a Tanach (we use Koren), you may
be aware of the need to be able to find the Haftarah easily each
week. In my last stint as a Gabbai, I made a point of marking the start
of each Haftarah with a "[" and its end with a "]". Where Haftarot
overlap in Tanach, I used a different color to indicate where the
different ones start and end. Where a Haftarah covers more than one
passage, I indicated at the end of the first passage what page the next
passage begins, and, of course, marked the beginning and the end of the
second passage. Finally, as Koren has a page all the way at the end
indicating where the location of each Haftarah is in Tanach, I used that
list to write in the page numbers of each Haftarah. Thus, to get to any
specific Haftarah one starts on the back page, finds the page number of
the Haftarah, and then finds the start and end of each Haftarah on the
designated page.  This simplifies matters greatly.

Shmuel Himelstein


From: Richard Schultz <schultr@...>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 11:39:08 +0300
Subject: Melody for Chapter 3 of Eichah

When I learned these sorts of things, I was taught that the third
chapter of Eichah [Lamentations] has a distinct melody, as opposed to
the other four chapters, which are chanted according to the ta`amim.
The melody for chapter 3 is a single tune that is repeated for each set
of three verses; its only relation to the ta`amim is that the phrase
breaks in the melody are supposed to occur at words with disjunctive
ta`amim.  As far as I can remember, at every Bet Knesset in the
U.S. that I attended on Tisha B'Av, whoever read the third chapter of
Eichah used the special tune.  Here in Israel, no one seems to have
heard of it (at least in the places I've been), and the third chapter is
read with the same cantillation as the other four.

Does anyone know of the origins of this special tune, and whether my
experience is typical or a statistical fluke?  And if my experiences are
typical, does anyone know why there is this divergence in custom?

					Richard Schlultz


From: <Chidekel@...> (Meir Shinnar)
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 18:06:35 EDT
Subject: Re: Modesty and the Ari's comments

RG Dubin on the Rma in Even Haezer 21:5 
> the simple meaning of the Rema is that it is forbidden.  Granted, the
> Nimukei Yosef used the lashon etza tova, but why then did the Rema
> change it?

Let us look at the Rema:
after going through a whole list of of issues of mdoesty, such as having
another woman wash his face, or eat out of a common bowl, which would be
forbidden if it was his wife and she was a nidda, he brings the tosafot
"veyesh omrin dechol sheeyno oseh derech hiba rak kavanato leshem
shamayim mutar lachen nahagu lehakel bidevarim elu" - there are those who
say that anything that is not done in the way of affection but with good
intention is permitted, therefore it is customary to be lenient in these

After this, he brings down
"yesh omrin deeyn linhog afilu im ishto bidevarim shel chiba kegon leayen 
bereishe" if he has children before others (bringing down the Nimuke Yosef)
There are those who say that one should not behave even with his wife in 
matters of affection such as examining the head if he has children before 
Rather than being a plain issur, this has many qualifications:
1) It is a yesh omrin - not necessarily the psak
2) deeyn linhog one should not behave - is quite different than  assur linhog 
- it is forbidden to behave - it seems quite similar to the Nimuke Yosef's 
version of a good advice
3) Applies only if one has not yet fulfilled pru urvu (having children)

Lastly , if one looks at the Aruch Hashulchan (Even Haezer 21:7), his 
language is
"veyesh omrin deafilu im ishto eyn rauy lehitnaheg vedevarim shel chiba yetera 
bifne habriyot"
and they are those who say that even with his wife it is not appropriate to 
do things showing great affection

It seems that the good advice of the Nimuke Yosef became a (perhaps
slightly stricter, but still fundamentally an advice rather than clear
psak) of the rama, which is understood by the Aruch Hashulchan, in the
middle of a long siman describing the importance of modesty, as still
only a yesh omrin and as referring to great affection, (hiba yetera), is
now understood as being clear psak affecting behavior that most of us
would not characterize as hiba yetera - great affection, such as holding

In another thread on another email group, someone brought in a statement
of Rav Salanter, who was bemoaning mixed dancing between people who were
not married - he clearly had no problem with dancing between married
people.  Clearly, the notion of public display of affection is not quite
as clearcut.  

Meir Shinnar


From: <Joelirich@...> (Joel Rich)
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 05:00:52 EDT
Subject: Pinhas

The medrash tells us that Moshe "forgot"(nitalmah) the halacha of kanaim
pogin bo(zealots can kill him) and that pinchas "remembered"
(nizcar). Later in the medrash it refers to Moshe as having experienced
"rafu Yadav"(weakened hands/not forgot?) and that he was
"nitatzel"(lazy?) he was punished - this is why no one knows moshe's
burial spot.

If Moshe literally forgot the halacha (as it seems to me is the
universal understanding), why was he punished?

If he had remembered it, could he have carried it out given his personal
involvement (zimri questiones his ability to marry bat yitro). If he
couldn't carry it out(eg it would have been misconstrued as a formal act
of the Sanhedrin), would he have been permitted to reteach it at that

Why had everyone else also forgotten?

The medrash elsewhere mentions nitalma by moshe but always as a result
of his own actions(kaas[anger] or gaavah[pride] at some level). Here it
seems he forgot only so pinchas could get schaar[reward]?(In fact at
least one commentary questions why didn't moshe act when pinchas
reminded him of the halacha and answrs that Moshe assumed his
forgetfullness was Hashem's way of telling him that Pinchas should do
it. Given Moshe's ongoing communication with Hashem, is this a
reasonable answer?


Joel Rich


From: Yosef Branse <jody@...>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:02:53 +0300
Subject: Rav Nachman Bulman,zt"l

Shalom, Avi, 

Rav Nachman Bulman, zt"l, passed away this past Shabbes. A talmid of Rav 
Solovetchik zt"l, he was a beloved teacher and leader in America and, after
coming to Israel in 1975, attracted thousands of followers among olim from
English-speaking countries. I am forwarding a brief description of the funeral
from Yitzchak Dorfman, which I think will be of interest to many Mail-Jewish

May we hear only besuros tovos.


It is with deep regret that we announce the passing of our dear esteemed
RAV NACHMAN BULMAN, ZT"L, who passed away in his sleep on Shabbat
morning (the Shabbat of "Aileh Mas'ei Bnei Yisrael - These are the
Journeys of the Jewish People").

The funeral was held on Motzaei Shabbat after 1:00 am at Yeshivas Ohr
Somayach in Ma'alot Dafna, Yerushalayim. Hespedim (eulogies) were
delivered by HaRav Heisler of Sanhedria Murchevet, HaRav Daniel Belsky,
son-in-law of the Rav zt"l, and by Rav Bulman's eldest son, Rav Shmuel
Tzvi [Heshy] Bulman of Toronto. Despite the extremely short notice,
thousands attended the funeral.

Immediately after the eulogies, there was a processional to Har
HaMenuchot, where Rav Bulman was buried at approximately 2:30
am. Several hundred stayed on to pay their final respects, including
participation in the actual burial, of the esteemed Rav.

All five of his children (may they and their mother live and be well) were 
The entire family is sitting Shiva at Rebbetzin Bulman's home:
20/1 Rechov HaRav Zevin
Neve Yaakov, Yerushalayim

[If you are not familiar with Neve Yaakov, it may take a while to find
the apartment, so leave yourself some extra time].

Davening [services]: Shacharit 7:30 am
Mincha 7:30 pm
Maariv 8:20 pm

HaMakom Yenachem Eschem B'soch Sha'ar Aveilei Tzion V'Yerushalayim.  May
the Almighty comfort them amongst the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.

Besorot Tovot,
Yitzchak & Yehudis Dorfman 


From: Arieh Kadosh <shekel@...>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 12:02:02 -0700
Subject: Shabbos Tallis and Work on Shabbos or Yom Tov for voch

Carl Singer recently posted his comments on taking the Tallis home after
davening.  As an idea, that I sometimes suggest to other people (Consult
your L.O.R. for Psak!) to avoid the problem of folding altogether is to
leave the Tallis unfolded but gathered together until Motzaei Shabbos
either close to the seat or a Shul locker/shelf and then to fold it
nicely on Motzai Shabbos.  Indeed, the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch does
suggest that one of the first things a person should do to prepare for
the next Shabbos is to fold the Shabbos Tallis on Motzai Shabbos at
Havdala time.

What is maybe of greater concern and sometimes overlooked is the
tendency I've seen to remove plates and utensils, left over food on the
table after Seuda Shlishit/Shalosh Seudos (the 3rd Meal), just out of
habit when **it is** considered HaChana L'Ahar Shabbos (preparation for
after Shabbos).  Even placing one's coat upon arrival after Mincha in
the closet if one does not intend to return to Shul for Maariv can
probably be viewed as no less than HaChanna.  And what about getting up
from the table AND Tucking one's chair in -- Could that be considered
HaChanna?  Placing Seforim on the Shelf after learning right before
Maariv as opposed to leaving them closed and neatly placed on the table?

Kol Tuv,

Arieh Kadosh


From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 07:52:42 -0700
Subject: Testing and Proof

I'm surprised that no one has stated the obvious.

Testing is the means.

Proof is the desired end.

That's why "proofing" is a form of "testing".  But the two words are 
different.  One is the action, and the other is the result.



From: Saul Mashbaum <smash52@...>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 20:41:45 +0300
Subject: Two comments on ketoret

Yehonatan Chipman, Yerushalayim wrote

>  The halakha states that the issur against making the ketoret is only
> violated if it made, not only using the same proportions as the
> original, but also the same quantities -- i.e., an entire year's supply,
> 368 "maneh," at one time.

This is clearly incorrect. The Rambam states explicitly in the very
passage cited (Kelei Mikdash 2.9) that one who makes ketoret in the
proper proportions is liable, even if he made only half or one-third of
the yearly quantity.  The Mishne le-Melech there quotes Rashi in Kritut
6a, that one who makes even a much smaller quantity, as little as a
single maneh, is liable; he believes that the Rambam would agree.

In the well-known passage on making the Ktoret (Kritut 6a), the Gemara says
that Cyprian wine was used to soak the cloves of the Ktoret. The Gemara asks
why mei-raglayim (presumably urine) which could also serve this purpose, was
not used, and answers that this is unseemly. This is so obvious it scarcely
need be stated (what is the "hava amina"?)

I once heard an original interpretation of this puzzling passage (I
regret that I cannot recall the source of this explanation). The
mei-raglayim referred to as appropriate for use in the preparation of
ktoret is a normal, inoffensive fluid of that name. However, since
mei-raglayim can *also* mean urine, it is deemed unseemly to use any
fluid of that name in the Temple.

By the way, according to this interpretation, Phillip Birnbaum's use of
the term mei-raglayim (instead of urine) in his translation of this
passage is perfectly accurate..

Saul Mashbaum


From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 17:02:51 GMT
Subject: Work on Shabbos or Yom Tov for voch

From: <CARLSINGER@...> (Carl Singer)
>I've spoken with my Rav on this, so I know "MY" answer -- but I've
>heard interesting comments from various balabatim (and my sons) on this
>topic and thought I'd share this question. 

I won't address the central question here, as it depends on whether
there is such a thing as "preparing" where no melacha is involved and I
have no sefarim with me.  However:

> Some claim that one must continously wear the Tallis after davening
> until coming home (that includes at Kiddush or meal that takes place at
> davening.)

Why not take it off and, if carrying as preparation is indeed not
permitted, put it back on later?  This is what I always do in these
situations (there is no eruv).

> Also -- it matters whether this is your only Tallis or whether it's your
> Shabbos / Yom Tov Tallis so you're "preparing" so to speak for the
> subsequent Shabbos or Yom Tov -- not for voch.

Preparing for another Shabbos or Yom Tov is exactly the same as
preparing for a weekday.



From: Keith Bierman <Keith.Bierman@...>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 10:16:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Yeast

On the subject of yeast...many traditional sourdough starters
(essentially a colony of local airborne yeast) are bulit up over a
period of many days (the la brea bake book's is, if memory serves, 11
days). The starter tends to need to be "fed" each day, and otherwise
manipulated (water removed/added, etc.).

Clearly there are shabbat issues, does anyone know of a good pointer?

Keith H. Bierman    <keith.bierman@...>| 650-352-4432 voice+fax
Sun Microsystems Laboratories            | sun internal 68207
901 San Antonio Road  UMPK 15-224        |  (no @eng please)
Palo Alto, California  94303	         | <kbierman@...>


End of Volume 36 Issue 71