Volume 37 Number 01
                 Produced: Mon Sep  2 21:59:06 US/Eastern 2002

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

bowing in RH Musaf Amidah's Olainu
         [Michael Poppers]
Bride and Groom kissing at a wedding (3)
         [Elazar M Teitz, Eliezer Finkelman, Daniel M Wells]
Contact on Conversion Courts
         [Seth & Sheri Kadish]
Geosynchronous Orbits and Shabbat
         [Yehonatan and Randy Chipman]
Lomdishe Halacha Shiur to resume after Sukkos; Special  Yomim
         [Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer]
Women (2)
         [Yisrael and Batya Medad, Carl Singer]


From: <MPoppers@...> (Michael Poppers)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 19:10:18 -0400
Subject: Re: bowing in RH Musaf Amidah's Olainu

In M-J V36#95, Shalom Ozarowski wrote:
> ...whether to bow at va'anachnu kor'im in the aleinu for r"h musaf.
The case against might be simply that it's in the middle of shmoneh
esrei. <

AFAIK, nothing wrong with bowing (as RSMandel noted, we're not talking
about actual prostration, rather merely the type of bowing we do four
times in the Amidah) in the middle of the Amidah, so long as one is
upright for HaShaim.  Personally, I bow my head during the daily
Amidah's "S'lach na" b'rocho (coming back to vertical before the end of
the b'rocho), and I do bow during the RH Musaf's "Olainu" at the same
point that I bow the rest of the year.

All the best from

 Michael Poppers via RIM pager


From: Elazar M Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 08:59:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Bride and Groom kissing at a wedding

Dr. Russell Jay Hendel, reacting to the incident at which The Netziv left
a wedding when the couple publicly kissed, commented

> I do disagree with the method of protest of the Netziv. There is a
> well known principle that you do NOT protest violations of Rabbinic
> law at the time they are being done on the grounds that >it is better
> that those who violate it sin in error rather than willfully<.
> There were many alternative approaches of protest. The Netziv could
> have written an essay, published a responsum, given a series of
> Derashoth on modesty or weddings and their customs.
> Therefore in summary, my simple 2-fold question is a) Why was it
> necessary for the Netziv to protest immediately at the wedding and b)
> Isnt my question valid halachically as well as socially?

        The rule that in Rabbinical prohibitions we say "better that
they violate it knowingly rather than willfully" is not said about
protest.  It is said with respect to the obligation of Hocheiach
tochiach, of pointing out the error to those who committed it; if there
is reason to believe that such chastising will be ineffective, then
better to be silent, so that the sin is an unintentional one rather than
intentional.  It does _not_ mean that it should not be protested at all.
Furthermore, when the violation is done publicly, there is the concern
for "since the Rabbis are silent, we can conclude that they approve,"
which could lead others to emulate that practice.  Certainly then there
is an obligation to protest, since even if the violators would not
listen, the onlookers might.

        In this specific instance, however, there was a violation of
neither a Torah nor a Rabbinic prohibition.  It was a breach of
appropriate Torah behavior.  The Netziv obviously felt that it would be
improper for him to stand by and, by his silence, seem to be a party to
such behavior, so he chose to absent himself.

From: Eliezer Finkelman <louis.finkelman@...>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 13:10:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Bride and Groom kissing at a wedding

Re: Russel Jay Hendel's entry about a story of the Netziv walking out on
a wedding after the Bride and Groom kissing in public.

I have wondered, for years, about a parallel problem.  The Talmud
occasionally derives proofs of the permissibility of actions which
occurred in the presence of rabbis, when the rabbis did not immediately
protest in public.  But in real life, and in the theory of halakhah, one
often does not issue a public protest when one judges that the protest
will not be effective, or when one fears that the protest will result in
embarrassing people.  Why, then, does the Talmud sometimes ascribe the
silence of the rabbis to agreement?  I do not know.

This question may imply an answer to Russel Jay Hendel's question: If
the silence of the rabbis can mean agreement, then sometimes a rabbi
must protest (even against the usual requirements of halakhah), in order
not to be cited as having supported something with which he disagreed.


From: Daniel M Wells <wells@...>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 16:20:01 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Bride and Groom kissing at a wedding

a) If it was a one time action that is unlikely to be repeated, I would
presume you have a point. Presumably the Netziv wanted to bring a clear
message to all participants that this is not acceptable behavior.
Obviously most of those who do not see kissing in public as a problem,
will not be the types to read an essay/responsum or listen to Derashot.

BTW were is the source for 'There is a well known principle that you do
NOT protest violations of Rabbinic law at the time they are being done
on the grounds that it is better that those who violate it sin in error
rather than willfully.'?

b) For all those who hold that negiah is ossur mideraita I do not think
that your question is valid halachically. And why involve 'socially'?

But perhaps what is more important is not to say 'But I do disagree with
the method of protest of the Netziv' since this in my tiny mind is
Bezayon Talmidei HaChamim. Acceptable would be 'I do not understand the
method of protest of the Netziv.



From: Seth & Sheri Kadish <skadish@...>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 20:59:56 +0200
Subject: Contact on Conversion Courts

Over the past year my wife and I have become heavily involved in the
special mitzvah of being an "adoptive family" for potential gerim
(converts), and finally bringing them before the beit din (here in
Israel).  We have seen things relating to both procedure and halakhah
that we found quite surprising, to say the least.

In order to gain some perspective on what we've seen in Israel, I am
very interested in making some personal contacts with people who are
involved in the same process in North America.  This would hopefully
include one or more people who have served as dayyanim, preferably with
the RCA, as well as some gerim who have been through the process

If you would be willing to discuss the process, please contact me

Seth (Avi) Kadish
Karmiel, Israel


From: Yehonatan and Randy Chipman <yonarand@...>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 23:30:45 +0200
Subject: Re: Geosynchronous Orbits and Shabbat

In v36n94, there is a discussion as to whether or not, as Daniel M Wells
has it:

> One of the basic principles of the Jewish Calendar is that the Jewish
> day is 24 hours and that Israel celebrates the Sabbath BEFORE all the
> rest of the world (except for a few places to the east of Israel up to
> the Dateline).

     (First, a short geography lesson: Those "few places" include no
less than 10 time zones, although admittedly ones which today have far
fewer Jews than the areas West of Eretz Yisrael -- buit it still
includes Australia (see below), not to mention Babylonia, which for over
a millennium was of course the major Torah center, Persia, etc.)

      The source for this idea is Rabbi Yehudah Halevi's Sefer
ha-Kuzari, II.20, where he says that the day starts in China, six hours
east of Eretz Yisrael -- i.e, at the eastern end of the Eurasian land
mass.  Zafroni's edition (Schocken, 5731), p. 82, cites Sanhedrin 37a,
Yoma 56b, and Rashi to Ezek 5:5 as the source for the statement that
"Eretz Yisrael is the center of the inhabited world."

     As a result of the above Kuzari, there is a mahloket between the
Hazon Ish and most other poskim as to whether, for halakhic purposes,
the date changes in mid-Pacific, at the accepted "International Date
Line" (most [poskim), or immediately to the east of mainland China
(Hazon Ish).  As a result, there is a difference of one day as to when
one observes Shabbat, etc., in Japan, Taiwan, and I suppose also in
Australia, New Zealand, Indonesisa & Phillipines, etc.  During World War
II, a whole group of Mir yeshiva bochurim were saved from the Holocaust
by escaping all the way across Russia & crossing over to Japan. (This
was thanks to visas issued them by the Japanese ambasssdor to Lithuania,
a true righteous Gentile, whose name I unfortunately don't remember.
More generally, the Japanese, though allies of Ger,any, in no way shared
in the Nazi's anti-Semtism, but were "ordinary" expansionists, and
treated the Mitrrers well.)  In Japan, they encountere the problem as to
which day to observe Shabbat, some of them being mahmir and observing
two days.  Fortunately, most of them crossed back over to mainland China
before the end of summer (1941?), where the famous yeshiva was set up in
Shanghai, and were spared the problem of a possible safek regarding Yom
Kippur.  To the best of my knowledge, today there is consensus among
poskim that we follow the accepted local date; the large religious
community in Australia has definite traditions and accepted practice on
this point, and the Hazon Ish's opinion has essentially gone by the

Yehonatan Chipman


From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:10:20 -0400
Subject: Lomdishe Halacha Shiur to resume after Sukkos; Special  Yomim

Since we finished our exploration of the topic of Zmanei ha'Yom last week, 
I am loathe to begin our next topic of Halachos of Womens' Attire this 
week to stop for the Yomim Noroim and Yomim Tovim and only begin again 
after Sukkos. Since it is also the Labor Day Weekend and the night aftter 
late Selichos, we will not have a shiur this Sunday evening, Sep. 1, but 
will resume IY"H with the new topic on Sun. Oct. 6. Please tell anyone you 
know who generally comes to the shiur but does not necessarily receive 
these e-mails.

I would, however, like to have one evening (at least) a shiur in Reb 
Tzadok ha'Kohen on the Yomim Noroim, perhaps, if there is interest, 
Thursday evening Sep. 5 at 9:00 p.m. at KBA. Please let me know if you 
would come, so I can either confirm or abandon the idea.

I would like to ask any of you who have e-mail addresses of individuals in 
the greater Monsey area - that extends down to Passaic, at least :-) - you 
could provide me to please do so, as I would like to expand awareness of 
the weekly shiur.

Furthermore, my daf yomi chaburah and I are looking for a shul that may be 
interested in having a morning Daf Yomi. We are looking to expand our 
group, currently of myself and two other individuals, and Sanhedrin begins 
on 7 Tishrei (Sep. 13). Please contact me if you have any ideas.

Thank you very much,

Kol Tuv, Kesivah va'Chasimah Tovah,

<ygb@...>      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


From: Yisrael and Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 00:07:16 +0200
Subject: Re: Women

>> I went into a baguette store in Me'ah She'arim today....I noticed a sign
>> conspicuously posted above the two little tables: "Seating for men
>> only."... and I left it.

>> My question: where is there any place in Yiddishkeit (at least the
>> Yiddishkeit I grew up in) for such blatant discrimination against Jewish
>> women? Whatever happened to "B'Tzelem Elokim bara OTAM" (and not only
>> the males of the species or the faith)?

>Whilst in "the Yiddishkeit you [and many others] grew up in" - there may
>not have been a total separation of the sexes, everyone knows that in
>certain groups of Klall Yisroel - especially those who live in Meah
>Shearim and surrounds - this is strongly endorsed. There is absolutely
>no kavono in belittling females and they obviously observe the posuk
>"kol kevudoh bas melech kpenimo"

You want/justify separation, fine.  But let women sit down.  There's
nothing in halacha saying that women should be forced to stand while men
can sit.  It reminds me of a Jerusalem bus ride when I was pregnant with
my youngest (today a bli eyin haraa Israeli soldier).  The bus was
crowded, and I waddled to the back, still on my feet while young, suited
and seated men with Jewish holy books on their laps were socializing. 
Suddenly a much older woman stood, insisting I take her seat.  I refused,
and we argued; I insisted that those youngsters should get up, not her. 
She needed a seat no less than I. 


From: <CARLSINGER@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 19:59:26 EDT
Subject: Women

Several different issues are blending together in the various postings 
stemming from the "incident" in Meah-Sharim:

One deals with several halachik and communal issues with women / men
together perhaps alluding to issues of sneius -- propriety and perhaps
dealing with the frum-meter of the store / clientele and thus,
apparently, business survival -- Would people boycott the store if a man
without a yarmulke sat down and ate there?  What of a woman who covered
her hair but wore short(er) sleeves.

A second deals with for lack of a better description, participation of
women in various religious acts.  As Rabbi Wasserman points out there
are many precedents for several such acts that we normally consider in
the male domain.

A third deals with equality of men and women.  I remember hearing a
congregational Rabbi who was officiating at his son's wedding and how he
emphasized this son's growing up "in your Mother's house."  To me it
emphasized a partnership with separate, important roles in the Jewish
homes and community.  It is when we get into those domains that were
traditionally male only (or for that matter female only) that the
balance is still not yet defined.  And one wouldn't have to look too far
to see blatent bias, inequality, discrimination, unequal pay, etc.

Kol Tuv

Carl Singer   


End of Volume 37 Issue 1