Volume 37 Number 13
                 Produced: Thu Sep 19  5:55:36 US/Eastern 2002

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

50 Year Kaddish Limit
         [Yisrael and Batya Medad]
Articles on Sukkot
         [David and Toby Curwin]
Asking a non-Jew to ask another non-Jew
         [Shimon Lebowitz]
Beyond Melitz Yosher
         [Freda B Birnbaum]
Halachik Date Line
         [Bernard Raab]
HaYom: Art Scroll versus Birnbaum
         [Sam Saal]
Men vs women (Boro park)
         [Zev Sero]
Munach L'garmei
         [Silberman, Alfred]
"seating for men only" sign
         [Lawrence Feldman]
Women and Tefillen
         [Shimon Lebowitz]


From: Yisrael and Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:29:17 +0200
Subject: 50 Year Kaddish Limit

On the Second Night of Rosh Hashana, after Rav Elchanan Bin-Nun had
given his talk to us Ramat Shmuel neighborhood people in Shiloh, he
informed me that he could not find any source supporting his
recollection of a 50 year limit on Kaddish and that therefore, he was
mistaken.  I told him that I would so inform the List immediately after
the Chag.

Yisrael medad


From: David and Toby Curwin <tobyndave@...>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:55:37 +0300
Subject: Articles on Sukkot

Hello -

I'm looking for two articles relating to Sukkot. If you have access to
either of them, please let me know.

> 1) Rav Veitman, Maayan, Tishrei 5750
> 2) Shai Cohen, "Al Simcha B'Chagim", B'Sdei Chemed, 5734, 361-366


David Curwin
Efrat, Israel


From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:46:58 +0200
Subject: Re: Asking a non-Jew to ask another non-Jew

> Number 3, according to your Rav and you, I am not allowed to go to shul
> on Shabos. I live in a city where pedestrians have the right-of-way, so
> by my entering into the street in order to cross it I am causing the
> goyim driving cars to do `melachos`.

Where I live, pedestrians have (at least de jure) right of way in
crosswalks, but on Shabbat, I stand away from the curb until I see that
I can safely cross without causing a car to slow or stop for me. (The
drivers here are Jewish, but I see no reason why the writer could not
act this way, rather than say he is not allowed to go to shul).

Ketiva veChatima Tova,
Shimon Lebowitz                           mailto:<shimonl@...>
Jerusalem, Israel            PGP: http://shimonl.findhere.org/PGP/


From: Freda B Birnbaum <fbb6@...>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 00:37:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Beyond Melitz Yosher

(I've posted this to another list, but I'd like to get M-J-ers'
viewpoints as well.  I know there's some overlap in list membership, but
the lists are different enough that I think it's worthwhile.)

Is there any foundation in Judaism for the following idea?  A friend
reported to me that the 8 or 9 year old child of a friend came home from
school stating (I suppose with only the assurance that children that age
have when telling their parents what's what):

"The baby that was attacked by the bear, r"l, died because Hashem took
all of our aveiras and put them on the baby so the baby died but we
don't have aveiras any more."

[This is referring to the incident a few weeks ago where a baby in a
Hasidic bungalow colony was killed by a bear; the mother managed to get
the other two children inside.]

I commented that that sounded pretty Christian to me, I wonder where
this stuff comes from, and she said:

"This kid must have been taught this stuff by someone -- I don't know
how these adults' minds operate.  I'm frankly appalled by the "laying
aveiras on babies" explanation."

I think I actually have heard ideas to that effect occasionally, but I
don't think they are normative.  Am I mistaken?  (I hope so...)  "Melitz
yosher" I can deal with, but this?

I suppose you could make out a case that Christianity is an attempt to
answer Jewish questions... a Jew says to God, "You think it's so great
being human, why don't you try it?" And God shrugs and says, "I did, and
look what happened!"  (You heard this one here first.. 'tis mine own...)

Freda Birnbaum, <fbb6@...>
"Call on God, but row away from the rocks"


From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 14:32:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Halachik Date Line

Yehonatan and Randy Chipman wrote:
     > As a result of the above Kuzari, there is a mahloket between the
>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.
>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

Rabbi Marvin Tokayer, a scholar of Jewish history in the far east, relates 
the following history:

When the Mir Yeshiva group arrived in Japan in 1941 they sent two letters to 
the yishuv in Eretz Yisroel, one to the Chazon Ish, and one to the then 
Chief Rabbi Isaac Halevi Herzog, asking for guidance on this matter (without 
telling each of the request to the other). The Chazon Ish quickly responded 
with the opinion noted above by Rabbi Chipman, while Rabbi Herzog called a 
meeting of the local Chief Rabbis to consult with them. They answered that 
if there is a local Jewish community, then they have to adopt their 
calender. When the Chazon Ish was invited to this meeting, he indicated that 
had he known that the question was also directed to the Chief Rabbi he would 
not have responded, but having already done so he would not retract his 
p'sak. Since those Jews who were already in Japan were observing Shabbat on 
Saturday, this left tham with an obvious conflict. In the end, while all 
observed Shabbat on Saturday, some refrained from m'locho d'oraisa 
(biblically-prohibited work) on Sunday as well.

(end of R. Tokayer's input)

There is no question that today the Jews of Japan, Australia, etc, observe 
Shabbat on Saturday, so that Rabbi Herzog's p'sak has ultimately been 
universally accepted, which means that, in practise, the international 
dateline is the halachic dateline.

Kol Tuv--Bernie Raab


From: Sam Saal <ssaal@...>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 06:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: HaYom: Art Scroll versus Birnbaum

As I've menitoned before in this forum, there's a lot to like in Art
Scroll's Rosh Hashanah machzor. My favorite song from Rosh Hashanah (and
Yom Kippur) is HaYom at the end of Musaf.

Does anyone know why Art Scroll has a different order than Birnbaum for
the lines in this song and why Art Scroll skips one of the lines?

Sam Saal         <ssaal@...>
Vayiphtach HaShem et Pea haAtone


From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@...>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:05:40 -0400 
Subject: Re: Men vs women (Boro park)

Chaim Shapiro <Dagoobster@...> wrote:
> a poster on the shul wall warning everyone to avoid using the eruv. 
> The poster made it clear that the use of the eruv was Asur (forbidden)
> without any question.  A small note of the poster said that the eruv
> is even prohibited for women.
> I was quite shocked as I do believe Hilchos Eruvin (the laws of Eruv)
> apply equally to men as well as women.  Maybe I am misguided, but I
> found that poster quite condescending.

It is fairly common to find that women are more lenient than men on
eruvin, and rely on eruvin that their husbands prefer not to rely on.
This applies, of course, when an eruv is basically sound, according to
the generally accepted opinions on which eruv-makers rely, but it falls
short of some opinions, depending on how machmir one wants to be.  There
are some communities (such as Lubavitch and many Sefardim) who follow
some very strict opinions on the matter, and nearly all modern eruvin
fall short of their standards; but even those who will use a well-made
eruv might feel that their particular eruv is deficient in some way, and
they will prefer not to use it.  One factor in such a decision is, of
course, how inconvenient it is to avoid carrying, and it will often be
the case that a wife will feel the need for the eruv more intensely than
her husband, and therefore she will strike the balance between chumra
and convenience at a lower level.

What this poster may have been trying to say is that it is the policy of
the shul that the eruv is so deficient that refraining from using it is
not a matter of chumra, on which individuals can choose different
standards, but of basic halacha, so that it is unacceptable for anyone
to choose to carry.

I once lived in a city where an eruv was established, and on the first
shabbat after it was constructed, the Rabbi of one shul got up and
announced that it was his ruling that the eruv was invalid, that anyone
who carried in it was breaking shabbat, and that any man who was known
to carry in it would be denied aliyot at his shul.  Some years later,
the eruv underwent a major redesign; after that, the same Rabbi
announced that while he was still unhappy with it, and strongly
recommended that people should not rely on it, anyone who chose to do so
was within their halachic rights, should not be regarded as a
shabbat-breaker, and was once again eligible for aliyot.  Perhaps the
poster you saw was echoing a sentiment similar to this Rabbi's first

Zev Sero


From: Silberman, Alfred <alfred.silberman@...>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 08:07:08 -0400
Subject: Munach L'garmei

Dov Bloom's posting in MJ Vol 37 # 06 requires clarification because the
issue he is addressing is not explained.

In brief, the issue deals with the vertical stroke which appears after
some words in manuscripts and printed editions of Tenakh. This sign is
called a Paseq (or Pesiq). This sign, when appearing after a Munach, is
also used to indicate the Disjunctive accent [Mafsiq] called
Legarmeh. When this sign appears after a Munach there is a seeming
ambiguity in whether it represents a Paseq or a Legarmeh. However, we
now have a rule that this ambiguous sign (Munach followed by a vertical
stroke) always represents a Legarmeh whenever it appears before a Revia
(with one solitary exception). See Mishpetei HaTeamim by Rabbi
W. Heidenheim Shaar Aleph, Pereq Beth and Israel Yeivin's Introduction
to the Tiberian Masorah section 280.

Indeed, we have a Masorah for all the occurrences of a Paseq in
Tenakh. This Mesorah exists in the Miqraot Gedolah list under the letter
Peh. It also is given in C.D. Ginsburg's list under the letter Teth #
200 through # 223.  Ginzburg also has a list of all Legarmehs under the
letter Teth # 143 through # 176.

There is, therefore, no real ambiguity for us as to which is a Paseq and
which is a Legarmeh.

In most cases there is a conjunctive accent Munach between the Legarmeh
and the Revia. Rabbi Breuer in his Taamei HaMiqra Pereq Teth on the
topic of Paseq section 11 (page 137 in my 1989 edition) discusses those
cases where there is no conjunctive accent between the Legarmeh and the
Revia. There is no need here to go into his analysis, but there is no
doubt whatsoever as to whether the cases listed are a Paseq or a
Legarmeh. That is known from the Masorah.

Dov Bloom counted 14 such cases in Rabbi Breuer's list. However, this
list is missing 3 instances [Bereishis 19:9, VaYiqra 13:3 and Bamidbar
32:1]. It also lists Bereishis 45:5 which does have a Munach between the
Legarmeh and the Revia (although on the same word) and does not strictly
fall into this category (although I understand why it's there). Thus, 14
is an erroneous number for such cases.

In any case, there is no question whatsoever that "Shneihem Melaim" has
a Legarmeh accent and not a Paseq.


From: Lawrence Feldman <lpf1836@...>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: re: "seating for men only" sign

> if the women aren't permitted to sit in the Pizza shop, then they
> would presumably buy the food and leave, without creating the social
> event (talking, laughing, etc) that usually occurs at a meal.

What exactly is wrong with a meal that's accompanied by talking and
laughing? Should we refrain from hachnasat orchim, fearing that if a
meal is served, it might "degenerate" into a "social event?!"

Lawrence Feldman
Ramat Modi'im, Israel


From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:47:01 +0200
Subject: Re: Women and Tefillen

However, I remember seeing in Tshuvot haRashb"a (the number 123 or 124
pops to mind, but I do not own the work to check this) that Michal bat
Shaul wore tefillin. He quotes this in a responsum regarding women
pronouncing blessings when performing "men's" mitzvot (which, IIRC, he
says they should, as per the common Ashkenazi custom today).

Ketiva veChatima Tova,
Shimon Lebowitz                           mailto:<shimonl@...>
Jerusalem, Israel            PGP: http://shimonl.findhere.org/PGP/


End of Volume 37 Issue 13