Volume 37 Number 17
                 Produced: Tue Sep 24 22:53:00 US/Eastern 2002

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Another revelation about Suguhara
Art Scroll versus Birnbaum
         [Ira L. Jacobson]
Beyond Melitz Yosher (3)
         [Yisrael and Batya Medad, Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, Binyomin
Havdalah and orange juice
         [I Kasdan]
HaYom: Art Scroll versus Birnbaum
         [Shmuel Ross]
Kavod Chachamim was Eiruv for women too
         [Allen Gerstl]
Michal wearing Tfillin
Moses Mendelssohn
         [Shlomo Pick]
Rambam being supported
Tallis in bathroom
         [Goldfinger, Andy]
Torah as Historical Record
         [ben katz]


From: chihal <chihal@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:52:43 -0500
Subject: Another revelation about Suguhara

Shalom, All:

	Since there is interest in Japanese Righteous Gentiles Chihune
and Yukiko Sugihara, please let me add one more revelation. It's a
powerful quote from the Sugihara web site maintained by the Jewish
Virtual Library of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise:

	"[Chihune] Sugihara continued issuing documents from his train
window until the moment the train departed Kovno for Berlin on September
1, 1940. And as the train pulled out of the station, Sugihara gave the
consul visa stamp to a refugee who was able use it to save even more

	Yes, he gave the Japanese consular visa stamp to a Jewish
refugee. Amazing.

Charles Chi (Yeshaya) Halevi


From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:46:11 +0300
Subject: Re: Art Scroll versus Birnbaum

Sam Saal <ssaal@...> informed us that his

>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?

What I do know is as follows.  The song in full actually has 25 verses,
as printed in R' Daniel Goldschmidt's scholarly Yom Kippur mahzor and in
the Koren one based thereon.  So I suppose you might ask why Artscroll
skips 17 or 18 verses.

Mahzor Hashalem says that seven verses are customarily recited because
of the seven words in v'atem hadeveiqim . . .

Does anyone know why the song is omitted entirely from the Adler Yom 
Kippur mahzor?



From: Yisrael and Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:41:44 +0200
Subject: Re: Beyond Melitz Yosher

      "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."

It's related to that un-Jewish and unrealistic philosophy people teach
their kids and try to believe themselves, that "if you do everything
you're supposed to (keep all the mitzvot) nothing bad will ever happen to
you."  This is dangerous stuff that causes people to lose their faith in
G-d and human authority figures, etc.  Too bad these people can't admit
that life's dangerous, in addition to wonderful; we don't have full
control over what will happen; men, bears, accidents and terrorists kill,
and sometimes G-d does a miracle and we're saved.

Chag Sameach,


From: Nachman Yaakov Ziskind <awacs@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:40:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Beyond Melitz Yosher

| From: Freda B Birnbaum <fbb6@...>
| 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."

Don't Rashi (and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch) put forth the idea that children
(at least young ones) die for the sin of their parents?

I realize that this idea is unpalatable, but the alternative idea - that
G-d randomly punishes infants for no good reason - sounds worse.

Im Yirtze Hashem we shouldn't know from any more tragedies like
this. Moshiach will arrive (now!) and wipe the tears of death from our

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: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:20:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Beyond Melitz Yosher

> "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."

Without commenting on whether this is a possible theory, it is certainly
true that it can not be stated as fact. We no longer have prophets who
know specifically why Hashem chose to do a specific action. We may know
that some of the reasons this type of thing happens is x, y, and z. But
we can not know for certain why an individual act occured.

Although I hope this does not become an annual event,
my new email address is:


From: I Kasdan <Ikasdan@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 05:26:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Havdalah and orange juice

May orange juice be used for Havdalah?


From: Shmuel Ross <shmuel@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:20:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: HaYom: Art Scroll versus Birnbaum

Sam Saal <ssaal@...> writes...

> 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?

   Actually, as both ArtScroll and Birnbaum point out, *both* skip
lines-- the original piyut [liturgical poem] was a lot longer, at least
22 lines.  Most of the piyut isn't said anymore; what remains is the bit
still used.  (This isn't at all unusual; the same applies to quite a few
of the Rosh HaShana / Yom Kippur piyuttim.)  It seems entirely plausible
that there was/is some variation among congregations as to whether the
line in question was retained or dropped, which may account for the

   (As it happens, the only other Orthodox machzor I have onhand to
compare with -- an all-Hebrew Lubavitch one -- is in accord with
ArtScroll on this.)

   As for the ordering, I note that ArtScroll claims that the first four
lines are alphabetical, and that "In some machzorim, this series
continues through the entire alphabet, but the remaining verses are not
recited."  To me, this implies that the three lines thereafter were
*not* part of the alphabetical series, but followed it.  Birnbaum
appears not to have found the original piyut, referring to it as "the
remainder of a complete alphabetical acrostic which must have consisted
of at least twenty-two lines."  This is complete conjecture, but I find
myself wondering whether he -- or, more likely, at least one of his
sources -- reordered the lines to bring them into alphabetical order.



From: Allen Gerstl <acgerstl@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:41:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Kavod Chachamim was Eiruv for women too

In vol 37 #08, Chaim Shapiro wrote:
<<<There was 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

I don't know anything about the "eruv" to which reference is made above,
but this never-the-less hit a nerve. I was concerned as to whether the
disputed "eruv" was instituted by a talmid chacham and if so whether it
was proper to post a PUBLIC statement that it was "assur" to carry.



From: <chaim-m@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 17:42:34 +0300
Subject: Re: Michal wearing Tfillin

In Vol 37 #12, Zev Sero wrote:

<<However, that Michal bat Shaul wore tefilin seems indisputable.>>

What's the source for this?

Kol Tuv,


From: Shlomo Pick <picksh@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:41:53 +0200
Subject: re: Moses Mendelssohn


The attitude toward Moses Mendelssohn (some have it with one "s") seems
to be dependent upon which part of Europe you come from. Germany and
westwards usually had a positive attitude towards him.  Just read Samson
Raphael Hirsh's 19 letters, where he criticizes Moses Maimonides and
sings the praises toward Moses Mendelssohn.  Furthermore, Hirsch quotes
Wessely (Naphtali Herz Weisel) in his commentary to the Bible - Wessely
collaborated with Mendelssohn in the Biur and wrote the Biur to
Leviticus.  It became the standard text for demonstrating the connection
between the Written and Oral law, and was followed by R. Zvi
Mecklenburg's ktav ve-kabbalah (who quoted the biur as well as the
german translation by Mendelssohn - criticizing it and also praising it
at times).  Dovid Zvi Hoffman quotes its at length in all his
commentaries, as did the late Nechama Leibowitz.  It was standard fare
in the Frankfurt-am-Mein community until Hirsh's son-in-law became the
rabbi.  that introduced the eastern european attitude, especially the
Hungarian one, which banned the biur and the German translation.

so there you have it: all those who are scandalized by its being quoted,
have some type of eastern european - Hungarian bias.   those who employ
it, have been under or have come under the influence of western europeans
who employed it. I remember studying Bible with Dr. Reuger at Y.U. He was
the son the Dayan of Brisk, but in his class, he would open all the
commentaries on his desk, and among them was the Biur.  It would appear
that R. Zvi Mecklenburg's ktav ve-kabbalah, S.R. Hirsch, R. D. Z. Hoffman
are enough to state that there are authorities upon whom you can rely
(yesh al me lismoch).

Chag sameiach
shlomo pick


From: <chaim-m@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 17:38:21 +0300
Subject: Re: Rambam being supported

In vol 37 #12, Meir Shinnar wrote:

<<WRT to Maimonides and being supported, note that according to his
Hilchot Talmud Torah, what is acceptable is that a talmid chacham give
money or merchandise to a merchant, and that the merchant trades on his
behalf without taking a fee - >>

Also please note that the Rambam in Hilchos Yovloss held that those who
were willing and able to give of themselves totally to talmud Torah
could and should do so, and that they would be supported.

<<and this seems to be what the brother of the rambam was doing, who was
using the family wealth to trade on behalf of the family.>>

OTOH, it may seem that the Rambam's brother was supporting him
completely, with his (the brother's) own money, as the Rambam held in
Hilchoss Yovlos.

<<The Rambam was consistently throughout his life vigorously opposed to
scholars being supported.>>

Only those scholars who did not or could not be like Shevet Levi, who
were to be completely immersed in Torah.  Just like the Rambam wrote.
He was indeed consistent.

Kol Tuv,


From: Goldfinger, Andy <Andy.Goldfinger@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:26:39 -0400
Subject: Tallis in bathroom

In V37 N08 Nachum (Andrew) Klafter says:
> ... it is somewhat inaccurate to call a tallis a "holy garment."
> It's true that nowadays we only use tallesim for prayer, but the whole
> concept of a tallis is that it is an ordinary garment of clothing which
> happens to have four corners.  ... It can be brought into the bathroom
> and even worn while relieving oneself, and there is no prohibition in
> doing this.  It is not like tefillin or a sefer Torah.

Although a Tallis may originally have been merely a garment, nowadays it
is worn only for dovening (prayer).  My understanding of the halacha is
that anything that is specifically intended for dovening is not to be
brought into a bathroom.  Thus, chassidim remove their gartlach (black
belts used for dovening) before entering a bathroom even though there is
nothing "holy" about a belt.

-- Andy Goldfinger


From: ben katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:22:06 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Torah as Historical Record

>From: <rubin20@...>
>I just would like to point out that this 'minority of Rishonim' is
>entirely based on recently discovered/published manuscripts, and Rav
>Moshe Fienstein was of the opinion that this was a insertion by other

        To put it as politely as I can, Rav Moshe was not an expert on
medieval manuscripts or forgeries, as oppossed to Rabbi Yitzchak Lange (an
Orthodox Jew) who was and published the manuscript of Rav Yehudah HaChasid.
See my discussion of this issue in Jewish Bible Quarterly 1997;25(1):23-30
and a lecture given by SZ Lieman on this topic available from the Sephardi
Institute on tape.  Most of Rav Moshe's refutations can be easily parried,
and it is clear he didn't read the whole manuscript.  Essentially he argued
that because RYH couldn't possibly have said what he did that he didn't.
Rav Moshe also declared a rabbinic text dealing with Ezra and diacritical
points a forgery, apparantly without realizing that it had several parallels
-- see the discussion in David Weiss HaLivni's Peshat and Derash, p. 218.

Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
Ph. 773-880-4187, Fax 773-880-8226, Voicemail and Pager: 3034
e-mail: <bkatz@...>


End of Volume 37 Issue 17