Volume 37 Number 27
                 Produced: Thu Oct  3 21:26:01 US/Eastern 2002

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Buttons on Kittels
         [Naomi Graetz]
Havdalah and orange juice
         [Wendy Baker]
         [Chaim Mateh]
Men vs. Women Carrying in Eiruv Chatzerot
         [Nachum Klafter]
         [Shlomo Pick]
Nature of Authorship
         [Shalom Carmy]
The proper place of mxica in Jewish theology (3)
         [Aharon Fischman, Harlan Braude, David I. Cohen]
Question about the end of Yom Kippur (2)
         [Harlan Braude, Emmanuel Ifrah]
Tallis in bathroom
         [David and Toby Curwin]


From: Naomi Graetz <graetz@...>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:59:16 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Buttons on Kittels

My son writes the following:

Since I am a big guy but still need Shabbat White dress shirts, I go
sometimes to a Chassidish shop in Jerusalem (Kiriyat Tz'anz) where they
have shirts and pants ("Normal" looking) and not only Kapputas and
Kittels, which are white dress shirts (big sizes as well) just like one
would buy in Macys, but the only difference that they have the buttons
in the Chassidsh way, and not the western way, and no, they are not
tailor made or made in Kiryat Tz'anz , rather they say: "Made in China".

The people in the store explained to me that they are made in china by a
special order of the Chassidsh community around the world, so you could
probably get them in Bnei Brak or Brooklyn as well.

P.s. The price is good, and they also have big sizes Kittels, undershirts,

Naomi Graetz


From: Wendy Baker <wbaker@...>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:08:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Havdalah and orange juice

> From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
> > May orange juice be used for Havdalah?
> There is a difference between the orange juice concentrate that one
> mixes with water (we used to call this "orange squash") and natural
> orange juice. I learnt that orange squash is completely forbidden,
> whereas natural orange juice could be OK depending on the circumstances.

Frozen orange juice concentrate is just that, natural orange juice with
some of the wter removed.  When you add back the water it once again is
plain orange juice.  Orange squast or orangeade oare drinds made from
orange juice or orange flavor with water and sugar added, This is not
orange juice, If just removeing the water for ocnvenience adn then
replacing it later halachically changes the nature of the orange juice
for Havdahlah purposes, I do not know, but it is still orange juice, not
orange squash

What do you regard the orange juice in cartons in the dairy section of
the supermarket?  It usually is reconstituted juice, having been
concentrated at some point in its history.  It may or may not be
halachically acceptable, but shuld not be an adulterated product.

Wendy Baker


From: Chaim Mateh <chaim-m@...>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 21:26:53 +0200
Subject: Mechitza

In v37 #22, Jay F Shachter <jay@...> wrote: 
<<The separation of the sexes is a Rabbinic measure >>

Rav Moshe Feinstein holds that not only is separate seating in Shul a
Biblical (de'orayso) requirement,  but the Mechitza in Shul is also a
Biblical requirement.

Kol Tuv,


From: Nachum Klafter <KLAFTEAB@...>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:43:51 -0400
Subject: Men vs. Women Carrying in Eiruv Chatzerot

>      Yes, Hilchoss Eiruvin apply to women just like they do to men.
>      However, there are families (that I know personally) wherein the
>      Eiruv is Hallachically OK, but the men of the family are machmir
>      on themselves and don't use it.

Another way to conceptualize this phenomenon is to ask the following:
Why do some men think it is admirable to take on stringencies for
sabbath observance which leave their wives and children to be burdened
with more menial tasks, and expect their wives and children NOT to
observe the chumrot.  Why should a family adopt a policy which allows
husbands to be more machmir than wives.  This would seem to raise
questions of lifnei iver, and tartei d'sasrei.  Further more, the verse
states "...ata u'binch, u'bitecha...."  Therefore, the laws of Shabbas
apply equally to the entire household.

There is a well known story told about Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, z'l.
On shabbos, he noticed that one of the young men in his yeshiva who had
just gotten married was standing by, watching his father set up chairs
and tables for a sheva brachos meal.  Rabbi Auerbach said, "Why don't
you help your father with the chairs and the tables?"  The young man
replied, "My father is more meikel (lenien) than I am in this halacha
(apparently someting about setting up folding tables and chairs, or
moving things in an eiruv chatzerot, or the like).  Rabbi Auerbach was
horrified at this and spoke about it publicly in the yeshiva as being
"perverted logic."  Should this not apply to husbands and wives?

-nachum klafter


From: Shlomo Pick <picksh@...>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:56:26 +0200
Subject: Re: Mendelssohn

 Michael Kahn wrote on Thu, 12 Sep 2002 concerning Mendelssohn
>To defend my pinning the haskalah on Mendelsohn I can only quote an
>email from a respected professor of Jewish history in the college I
>attend (incidentally as a history major) "A case can be made that
>Mendelssohn was the founder of the Haskalah movement, though many will
>argue that he was its inspiration but not its founder in a direct sense.
>(There was, of course, no formal "founding" of this movement.)  He was
>not the founder of the Reform movement, though some of the trends that
>he represented played a role in the process leading to that movement."

>I didn't ask the professor permission to quote him so I have omitted his

I recommend Mr. Kahn and his professor read Azriel Shohat's book "Im
Hilufei Tekufot" which makes the case that the Haskalah was already in
swing before Mendelssohn appeared on the scene.  Jewish society through
the first half of the 18th century had changed, was more open, and was
studying non-Torah subjects such as music and french. a cursory reading
of the drashot of R. Yehonatan Eybeshutz demonstrates this.  Just note
the quote by the mishnah berura in his beur halakha, orach chayim, 339,
s.v. lehakel.

shlomo pick


From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@...>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:19:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Nature of Authorship

> I think it is actually an interesting question whether the Torah is in
> God's writing style "throughout." (To avoid confusion, I would like to
> state explicitly that I am NOT asking whether the author of the entire
> Chumash was God.) Certain parts of the Torah appear to be quotations.
> So it is reasonable to say that, for example, things said by Avimelech
> or Paroh are not in God's "writing style", but rather in the style of
> the people who said them.  The fact that God in His infinite wisdom  put
> them in the Torah must mean that they have the same eternal significance
> and status as the rest of the Torah.  However, the words chosen and
> their order would have been chosen by the human speaker.  This issue
> becomes most interesting in sefer Devarim, most of the content of which
> is Moshe Rabbenu speaking. 
> There are of course other ways to look at the issue (the quotations are
> God's paraphrase of what the people said, everything the person said was
> "dictated" by God, etc.).  But it is a question that obviously needs to
> be asked and I believe it potentially has profound implications for how
> we understand and relate to sefer Devarim at the minimum. 

It occurs to me that one might benefit if there were a better
understanding of what is meant by authorship in general. For example, X
is the author of a letter in one sense only if he chose the words
himself; on another analysis, even if a secretary wrote and he signed
the letter after reviewing it; on a third reading, even if the secretary
wrote the letter under his authorization, and he didn't review it.

These are issues in philosophy of language and can be discussed without
(and perhaps prior to) entering the more difficult realm of theology.

The best treatment is Divine Discourse, by the Protestant philosopher
Nicholas Wolterstorff.


From: Aharon Fischman <afischman@...>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:33:53 -0400
Subject: Re: The proper place of mxica in Jewish theology

Jay F Schachter Wrote:

>> I am not apologetic or
>> ashamed of the fact that our holy Torah and halacha separate the sexes.
> .....
>What we fail to admit, what we fail in many cases even to realize, is
>that our holy Torah does not separate the sexes, not even in the Beyt

I understood the quoted sentence differently.  I presumed that
separation meant that Halacha treats the sexes differently.  Separate
laws for men, separate laws for Women.


From: Harlan Braude <h.braude@...>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 06:08:48 -0400
Subject: RE: The proper place of mxica in Jewish theology

In mail-jewish Vol. 37 #22 Digest, Jay F Shachter wrote:
> Now, nothing that I have said so far is, I believe, controversial in any
> way, and I do not expect that anyone on this mailing list will disagree
> with any of it.
Hi Jay!

IMHO, Few things worth discussing aren't controversial, at least to some
degree. :-)

> that our holy Torah does not separate the sexes, not even in the Beyt
> HaMiqdash.

See Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim, Vol 1, Siman 39, where Rav Moshe refers to
the construction of the edifice for women in the "Beyt HaMiqdash" on
Succos to show that the separation is mandated by the Torah, not a
Rabbinic decree.

By the way, why "Micva" and not "Mitzvah" or something along those
lines?  Just curious.


From: David I. Cohen <bdcohen@...>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:29:20 -0400
Subject: The proper place of mxica in Jewish theology

Jay Shachter assumes that everyone would agree with most of what he
wrote.  There is much that I, however, disagree with.

In general, his entire concept of contrasting the gezeirot and takanot
that are of rabbinic origin with certain Toarh commandments and then
coming to the conclusion that the former will be reversed when there's a
change in human nature, but that the latter will be eternally applicable
does not hold up.

There are many Toraitic commandments that halachic literature tells us
will never again be applicable. Most famously, the Rambam (although his
opinion is far from unanimously accepted) holds that animal sacrafices
will not be instituted in the 3rd Beit Hamikdash. Other examples include
the Toraitic prohibition of putting the Torah Sheb'al Pe (Oral Torah)
down in written form, and , yet Chazal completely did away with that
prohibition under the rubric of "saving Torah" (Eis La'asos). Similarly,
I wonder whether a Beit Din would today recognize and enforce someone's
ownership of a slave (Jewish or non-Jewish), or adjudicate a case of Ben
Sorer Umoreh (recalcitrant child) and try to impose capital punishment
in such a case.

I believe that it is clear that not all halchot of Torah (as opposed to
Rabbinic) origin were meant to be eternal in application.

And to end with one nit to pick, although Hillel did institute the
takana of Pruzbul, the basis that allows it to work, that shmitta dose
not cancel public debts was not an innovation that Hillel somehow made
up, but was part of our Mesora from Sinai, as shown by the derasha
explicated in the geamara. making up your own derasha (not based on our
Mesora) is kefira.

David I. Cohen


From: Harlan Braude <hbraude@...>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 08:30:00 -0400
Subject: Question about the end of Yom Kippur

In mail-jewish Vol. 37 #24 Digest, Neil Normand writes:
> Kippur. If we have just been granted forgiveness at the end of Yom
> Kippur at the end of Neilah, then why 5 minutes later when we are
> davening ma'ariv do we say in the shemona esreh, S'lach Lanu Avinu Ke
> Chatanu, forgive us because we have sinned.

There's an old joke (perhaps not as amusing as it should be as it often
strikes so close to home) that forgiveness is needed for one's thoughts
about the cantor's singing and/or the sermon(s).

But it's a great mussar to consider that one could/does stumble in even
the shortest period of time. For example, can one truly say that one has
said the t'filos with the proper kavana that one is capable of having?

Not achieving one's potential is also a failing.

I was surprised when I learned the mishna in Succos, pg 38A about a
curse said regarding someone who, through ignorance, must rely on
someone else to recite the Hallel for him. (by the way, did you know you
can view the text of the Talmud on-line? Here's the page containing
reference I just mentioned:

My gut reaction was that, nebech, he doesn't know how to daven so he's
doing the best he can under the circumstances, so why the curse?

Clearly, if one could do better, but doesn't (this fellow has the
responsibility to learn and not remain in a state of ignorance), then
one is held accountable for one's failure.

Hence, one could say that there's much for which to ask forgiveness,
even (especially?) at the moment the gates of repentance have closed.

Interesting question.

From: Emmanuel Ifrah <eifrah@...>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:03:19 +0200
Subject: Re: Question about the end of Yom Kippur

In mail-Jewish Vol. 37 #24, Neil Normand asked why we were including the
"selach lanu" bracha in the 'Arvit service following Neila as we have
just been spending the day davening and fasting and have received
atonement from Hashem.

I read a nice (chassidische) answer to this question in S. Y. Agnon's
anthology, "Yamim Nora'im." I think its author is R. Levi Yitzchak, but
I'd have to verify it.

He says that we have to ask for heavenly forgiveness for the following
reason. Had we not sinned during the year, we would not have performed
bitul tora during Yom Kippur, a day that we had to dedicate entirely to
davening and fasting!

Hence, we ask Hashem to forgive us for needing such a day.

Emmanuel Ifrah


From: David and Toby Curwin <tobyndave@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:02:30 +0300
Subject: Re: Tallis in bathroom

I have been in a number of shuls (and yeshivot) where to wash the hands
of the kohanim both the levi'im and kohanim went into bathrooms, and
didn't remove their tallitot.  Perhaps simply entering a bathroom
doesn't require removal of the talit, whereas using of the toilet would
obviously require one to do so, and then it's already better to take it
off before entering the bathroom at all.

David Curwin
Efrat, Israel


End of Volume 37 Issue 27