Volume 37 Number 31
Produced: Tue Oct 8 23:27:13 US/Eastern 2002
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
19th century political ideas in the Torah
[David Farkas]
Art Scroll
[Batya Medad]
Bat Kohen (3)
[Ben Katz, Gershon Dubin, Chaim Tatel]
Canvas Sukkahs (4)
[Chaim Mateh, David Waxman, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz, Eitan
Fiorino]
looking for reference to animals/qualities learned
[Francine S. Glazer]
Men vs. Women Carrying in Eiruv
[Chaim Mateh]
The proper place of mxica in Jewish theology
[Shmuel Ross]
Talis in Bathroom
[Steve White]
Tallis at lunch
[Carl Singer]
Travel on (or close to) Shabbat & Yom Tov (2)
[Batya Medad, Elazar M Teitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Farkas <DavidF@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:16:22 -0400
Subject: 19th century political ideas in the Torah
In response to Samuel Groner's recent query (37:29) about 19th century
political ideas in Torah commentaries:
Read the Netziv on the tower of Babel generation. He basically says that
they wanted to become Communists.
Dave "the Rave" Farkas
Cleveland
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 07:23:44 +0200
Subject: Art Scroll
Maybe it's just me, but did anyone else in attempt to doven from the Art
Scroll Succot/Simchat Torah Machzor this Simchat Torah? It's a heavy
volume, not quite the unabridged Webster, but close. I was so excited
when my husband brought it for me from his late parents' apartment last
winter. It's so massive, I was sure it would have everything for easy
dovening. Well, it does tell you when to bow, sit, stand and open the
ark, but it doesn't seem to have clear instructions for Simchat Torah on
Shabbat, which apparently only happens in Israel. I was totally
confused.
Batya
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 08:12:42 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Bat Kohen
>From: Eric W Mack <ewm44118@...>
>Are there any restrictions on a bat kohen entering a Jewish cemetery?
NO.
(Very few questions elicit one word responses, esp. from me. :-) )
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@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 17:05:59 GMT
Subject: Bat Kohen
No. The prohibition refers to "benei Aharon" which the Gemara explains
excludes "benos Aharon".
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Tatel <chaimyt@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Bat Kohen
As a kohen, I can tell you that there is no problem with this. We
recently went to a burial in Seattle (Lo Aleinu). I stood outside with
about 10 other kohanim. Our wives and daughters went inside.
Chaim Tatel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Mateh <chaim-m@...>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 13:07:01 +0200
Subject: Canvas Sukkahs
In v37 #29, Anonymous wrote:
<<A local Rav paskened before Yom Tov that Canvas Succahs are not kosher.
Something about walls flapping, etc. .... Does anyone have related
information - halachik background, other such rulings.>>
The above ruling is that of the Mishna Brura, who holds that if the wall
flaps it's posul. The Chazon Ish OTOH holds that if the wall is
connected and secured on top and bottom (and I would guess on the sides
too), then even if they flap, they are kosher.
I verified the above with my Rav and he said that if I want
chapter/verse, he'll get them for me (you).
Kol Tuv,
Chaim
http://personal.zahav.net.il/personalsite/ch/chaim-m/chatam.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Waxman <yitz99@...>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 16:41:33 +0200
Subject: Canvas Sukkahs
Off the top of my head...
The walls need to be strong enough to resist the wind. (The allowance
is to move no more than a tefach in either direction?) Canvas walls are
not generally strong enough to meet this criteria.
On the other hand, a halachic wall need only be 10 tefachim (96 cm
l'chumrat ha Chazon Ish) high. Furthermore, we can use the concept of
'lavud' to fill in this space. Lavud means that two solid objects that
are less than 3 tephachim (24 cm l'chumrat ha Ra'ach) are considered to
be one solid object. Thus, what you'll see in most canvas sukkot are
four bars or tight straps spaced close enough for lavud to form a
halachic wall within the canvas, as pictured below. Thus the canvas
serves the purpose of privacy rather than a halachic wall.
There may also be a requirement to have vertical as well as horizontal
straps. This is know as 'sheti v'erev'. I heard a rav mention this
once, but I don't have the source for it. Anyone else?
================== (straps or bars - top strap one meter high)
==================
<24 cm gap
==================
==================
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~ (ground)
See Shulcan Aruch 630/9
Source for tephach measures: The Practical Talmud Dictionary, R' Frank, p. 298.
David I. Waxman
Phone: 972-2-651-7814
Cell: 972-55-277-814
Email: <yitz99@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <Sabba.Hillel@...>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 11:29:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Canvas Sukkahs
The definition of a "wall" is something that will stand up to a normal
wind. THe problem with SOME canval walleds is that they will move in
the wind more than the amount allowed to what is considered a wall. On
the other hand, many canvas soccas do have the walls sufficiently taut
to be kosher. One way of handling this is to put tatut fishing ling
around the circumferance of the succa so that it is an halachic "wall".
That is strings less than 3 tefachim appart, and at least 10 tefachim
high.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
<sabbahem@...>, Sabba.Hillel@verizon.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eitan Fiorino <tony.fiorino@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:10:49 -0400
Subject: Canvas Sukkahs
The issue has to do with how far the walls of a succah can move to still
be considered valid walls - if they move extensively then they are not
walls (the precise measure I'm sure will be provided by someone with
sefarim immediately at his/her disposal - a tefach maybe).
Of course, this is not a problem if (1) one has canvas that hasn't been
exposed to the elements for 20 years and thus fits tightly over the
succah frame with very little give; or (2) one binds the canvas to the
supporting bars of the frame to restrict the movement of the walls. We
purchased a canvas succah a couple of years ago that has numerous velcro
bindings that create very solid and "unflappable" succah walls.
-Eitan
Tony Fiorino, M.D., Ph.D.
Equity Research Analyst - Biotechnology
Citigroup Asset Management, 100 First Stamford Place, Stamford, CT 06902
Phone: (203) 961-6238, Fax: (203) 602-6045
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Francine S. Glazer <fglazer@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 06:54:54 -0400
Subject: looking for reference to animals/qualities learned
I am looking for a reference in the texts to what we learn from each animal.
Stems from a discussion I had recently re: the spider was put here to hide
Dovid haMelech, the wasp to wake him, etc. Isn't there a more extensive
list somewhere in Talmud?
Please reply to me personally at <fglazer@...>
Thanks!
Fran Glazer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Mateh <chaim-m@...>
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 00:00:55 +0200
Subject: Men vs. Women Carrying in Eiruv
In v37 #27, Nachum Klafter <KLAFTEAB@...> wrote:
<<[quoting me] "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.>>
I think the difference between us is in the assumptions we make. My
assumption is that the husband, after marriage and long before there are
kids in carriages to push, decides to take on the chumra of eiruv (i.e.,
not to carry), but is considerate enough not to insist that his wife
takes on the chumra too. IOW, the intent was leshem shomayim, with the
result (years later) being that some things the wife must do rather than
the husband. And even then I am convinced that the wife does not look
at it in the negative light that you do, but rather understands her
husband's desire to do the chumra leshem shomayim.
From your comments, it may appear that you are looking only at the
result (the wife doing what the husband cannot, due to the chumra), and
attaching negative intentions (or lack of consideration) backwards to
the time of taking on the chumra.
<<Why should a family adopt a policy which allows husbands to be more
machmir than wives.>>
According to this, the family in question would have only 2 choices:
that the entire family either takes on the chumra or does not. What if
the family agrees not to take on the chumra but the understanding wife
"allows" her husband to take on the chumra only on himself? Why is this
so negative in your eyes?
<<This would seem to raise questions of lifnei iver, and tartei d'sasrei.>>
WADR, I think that's stretching it a bit.
Kol Tuv,
Chaim
http://personal.zahav.net.il/personalsite/ch/chaim-m/chatam.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Ross <shmuel@...>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 16:41:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: The proper place of mxica in Jewish theology
To confine myself to but one statement from this post that "[no one] on
this mailing list will disagree with..."
Jay F Shachter <jay@...>
> We do not believe that any Sanhedrin will ever abolish Deuteronomy 21:11
> through 21:14, no matter how much public morality may improve, because
> we believe that Deuteronomy 21:11 through 21:14 are necessitated by
> human nature itself. We believe that any world in which male soldiers
> do not occasionally mate with female prisoners of war would be a world
> in which human nature is different from what it is, and sufficiently
> different so as to be incompatible with the Divine plan.
This doesn't even come close to following from the premises given.
That the Torah provides a method for dealing with sexual impluses that
soldiers might have found otherwise uncontrollable at some points in
history in no way implies that the perpetual existence of said impulses
is a neccessary part of the Divine plan.
Shmuel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <StevenJ81@...> (Steve White)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 06:25:36 EDT
Subject: Re: Talis in Bathroom
From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...> in MJ 37:29:
> What is the "strength" ("tokef"?) of the prohibition on taking a
> *bracha*, which probably doesn't even have the Name spelled out, into a
> bathroom?
That's an excellent question. A bathroom is still a place where bodily
functions occur during which it is inappropriate to daven, etc. But
bathrooms with modern sanitary facilities -- especially ones at home
that are well maintained -- do not have nearly the intrinsic problem of
the outdoor facilities unquestionably used when these halachot l'ma'ase
were established.
Steven White
Highland Park, NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <CARLSINGER@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 08:39:55 EDT
Subject: Tallis at lunch
What is the basis of the practice of wearing a tallis while eating
Shabbos lunch anyway?
I believe it's wearing the tallis at Kiddish after davening so as not to
have a hefsik (break) in wearing it from davening so one can then
continue later and wear it home. Some would say that if you took off
your tallis after davening (say for kiddish or perhaps an in-shlue
luncheon) then to put it back on again to wear it home would be
questionable.
Kol Tuv
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 07:31:07 +0200
Subject: Re: Travel on (or close to) Shabbat & Yom Tov
We made aliya on a boat. The last day of the trip was Shabbat. We
could have docked around noon if it had been any other day, but we had
to wait until motzei Shabbat.
About the train on Shabbat. What about marat eyin, or carrying around
muksah? Who comes home from work with only a ticket, pre-punched won't
be accepted on the train? Pre-arrange for a goy to carry everything and
shlepp home? Doesn't sound right.
Batya
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 20:39:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Travel on (or close to) Shabbat & Yom Tov
> So as long as the ticket is pre-paid (so business transactions
> won't be performed) and you're seated (so you don't cause the train to
> be delayed) and the conductor has already punched your ticket (so you
> don't cause him to do work on shabbat), then I don't see how simply
> sitting on the train will cause any melacha to be performed. The
> arguments against using vehicles like bicycles and cars don't apply
> because you're not in any way in control of the train's operation and
> you would not in any way be involved with the repairs if it should
> break down.
One factor not taken into account: if the train was outside of
t'chum Shabbos (the limit to which one is permitted to walk) of his
destination when Shabbos began, the person is restricted from going more
than 4 amos (6 to 8 feet) from the station in which he detrains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 37 Issue 31