Volume 37 Number 36
                 Produced: Sun Oct 13 13:48:41 US/Eastern 2002

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Artscroll Siddur for Israel
         [Shmuel Himelstein]
Cabbage on Hoshana Rabbah
         [Fay Berger]
Chagim and Work
         [Alex Heppenheimer]
Eshet Kohen
         [Rose Landowne]
Halachik Date Line
         [Zev Sero]
         [Shmuel Himelstein]
looking for reference to animals/qualities learned
         [Nosson Slifkin]
Men vs. Women Carrying in Eiruv
         [Allen Gerstl]
The proper place of mxica in Jewish theology
         [David I. Cohen]
Tallis and Kos Shel Bracha
         [Akiva Wolff]
Travel on (or close to) Shabbat & Yom Tov/Marat Eiyen
         [Rachel Swirsky]


From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:57:37 +0200
Subject: Artscroll Siddur for Israel

A few years ago, I spoke to one of the principals of Artscroll about an
Israeli version of their Siddurim and Machzorim. He told that they had
investigated the possibility, but had found that the price they would
have to charge would make it impossible for them to compete in the
Israeli market with the local Siddurim.

Incidentally, Feldheim recently produced a Siddur which takes the
Israeli Nusach into account throughout. It sells for about NIS 30 in
Israel, or $6.

Shmuel Himelstein


From: <JuniperViv@...> (Fay Berger)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 21:23:46 EDT
Subject: Re: Cabbage on Hoshana Rabbah

Want to add that "Kol Mevaser " was interpreted in Yiddish as "koil mit
vasser"cabbage and water.

Fay Berger


From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Chagim and Work

In MJ 37:25, Rachel Swirsky <swirskyr@...> asked:

> [Given the list of chagim for which her husband would be using 
> vacation days,] What is the greatest number of days that he would 
> ever be required to take off?  (I know this sounds like a bad grade-
> school math problem, but his manager as curious.)

In attempting to answer this, I'm going to assume that he gets a
certain number of vacation days per calendar year, rather than per year
of employment. The list of chagim you give fits within a single secular
calendar year, which conveniently simplifies the calculation.

Furthermore, in order to keep things simple, I'm ignoring the
possibility of a chag coinciding with a secular holiday (such as
Memorial Day or Labor Day).

Given these simplifications, here's a table of possibilities:

[Total number of Holidays = 15.5 days (assumes Hashana Rabbah is 1/2
day). Last column is days NOT needed from vacation. Mod.]

1st day  | Next     | Days   |
Pesach   | happens  | off    |
falls on | in       | needed | Chagim occurring on weekends
Sunday   |2005, 2008| 11-1/2 | 1st Pesach, 7th-8th Pesach, Tishah b'Av
Tuesday  |2004, 2007| 13-1/2 | Purim, Yom Kippur
Thursday |2003, 2006|  8-1/2 | 2nd Shavuos, 1st-2nd Rosh Hashanah,
                             |   1st-2nd Sukkos, Shemini Atzeres,
                             |   Simchas Torah
Shabbos  |2012, 2015| 10     | 1st-2nd Pesach, 8th Pesach, 1st Shavuos,
                             |   Tishah b'Av, Hoshana Rabbah

A suggestion: See if your husband's boss will allow him to "borrow"
spare vacation days from one year (like '03) to use the following year.

Kol tuv,


From: <ROSELANDOW@...> (Rose Landowne)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 21:42:24 EDT
Subject: Re: Eshet Kohen

> From: Aryeh A. Frimer <frimea@...>
> What's the status of a pregnant Eshet Kohen at a beit kevarot,
> especially now where the gender of the Fetus can be ascertained?

The minhag is for pregnant women not to go anyway.  

Rose Landowne


From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@...>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 16:21:24 -0400 
Subject: Re: Halachik Date Line

Dani Wassner <dani@...> wrote:

> Essentially there are two main opinions observed today. [the Chazon
> Ish and R Tukachinsky] 

Actually, as I understand it, at the Jerusalem conference in 1942(?)
where the issue was officially had out, and where the psak was issued
that the Jews in Japan should keep Yom Kippur like China rather than
America, the participants were most influenced by the opinion of R David
Shapiro, in ShuT Bnai Tzion Vol 1 (Jerusalem 5690).  According to this
opinion, the dateline starts at about 175E at the equator, and curves to
the east as it approaches the poles.  The genius of this view, at least
as R Shapiro presented it to the conference, was that it corresponds
almost exactly to the international dateline, thus providing a halachic
justification for current practise in every existing community.  It even
threads itself neatly through the Bering Strait, putting all of Siberia
on the Asian side and all of Alaska on the American side.  As I
understand it, the conference decided that since on one side of the Bnai
Tzion's line, he and the Chazon Ish made up a majority against R
Tukachinsky, and on the other side he and R Tukachinsky made up a
majority against the Chazon Ish, they would accept his line as the
official halachic one.

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that, because according to
the Bnai Tzion the dateline isn't a line but a wide zone covering the
entire area between 170E and the curving line.  According to him this
zone has a halachic status of unresolvable safek, just like bein

His opinion is based on a midrash that the sun was set in the sky at
9am, Israel Local Time.  He argues that at that moment it must have been
Wednesday all over the planet, because the Torah calls it Yom Revi'i.
At that moment, at 170E it was sunset, and at a curving line 4.5+
degrees east of that it was Tzet Hakochavim; east of that curving line
it was night, and that must have been Tuesday night rather than
Wednesday night, or the Torah could not have called it Yom Revi'i.  So
the dateline must follow that curving line, being the eastern edge of
the Twilight Zone, when the sun is over the equator, at 80E of Greenwich
(he brings another midrash indicating that that is the location of the
physical Gan Eden; at present that spot is under water).

Zev Sero


From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:52:43 +0200
Subject: Husband/Wife

In regard to the discussion on husband/wife Eiruv, a story I recently
came across in my work on my third volume of anecdotes might be somewhat

R' Boruch Ber Leibowitz came to the U.S. to collect money for his
Yeshiva. In his travels he came to the home of a former Talmid. When he
entered the Talmid's home, the Talmid, out of respect for R' Boruch Ber,
turned off the phonograph to which his wife had been listening.

R' Boruch Ber pulled the young man aside and went out with him to the
porch. He told the young man: "Your wife was listening to the
phonograph, and you summarily turned it off without receiving her
permission. You owe her an apology."

Shmuel Himelstein


From: Nosson Slifkin <zoorabbi@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 13:40:38 +0200
Subject: RE: looking for reference to animals/qualities learned

In response to the request about references to what we learn from each
animal - Perek Shirah is a text that dates back to at least the time of
the Talmud and lists the lessons to be learned from animals, plants and
other elements of the natural world. It's printed at the beginning of
certain siddurim such as Siddur Otzar HaTefillos and Siddur Tefillas Kol
Peh. I wrote a book that explains Perek Shirah, called Nature's Song;
it's available at www.targum.com/store/Slifkin.html or at your local
Jewish bookstore.

Best wishes,
Nosson Slifkin
Zoo Torah  - www.zootorah.com


From: Allen Gerstl <acgerstl@...>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 20:34:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Men vs. Women Carrying in Eiruv

Here's why, in my opinion, such behaviour while well-intentioned may
lead to negative results.

I think that the so-called chumradic (strict) approach of the "husband"
is a good example of a particular approach to Halacha that has during
the last thirty or so years become more common in some circles. It is
characterised by the phrase "u-baal nefesh yachmir" (someone who worries
about his soul should be stringent). This presupposes that there might
perhaps be only one really right answer to a Halachic problem when
viewed from G-d's perspective and that notwithstanding that the proper
technical pesak (decision) is to be lenient that, at least in some cases
one advisedly might be more stringent.

Whether the Halacha as viewed from HaKadosh Baruch Hu's (the Holy One
Blessed Be He's) perspective admits to only one answer as to each issue,
or whether -within a limited range- there are a number of valid answers,
is not possible for us humans to ascertain.  This is a topic within the
discussion of the theorectical nature of halachic controversy. It is
speculative and the subject of debate with various opinions given
including by the Gaonim, by the Rambam and by the Ramban and his
students. But all of this is a topic within the subject of the
theoretical Philosophy of Halacha.

As to the actual Practice of Halacha, that is another matter.  There are
practical rules of decision making within Jewish Law that do not depend
upon a particular philosophical orientation (although Poskim are human
and philosophical orientation may influence them). Such practical rules
as to the procedure of Pesak Halacha are paramount to philosophical
speculation and also paramount to (praiseworthy) pietism based upon such
philosophical speculation.

So the husband who is a Baal Nefesh does not wish to use the Eruv. He is
choshesh (concerned) as to the meuta (minority) of opinions regarding
the validity of eruvim in metropolitan areas. He is concerned that in
absolute terms theirs might be the correct opinions.

But its not easy to be a Baal Nefesh in the real world. There are
competing obligations that must be reconciled.  Chumrot are therefore
frequently no answer. They may lead to corollary Halachic problems and
also to Yuhara (conceited bahaviour -being seen publicly as not
accepting the eruv), a lack of kavod chachamim (honour due to scholars,
i.e. the talmidei chachamim who paskened to allow and who supervise the
eruv), and a lack of kavod ha-beriot (respect due to other persons,
i.e. his wife and children). So chumrot require much thought and
circumspection.  We shouldn't lose track of our goal of avodat Ha-Shem
(service of G-d) and following his commandments - all of them.



From: David I. Cohen <bdcohen@...>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 15:52:43 -0400
Subject: The proper place of mxica in Jewish theology

Zev Sero wrote:
>> I wonder whether a Beit Din would today recognize and enforce someone's
> ownership of a slave
Of course they would (after taking into account the effect of secular
law on what is partly a property issue).>>

My whole theoretical construct was the operation of a Beit Din without
regard to dina d'malchuta (secular laws). Although, I do not know, I was
speculating that I believe a Beit Din nowadays would not enforce
ownership of a human slave.

I refer you to the latest issue of the Edah Journal (www.edah.org) which
has an interesting article on whether there exists a morality over and
above the requirements of halacha, or does the halacha define Jewish

Shabbat shalom
David I. Cohen


From: Akiva Wolff <wolff@...>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:14:49 +0200
Subject: Re: Tallis and Kos Shel Bracha

>       What is the basis of the practice of wearing a tallis while eating
>       Shabbos lunch anyway?

I believe a reason may be the Gemorah in Brachos 51a which says that a
person holding a kos shel bracha should be wrapped in a tallis (see
Rashi). It may be that people became accustomed to leaving their
tallesim on after davening to make Kiddush Rabbah wrapped in a tallis,
and some left the tallis on for the entire seudah (Shabbos lunch).


From: Rachel Swirsky <swirskyr@...>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:22:58 -0400
Subject: Travel on (or close to) Shabbat & Yom Tov/Marat Eiyen

	Funny thing about `marat eyin` and hilchos Shabos - `marat eyin` is
	never (i know, i know - never say never) brought up as a reason one is
	not allowed to do something which would appear to violate Shabos but
	does not.

My husband learned from Rabbi Jacobi here in Toronto that there are most
certainly things that are not allowed on Shabbat because of Marat Eiyen.
One very common example is that one may not leave clothes in the washing
machine or dryer over Shabbat because someone might see it and think it
was done on Shabbat.  This is a fairly strict level of Marat Eiyen as it
is in ones own home and is (presumably) cut off over Shabbat (even the
washing machine itself is generally closed and not likely to be opened
over Shabbat... it is very likely that there is no way that anyone could
know whether or not there was something in there.) An example of where
this level is okay is on the last day of Succot/Pessach in chutz
l'aretz... and Israeli does not need to keep the day as Yom Tov, but he
or she can only do things in private.

Rachel Swirsky


End of Volume 37 Issue 36