Volume 37 Number 55
                 Produced: Sun Oct 27  9:45:09 US/Eastern 2002

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Bo'ee v'Shalom (3)
         [Steve White, Robert Israel, Avi Feldblum]
Go prove you didn't say it!
         [Chaim Mateh]
Legal Fiction
         [Akiva Miller]
Pregnant Eshet Kohen at a Beit Kevarot
         [Judith Weil]
Sacrifices (2)
         [Harlan Braude, David Waxman]
Techum (2)
         [Rachel Smith, Gershon Dubin]
         [Carl Singer]
Whiskey aged in empty wine casks
         [Bernard Raab]


From: <StevenJ81@...> (Steve White)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 10:07:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Bo'ee v'Shalom

>From David Wolf in MJ 37:48:

> Did you ever wonder, too, why people turn around for
> Bo'ee v'Sholom in L'cho Dodi when there's no door in the back of the
> shul?  After all, Shabbos really comes from the east in this country,
> not from the west to which people turn if the Aron is on the east wall
> of the shul.  Makes no sense, but it all started for some 
> good reason, I
> suppose.  DW 

When I was in Tzefat a while back, I was told that the Mekubalim of
Tzefat faced west because "Ge'ulah [redemption] comes from the west."
Note that in Tzefat, that is not the _back_ of the synagogue, because
synagogues face south there.

Steven White
Highland Park, NJ

From: Robert Israel <israel@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 10:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Bo'ee v'Shalom

Shabbat "comes from the east" in every country: unless you're right on
the international date line (wherever that is halachically), places to
the east of you start Shabbat before you do.  But if you turn to the
west as Shabbat is beginning (and have a clear view of the horizon) you
see the sun setting; there is no definite sign of the arrival of Shabbat
if you look to the east, except that it's getting gradually darker.

The subject was discussed before: see volume 13 #1 and volume 19 # 52
and #61.

Robert Israel                                <israel@...>
Department of Mathematics        http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2

From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 07:46:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Bo'ee v'Shalom

Remember that all of Kabbalat Shabbat was an introduction of the
kabbalist community in Tzefat. The turning at the end of L'cho Dodi is a
turn to the West. It is not relevant whether there is a door there or
whether it is in the back or side of the shul (I would be interested to
understand how it is done where the shul faces west). The choice of West
is part of the kabbalistic nature of what is being done.

Avi Feldblum


From: Chaim Mateh <chaim-m@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:30:09 +0200
Subject: Go prove you didn't say it!

In v37 #48, Leona Kroll <leona_kroll@...> wrote:

<<Did Rav Shach ever actually state that it was permissible to attack Jews
who are not Shomer Shabbos?  Did he once say that frum Jews must fight
against those who do not follow Torah- and if so, what was the context and
what did he really mean by 'fight'?  
I ask b/c some of his followers seem to think he advocated beating
non-Shomer Shabbos Jews and/or throwing things at them , and i have a hard
time believing a man so steeped in Torah would say such things.>>

You have answered your own question.  Since it is hard for you (and me
and many many others) to believe that a Torah great would say/mean such
things, then the burden of proof lies with those who claim that he said
such things.  Have they proven that he did?  From your words, it seems

I have lived in Eretz Yisroel for the past 26 years and I have never
heard Rav Shach or any of his followers say such things.

BTW, it's always difficult to prove that someone did _not_ say
something.  Therefore, the onus of proof lies with he who claims that it
_was_ said.

Kol Tuv,


From: <kennethgmiller@...> (Akiva Miller)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:45:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Legal Fiction

In MJ 37:48, HLSesq wrote <<< The fact that ultimately a creditor gets
paid under a prozbul or that you never really think you have to deliver
chametz pursuant to your shtar mechira does not make these things "legal
fictions" . The legal reality in both of them is that the mechanism
chosen will legally operate in accordance with its terms. That is, you
have in fact transferred the debt to bes din, and you may in fact be
required to deliver your chametz. A legal fiction says something is true
that is not... >>> 

Let's set aside the precise definition of "legal fiction", and I'd like
to offer my opinion on why Prozbul *feels* more fictional than the Sale
Of Chometz does.

As several posters have written, there have been real cases where the
non-Jew actually comes around during Pesach to take and pay fair market
value for the chometz which he paid a deposit on earlier. I think Rabbi
Riskin (Chief Rabbi of Efrat) has the non-Jew do this each year, just to
remind people of the sale's reality.

Prozbol, on the other hand... When the creditor gives the debt to the
Beis Din, what does he get in return? How sincere can that be? "Reuven
owes me $1000, and I am hereby donating it to the Beis Din, and they'll
be able to collect it even after Shemitta." Why would he do that? What
does he get out of it?

And then the Beis Din empowers him to collect that debt on their
behalf. Why? For what good reason would they give up such a windfall?
And why would they allow him to keep all that money? It belongs to the
Court! Let him keep a commission, perhaps, but the entire amount? It
doesn't make sense!

Still, you might say, those are details which don't affect the basic
legal realities that they *are* allowed to go through with these
transactions. My response is that maybe it is *technically* okay, but it
still "smells" like a legal fiction for these reasons:

1) We are taught that the sale of chometz is so real that the non-Jew
   can come to *his* room (remember that we rent the storage area to
   him!) even on Yom Tov to collect *his* chometz. Is there any
   analogous situation by Prozbol? Suppose the (guy who had been the)
   debtor (but is now merely the agent of the Beis Din) had not yet
   collected on the loan, and then the Beis Din changes their mind, and
   retracts their authorization to collect the loan. Does he have any
   recourse, or is he stuck?

2) The situation I described in the preceding paragraph might occur if
   one made the Prozbol with a permanent, established Beis Din. But I
   think the common practice is to gather an Ad Hoc Beis Din of three
   friends for this occasion, and this Beis Din disbands immediately
   after all the paperwork is complete. So one whose behalf is he
   collecting this debt, if the Beis Din no longer exists? If it looks
   like a fiction and quacks like a fiction...

3) Finally, I heard once that our manner of doing Prozbol is effective
   only nowadays when Shemitta is d'rabanan, and would NOT be effective
   in a situation where Shemitta was a Torah law. If that memory is
   correct (can anyone confirm or correct it?) then it is clearly more
   fictional than the sale of Chometz, which we know has Torah validity
   even totday.

Akiva Miller


From: Judith Weil <weildj@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:44:30 +0200
Subject: Re: Pregnant Eshet Kohen at a Beit Kevarot

> Jewish law regards the fetus as a limb of the mother.  The fetus does
> not have an independent status (Till it is born). Consequently the fact
> that it WILL one day be male is irrelevant--the fetus is CURRENTLY
> simply a limb of the women; Both she (and her fetus) can stay on the
> cemetery

Do you have a basis for this, or is this your own assumption? A kohen
and his wife were once staying in our neighborhood over Shabbos when
there was a death in the building. They young wife was told that if she
was pregnant beyond a certain stage she too must take care. This woman
is a teacher and during one of her pregnancies she was doing some
further training at a non-religious school where they had a skeleton on
exhibit. The school removed the skeleton when someone contacted them on
her behalf and asked them whether it would be possible for them to do

Judith Weil


From: Harlan Braude <hbraude@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 10:23:11 -0400
Subject: RE: Sacrifices

In V37#48, Batya writes
> The meat is eaten afterwards, just like any seudat mitzvah, if I'm not
> mistaken.  The animal isn't wasted, just ritually barbecued.

Well, *some* sacrifices are eaten by the Cohen (as by a sin offering,
though there may be certain sin offerings that were completely burnt - I
just don't remember) and, on occasion, even a Yisroel shares in it (as
by a peace offering, the Pesach, etc.). The 'olah' is almost completely
burnt, except for the skin, I think. The 'mincha' is burnt completely.

'barbecued' is an interesting, if amusing, term in this context (I don't
think the Torah mentions A1 Sauce.) :-)

It led me to wonder, tho (slightly off-topic, but...)-

While I'm aware of restrictions on the recipient of the shared portion
to eat it within certain boundaries (Yerushalyim) and time periods, I'm
curious whether, once the shared portion is doled out to the Cohen (or
whomever), the recipient is then free to add condiments and flavorings
or otherwise prepare the portion in any way s/he so chooses?

From: David Waxman <yitz99@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:21:03 +0200
Subject: Re: Sacrifices

> >>As a long- time vegetarian, I don't see how anyone who eats meat can
>object to animal sacrifices.  The meat is eaten afterwards, just like
>any seudat mitzvah, if I'm not mistaken.  The animal isn't wasted, just
>ritually barbecued.<<

The 'oleh' is burned up entirely.  This includes the daily morning and 
afternoon offering ('tamid').


From: Rachel Smith <rachelms79@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:39:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Techum

Is the statement that the GWB is a techum breakpoint based on a shaila
asked of a rav?  For example, I asked my rav whether Good Samaritan
Hospital in Suffern, NY is in the same techum as Monsey, and he said
yes, even though houses in Monsey are commonly spaced >70 amos apart and
even though there are large areas of parks without houses.  He added
that a rav in Monsey wrote a sefer about 10 years ago where he mapped
out the square region with corners defined by the four "last houses" in
the settled area of Rockland, and that hospital is definitely in the

So (as per the standard 'net disclaimer), CYLOR.


From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:56:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Techum

<<Is the statement that the GWB is a techum breakpoint based on a shaila
asked of a rav? >>

I know that the kehila in Washington Heights does not, per their
rabbonim's pesak decades ago, cross the GWB on Shabbos.



From: <CARLSINGER@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:28:39 EDT
Subject: Re: Tzniut

      Even though this is not motivated by purely halachic reasons, it
      means that this was the proper way for a Jewish woman to behave at
      that time in Baghdad.

      We should not react with "cultural ethnocentrism".

It should be noted that we should distinguish between general issues of
dress and tsnius and those that apply to married women.  At least from
articles in the local newspaper, Moslem female dress codes seem to impact
both married & unmarried women.

Kol Tov

Carl Singer


From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:27:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Whiskey aged in empty wine casks

>From: Avi Feldblum Re: 
>This is a disgreement between the kashrut supervising agencies, and was
>just covered by Kashrut Magazine. Star-K is of the opinion that aging
>Scotch in sherry or port casks is a problem, and thus lists the
>Glenmorangie as "not-recommended". The posek for Yeshivas Birkas Reuvan,
>which Kashrus Magazine uses, does not agree, thus they say all scotches
>are acceptable. This was discussed in Volume 30/31 (see for instance
>v30n80 and v31n18).

Some years ago a big brouhaha arose regarding the kashrut acceptability
of the Grossinger Hotel, of blessed and lamented memory. Although it had
become generally regarded as totally acceptable kashrus-wise, some New
York rabbis were declaring it totally unacceptable over the issue of
"non-kosher" wine. Apparently, such wine, long available in the nite
club, was seen being brought into the dining room by some guests without
challenge from management. My Rav at the time, a highly-respected posek
and the supreme kashrut authority in his city, whose name I have not
sought permission to use, saw no problem at all. When asked about the
possibility that some such wine might spill onto the dishes, or better
yet, onto "my" dish, he suggested wiping away the spill before eating
from the dish!

Although we call acceptable wine "kosher", this is really a shorthand
designation, and should not be confused with the laws of kashrut and


End of Volume 37 Issue 55