Volume 38 Number 07
                 Produced: Sun Dec 22  7:59:11 US/Eastern 2002

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Abaye and Rava
         [David Farkas]
Biblical Support for Obscure Mishnah
         [Russell J Hendel]
Censorship example (2)
         [Shmuel Himelstein, Ira L. Jacobson]
Food kitchens
         [Chaim Shapiro]
Hiding Rav Soloveichik
         [Shmuel Himelstein]
NOLAD = New Status, not NEW entity
         [Russell J Hendel]
Political Correctness
         [Joel Rich]
Sons, si.  Servants, no.
         [Joel Rich]
Standing for Choson & Kallah
         [Stuart Cohnen]
Tzedaqah Obligations to Street Panhandlers
         [Bernard Raab]
Wallet on Shabbat
         [Gil Student]
Weddings on Purim
         [Aryeh A. Frimer]
Who Can Be A Godol?
         [Bill Bernstein]
         [Shayna Kravetz]


From: David Farkas <DavidF@...>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:38:37 -0500
Subject: Abaye and Rava

I have often heard that no more than seven pages ( Dafim) of Gemara (
Talmud Bavli) in a row can be found without the name of Abaye or Rava
being mentioned at least once. I would appreciate it if someone with the
right type of program can confirm if this is true or not. Thank you.

David Farkas
Cleveland, Ohio


From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 23:19:33 -0500
Subject: Biblical Support for Obscure Mishnah

It always amazes me when people (eruditely) cite obscure Mishnahs and
overlook additional explicit Biblical support.

Paul W. Ginsburg had written:
>I have heard that once Moshiach comes all Jews will be gathered in 
>Eretz Israel and come before a kohen wearing the Urim v'Tumim.  
>Each Jew will discover what tribe they descend from since the stone 
>coresponding to their tribe will light up on the Urim v'Tumim.

Gil Student then supplied a reference
>See the Mishnah in Eduyot 8:7 and Kiddushin 71a regarding Eliyahu

All good and well. But how about adding the explicit statement
in Isiah 11

>>And the spirit of God will rest on him(The Messiah)
>>...He will NOT judge by what he sees
>>...He will NOT rebuke by what he hears

In other words it explicitly states that the Messiah will make decisions
by his prophetic insights (Spirit of God) and not by written evidence or

Russell Jay Hendel;http://www.RashiYomi.com/


From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:15:59 +0200
Subject: Censorship example

As an example of what I believe might be "reverse censorship," R.
Eliyahu Kitov's classic Sefer HaToda'ah, which deals with the cycle of
the Jewish year (possibly among other topics), the Hebrew edition (which
I assume was first - he was an Israeli) has no reference to either Yom
Ha'atzma'ut or Yom Yerushalayim, while the English translation, "The
Book of our Heritage" (translated by R' Nachman Bulman z.tz.l., has
sections on each of these.

Another alternative might be that the Hebrew had these sections, but
these were removed in later editions.

Shmuel Himelstein

From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:58:47 +0200
Subject: Re: Censorship example

>there's been an on-going problem of editing (or should it be called
>censorship) -- people who have old (shall we say original) versions of
>seforim find that newer editions have conveniently removed or revised
>items that would be not be politically correct today.

This is an interesting point.  I wonder if it could be applied to the 
differences between the first and second editions of Shemirat Shabbat 



From: <Dagoobster@...> (Chaim Shapiro)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:38:24 EST
Subject: Food kitchens

I do not believe it is the job of the Government to care for the
downtrodden anymore than that responsibility falls on the community at
large.  If anything, I would argue using LBJ's "Great Society" as an
example, the community does the job much better than the Government ever

Chaim Shapiro


From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:28:37 +0200
Subject: Hiding Rav Soloveichik

A classic example of hiding Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik's contribution to
the Torah world, is a large series of volumes based on his Shiurim by a
former Talmid, who published all the volumes under the title,
"Hamasbir," without mentioning the Rav's name even once.

"Hamasbir" is an acronym along the lines of Harav Moreinu Soloveichik
Ber Yosef Rabbeinu(i.e., the Rav's name, but with the order mixed up).

I understand that the volumes sold well and were bought by many who
wouldn't dream of purchasing anything with the Rav's name on it.

Shmuel Himelstein


From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 23:18:31 -0500
Subject: NOLAD = New Status, not NEW entity

Anonymous (v38n1) brings up the issue of what does NOLAD really mean.

I actually answered this a few years ago (I believe on Mj).

I basically differentiated between creation of an ENTITY vs creation of

True the paper and ink already existed (eg their molecules existed). But
the status or attribute of IT-WAS-FAXED- did not yet exist. Prior to the
fax the paper was paper. After the fax it was a FAX (or FAXED paper);

This is not nit-picking. Rather it reflects usage of language The NOUN
Fax, derived from the VERB to fax reflects a new status. The colloquial
talmudic lingo is cool: The Briskians do not speak about a new STATUS
but rather a NEW NAME. In other words the important thing is how
language usage is changed.In this case we can now call the paper a
FAX--hence the status was BORN and it is prohibited.

Hope the above helps

Russell J Hendel;


From: <Joelirich@...> (Joel Rich)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:16:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Political Correctness

> I don't know any more of the translators intentions does then does R.
> Carmy. I was recently reading a review of "Hararei Kedem" by R.
> Shirkin. The review was by Shlomo Pick and appeared in Hatzofe in March
> 2000.
> Besides listing R. Soloveitchik as head of the Bet Bet in Boston and
> ignoring any mention of YU he points out that many of the divrei Torah
> appeared in Mesorah and even works written by RYBS himself in Moriah. He
> ....
> The point is that in order to "sell" Rav Soloveitchik in some communties
> some people find it necessary to hide all sorts of information about
> Eli Turkel, <turkel@...>

IIRC in his introduction R. Shirkin clearly alludes to his goal of
bringing R'YBS's torah into the Charedi Yeshiva world which would find
all the items you mentioned problematic.

Joel Rich


From: <Joelirich@...> (Joel Rich)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:19:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Sons, si.  Servants, no.

> Yeshaya (Charles Chi) Halevi writes: 
> > Come to think of it, is there any other servant in the entire Torah
> > who got such a good write-up as Eliezer? (No fair counting Yosef,
> > who was only a temporary servant/slave.)

So why did Chazal in the medrash have Avraham tell him that he was bad
and that his daughter was thus no good for a son of avraham?

Joel Rich


From: Stuart Cohnen <cohnen@...>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:22:55 -0500
Subject: Standing for Choson & Kallah

>In V38 #034 <Yisyis@...> (Ira Bauman) writes:
>Growing up, I don't recall ever seeing the participants at a chupah
>standing when the choson and kallah walk down the aisle.  It seems to be
>obligatory nowadays.  What is the reason?

You're right. Years ago no ever stood up. If you are ever at a chasunah
where Rav Dovid or Rav Reuven Feinstein shlita attend, you will see that
they do not stand.

The one explanation that I have heard that makes sense, is that you
stand up for someone who is doing an important mitzva.

Proof of this: Why do you stand up by Vaverach Dovid (part of Shachris)?
Rav Yaakov Kamentzky TZ"L explains that there was a custom (still
practiced) to collect tzedoka during this time because of the line
V'hosher V'hacoved Me'lifonecha (Wealth and honor come from You). We
stand up in honor of the Gabbai Tzedokah (collector of the charity) who
is performing an important mitzva

Stuart Cohnen


From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:55:43 -0500
Subject: Re:  Tzedaqah Obligations to Street Panhandlers

Yehuda Landy writes:

>>In the event that a person has good intention he will be rewarded for his 
>>intention, even is cases where the act never materialized such as in the 
>>case of a fraudulent beggar.<<

I had a personal experience in which this came true rather literally: A
well-dressed and well-spoken "Professor from Hebrew University"
approached me in the lobby of a midtown Manhattan hotel and told of
being mugged and robbed on the street so that he had no ID, money or
credit cards. He told many fanciful and convincing details, and needed
fare to return to Washington DC where he was registered in a hotel and
could be wired money from home. Of course I felt an immediate obligation
to help this unfortunate Jew, and gave him more than a few dollars.
Once he was gone, the holes in his story became suddenly obvious. His
phone number in Jerusalem, which he had impressed on me, was called
and...non-existent. He was simply a (very) smooth scam artist who preyed
on our well-refined impulse to help a Jew in trouble. He was the
"fraudulent beggar" Yehuda Landy refers to, in spades.  The second part,
about being rewarded, I suppose generally refers to olam
haba'a. Hopefully, that will weigh in our favor when the time comes, but
I did receive a reward in olam hazeh: I wrote up the story for the
Washington Jewish Week as a cautionary tale for tourists to New
York. They amount they paid for the story covered my "tzedakah" plus a
small "profit"! Write your own moral.


From: Gil Student <gil_student@...>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:41:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Wallet on Shabbat

David Charlap wrote:
>What about a wallet that doesn't contain cash, but contains things which
>are used in the same way as cash (like debit cards)?  What about items
>that are not used identically to cash, but for the same purposes (like
>credit cards?)  Does it matter that the card itself has no intrinsic value,
>other than that of the information printed/recorded on it?

Isn't a credit card a keli she-melachto le-issur?  If so, the wallet is
a basis le-davar ha-assur and is muktzah.

Gil Student


From: Aryeh A. Frimer <frimea@...>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:36:39 +0200
Subject: Re: Weddings on Purim

[Forwarded email on above topic sent in by Aryeh]

 From: Milton Polin <polinmil@...>

Dear Aryeh,
    I remember having to perform a wedding at Kingsway [Jewish Center in
Brooklyn] on Purim after the Megillah since the caterer had already
scheduled it and couldn't back out. I was aware of the sources that you
cite but also discussed it with Rav Eichenstein in St. Louis.  He was
also lenient on this matter.
	(Rabbi) Milton H. Polin


From: Bill Bernstein <bbernst@...>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:16:22 -0600
Subject: Re: Who Can Be A Godol?

There have been a few posts on this topic and the idea that anyone can
be a godol given enough effort.

Reb Elchonon Wasserman hy'd explains this in Kovetz Maamarim as follows:
each person has a certain potential for greatness.  That potential
differs for each person.  But anyone can attain his potential through
hard work, just as Moshe Rabbeinu did.

To me this seems the best explanation as anything else is problemmatic.

Bill Bernstein
Nashville TN


From: Shayna Kravetz <skravetz@...>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:46:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Yicxaq

In response to another correspondent's assertion:>
>>Don Yicxaq Abarbanel (this appears to be the correct pronunciation of
>>his name, according to the best evidence -- sometimes the hamon `am are
>>right) lists

Ira L. Jacobson writes:
>If the reference is to Abarbanel vs. Abravanel, that may well be so.
>But if you think that Yitzhaq should be pronounced Yicksaq, I'd really
>like to see a good reference.

The original note uses one of the least intuitive methods of
transliteration from Hebrew to English. This opaque method, borrowed
from various phonetic conventions, uses "c" as in Eastern Europe to be
pronounced as "ts" (e.g., Polish "krawiec" is pronounced "kravietz"),
and "x" as in Greek to be pronounced as the voiceless guttural sound
more commonly transliterated as "ch" in, e.g., Chanukah.

The reason for the co-optation of those two letters in particular is
that, in English, neither is necessary for a pure phonetic system - "c"
being identical with "k", and "x" being identical with either "ks" or
"gz".  Thus, since "exotic", for example, can be phonetically
transliterated as "egzotik", those who use this system think of "x" and
"c" as free agents and adapt them for sounds which have no uniliteral
equivalents in English.  Hence, Yicxaq = Yitzchak (in a less illegible
method of transliteration).

In a perfect world Yicxaq would make perfect sense but on this planet at
this time it is (in my opinion) too awkward for English speakers to
dissociate "c" and "x" from their conventional English pronunciations,
as Ira Jacobson clearly demonstrates.



End of Volume 38 Issue 7