Volume 38 Number 62
                 Produced: Fri Feb 14  6:25:22 US/Eastern 2003

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

         [Carl Singer]
         [Eli Lansey]
Free "Legends of the Jews"
Halchik reflections on Singles Groups (3)
         [Sam Saal, Tzadik Vanderhoof, Michael Poppers]
Holah vs. Holanit one more time.
         [Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Holy Place
         [Ezriel Krumbein]
Mizmor Shir Twice
         [Emmanuel Ifrah]
         [Jack Wechsler]
Witnesses to New Moon (was: Elul)
         [Ira L. Jacobson]


From: <CARLSINGER@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:51:34 EST
Subject: Re: Chutzpa

      and on the second occasion the driver told me not to
      be chutzpadik when I asked him why he'd blocked me in.

This is a form of verbal Karate -- he is being chuzpadik by his action
-- his causing you a delay in unconscionable -- his accusing you of
being chuzpadik is simply another negative manifestation designed to put
you on the defensive.  Shame on him!

I believe that you are within your rights to immediately call the police
when you find yourself parked in -- perhaps they will issue a parking
ticket.  I don't know how a bet din would respond to this person having
caused you lost time / delay and perhaps the consequence of that delay.


From: Eli Lansey <elansey@...>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:55:25 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Re: Ellul

Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
> Eli Lansey suggested that I
> >Look at Mishnayot Rosh haShanah 4:4
> Thanks for the reference. I did look at that mishna, but I didn't
> notice anything that answers my question.Assuming that you are using
> the same numbering as in the Qehati edition.

Yes.  That mishna discusses the time when they used to accept witnesses
of the new moon the whole day.  After a problem happened one time, they
only accepted their testimony to begin the new month until the bringing
of the Mincha.  If witnesses came later, they would have a 'two day yom
tov', but would not establish the new month till the next day.  Thus,
they ignored testimony to suit their own / the Temple's own purposes.



From: c.halevi <c.halevi@...>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:27:38 -0600
Subject: Free "Legends of the Jews"

Shalom, All:

	I just finished downloading "The Legends of the Jews" in four
volumes -- free. This monumental work by Louis Ginzberg dates to 1909,
and hence is in public domain. The people who put it on the web --
Project Gutenberg -- specifically permit copying it.
	You can find "The Legends of the Jews" at
/jews/.  The home page of Project Gutenberg, with links to many other
free books, is http://promo.net/pg/
	My download of Legends took up 1,242 pages and more than 3MB, so
I (legally) burned a CD instead of keeping it on my hard drive. 

Yeshaya (Charles Chi) Halevi


From: Sam Saal <ssaal@...>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:38:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: RE: Halchik reflections on Singles Groups

Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...> wrote:

>I believe I have a serious halachic argument for getting the
>ultra-orthodox gedolim involved in creation of singles groups and would
>like to see some (non-hostile) responses.

For 6 years in the mid-80s, I helped run a Singles' program (mostly
Shabbatonim) in Highland Park, NJ. From that experience, I wrote a
manual on running a Shabbaton in an Orthodox/observant community.

This lengthy (about 100 pages) guide gives details (including some of
the questions to ask of the LOR), a case study, and even checklists to
help people running this sort of singles program.

While I am looking to publish this book, if anyone is running a
Shabbaton and needs the help this guide can provide, please contact me.

Sam Saal         <ssaal@...>
Vayiphtach HaShem et Pea haAtone

From: Tzadik Vanderhoof <tzadikv@...>
Subject: RE: Halchik reflections on Singles Groups

The problem is not keeping hallowed practices... it's continually
changing them to make them frummer... and people suffering as a result.

Not so long ago, separate seating was very rare, except for certain
chasidic groups.  Now it's the norm.  I don't call that "keeping
hallowed practices."

From: <MPoppers@...> (Michael Poppers)
Subject: RE: Halchik reflections on Singles Groups

I think it goes without saying that a community which has "hallowed
practices" shouldn't change them unless the community leader (often
referred to in M-J as the LOR) mandates the change and said change is
accepted by the community.  To repeat, there are two sides to the issue
of mixed-gender seating at gatherings like a s'udah after a chasnah --
where I come from (minhag Frankfurt), men know to sit next to men and
women know to sit next to women even while at one table, but I believe
it's not right to criticize a community per se for forbidding
mixed-gender seating.  The more-important question, in my mind, is
whether the given community and its members are doing all in their
power, within Halachic guidelines and their minhagim [customs], to help
not-yet-married members meet each other (or allow for meetings between
members of different communities).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ


From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:50:13 EST
Subject: Holah vs. Holanit one more time.

Mark Steiner (v38n58) makes several points:
<<When I say "the custom" I mean what is printed in traditional siddurim
(which have not been "corrected" by self-styled "baalei didkduk").  I
have no custom on the matter since I'm not the gabbai (B"H).>>

The tradition of saying Mi-sheberach for a sick person is a relatively
new tradition as attested by the printed siddurim. Very old siddurim do
not have it at all. Some of the most authoritative siddurim such as
Otzar Hatfilot, Nusach Sefarad (Vilna, 1914, reprinted Jerusalem, 1960)
brings the nusach Holeh and Holah (and not Holanit!) as does Nosach
Ashkenaz edition (1914? reprinted NY, 1946).

I noticed that some siddurim bring only the Holeh, leaving for the
gabbaim to decide on how to refer to a sick female. In other siddurim, I
noticed, that there is a mi- sheberach for a "yoledet" and next to it
for a holeh, implying that the birth time was the most dangerous time in
the life of a woman, and the mi-sheberach was saved for that time alone.

Mark further said:

<<If the above is correct, then the Meiri's distinction (which I cited in
a previous posting) between holah and holanith is incorrect.  Rather the
truth would be (again, if I'm correct) that the only difference between
holah and holanith is chronological, rather than semantic: holah is
Biblical and holanith Rabbinic.>>

Although the Aramaic influence is clear, from early on the two forms
Holah and Holanit took on different meanings as attested by Rashi and
Meiri [citations provided earlier in the discussion] Based on the above,
and the fact that there is no long tradition of this mi-sheberach, and
the fact that accurate siddurim such as Otzar Hatefilot already stated
that Holeh and Holah are the proper reference to sick men and women,
coupled with the issue that consistency of grammatical form pushes one
to use the same form, I think that there is a good argument for saying
Holeh and Holah for the sick, and not Holanit as "corrected" by
self-styled "baalei didkduk."

Gilad J. Gevaryahu


From: Ezriel Krumbein <ezsurf@...>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:13:16 -0800
Subject: Re: Holy Place

>c) technically, there is only one Holy Place in Judaism, the Har
>Habayit, to which to term 'kodesh' (sanctified) can be applied.

There are probably a number of ways to define the word holy.  In the way
in which you are using the word holy, the mishna in Keilim chapter 1
mishna 6 lists 10 places with 10 levels of increasing holiness.

The original post, I would suggest, defines a holy place as a place in
which one can make a closer connection to Hashem. Using this definition
there are many more places that can be called holy.  One can argue with
this; but, maybe that is the reason why Hashem tells Moshe that the site
of the burning bush was a holy place.

Kol Tov


From: Emmanuel Ifrah <emmanuel_ifrah@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 03:11:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Mizmor Shir Twice

The reason for reciting Mizmor Shir twice could be the following

Considering that according to the Ari Za"l Kabalat Shabbat is to be said
once in the fields and a second time in schule or at home, one could
assume that Mizmor Shir was repeated twice in schule when the minhag of
going out to the fields to welcome shabbat was dropped.

But this, I concede, would not explain why ONLY Mizmor Shir is repeated
-- even though it is the essential part in Kabalat Shabbat.

Emmanuel Ifrah


From: Jack Wechsler <wechsler@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:45:37 +0200
Subject: Rice

In our family we always have had a tradition to search through rice
grains before cooking them. I invariably find a few grains that are black
or look spoilt. I am sure that the majority of kitchens cooking large
quantities of rice (schools,caterers,large companies etc) do not have the
cabability to check rice for bugs stones etc. What is the din about rice
is there a botel be shishim rule ?

Jack Wechsler


From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:33:26 +0200
Subject: Re: Witnesses to New Moon (was: Elul)

Matthew Pearlman <Matthew.Pearlman@...> stated:

      Regarding testimony for the new month, Ira Jacobson raised as a
      problem "That sounds to me as though they are imputing to the
      Sanhedrin the will to ignore the testimony of the witnesses who
      came to report seeing the molad".

      In fact the Gemara (Rosh Hashana 20a) includes opinions that go
      much further than this.  The most straightforward reading (I
      hesitate to say pshat, but it is the way that Rashi understands
      it) is that not only could the Sanhedrin ignore the testimony of
      witnesses who saw the molad; but it could also cause individuals
      to give testimony that they had seen the molad when in fact they
      had not.

      The Rambam rules according to this opinion in the gemara, but has
      a novel understanding which does not require anyone to testify
      about something they didn't see or vice versa.

My understanding is that when the bet din regards it necessary to rule
other than in accordance with the witnessess' testimony, they try to
intimidate the witnesses.  Their success in arriving at the ruling that
hey would like is determined by the extent to which they succeed in
their "plot."

The Rambam (Hilkhot Qiddush HaHodesh 3:15-19) rules that, a priori, it
is not permitted to lengthen the month when this would be "necessary."
However, if it is "necessary to lengthen the month," the court threatens
and attempts to confuse the witnesses.  If the witnesses are indeed
confused, then the court may reject their testimony.  But if not, then
the court fixes the month in accordance with their testimony.

There is an interesting comment by Sa`adya Ga'on, to the effect that the
testimony of having sighted the molad is only an external device for
confirmation, "lehotzi milibam shel minim," while the primary
determination is based on calculations.

And the Rambam in 18:11 gives another meaning to being "necessary to
lengthen the month."  There he declares that the necessity derives only
when the moon was not seen at the appropriate time.



End of Volume 38 Issue 62