Volume 40 Number 68
                 Produced: Mon Sep 22 21:21:55 US/Eastern 2003

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Bare Midriffs
         [Janet Rosenbaum]
Be'er hagulah
         [Zev Sero]
B'eir Hagoilo
         [Perets Mett]
Chickens and Shechita
         [Carl Singer]
Kaddish (two comments)
         [Yisrael Medad]
Making of a Godol
         [Joseph Rosen]
         [Michael Kahn]
Mekach Ta'ut - A Woman Who Hides Her Lamdanut
         [Yael Levine Katz]
Motion Sensors - A simple solution? (2)
         [Ari Trachtenberg, Yehuda Landy]
Shelo asani nochri
         [Shmuel Himelstein]
Tashlikh on Shabbat
         [Joseph Mosseri]
Women's Role Under Chuppah (3)
         [Ben Katz, Yisrael and Batya Medad, Harry Weiss]


From: Janet Rosenbaum <jerosenb@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:03:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Bare Midriffs

<MJGerver@...> (Mike Gerver) writes:
> haredi, at least in a sociological sense. I don't think these girls can
> be doing this unintentionally. For one thing, the exposed area is very
> well defined, and always the same, and shifts over the years with
> changing fashion. 

For what it's worth, I think it's the accidental result of the change in
fashion --- there are only a limited number of place for young women to
buy clothes, and if these places are all making skirts that are designed
to start below the waist, those are the skirts that these women will
wear.  While one can leave the house with the skirt at one's waist, the
skirt will eventually settle where it was designed to be.  Likewise for
shirts, which are slightly shorter than they were previously.  It's not
a substantial enough difference that one would notice when trying the
clothes on.

My impression was that similarly when mini skirts were in fashion, quite
a few frum women would just wear the longest mini-skirts they could



From: Zev Sero <zsero@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:12:09 -0400
Subject: Re:Be'er hagulah

I now have the book in front of me.  Here is what the Maharal writes
towards the end of the preface (page 19 in the new Merkaz HaRav 
edition):  And therefore the water well which was dug by the servants
of Avraham's G-d / the students of Moshe in their wisdom / a source
drawn from Eden to water the whole Earth's surface / from which all
who have a spirit and soul live / that which the princes excavated
with the walking stick of their understanding. / [Others] have disputed
it and stopped it up out of their jealousy / and destroyed its pure
source / and muddied it with their feet / and spoiled its clear water /
and destroyed and dulled its source / AND ROLLED A STONE ONTO ITS 
OPENING / so that the shepherds of the expelled sheep may not water
[their flock] from it / for of this well the shepherds water [their
flocks] / and of it their spirit rests. / And now G-d has given us
room to remove the stone from the well's opening / and to get rid of
all the pebbles from it / so that its water will rise up high / and 
cover every high hill / and become a flooding stream / and therefore
the title of this composition is BE'ER HAG?LAH / for an understanding
man will draw [water from it].

The last few lines in Hebrew are: Ad ki yaalu meimav maalah maalah /
viychasu kol giv'ah telulah / vehayah lenachal shotef kulah / velachen
shem hachibur hazeh nikra BE'ER HAG?LAH / ki ish navon daloh yidleh.

It seems safe to infer from this that the Maharal intended `hag?lah'
to rhyme with `telulah' and `kulah'.

For a fuller discussion of this topic, see the introduction to the
new edition, p16-19.


From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:02:00 +0100
Subject: Re: B'eir Hagoilo

Zev Sero wrote:
> The introduction to the new Merkaz HaRav edition points out that in the
> preface, the Maharal rhymes the title with `kulah' (`all of it'), thus
> showing that he intended it to be pronounced `hagulah'.

I did see the intro of the Maharal, but am not convinced that he meant 
it to be the title - it could just be poetic licence.

> A `gulah' is a round object (Zechariah 4:2).  In the case of a well, it
> might be the stone covering it (cf Bereshit 29:2-3), or a bucket with
> which one can draw water.  The intro seems to suggest that the title
> should be understood as if it were `gulat habe'er', that the book is a
> bucket with which one can draw water from the well of Torah, or that it
> rolls away the stone covering the well (the criticisms of the Christian
> polemicist to whom it is a response), thus enabling people to drink.

Sorry - I don't know whose idea this is, but I consider it to be 
entirely fanciful. It just doesn't ring true.

If indeed the name is " B'eir hagulo" then gulo must mean a spring, as 
in Yehoshua 15:19  This meaning then makes B'eir cognate with Gulo

But I am perturbed by the suggestion that the Maharal made up the name. 
As far as  I can tell, the titles of his other sforim are previously 
known phrases.

But I may be wrong

Perets Mett


From: Carl Singer <csngr@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:23:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Chickens and Shechita

> The reason behind this is that in the small markets in Eretz Yisroel
> have a recurring problem of Arab workers throwing boxes of
> chickens. the Halacha is that a tied up animal that falls had a din of
> a treifa. Since a box may have the din of being tied up, the birds are
> walked to make certain they are not treifas. Not so funny after all.

This is treating the symptom, not the illness.  If there is a recurring
problem of workers throwing boxes of chickens -- also an issue of tzar
baalay chaim (I presume -- not posken) then that's what needs to be
addressed.  What does the store owner do with the limping chickens
(those w/ broken bones) sell them to those folks who don't walk their
chickens, sell them as traif?

Carl Singer


From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:56:08 +0200
Subject: Kaddish (two comments)

      Shmuel Norin wrote: In many schules, there is some learning
      between Mincha and Marriv followed by the Rabbi's Kaddish.  Marriv
      follows immediately after this Kaddish.  My question is whether
      this Kaddish should be said by one have Yahrzeit ending with
      Mincha or by the person with a Yahrzeit starting with Marriv?

I would guess that in this case, Ma'ariv service begins with Burchu so
the person with a Yahrtzeit which is now finishing should say the
Kaddish (and not that "this Kaddish should be said", unless you are
referring to the custom that only one person/mourner in turn recites a

In another related matter, the book Ishei Yisrael notes (26:19) that the
Aleinu prayer should be followed by a mourner's Kaddish and that even if
there is no mourner present, nevertheless, the Kaddish should be
recited.  In a footnote, #53, he brings from the Responsa Chelkat Yaakov
and another, Divrei Yisrael, that an orphan can recite this Kaddish even
if he wasn't present at the time of saying Aleinu.  I would presume,
then, based on this, that one can extrapolate from this case and say a
Kaddish even if coming in at the very tail end of a Tefillah.  Anyone
ordained out there who can confirm?

Yisrael Medad


From: Joseph Rosen <rosenjoseph1@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:25:00 +0000
Subject: Making of a Godol

In the most recent issue of the Edah journal (edah.org) there is a
review of the book by Prof. Marc Shapiro (an expert in Jewish history,
in particular the history of Orthodoxy and gedolim). 

      Yosef Rosen


From: Michael Kahn <mi_kahn@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:44:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Marriage

>I think it is very clear that chattel acquisition is not what is
>happening under the Chuppah.

The Rashba (Kidushin 6a?) is famouse for stating that unlike when one
aquires an eved cnaani, or gentile slave, when one marries a women he is
not aquiring her "body" fully. (Ain goofah kanuy.)


From: Yael Levine Katz <ylkpk@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:35:37 +0200
Subject: Mekach Ta'ut - A Woman Who Hides Her Lamdanut

In the book "Ateret Malkhut" (Kfar Habad 1998) about the Rabbaniyot of
Habad it is related that Rachel, grandmother of Rabbi Shne'ur Zalman of
Lyady, was learned. She, however, did not reveal this to her husband,
Shne'ur Zalman, following the advice of her father, since he opposed
women learning.

Following an incident that took place shortly after the wedding, it came
out that she was indeed learned. With time, he came to accept this
realizing that it enhanced her righteousness and yirat shamayim (pp.

I was wondering in general if a woman kept from her husband the fact
that she was learned, would he then have any grounds to claim that the
marriage was Mekach Ta'ut.

I would appreciate insights of this issue.


From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:28:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Motion Sensors - A simple solution?

From: <nzion@...> (Yehuda Landy)
 >	As mentioned already, it may not be such an easy thing to do. I
 > also suspect that the managment might pretend to be accomodating and
 > promise the world, but who is to guarantee that they actually
 > deactivated the sensors?

It is typically not so difficult to check if the sensors are off or not.
On the other hand, if the sensor is still on but you don't know it (and
have no way of checking it), then it's not clear to me that you would be
violating Shabbat.

Ari Trachtenberg,                                      Boston University
http://people.bu.edu/trachten                    mailto:<trachten@...>

From: <nzion@...> (Yehuda Landy)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 00:41:53 +0200
Subject: Re: Motion Sensors - A simple solution?

Hi there.

	Let me put it like this. It is not impossible but it is highly
improbable. Quite a few thing have to fall into place for this to work
out. You'll need an accommodating management, a competent technician, a
system which will enable him to deactivate the sensors. But this isn't
enough. Many times deactivation the sensors just disconnects the signals
they are sending to the control center, however the sensors are still
actually working. I've dealt with Shabbos issues and security alarms,
deactivating the sensors themselves is not an easy process. In many
cases they are not made with intention of ever being deactivated.

	I also don't think that the average person can really tell the
difference whether the sensors in his room are active or not.

	Have k'sivah v'chasimah tovah.
	Yehuda Landy


From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 05:47:38 +0300
Subject: Shelo asani nochri

Where I grew up, in South Africa, we used the Standard Siddur of the
British Commonwealth, and that Nusach is "shelo asani nochri." It wasn't
until I arrived in the US to learn in the Baltimore yeshiva that I
became aware of the "shelo asani goy" version. The Standard Siddur, as I
understand it, was first published in the very early 1900s.

Interestingly enough, in the annotated version of the Siddur, with notes
by Chief Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz, he writes:

Hebrew - Goy (this word appears in Hebrew letters, which I cannot
reproduce here - SH). In scripture this word means "nation," but in
later Hebrew, "heathen." In recent times Goy (Hebrew letters) has been
changed in many editions of the Prayer Book to Nochri (Hebrew letters),
literally, "a foreigner."

This would seem to indicate that this was a deliberate change made at a
later time.

Shmuel Himelstein


From: Joseph Mosseri <joseph.mosseri@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:00:28 -0400
Subject: Tashlikh on Shabbat

I hope some one on the list can help me.

Is Tashlikh said on the 1st day of Rosh Hashanah that falls out on
Shabbat?  Is there a concern of someone carrying a mahzor in an area
without an eruv?  Can anyone shed some light on what the aharonim have
written on the subject and what actually occurs in our day and age in
different communities throughout the world?

Joseph Mosseri


From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:43:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Women's Role Under Chuppah

>From: Janet Rosenbaum <jerosenb@...>
>Btw, there is precedent for providing "feminist fulfillment" in the
>discussion of women doing smicha on animals in the beit ha-mikdash ---
>their doing so had no halachic consequence, but it gave them "nachat

         Janet's last point is extremely important and should be weighed
seriously by all of the responders who think that there is something
wrong with every innovation, however benign, and that sensitivity is not
an important consideration.

>By the way, I did give my husband a ring, at the bedecken.
>--Leah Sarah Reingold Gordon

         My wife gave me mine in the yichud room.
         ketiva vachatima tova to all MJ'ers.

From: Yisrael and Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:04:04 +0200
Subject: Women's Role Under Chuppah

for those interested in following up the issue,
please refer to:

From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:05:10 -0700
Subject: Re: Women's Role Under Chuppah

>From: Chana Luntz <chana@...>
>Interesting the English non Jewish papers here have been suggesting in
>recent weeks that the English authorities (whoever they are) who
>organise civil weddings are thinking of requiring a positive statement
>from women as part of the marriage ceremony.  I am not sure exactly how
>they are proposing that it be done, but they have specifically cited
>Orthodox Jewish weddings as being a problem in this regard.
>If Perry is right in 1) could that mean that having an English civil
>marriage invalidates having a halachic marriage (and vice versa)?

After the Chupa the Rabbi could always say, now that the halachic
kiddushin and nissuin is completed, we will meet the requirements of the


End of Volume 40 Issue 68