Volume 40 Number 69
                 Produced: Mon Sep 22 21:43:04 US/Eastern 2003

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Arch Of Titus
         [Tzvi Briks]
Be'er Hagulah (2)
         [Gershon Dubin, Martin D Stern]
Bugs in Corn-on-the-cob
         [Gershon Dubin]
Eating Insects
         [Yisrael Medad]
Midriff to Metatarsal
         [Yisrael Medad]
Modesty and Lashon Harah
         [Francine Weistrop]
Reb Hayyim on Ta'am ke-Iqqar
         [Dr. Jeffrey R. Woolf]
Suit for goods Israelites took leaving Egypt (2)
         [Michael Kahn, Gershon Dubin]
Unsupervised Bars
         [Frank Silbermann]
Women talking to women (2)
         [Batya Medad, Abe Goldstein]
Women's Role Under Chuppah
         [Perry Zamek]


From: <Brikspartzuf@...> (Tzvi Briks)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 00:32:09 EDT
Subject: Re: Arch Of Titus

The Arch Of Titus was the most unremarkable points of my trip to Rome
from Israel in August of 1969.  I remember literally "bumping into it"
while walking the ancient streets of Rome.  I thought at that time that
it was larger and majestic like the Arch de Triumphe that was found in
Paris.  It was, however, small and hardly noticeable.  A story was
related to me by the late Rabbi Meier Kahane, Alav Hashalom, about the
Jewish Brigade of the British Army and their encounter with the Arch of
Titus.  As we know, the Arch of Titus represents the total destruction
of Am Yisrael in second temple times.  It represented defeat of an
undefeatable people, a legend of indestructability and the G-d that
supervised them.  The Arch of Titus represented the quintessential Judea

When the Jewish Brigade came to the Arch in 1946, they took red paint
and shmeered Am Yisrael Chai on the base of the Arch, again informing
the Romans of the past and the present that we were still around.  He
who laughs last laughs best.

Tzvi Briks


From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:48:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Be'er Hagulah

-- Zev Sero <zsero@...> wrote:
<<I now have the book in front of me>>

Your quote is at least as favorable to my interpretation as to yours, if
not more so.  He describes a be'er from which people will now be able to
draw water.

The rhyming scheme is a notoriously bad proof; those authors who were
"into" rhyming played fast and loose in order to get it to work.

BTW you never proved that "gula" means the cover of a well.


From: <MDSternM7@...> (Martin D Stern)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 04:28:58 EDT
Subject: Re: Be'er Hagulah

Zev Sero <zsero@...>, Re: Be'er hagulah writes:

<< And what have Jews from foreign countries visiting the Bet Hamikdash,
or the provision of water for them, got to do with the subject of the
book, defending Rabbinic Judaism from a Christian pamphleteer?  Unless
perhaps it's the Jews in the golah who are subject to the arguments of
missionaries, so he's providing them with a well of Torah from which to
draw living water and strengthen their faith. >>

    Is he not aware of the common practice of using as titles of books
euphuistic phrases culled, or adapted, from Tenakh with no particular
relevance to their subject matter but rather often alluding to the
author's name like Sha'agas Aryeh by R. Aryeh Ginsberg which has no
relevance to the vocal habits of lions, or some relevant gematria like
Yad Chazakah which has 14 (y"d) sections and no discussion of manual

    Martin D Stern


From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:36:41 GMT
Subject: Bugs in Corn-on-the-cob

I wrote:
      I have no idea what the status of the bugs running away is.

Batya responded:
> A bug stays a bug as long as he stays on the corn or whatever.  Whether
> he's running or sleeping or dead, if he's there, the corn's infested.

What I had no idea about was a statement by a poster that the bugs
retreat into the cob and are therefore not going to be eaten.



From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:35:32 +0200
Subject: Eating Insects

If any are interested, in an academic-curiousity fashion,
here's a good reference work on the eating of insects:
By Vincent M. Holt (1885)
PART I Why Not?
PART II Insect Eaters
PART III Insects That Are Good To Eat, And Something About Their Cooking

Yisrael Medad


From: <chips@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:20:28 -0700
Subject: Re: Kaddish

> From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
> I asked this question in reference to the Kaddish after the saying
> Korbanot, as in Shiloh and in most other places in Israel, the minyan
> davening starts not with Birchot Hashchar but with Hodo or Mizmor
> Chanukat Babayit.  The Rav said that even if you come in just as they
> are starting to say the Kaddish d'Rabanan, and you haven't recited
> anything, you join in.

Will someone explain what the big deal is? There is no Sheim l'Vatulah
involved with Kaddish.



From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:02:46 +0200
Subject: Midriff to Metatarsal

Continuing this discussion about naked flesh, the Shulchan Arukh notes
(91:5) that "one should not stand [appear]...with uncovered feet, if it
is the custom of the locals not to appear before honored persons
[deserving of respect] except with shoes on".  This language is found in
the Rambam's Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Tefilla, V, 5.  As the Qesef Mishneh
comments, this seems to be sourced in Chagigah 13B where the vision of
Yechezkel is discussed and, to skip a bit about the bull's appearance
being altered and the purpose of wings, the Gemara finally mentions that
it is not respectful to uncover one's feet before your Rav.

In his Mishneh Brurah commentary there, whereas the Chofetz Chaim notes
(op. cit. n. 12) that it is "undignified to wear sandals and an
uncovered heel", in his next note (n. 13) he writes, following the
condition already set by the Rambam (op. cit.) that "if a long apparel
covers the feet, or, in very hot locations when even before honored
persons one appears barefoot, then one needn't be that particular to
appear in short clothes whereby the feet are revealed".

The Ishei Yisrael (10:3) writes explicitly that one cannot pray barefoot
but in a footnote (14) writes "what with the Kohanim that walked
barefoot, since it is a mitzvah to thus walk, and it is his custom, one
needn't be strict (v'ein k'pida").

If my presentation seems reasonable, may I presume then that I may daven
at home if I have gotten up late on a Friday morning (a nasty habit
that's developed since the custom of Israelis not to go to work on
Fridays) barefoot, even without sandals or slippers?

Yisrael Medad


From: <JFWeis@...> (Francine Weistrop)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:56:40 EDT
Subject: Re: Modesty and Lashon Harah

I have never posted before and it will probably be a long time before I
post again, because I am in awe at the length and breadth of knowledge
so reading the messages is my pleasure and learning from all of you is a
privilege, and I usually have nothing to add. But the comment about the
teacher concerning the inappropriately dressed woman really touched a
nerve. I am a Conservative Jew who takes very seriously the teachings
about lashon harah and I was appalled that this story ever happened much
less was circulated.

Judging by the responses I can see that most of you have this same
opinion, so I am reassured that the lesson was learned.

I want to thank all of you for adding to my Jewish learning each day.
Even when I am unfamiliar with the sources, I absorb the knowledge.

Francine Weistrop


From: Dr. Jeffrey R. Woolf <woolfj@...>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:55:27 +0200
Subject: Reb Hayyim on Ta'am ke-Iqqar

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that it was the Rov zt"l who
developed the idea of Ta'am as an independent osser. In fact, I seem to
recalll Rav Herschel Schechter saying that when we studied Yoreh De'ah
in the early 80's for what was known as 'the Rov's option.'

Jeffrey Woolf


From: Michael Kahn <mi_kahn@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:50:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Suit for goods Israelites took leaving Egypt

>The question that needs to be answered is whether or not the current
>people who call themselves Egyptians are, in fact, descendents of the
>Egyptians who enslaved the Jews. If they are not, than the whole
>question seems to be moot.

What about the Medrash mentioned previously that says the Egyptians
brought this suit against the Jews to Alexander the Great. That, too,
was after Sancherev rearranged the map.

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:40:27 GMT
Subject: Suit for goods Israelites took leaving Egypt

From: Immanuel Burton <IBURTON@...>
<<If the Bible is to be used as evidence to support the claim for
compensation for goods taken when we left Egypt, is it also to be used
as evidence for our claim to the Land Of Israel?>>

I believe at least one of the articles describing this suit (perhaps
Rabbi Shafran's) made this point exactly i.e. that the plaintiff is
shooting himself in the foot.



From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:00:07 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:  Unsupervised Bars

Akiva Miller (v40 n66):
> In MJ 40:60, Bernard Raab wrote <<< My former Rav, a Gadol B'Torah and
> Rosh Yeshiva, was once asked about this problem in connection with
> "unkosher" wines which were sold at the bars of some kosher hotels
> ... he was asked about the possibility that a guest would bring such
> wine into the dining room and accidentally spill some onto your plate.
> His answer was, (to praphrase): Wipe it off your plate! ... From this I
> learned that there is no issue of "treifing up" dishes or glassware from
> "unkosher" wine or liquor. (When liquors are judged "unkosher" it is
> generally because of the suspicion that it was aged in barrels that had
> contained "unkosher" wine.) >>>
> With all due respect to that Rav, did he explain *why* he held this way?
> ... if that glass is not emptied, when it goes back to the kitchen and
> is filled with hot water to wash it, doesn't this allow the
> non-kosher ingredients to get absorbed into the glass?

Perhaps it's because non-kosher wine has no non-kosher ingredients.  It
was as a fence against intermarriage that we are forbidden to drink it,
not because of its contents.  Therefore standard issues relating to the
kashering of utensils might not apply.

Frank Silbermann
New Orleans, Louisiana


From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:21:35 +0200
Subject: Re: Women talking to women

      I am looking for something deeper than that.  If there are so few
      recorded conversations exclusively between women I feel there must
      be a purpose and something deeper to learn from that

There are just so few women in the Tanach, and besides the sisters Leah
and Rachel and Naomi and her two daughters-in-law, they interact only
with males and angels (Sarah and Shimshon's mother.)  The few women
mentioned in the narratives have very crucial roles in most cases, some
even as national leaders, changing/making history.  Shlomo HaMelech
comes from a long line of "aggressive" women, at least three who had to
resort to seducing in order to be part of the royal line.


From: Abe Goldstein <asg2037@...>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 06:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Women talking to women

How about in parshas b'shalach after the shira. vatikach miriam hanivia
es hatoif b'yodo ... vataan lohem Miriam. There you have Miriam talking
to women.



From: <jmarksmn@...> (Perry Zamek)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 08:13:36 +0300
Subject: Women's Role Under Chuppah

Chana Luntz <chana@...> writes:
> 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)?

It is unlikely that the English civil authorities would consider that
the Orthodox marriage ceremony would be invalid. Certainly under
Australian law (and I imagine that this is true for England too), at
least as far as I know, the law recognizes that a religious marriage
ceremony performed by an licensed minister (of whatever denomination) is
sufficient to consider the couple married before the law (and so
requiring a divorce under the Family Law Act before being able to marry
someone else). The law makes no stipulations as to the form of the
ceremony, and I don't think it would be able to do so.

Chana, I don't follow your question: Surely people who are using the
services of a civil marriage celebrant are not going to also have a
Huppah and Kiddushin. The usual reasons for Jews using a civil celebrant
are based on some level of rejection of Jewish tradition (e.g. marriage
with a non-Jew).

As a side comment, it seems gratuitous for "the English authorities who
organise civil weddings" to comment on Orthodox Jewish practice, simply
because they perceive our wedding practices to be "lopsided." Why not
comment on the marriage practices of certain Asian groups, where the
bride is also silent?

Shabbat Shalom and Shana Tova to all.

Perry Zamek


End of Volume 40 Issue 69