Volume 40 Number 72
                 Produced: Wed Sep 24  5:37:42 US/Eastern 2003

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Airplane eggs
         [Shelly Shalev]
Arch of Titus
         [Yehonatan & Randy Chipman]
Arch of Titus grafittio
The Blessing Of "Who Has Not Made Me A Gentile"
         [Chana Luntz]
Kreplach On Erev Yom Kippur.
         [Immanuel Burton]
Reb Hayyim on Ta'am ke-Iqqar (2)
         [Gil Student, Jeffrey Woolf]
Tashlikh on Shabbat (5)
         [Ken Bloom, Gershon Dubin, David Cohen, Hillel (Sabba)
Markowitz, FriedmanJ@aol.com]
Woman's Role Under the Chuppa
         [Nadine Bonner]
Women talking to women in the Bible
         [Jay F Shachter]
Women's Role Under Chuppah
         [Hanno Mott]


From: Shelly Shalev <shshalev@...>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 08:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Airplane eggs

I recently flew on a morning El-al flight. The glatt kosher meal
included an omelette (of sorts). The paper with the hechsher (which also
mentioned that the roll was mezonot, etc.) said that - the eggs had
undergone a specific processing to insure that there would be no problem
of "linat leilah" - which I take to mean - being held overnight. I
don't remember ever hearing about this particular halachic concern. Does
anyone have any information on this and why it is applicable only to

With shana tova greetings,


From: Yehonatan & Randy Chipman <yonarand@...>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:28:04 +0200
Subject: Re:  Arch of Titus

     If I may extend thediscussion somewhat to other sites where Jews
are not supposed to go: I have heard that the entire city of York, in
the English midlands, is under a herem, and Jews are not supposed to
live there, or even sleep overnight (but may visit for a few hours?).
This, in response to the massacre that took place there during the
eleventh century (at the beginning of the First Crusade, in the same
sequence of events that later ravaged the Rhineland communities of
:Shu"m in Germany?).  The British Rabbinate's Kinot even has a special
kinah commemorating thai event.

    Does anyone know any more details of this?

     Yehonatan Chipman


From: c.halevi <c.halevi@...>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:11:56 -0500
Subject: Arch of Titus grafittio

Shalom, All

	Tzvi Briks cites a story told >>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 quintessential Judea Capita.
	>>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 concluded.

	We were still laughing at least until about 1970. That's the
approximate date of a picture I have in my living room. It's of the Arch
of Titus and indeed someone had inscribed, in Hebrew, "Am Yisrael Chai."

	Whether it's the original Jewish Brigade inscription or, what
appears more likely, a continuation of the tradition, can anyone verify
if it or a newer incarnation is still there?

Yeshaya (Charles Chi) Halevi


From: Chana Luntz <chana@...>
Subject: RE: The Blessing Of "Who Has Not Made Me A Gentile"

In message <20030919003557.26570.qmail@...>, Immanuel Burton 

>Furthermore, the word "goy" in Aleinu is also qualified by the word
>"ho'arotzos", thereby quite clearly indicating that it is referring to
>nations other than the Jews.  The word "goy" in the morning blessing is
>not qualified in this way.  Moreover, the word "goy" is indeed sometimes
>used to refer to the Jewish nation, e.g. in the Tachnun prayer.
>Since submitting my original posting, it has been brought to my
>attention that the text given for the morning blessing in the Shulchan
>Aruch (Orach Chaim 46:4) is "sh'lo osani oved kochavim" (who has not
>made me an astrolator).
>The word goy has more than one meaning, and so, by definition, is
>A reference in the Schonfeld Siddur gives Ezekiel 44:7 as a source for
>the word "nochri", as the verse there says, "Be'haviachem bnei naichor",
>which the Targum renders as foreigners.  A nochri is therefore one of
>the bnei naichor, and refers to an individual.

You may be interested to know that the Sde Chemed agrees at least in

In Mareches beis (ois beis) he refers to his longer discussion in
mareches chirufin ois heh and states "it is correct to say "shelo ashani
goy k'goyei haaratzot" and so is my custom."

In mareches chirufin he has quite a long discussion in which he quotes a
book (Zecher Y'hosef) of the Av Beis Din of Shavel [Lithuania] Rav
Stern, and brings that in siman 13, he questions the prevailing nusach
(shelo asani goy) on the grounds that it is used also on "ha'uma
yisraelit" [the Jewish people] and also that it is used only "al kibutz

He goes on to say that for this reason there are those who say "she lo
asani nochri" and there are poskim who say "she'asani yisrael" {he later
says that these included the Tur and the Gra] .

Later in the paragraph (and by this stage, I confess I am not sure if
this is the Sde Chemed, Rav Stern, or somebody Rav Stern is quoting
(although I think the latter as there is a reference to a book called
the "Meorei Or") that it is a mistake to say shelo asani goy as Yisroel
is called a goy in more than 30 places and therefore this is a bracha
l'vatala because he is speaking falsehood (he brings further from the
Meorei Or that he lists nearly sixty places from throughout Tanach where
Yisroel is called a goy).

He then goes on to say (and by this time I think we have returned to
Zecher Y'hosef) that while there are siddurim which say shelo asani
nochri, this language is not correct either, as nochri literally means
somebody who comes from another country.  And he rejects shelo asani
oved elilim, because that term excludes the Yishmaelites.  And after
going on even more about this, the mechaber concludes his teshuva that
if one wants to use the formula shelo asani goy you should do as in
aleinu and say shelo asani goy k'goyei ha'aratzot.

>Finally, I would like to make it clear that I am NOT suggesting that
>the usage of the word "goy" in this blessing is wrong beyond a shadow
>of a doubt and must be removed from all siddurim, or that we must all
>say "nochri" instead.  I am merely presenting reasons why I find the
>usage of the word "goy" in this context difficult for me to understand,
>and why the word "nochri" makes more sense to me.

They used stronger language in Lithuania of old, it would seem (ta'ut,
bracha l'vatala etc).

>I also did not take it upon myself to start saying "nochri" or to
>innovate this practice, but this is the nusach that my father uses,
>which presumably he learnt when he was a child.

As the Sde Chemed goes on to add that these words are correct in halacha
l'ma'aseh and so I am noheg to do.  - it does indeed sound from his
description that he abandoned his previous custom and accepted what was
written by Rav Stern.  But then again, they did things differently in
those days.

BTW, while I do not believe we generally posken like the Sde Chemed (he
tends to be fundamentally used for his encyclopaedic references) he is
always a fascinating place to go if you want to escape the
Artscrollation of halacha - and get a sense of the incredible range and
wealth of Lithuanian (and other) scholarship of the last century and

Chana Luntz


From: Immanuel Burton <IBURTON@...>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:57:03 +0100
Subject: Kreplach On Erev Yom Kippur.

For the first time this year I have heard of a custom to eat kreplach on
erev Yom Kippur.  Does anyone know of a reason?

Immanuel Burton.


From: Gil Student <gil_student@...>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:02:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Reb Hayyim on Ta'am ke-Iqqar

Jeffrey Woolf wrote:
>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.'

I think I saw it in the shiurim on Chullin of R' David Rapoport (rebbe
in Baranovitch and author of Mikdash David).  Great minds think alike.

Gil Student

From: Jeffrey Woolf <woolfj@...>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:05:25 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Re: Reb Hayyim on Ta'am ke-Iqqar

Interesting. Since it was R' Hayyim who developed the yesod of taam as a
separate osser and the Rov took it one step further with shishim as a new
shiur bittul, I wonder if R. David learned in Volozhin?

Thanks for the tip.


From: Ken Bloom <kabloom@...>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:55:02 -0700
Subject: Re: Tashlikh on Shabbat

> From: Joseph Mosseri <joseph.mosseri@...>
> 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?

Universally, Tashlich is done on only the first day of Rosh HaShannah,
unless the first day is a Shabbat in which case Tashlich is done on only
the second day. This was enacted specifically out of concern for
carrying on shabbat.

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 23:06:19 -0400
Subject: Tashlikh on Shabbat

The short answer is no.

The custom is brought in Ashkenazi sources and I have no idea of the
Sefaradi practice.  The Mishna Berura cites the Peri Megadim that he saw
*in some places* that people didn't say it on Shabbos; his presumption
is that since the bodies of water were outside the city, there was in
fact an issue of carrying a sidur/machzor.

Despite the tentative language of the MB, it appears to have been
adopted as standard (Ashkenazi) practice to push it off to the second
day when the first is Shabbos.


From: <bdcohen@...> (David Cohen)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:47:10 -0400
Subject: Tashlikh on Shabbat

The custom in our community is to say tashlich on the second day of Rosh
Hashana if the first day falls on shabbat (as is the case this year).
Of course, tashlich can be recited on any day beginning with Rosh
Hashana until Erev Yom Kippur.

David I. Cohen

From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahem@...>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:51:46 -0400
Subject: RE: Tashlikh on Shabbat

I would say that tashlich is performed on the second day of Rosh
Hashanah (Sunday) not on Shabbos, even when a community has an eruv.

From: <FriedmanJ@...>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 23:40:59 EDT
Subject: Re: Tashlikh on Shabbat

Taschlich is then said on the second day, (and shofar is blown only on
the second day), and if that is impossible, it can be done anytime you
can drive or carry until Yom Kippur Kattan, according my late father.


From: Nadine Bonner <nfbonner@...>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:46:07 -0400
Subject: Woman's Role Under the Chuppa

Perry Zamek wrote :

"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)."

That is untrue in many countries still using the Code Napolean. In
Belgium, a civil wedding is required although a religious ceremony is
not. I was visiting the Town Hall in Brussels many years ago, and they
offer free weddings on Tuesdays and Saturdays. There was a parade of
bridal parties trooping in, fully gowned, men in top hats, for their
civil ceremony before heading off to the church.

As there are large Jewish populations in Brussels and Antwerp, I imagine
they are bound by the same law. I don't know the situation in France.


From: Jay F Shachter <jay@...>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 07:55:01 -0600 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Women talking to women in the Bible

> 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.

Presumably Miriam did speak to the women to organize their dancing and
singing, but her words are unrecorded.  The words that are recorded were
addressed to the men, or to the nation at large, not to the women.
"Shiru" [Exodus 15:21] is not the feminine form of the verb, it is the
masculine plural imperative; "lahem", from the same verse, which you
quote above, is third person masculine plural.

	Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
	6424 N Whipple St, Chicago IL  60645-4111
	<jay@...> ; http://m5.chi.il.us:8080


From: Hanno Mott <hdm@...>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 08:33:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Women's Role Under Chuppah

>From: <jmarksmn@...> (Perry Zamek)
>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).

Not true.  One reason, at least in the states, for having a civil
ceremony before the religious, is to be able to file an immigration
petition for a spouse to start the time running on what can be a long
process now-a-days,.  There are also other reasons to accelerate the
legal status of marriage to obtain certain civil benefits.

Hanno D. Mott


End of Volume 40 Issue 72