Volume 41 Number 42
                 Produced: Tue Dec 16  5:50:09 US/Eastern 2003

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Coats Under the Chupah
         [Aryeh Gibber]
Double Names (3)
         [Yisrael Medad, Joshua Kay, <rubin20@...>]
Good Manners (2)
         [Carl Singer, <Smwise3@...>]
How AMIT changed Therapy methods--The Beth Giloh School
         [Russell Jay Hendel]
Kittel and other Minhagim
         [Ira Bauman]
Laws relating to who may be a Sheliach Tzibur
         [Mordechai Horowitz]
Sitting at a shiva house
         [Batya Medad]
Standing at Vayivarech/Tzedaka (2)
         [Chaim Tatel, Kenneth G Miller]
Working in Lakewood.
         [Eugene Bazarov]


From: Aryeh Gibber <agibber@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:15:49 -0500
Subject: Coats Under the Chupah

Whether or not these reasons were arrived at in response to the
temperature I can't say, but another one I recently heard is that the
black coat on a white kittul is analogous to the concept of "eish
shechorah al gabei eish leveinah," that the Torah was given in "black
fire imposed on white fire." A bit Kabbalistic and beyond my full
comprehension, but I did hear it from a certified coat-wearer.

Aryeh Gibber


From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 23:53:07 +0200
Subject: Double Names

      Leah Aharoni <leah25@...> wrote:
      I can't think of anyone with a double names in the Tanakh,

Kings II 25:27  Evil Marduk
Kings II 23:11  N'tan Melech
but Job 42:19   Keren-Hapuch probably wouldn't count

Kalba Suva?

Yisrael Medad

From: Joshua Kay <jkay@...>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:59:00 +1100
Subject: Double Names

<<The practice of giving children double names seems to be a relatively
recent one. I can't think of anyone with a double names in the Tanakh,
Gemara, or among the Rishonim.
Any ideas as to the origins of Jewish double names?>>

Could it be the use of both the shem hakodesh and its Yiddish
equivalent? For example, Shlomo Zalman, Shraga Feivel, Dov Baer.

Dov Kay

From: <rubin20@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:49:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Double Names

In fact the Noda B'Yehudah was of the opinion that there is no such
thing as a double name. See R' Reuvain Margolisis book (Shemos V Kinuyim
b'Talmud) for a long discusion of double names etc.


From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:08:04 -0500
Subject: Good Manners

I mentioned to a friend last night that when leaving his shule one
morning a young man coming torwards me not only didn't reply to my "good
morning" (it was voch) but turned away as to avoid having to make eye
contact, etc.

He replied to me that he had heard that a respected Rabbi had paskened
that one should not talk with anyone in the morning prior to davening.

Does anyone have input on this?

Carl Singer

From: <Smwise3@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:15:27 EST
Subject: Re: Good Manners

<< I do agree with the statements that one should not generalize and say
that all Yeshiva students are rude.  However, surely someone spending
all their time studying Torah should know better, so can we expect a
higher standard from them? >>

I agree with Immanuel's comments and would like to suggest that perhaps
part of the problem is that we forget they are human like the rest of us
and probably have issues they need to deal with--but they mask it with
their choice of lifestyle.  I am amazed at what I hear speakers at
shiurim have to say a crowd that "should know better" regarding Shalom
Bayis issues, raising children and even how they conduct themselves.
>From early on, the emphasis is simply on learning.  How often have I
heard a brachah given to a bar mitzvah boy to grow up to be "a big
talmud chochom," but not always do they add "and a baal middos."  Some
people are sensitive about this, and for those of us who are not so
learned, we value the middos and sympathize with the less than brilliant

Similarly, and I am sure someone will castigate me for saying this, but
likewise, the rabbonim we follow may also have issues that are apart
from their scholarship.  After all, as much as we elevate rabbonim as
our leaders, or the chassidim do their leaders, they are still human and
can make mistakes.  The Torah itself does not spare telling us that
Moshe Rabbenu was punished for his errors, yet today someone has made
their leaders superhuman.

It dismays me to hear about learned people going to great lengths, for
example, to destroy a shidduch for a child that may have chosen to marry
someone they don't envision as proper for their status.

I recall many years ago an incident in yeshiva, when my chavrusa was
returning a sefer to its place and in the process he passed in front of
the rosh yeshiva who was still during Shemoneh Esrai.  After he
finished, the rosh yeshiva came over and gave my chavrusa a public
scolding.  This event happened more than 20 years ago and it still
leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  The rosh yeshiva is no doubt a great
talmud chochom, and he has a large following, but I wonder whether that
particular action was appropriate.  I for one do not believe it is
appropriate just because the rosh yeshiva did it.

In judging the behavior, I guess we can be most charitable by realizing
that bottom line, despite their scholarship, they also may do the wrong
thing and need a kapara on Yom Kippur.

S. Wise


From: <rjhendel@...> (Russell Jay Hendel)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:34:39 GMT
Subject: How AMIT changed Therapy methods--The Beth Giloh School

Chaim Shapiro (v41n26) and Steven Oppenheimer (v41n29) discuss child
abuse. In a former article I made clear my position that Judaism
disagrees with psychology: to wit--abusive people with chemical
imbalances can repent.

But I didnt explain HOW. I did mention the precedent of AMITS wonderful
work. So let me briefly describe what they do. More specifically let me
answer the question "What did AMIT do that had not been done before that
changed the statistics?"

Amit CHANGED the therapy method. The typical student in Beth Giloh comes
from a family where at least one parent is abusive or on drugs etc. I
know of one case where the child had burns on their body.

In contrast to traditional therapy IN WHICH THE PATIENT CONTINUES THEIR
LIFE but arranges to meet with a therapist a few times a week for
treatment via "dialogue and possibly drugs"--the amit treatment totally
changes the environment.

The Beth Giloh School is arranged in units. Each unit consists of one
male social worker one female social worker and 12 children.  This
becomes the childs surrogate family. Children are given responsibilities
and taught normal social graces (which may be absent in their home

By recreating a new environment for the child, the child is literally
given a 2nd chance.

One clinician recently spoke about the "recurrence rate for
abusers". With Amit we speak about the cure rate---most of the children
coming there totally change. The change is real and reflects a
personality change.This is true independent of how much physical abuse
has taken place and independent of how abusive the child is.

The AMIT model has been copied to other child-abuse settings.

Since I have brought the above let me apply the above to spousal
abuse. I never claimed that aperson who eg hits his wife should simply
be forgiven. Neither Rise nor Rabbi Teitz dealt with my hypothetical
case: Suppose "The husband gets a divorce, changes his job--in short
removes all possible stimulii that cause his condition--suppose further
he has been living normally this way for 10 years---suppose he goes to
functions with other people and behaves normally"

In short suppose this person undertakes to change his environment and
circle of friends (the same way the Beth Giloh changes take place).

I dont know of any literature on this type of change (because most of
the literature is on people who continue with their abuse). My position
is unchanged---this person is no longer the same person. I would
consider it criminal to malign him and deprive him of his future (Which
he has earned). More can be said but I think examining the facts and
methods may "clear the air". Hope this thread continues because I have
more to say

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


From: <Yisyis@...> (Ira Bauman)
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:51:03 EST
Subject: Re: Kittel and other Minhagim

>  I personally find the entire Kittel and overcoat over Kittel business
> unnecessary. Perhaps I'm incorrect but it is found nowhere in the
> Shas, Rambam or Shulchan Aruch for a Chatan to wear a Kittel, let
> alone an overcoat.

It seems to me that the motive of this writer and others as well is a
response to the self-confidence shown by many young people of the newly
practiced minhagim that they are growing up with but are relatively
unknown to their parent's generations.  They look down upon their elders
and know that they are finally the generation that understands and
practices Judaism the way it should be.  I fear that it is possible that
we, the baby boomer generation, may have been somewhat guilty of that
with our parents.  My only consolation is that our grandchildren's
generation will one day shake their heads pathetically at their parents
generation and wonder how they could have been so ignorant.  

Ira Bauman


From: Mordechai Horowitz <mordechai@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:47:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Laws relating to who may be a Sheliach Tzibur

I seem to remember learning a halacha once, where someone is not allowed
to daven for the community if an individual objects to them davening.
Is my memory playng tricks on me or is their a source?


From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:30:06 +0200
Subject: Re: Sitting at a shiva house

      Having noted that this rule is not all inclusive, I would concur
      that this halakha has clearly fallen into disuse, and the question
      reamins as to why. I have never heard a good explanation for this,
      and would like to hear one.

Though I haven't yet had to sit shiva (may my parents and close family
live to 120), I have helped set up homes for shiva.  Those inexpensive
"Keter" (a brand of plastic) chairs sure are helpful.  They're easy to
bring from house to house and stack nicely.  There's even a "shiva"
version with full, adult-size seat and shortened legs.

Now I wouldn't be surprised if at the time the Shulchan Aruch was
written, not only didn't they have a few dozen plastic chairs to borrow,
but couches and livingroom furniture as we know it today were rare.  The
mourners most probably sat on a floor wrapped in a blanket at most, and
visitors had a choice between standing and joining the visitor on the
floor.  That's what the halacha is based on, no doubt.  Only the very
wealthiest had enough chairs, and the mourning family is not supposed to
be burdened with the responsibility of searching for extra chairs and
stools from neighbors, who had none to spare.



From: Chaim Tatel <chaimyt@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:14:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: RE: Standing at Vayivarech/Tzedaka

>Joel Rich
> PS An interesting sociological note - based on an anecdotal survey-the
> number of people who give tzedaka at vayivarech has increased
> exponentially since it was mentioned(without comment as to the source)
> in the Artscroll Siddur footnote- Question-does one have the right as an
> individual(or community) to change the established minhag on such
> issues?

Artscroll is not the originator of this minhag.  I have two Israeli
siddurim: Tefillas Yosef (which includes halachos of tefilla from the
Mishna Berurah) and the Miller Siddur.

Tefillas Yosef quotes the M"B (as Joel RIch stated), Chap 51, Note 19:
"The AR"I, when he said 'V'Atah Moshel Bakol' would give Tzedakah. It
doesn't say that he was the first to do this.

The Miller Siddur states: "When saying 'V'Atah Moshel Bakol' - this is a
good place to give tzedakah."

From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:34:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Standing at Vayivarech/Tzedaka

Someone wrote <<< He suggested that the reason for standing at "vyvarech
David"-standing for the people who gave tzedaka at that point, >>>

I've heard this from many sources, but don't we stand at that point on
Shabbos as well? If so, why?

Akiva Miller


From: Eugene Bazarov <evbazarov@...>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:05:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Working in Lakewood.

I recently heard a rumor that I find hard to believe. Since I don't like
to spread (false) loshen hora, I asked three separate cognoscenti and
they said it is in-fact true. Whereas I believe this fact to be a bad
thing, perhaps there are people in the list who would like to defend the
following fact.

I heard that there are certain schools in Lakewood that do not accept
children from homes whose fathers are working (I assume it is o.k. if
the mother is employed.)  Can this be true?

Are there similar things in chasidisher schools or in Eretz Yisroel?

E.V. Bazarov


End of Volume 41 Issue 42