Volume 41 Number 62
                 Produced: Mon Dec 29  7:14:50 US/Eastern 2003

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

8 Days of Chanukah
Bad Manners and the Benefit of the Doubt
         [Isaac Balbin]
Chanukkah (2)
         [Joel Rich, Nathan Lamm]
Chofetz Chaim who owned an inn
Demanding Respect
         [Batya Medad]
Dish soap = dvar charif?
         [Daniel Nachman]
Eight-day Chanukkah
         [David Charlap]
Following temple practice or not
         [Mark Symons]
Kollel (2)
         [Chaim Shapiro, Matan Shole]
Psychotropic Medications
         [Abie Zayit]
Double Names
         [Isaac Balbin]
Refering to Someone in Third Person
         [Matan Shole]
         [Yair Horowitz]
WHEN to disclose
         [Russell J Hendel]


From: <JoshHoff@...>
Subject: 8 Days of Chanukah

Although the question of why there are eight days of Chanukah instead of
seven is popularly referred to as the Beis Yosef's question, he was not
the first to ask it. It was asked by Rishonim, such as the Rosh- in
Tosafos HaRosh- and the Meiri, to Mesheches Shabbos, on the sugya of


From: Isaac Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:17:36 +1100
Subject: Bad Manners and the Benefit of the Doubt

The Great Gaon, Reb Chaim Soloveitchik, Z"TL had a different
approach. When he travelled on a train, he used to remove his Rabbonishe
Hat, and don the hat of the people tucking his payes in. He engaged
those in his carriage in small talk, enquiring about their welfare and
their problems, sharing in their joy and sadness. He never let on who he
was, although those who knew him, had no trouble recognising him. He
didn't have a Sefer in front of him, and would learn Baal Peh if/when
the conversation died down.

{A source for this: The making of a gadol}


From: <Joelirich@...> (Joel Rich)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 09:56:51 EST
Subject: Chanukkah

<< I had a similar question this week (Chanuka). I was coming home from
 work early, to make it to the _earliest_ minyan for maariv, since my
 custom is to light immediately after that.   >>

Isn't this already a study in relative priorities?  Most "earliest
maariv" minyanim are bdeieved to the extent they are before tzait

Joel Rich

From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 05:44:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Chanukkah

I recently read a nice explanation of the eight-day question by Rabbi
Daniel Lapin: The first day comemmerates the greatest miracle of all:
That when we touch a flame to a wick in oil, it burns. It teaches us an
appreciation of nature.

Regarding the explanation (from Elie Rosenfeld) that the menorah was lit
outside (as stated in Al Hanisim), Rav Baruch Epstein, in the Mekor
Baruch, points out that this is likely a reference to other lights lit
in the chatzer of the mikdash, as on Simchas Beis Hashoeva- another
Sukkot connection, and a possible (other) source of lighting candles on
Chanukkah today.

The moderator's "memory holds out," as he puts it, perfectly on the
subject of the Books of Maccabees.

Finally, as to Shalom Kohn's point about Chanukkah showing how to stand
up to the greater (now Christmas) culture, Herman Wouk makes the same
point in This is My God:

"Our whole history is a fantastic legend of a single days supply of oil
lasting eight days; of a flaming bush that was not consumed; of a
national life that in the logic of events should have flickered and gone
out long ago, still burning on. That is what we tell our children in the
long nights of December when we kindle the little lights, while the
great Christian feast blazes around us with its jewelled tress and
familiar music."

He finishes:

"The two festivals have one real point of contact. Had Antiochus
succeeded in obliterating Jewry a century and a half before the birth of
Jesus, there would have been no Christmas. The feast of the Nativity
rests on the victory of Hanukkah."

Nachum Lamm


From: <DTnLA@...>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:01:11 EST
Subject: Re: Chofetz Chaim who owned an inn

<<The Chofetz Chaim who owned an inn>>

FYI the Chofetz Chaim's grandchildren have told me that it was a grocery
store, not an Inn.


From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:55:22 +0200
Subject: Re: Demanding Respect

      "Dr. Singer" and "Rabbi Smith" -- it turns out that Rabbi Smith
      was a Rosh Yeshiva.  Had I known I imagine I would have spoken
      more "third person"

I'm certain that if the rabbi had wanted the kavod, he would have had
introduced himself in a way that you would have had no doubt.  In Perkei
Avot, we're admonished not to seek kavod.  You were both simple guests
at the wedding.  Did you want him to call you doctor?



From: Daniel Nachman <nachman@...>
Subject: Dish soap = dvar charif?

A friend of mine holds by a din that dish soap is charif, so that any
contact between soapy fleishig & milchig results in trefah, regardless
of temperature or how clean the utensils are.  She remembers it from the
Ohr Somayach baalat tshuvah program but doesn't remember sources.  I'm
curious about where it comes from and who practices this.  Can anyone
shed some light?


Daniel Nachman


From: David Charlap <shamino@...>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:12:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Eight-day Chanukkah

Nathan Lamm wrote:
> ... the custom of lighting an extra light every night is rather late-
> the actual mitzvah is simply to light one candle every night (also
> pointing to a Sukkot-like origin).


But it should be noted that the Gemara discusss the practice of lighting
an increasing number of candles each night.  More specifically, this is
Beis Hillel's opinion.  Beis Shammai has an opposite opinion - where one
should light all 8 on the first night and decrease the candles each day.

Of course, it is quite possible that the custom of following Beis
Hillel's example did not come about at the time his opinion was
committed to writing.  Even today, all agree that the minimum
requirement to fulfil the mitzva is one candle each night.

The followin link discusses this a bit more (and points out that Beis 
Shammai compares Chanuka to Sukkot for his reasoning.)


-- David


From: Mark Symons <msymons@...>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:25:30 +1100
Subject: Following temple practice or not

I always understood that since the destruction of the temple, it has
been a principle not to have/do things as they were in the temple, eg
not having roast meat at the seder because the korban pesach was
roasted, not having a 7-branched menorah but an 8-branched on
instead. So why are we encouraged to follow the practice in the temple
and davka use olive oil in the chanukah menorah?

Mark Symons
Melbourne, Australia


From: <Dagoobster@...> (Chaim Shapiro)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:28:10 EST
Subject: Kollel

Ruth asks why there is little animus toward incompetents in other
fields, Doctors and lawyers and the like, compared to the venom spewed
at Kollel men.  Ruth, the answer is simple; Doctors and lawyers work for
private companies.  If those companies chose to lose their money on
incompetents, it bothers no one but themselves and their bottom line.  I
have switched Doctors when I was unhappy with my personal care.  If that
office choses to bleed their clientele, it shouldn't bother anyone save
their investors.

Kollel men, on the other hand are on the Kehilla's dime.  When the
community supports an institution, we expect results, and are quick to
criticize our precious Tzeddakah dollars being wasted on incompetents.

In case you think it is just the Torah world that acts in this way, just
ask any of your neighbors about the Government workers at the local DMV,
Post office, etc!

Chaim Shapiro

From: Matan Shole <thinkoncemore@...>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:23:38 +0000
Subject: RE: Kollel

In response to <v41n59> RE: Kollel, Overgeneralizations by Ruth E.

Although I believe that the kollel system is beneficial, indeed
integral, to our system of chinuch, it does have its drawbacks and its
weak points.  It would serve us well to challenge those points, rather
than excuse them for the greater good they serve.

First. The reason that "the odd lawyer who gets disbarred or the
physician who actually loses a medical license is front page news" is
because it is a rare occurance.  Additionally, two wrongs does not make
a right.  Also, those who criticize the kollel system do it because it
proports to represent their community, and if so they too have a say in
it.  I imagine that doctors too would be critical of fellow
practitioners who innacurately portray their profession.

Second.  Can you please clarify the Israel/outside of Israel
distinction.  I am not familiar with its implications.

Third.  I believe that the critics are not interested in just getting
kollel people to work.  I think crtics expect that after their last year
in kolle they would, to repay the commmunity at large for kindness while
in kollel, go out and contribute educatioanlly to those who they gained
so much from (financially or otherwise).  Instead, those who have been
the beneficiaries of charity, usually stay in Lakewood (bnei brak, etc.)
without ever repaying their debt.  I think that if they would repay this
debt, perhaps by giving shiurim or teaching aside from their
professions, we would have a more amicable resolution.

Finally.  You're right, nobody has a monopoly on rudeness or
insensitivity.  We only expect that those immersed in Torah, which for
better and worse applies more narrowly to the Yeshiva world, have a
better understanding of their unique role in fostering shalom, as well
as their unique obligations as symbols of Torah and Judaism.



From: <oliveoil@...> (Abie Zayit)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:32:44 +0000
Subject: Psychotropic Medications

Aliza Berger refers to an article by Rabbi Nati Helfgot that appeared in
Jewish Action. As it is an excellent, moving, important article it is
worth noting that it is available on-line at

Abie Zayit


From: Isaac Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:23:24 +1100
Subject: Re Double Names

On this issue, there is the question of whether there are indeed two
separate second names in Aryeh Leib and Yehuda Leib or is it Aryeh Loeb
and Yehuda Leib where the Loeb was (mis)pronounced as Leib by Litvaks
and Russians.


From: Matan Shole <thinkoncemore@...>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:08:32 +0000
Subject: Refering to Someone in Third Person

re: <v41n60>

In regards to Carl Singer's point that had he known he was speaking to a
Rosh Yeshiva he would have spoken in third person.  I once heard some
people say that using the third person is a sign of respect.  However,
later a friend explained that this is a mistaken carryover from
German(?) where there are to ways of addressing a person in first
person, one used for most people and another used to address honorable
people.  This is not, though, the case in English.  In fact, when
addressing the president of the united states, for example, while he is
addreessed as Mr. President at first, subsequently he is addressed in
the first person "you."  I dont think that continuing the use of the
third person is extra respectful, unless you personally make it that
way, in which case it is a personal thing.

In regard to his second point, the Gemarah says that while we hold that
a Talmid chachom can be mochel his honor, since it belongs to him
(u'vtoraso yehege yomam valayla), a king cannot, as his respect does not
derive from his own person, but from his position as king of Israel.
Lehavdil, it seems that the position of an army officer more resembles
the one of a king than of a talmid chochom, as the officer represents
not himself but the United States Army.



From: <Ggntor@...> (Yair Horowitz)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:29:04 -0500
Subject: Respect

>Is it proper for someone who is learned to eschew respect?  >Any sources?
>Carl Singer

First thing that comes to mind off the top of my head is Rambam Hilchot
Talmud Torah 6:6 - "and a prince who chooses to waive his honor
[standing for him], his honor is waived." I am also fairly certain,
although sourceless at the moment (don't you hate it when your Bar-Ilan
CD gets left out and scratched?), that a parent can waive his kavod. On
a more philosophical note, a Rabbi might be different as it may be an
issue of honoring God as well as honoring the person. 

-Yair Horowitz


From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:13:27 -0500
Subject: WHEN to disclose

The discussion of disclosure reminds me of similar discussions on the
Tay-Sachs issue. The issue is not just one of disclosure (certainly if
you have Tay-Sachs you should disclose to a prospective partner). The
issue is WHEN you disclose.

Do you disclose BEFORE you go out?...perhaps they wont go out with
you. Do you disclose during the dating period?-- perhaps they will
abstain from going out further. Disclose at the time of engagement?
..but that is unromantic. Disclose after the wedding...but that is

I am not suggesting pat answers. But we must protect BOTH person
disclosing as well as the person on whom the disclosure is being
made. The issue of WHEN to disclose is important

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


End of Volume 41 Issue 62