Volume 42 Number 16
Produced: Thu Feb 19 6:37:12 US/Eastern 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Halleluya vs Halleluka
[Shimon Lebowitz]
'halleluy-ah' and 'yeshayah'
[Mark Steiner]
Help spread the RAV's Torah
[Yoni Mozeson]
Influences of Galut
[Ira Bauman]
Jewish Observer article, Disney, et al (2)
[Warren Burstein, S Wise]
Kosher Shopping
[Carl Singer]
Looking for an IDF chaplain
[Leah Aharoni]
Oral Law
[Joel Rich]
RFIDs
[Akiva Miller]
Shiur from Rav Shlomo Riskin and Disney land
[Leah Aharoni]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:28:06 +0200
Subject: Re: Halleluya vs Halleluka
> The point meant by those of us who use the dash is not a claim that the
> word itself is a "Divine Name" but that we are emphasizing that there
> needs to be an area of explicit respect when referring to G-d (or God).
> It is a matter of showing that we *meant* the respect that would be
> reuired had we written the actual name.
I have explained this idea of writing "G-d" to denote special respect
several times to non-Jews I spoke with on the Internet, who have raised
^-^ eyebrows at the "strange" spelling. All have agreed that this makes
sense to them, and some have even adopted the custom themselves.
In any case, the various postings here that sounded like they were
formatted as a "psak" that G-d (with the 'o') is NOT a "Name"
notwithstanding, I still would not want to destroy such a text myself.
Nor would I want to be the cause of such happening, so without any
desire to argue the point with anyone, I will not spell out the word.
Shimon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:38:47 +0200
Subject: RE: 'halleluy-ah' and 'yeshayah'
Akiva Miller asks a reasonable question: what is the difference
between the word 'halleluy-ah' and 'yeshayah'? The difference has been
given, I think, in other postings: the mapiq in the 'h' of 'halleluy-ah'
shows that the sacred Name is meant. In most other words ending in yah,
there is no mapiq. Take also a name like Dani'el. The vowel 'tsereh'
or 'e' is under the yod, not the aleph, showing that, although the
original meaning of the name might be something like "Hashem has judged
me", the combination aleph-lamed has lost is original sacredness by
being glued to "dani". Halleluy-ah is an exception.
Mark Steiner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yoni Mozeson <yoni@...>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:27:54 -0400
Subject: Help spread the RAV's Torah
With your help, Jews the world over can experience hearing one of Rav
inspiring Soloveitchick's Yarzeit shiurim in English along with a
transcription and footnotes to help them follow along.
I have a full transcription and a quality recording of a Yarzeit Shiur
entitled "Rabbeinu Tam's Tefillin." Before I can release it to the
public I need to find someone qualified to fill in the footnotes/ "mareh
mekomos."
Please contact me at <yoni@...> and I will send you the transcript
as a Word file.
Tizku Lemitzvot, Kol tuv
Yoni Mozeson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Yisyis@...> (Ira Bauman)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:53:35 EST
Subject: Re: Influences of Galut
In the last few postings, I've read about the insidious effects of
seeing the name Jesus in "The Family Circus" and of eating mock crab.
Raising children in golus does entail watching for harmful influences.
As several people pointed out there are good responses to the Jesus
reference. However, it is possible to be carried away by our fears.
Reading the comics will not encourage our kids to explore other
theologies and mock crab should not tempt our kids to eat real crab in
the slightest, if we do our jobs. In fact, censoring the comics as does
an acquaintance of mine, or, warning against mock tref foods will only
raise the curiosity level.
My father-in-law A'H told me of friends, fellow holocaust survivors, who
would not attend a wedding in a synagogue. The reason is that
Christians have theirs in a church. They were so afraid of
Christianizing influences that they avoided the mitzvah of hachnassas
kallah. I somehow doubt that many would fall prey to Christianity if
they attended the chasunah. No doubt, we should avoid deleterious
influences, but thought and sound reasoning should prevail.
Ira Bauman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Warren Burstein <warren@...>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:07:41 +0200
Subject: RE: Jewish Observer article, Disney, et al
>From: R E Sternglantz <resternglantz@...>
> The point was that somehow, Chol HaMoed has become *about* Disneyland.
I'm afraid I don't see how Chol HaMoed has become "about Disneyland" if
one happens to go there on Chol HaMoed.
> The starting point for the lament was that the Mashgiach saw a very little
> girl with a balloon in her hair. He asked her why she had a balloon in
> her hair. She replied that she'd just learned "Bais" in school, and that
> "bais is for balloon." There's nothing wrong with a little girl with a
> balloon in her hair. The objection wasn't to balloons. He just felt that
> something has been lost when *that's* the association the teacher is
> teaching with aleph-bais.
I don't understand this either. What has been lost?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Smwise3@...> (S Wise)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:26:40 EST
Subject: Re: Jewish Observer article, Disney, et al
In a message dated 2/16/4 10:48:08 AM, Sternglantz on <mljewish@...>
writes:
<< Mostly, and mainly, the article was a lament on how we have lost the
separation of kodesh -- that which is essentially holy -- and chol --
that which has not been sanctified. The point was not that chol must be
(or even should be) completely discarded. The point was that rather
than making chol kodesh, we have been progressively diluting our
experience of kodesh. The Disneyland point was NOT specifically that
Disney was (generally) an inappropriate designation. The point was that
somehow, Chol HaMoed has become *about* Disneyland. The point about the
imitation non-kosher food was very, very specifically focused as well:
it was about a sense of urgency and excitement about getting kosher
certification for a product touted as "tasting exactly like pork." It
was about the Jew wanting the "exactly like pork" experience more than
anything else. >>
It may be true what you say, but the choice of examples does reveal
someth ing. And the speaker did question the "ben Torah-ness" of people
who go to Disneyworld, which does seem suggest his general feelings
about such people. I don't know, but I have yet to hear anyone in my
very large Brooklyn community get excited about foods that taste like
pork. Kashrus on Campbells soup? Not a word. So, at the very least
there may be some hyperbole or just a distorted--and negative--view of
frum community.
What it really sounds like, given the origin of the speaker, is the
level of separation not between chodesh and chol, but between Lakewood
and the rest of the world. In the same address, the speaker could have
easily seen the virtue in the things he criticized. That is what caught
my attention--I have no argument with his basic premise.
I hate to make this comparison, but it does make a point. Any of you
familiar with the novel Pollyanna know the minister in the book was wont
to use his Sunday sermon's to deliver a helping of negativism and
threats of damnation lest they repent. Pollyanna urged the minister to
"look for the good in people." In real life as well it does make a
difference in how we view the world around us.
S. Wise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:25:00 -0500
Subject: Kosher Shopping
>I have to tell you that there were literally dozens of times that I
>found myself cautioning frum American tourists, that no, they could not
>freely buy anything they saw on the shelf at the Supersol on Agron on
>the assumption that it must be kosher.
The same should be cautioned when shopping in the United States in
"Kosher Stores" -- just because the store has "kosher" in its name or is
located in predominantly Jewish neighborhood, say in Brooklyn, or
because the merchant is frum doesn't alleviate you of your
responsibility as an educated, alert shopper. Mistakes happen. I'm
sure that a "things that I found in the 'Kosher Store" would fill
volumes."
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah Aharoni <leah25@...>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:45:16 +0200
Subject: Looking for an IDF chaplain
I remember reading on the list that one of the members is an IDF
chaplain. I would appreciate it if he could contact me for help on a
project for IDF soldiers.
Thank you in advance,
Leah
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Joelirich@...> (Joel Rich)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:48:40 EST
Subject: Oral Law
We once discussed the nature of the "ei atah rshai" (you are not
pernitted)to write down the oral law and discussed approaches to the
"ongoing" eit laasot<one time exception>(if that is the reason for the
writing)
In R' Schwab on Prayer(P358) he states "However, when Mashiach comes,the
Shas and other printed sefarim will be relegated to museums, and the
original-and ideal-system of learning TSBP(oral law) will be
reinstituted. For now, Torah learning from written sefarim is only a
temporary measure, a marker, to stay the course, and keep us familiar
with the Torah, until Bias Hamashiach, when the ideal way of learning
be'al paeh, orally, will be reinstituted"
Anyone know sources for this opinion? How does this comport with the Gm
saying (San 99a) only difference will be lack of shibud malchiyot<yoke
of other nations> (does this mean we'll all be learning in Kollel all
day and other nations will support us?) Why is it so clear that there
will not be a time prior to mashiach that the eit laasot will disappear?
Lishitato will the museum copies be sealed and the oral transmission
start from there or will all written psakim be "ignored"? etc.
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:16:36 -0500
Subject: re: RFIDs
Regarding carrying outside an eruv on Shabbos, Carl Singer wrote:
<<< ... we seem to be OK with carrying items (permanently?) affixed to
garments -- be they decorative, functional or superfluous. Take for
example, the "Shatnes Tag" that is bolted onto the insides of our suit
jacket when we have our clothing checked. It serves no real purpose --
perhaps even lends to "Givah". I know my clothing does not contain
shatnes -- do I need a tag to remind me? Maybe I should have this tag
affixed on the outside so that I can better teach people about shatnes.
I'd be interested in hearing any sources re: carrying related to
"carrying" such items. In the "old days" a decorative pocket square (one
might call it a handkerchief) was a fixture in the breast pocket of a
man's suit... >>>
The Shemiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa is a great place to learn these
distinctions. My parentheses below refer there.
The "decorative" or "functional" criteria must be as a function of the
clothing or to otherwise enhance the person's appearance. For example,
the belt on one's overcoat is okay even when not belted (18:29), and a
pocket square is like any other ornament or jewelry (18:25).
"Superfluous", though, can be subdivided into other categories. A
shaatnez tag is like the tag with the manufacturer's name and the size
label -- given that they are permanently attached and negligible, they
are okay (29:44). But if spare buttons are sewn into a hidden part of
the garment, that is *not* okay (18:30) because they are neither
decorative nor functional nor negligible; they are being stored in a
convenient place for possible future use. The same applies to a button
which is so loose that one does not use it for fear that it might fall
off (18:40); it is not longer a functional part of the garment and is
merely kept there for storage until it can be resewn.
It is difficult to talk about buttonholes, because they are merely
holes, without much existence independent of the fabric they're cut
into. But I found his description of torn loops and ribbons (18:41) to
be very instructive: where they are broken and one does *not* plan to
repair them, they are superfluous, negligible, and may be brought
outside. But if one *does* plan to repair them, they are significant,
independent, and may *not* be brought outside.
My guess is that the RFIDs would be most comparable to the
manufacturer's name and the size label, but that only addresses the
"carrying" issue. We must still deal with the effects which the RFID
would have on a sensor, and that's for another post.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah Aharoni <leah25@...>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:20:13 +0200
Subject: Shiur from Rav Shlomo Riskin and Disney land
IMHO, some of the posters are missing the point. Both Rav Riskin and the
Jewish Observer are lamenting the PRIORITIES of the frum Jewish
community. There is nothing wrong with pizza, tropical Pesach retreats,
or Disney. Luxuries are nice, but they should not obscure the big
picture, which is that frum Jews should DEDICATE their lives to Torah
and mitzvot. Everything else, while permissible, is secondary.
This of course is an ideal and a challenge. It's hard to maintain the
correct perspective on life. However, it's important to keep an eye on
the goal.
Leah Aharoni
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 42 Issue 16