Volume 42 Number 19
                 Produced: Sun Feb 22  0:22:01 US/Eastern 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Dani-el or Daniel
         [Caela Kaplowitz]
Disney (2)
         [<Smwise3@...>, Tzvi Stein]
         [Russell J Hendel]
Halleluya vs Halleluka (2)
         [Michael Poppers, Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Influences of Galut
         [Harlan Braude]
Shiur from Rav Shlomo Riskin and Disneyland
         [Allen Gerstl]
Wedding Inside a Shul
         [David Neuman]


From: Caela Kaplowitz <caelak@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:00:51 -0500
Subject: Dani-el or Daniel

Mark Steiner wrote:
>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.

I never noticed that in the name Dani'el the tsere vowel is under the
yud, not the aleph (probably because I never learned Sefer Dani'el
:-). However, what do you do with names like Yisrael and Uziel, for
instance? In the name Uziel there is a chirik vowel like in Dani'el but
the tsere is under the aleph.

Caela Kaplowitz
Baltimore, MD


From: <Smwise3@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:36:51 EST
Subject: Re: Disney

> 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

With all due respect, I wasn't the one who first cited Disneyworld and
mock kosher; it was the writer of the article.  It is he who seemed to
suggest that the existence of these and other things are somehow a
PRIORITY in the lives of frum people.  I don't know why he prefers to
think that way, but it appears that he does.  None of these "luxuries"
contraindicate a dedication to Torah, but the writer wants to suggest
it.  It's a sad commentary.


From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 09:09:45 -0500
Subject: Re: 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.

I think that concept is both too abstract and too difficult-sounding,
even scary... what does it mean really?  I think people need more
practical guidance for such an idea to be acted upon.

It's a similar thing with learning Torah.  Why do we find so many frum Jews
who don't learn a word of Torah on a regular basis?  Perhaps because they
were always taught that the standard is "every spare moment should be spent
engrossed in Torah".  That seems unattainable and even scary, so they stay
away.  When they hear about a shiur, they tell themselves... "I shuouldn't
be going to a weekly shiur, I should be spending every spare moment
engrossed in Torah", so they don't go... they are waiting until they can
achieve the "standard", and in the meantime Torah-learning is a "hot buton"
to be avoided.  If instead they had always heard "you should spend x hours a
week learning Torah" then they would feel OK about going to the shiur.  So I
think the admonition to "DEDICATE their lives to Torah and mitzvot" needs to
be refined.


From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:57:36 -0500

The thread on the source for the well known adage ACTS OF THE PATRIARCHS
ARE MIRRORS FOR THE CHILDREN illuminates a fundamental distinction in
Jewish law -- the distinction between SUBSTANCE and FORM.

For Gilad, Aryeh and Freeda are correct.  The first EXPLICIT USE OF
THESE WORDS goes back only a few centuries. But is that the issue?

Isnt the issue, not where the WORDS first occur, but where the CONCEPT
first occurs? In fact the CONCEPT goes back to the Bible itself.

I bring one example that can be explicitly traced back to the Writers of
the Midrash.

It is well known that the sojournship in Egypt was a fundamental
historical experience of the Jewish people

But The Midrash (gn15-03) states GREAT IS THE SOJOURNSHIP SINCE ALL THE
Rashi explicitly cite this while others do not)

It is then natural to ask was the sojournship experience mirrored by
Patriarchal activity. A list of SOJOURNSHIPS of Patriachs may be found
at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/dt15-09b.htm

The point being made here is that this statement about sojournship is a
particular application of the more general principle that all activities
(not just sojournship) of the patriarchs are mirrors for the children

A second point being made here is that this mirror naturally flows from
the Biblical text.

Finally a third point being made here is that the PATRIACH-CHILD-MIRROR
does not apply to sporadic acts of patriarchs but rather applies to
PATRIARCHAL PATTERNS that repeated themselves.

Alot more could be said here...but the above should suffice for
now...suffice it to say the above approach emphasizes the concept vs the
word and emphasizes direct analysis of Biblical texts vs citations of

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


From: <MPoppers@...> (Michael Poppers)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:30:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Halleluya vs Halleluka

In M-J V42#15, my friend and fellow Elizabeth-community member Akiva Miller
argued for YA rather than KA, writing the following during his reply:

> Accordingly, it seems to me that "halleluyah" is a new word, with an
> independent meaning, notwithstanding the fact that it's new meaning is
> very similar to that of the words it is made from -- just like "Beit El"
> is! (Specifically, I would suggest that "halleluyah" is no longer a
> command meaning "Praise G-d", but is rather an interjection or
> exclamation like "amen" or "selah".)

I had a thought along those lines but rejected it, as all the examples
you mentioned (and many others, like "Yisrael," which seems like the
first proper name in TaNaCH to utilize a Divine name) represent proper
names which happen to be compound or compound-like nouns and, as such,
can be considered a non-Divine name, a different entity, even if a
Divine name was utilized in building them (compare how the foundation of
a house joined to all the materials which make up a house is transformed
into a house, which retains no public aspect of the parts that compose
it).  By contrast, "Hal'luyah" isn't a proper noun but rather two
separate words joined to each other, and each word, one could argue,
retains its identity.  As for whether it's an interjection like "selah,"
I tend to think not, as Biblical Hebrew doesn't begin thoughts with
interjections; many chapters of Thilim bring this out, perhaps none more
than the last, which also joins "hal'lu" with "hu" to form "hal'luhu."

I still agree with Akiva's initial point and question whether KA is
required or even proper, but my reasoning essentially is because
"Hal'luyah" is a deliberate construction and utterance of a Divine name
in praise of the Divine, and we should not be ashamed to praise God in
more ways than explicit p'suqim from TaNaCH.  That said, I must note the
opinion of my and Akiva's Rav (who is bcc:ed on this message) -- when I
asked him about singing that Israeli song and its "...al mah shehayah,"
he responded (if I understood him correctly) that he would use KAH
rather than YAH and that one could substitute a "hm, hm, hm" hum for the
rhyming line if one was worried about the lack of rhyme after using KAH.

All the best from

-- Michael Poppers via RIM pager

From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:37:21 EST
Subject: Halleluya vs Halleluka

Shimon Lebowitz (NJv42n16) says:
<<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.>>

I am yet to read a reasonable explanation of how a straight Mishanah
which says that the prohibition of using the name of God in vain is
applied ONLY when it is written in Hebrew, on parchment with ink
["le-olam eino metame ad she-yichtevenu Ashurit al ha-or u-vadio"]
(Yadayim 4:5).

Gilad J. Gevaryahu


From: Harlan Braude <hbraude@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 09:12:17 -0500
Subject: RE: Influences of Galut

> 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.

Rav Dovid Lifshitz, zt"l mentioned in shiur once that the practice of
not holding weddings in a synagogue is based on the mitzvah of
'uvechukoteyhem lo telechu' (and in their ways you shall not follow,
[Vayikra, 18:3]).

It seems to me that question comes down to which non-Jewish practices
qualify as the chukot referred to in the pasuk?

The Rabbis obviously felt, for one, that weddings in a place of worship

More than likely, the criticality of the family in Jewish life is deemed
reason enough to be more vigilant, even where we might not sense the
influence of the prohibited practice.

Kol Tuv


From: Allen Gerstl <acgerstl@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:32:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Shiur from Rav Shlomo Riskin and Disneyland

>...Both Rav Riskin and the Jewish Observer are lamenting the PRIORITIES
>of the frum Jewish community.

In a similar way, I heard Rav Steinzaltz mention that certain
Chassidishe men who wore the proper levush ([Chassidic] clothing) were
really "nice American boys in [I think he said] bekeshes" i.e. they were
largely assimilated into the general society's normative attitudes and
behaviour and only had the outer trappings of Frumkeit and Chassidut.

No doubt all of the above is true and the JO is a useful publication but
it at times to effects a sanctimoniousness in its editorial style that
detracts from otherwise good material.

>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.

Certainly agreed; but "secondary" does not mean forebidden or even
useless.  We can lose perspective and go to extremes. Thus I know
someone who a relative who has a sign on a wall that says (something to
the effect) that: "If its not eternal then its really a triviality".
That motto just isn't true.  HaKaddush Baruch Hu made a material world
that can be used or abused.  He did not intend that we become obsessive,
busy-bodies whose only joy is sanctimonious meddling.

Like much of life, its all a question of balance and the use of that
"fifth cheilek of Shulchan Aruch", common sense.



From: David Neuman <daveselectric@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:42:27 -0500
Subject: Wedding Inside a Shul

I have heard a different reason for not having a wedding ceremony inside
the shul.  The Chasam Sofer warned against having a wedding inside a
shul.  This link, http://www.tzemachdovid.org/gedolim/chasamsofer.html .
Gives a biographic history of the Chasam Sofer.  Below is part of the

  The Chasam Sofer

  This article originally appeared in Yated Neeman, Monsey NY. and is
  reprinted here with their permission


  The Chasam Sofer waged a valiant and mighty battle against the maskilim
  of his time, using every means available to counter them. "If their
  judgement was put into our hands," he wrote, "my opinion would be to
  drive them from our midst. Our daughters would not be given to their
  sons, nor our sons to their daughters, lest they be drawn after them.
  Their communities would be like the communities of Zadok and Baisus,
  they for themselves, and us for ourselves."

  Rav Moshe's famous war cry was: "Chadash [new philosophical ideas] is
  forbidden by the Torah!"

  On one occasion the Chasam Sofer warned a wealthy couple to perform
  their wedding ceremony under the open sky, as per Jewish tradition, and
  not inside a shul, in accordance with Reform custom. When the
  bridegroom refused, Rav Moshe announced, "I doubt that the children of
  this couple will remain Jews!" Years later his warning came about when
  the couple converted.

  duvid neuman


End of Volume 42 Issue 19