Volume 42 Number 28
                 Produced: Mon Mar  1  4:56:46 US/Eastern 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Authority of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch
         [Akiva Miller]
Divorce and Tallit
         [Heshy Zaback]
divroced hair
How does Maarit Eiyin Change
         [Joel Rich]
Influences of Galut
Japan kosher
         [Bernard Raab]
Jewish Observer article, Disney, et al
Kitzur Shulchan Arukh
         [Eli Turkel]
Passover Game
         [Richard Dine]
Torah in the Midbar
         [Leah Aharoni]
Writing the name of G-d
         [Eliezer Shemtov]


From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:31:41 -0500
Subject: Authority of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch

In the thread titled "Writting name of G-d", Michael Rogovin wrote: <<<
I was stunned to see that the kitzur was being cited as a statement of
normative halacha. The kitzur was written for people who did not want to
or could not look things up in the shulchan aruch (or presumably the
mishna brura, aruch hashulchan, mishna torah or other halachic
summaries, let alone learn from primary sources like the gemara). >>>

The Mishna Brurah and Aruch Hashulchan were also written for people who
did not want to or could not look things up in the Shulchan Aruch. The
Shulchan Aruch was written for people who did not want to or could not
look things up in the Rishonim. The Mishneh Torah was written for people
who did not want to or could not look things up in the Gemara.

How is the Kitzur different from them?

And he wrote <<< As such, it does not list nuances or variant opinions
and, as do many works written now for general audiences, reports only
the most stringent view. >>>

I disagree. He does not report "only the most stringent view", but
rather he reports the halacha as he understands it, as it was practiced
in his community.

I opened my Kitzur to a random page to see what I might find, and I
chanced upon Chapter 75, Halacha 1: "Everyone must stop working and
light the candles at least chetzi shaah kodem tzeis hakochavim -- a
half-hour before the stars come out."

The Kitzur *could* have written "chetzi shaah kodem shkias hachama -- a
half-hour before the sun sets." Or he could have chosen to be vague,
writing "chetzi shaah kodem halailah -- a half-hour before the night."

But he did neither of those things. He wrote that one can light the
Shabbos candles on Friday afternoon as late as 30 minutes before the
stars come out. He wrote it that way because that was the halacha as it
was held in his community, and it was the halacha as he saw it.

Anywhere in the world, and at any time of year, and according to any
opinion of when "the stars come out" occurs, this is still long after
the sun has set, and as far as I know, this is far more lenient than the
way observant Jews of any community act nowadays.

Akiva Miller


From: Heshy Zaback <heshyzaback2@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:02:25 -0500
Subject: RE: Divorce and Tallit

>From: Yehonatan Chipman <yonarand@...>
>     2. The whole custom of bachelors not wearing tallitot is itself rather 
>problematic. <....snip....>
> 5. I have also heard that an unmarried man should in any event begin wearing 
> a tallit from age 35, which is, so to speak, a kind of half-way
> station in life. 

I have seen that done, where an ummarried man of about 35 years old
started wearing a tallis on the advice of his rov. The basic idea was,
there's no telling if and/or when you'll get married; it's time to start
doing this mitzvah.

As an extension of the same concept, why should a divorced man stop
doing a mitzvah he's already doing?


From: <chips@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:53:13 -0800
Subject: Re: divroced hair

> He compared this to the permission
> (not accepted by all) for divorced women to cease covering their hair.
umm, why can't a divorced woman have her hair uncovered?



From: <Joelirich@...> (Joel Rich)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:17:44 EST
Subject: Re: How does Maarit Eiyin Change

>> Once the non-dairy creamers came in , they were served int the
>> original carton at events and even in homes when guests were served.
>> This was, obvioulsy to enure that people knew that it was not the
>> "forbidden" cream that was being served.

> What is particularly interesting about this example is how old it
> really is. It seems that there was already a non-dairy creamer made
> from nuts as early as the 1500s. The Rama (YD 87:3) mentions a creamer
> made from almonds, and discusses the maris ayin issues that arise from
> it, and how to avoid those issues.

What is really interesting is why there is no longer a perceived need to
keep the coffee rich container out!  If you say that it's because
"everyone knows" that coffee rich is being used, why didn't this apply
in the case of the Rama (perhaps it wasn't very common?).  Also how do
you define "everyone knows" - if it's based on popular usage, do you
assume that because enough nonJews use it without leaving the container
out, its ok?  If you just based it on Jewish practice, did the first
people who didn't leave the container out sin, but then when enough
people did this it became OK? If everyone was leaving containers out,
did some posek at some time say -OK now I see that enough people know
about it so you can stop leaving the containers out?  If this were the
case what sample/statistic did the posek look at and for which
groups/subgroups of Jews - or was it permissible for some not for others
depending on local usage?

Joel Rich


From: <meirman@...> (Meir)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:45:27 -0500
Subject: Influences of Galut

>From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
>> From: <Yisyis@...> (Ira Bauman)
>> ...who would not attend a wedding in a synagogue.  The reason is that
>> Christians have theirs in a church.  ....
>In England it is (or was) the law of the land that a wedding had to
>either take place in a registry office, in the town hall or in a house
>of worship. 

According to discussions on uk.religion.jewish, it is still the law, and
it's not just any house of worship, but only those on a list of
authorized places.  Even for the Church of England, it's not just any
house of worship. They too seem to have have certain listed places.  And
it is only within regulated hours.

>Part of the roof of the "new" Machzikei Hadat shul in NW
>London (maybe its 20 years old now, but I remember when it was new)
>opens up for chupot under the sky but this is an exception - possibly
>the only of its kind in England. Those who would feel uncomfortable in
>having the chuppa in a shul had to go to Brent Town Hall, which was the
>only other option available (as far as I remember). Maybe some shuls
>were able to accommodate a chupa in the shul grounds, but I think this
>was rare, and of course the weather had to be right.

What they said on the ng was that the law about wedding places covered
England and Wales but not Scotland, and all religions except Judaism and
Quakerism.  And that Jews and Quakers could get married whereever and
whenever we and they wanted.  (Within reason.  10 Downing Street and
Buckingham Palace are not always available.)

It wasn't so clear, but I don't think this allowance for us and Quakers
was so much an example of tolerance, but that the law didn't provide any
method or regulation of these two groups wrt marriage.  Originally, with
the first regulation of C of E marriage, under Lord Cairn's Act, only
the Church of England could solemnize marriages. Later other Xian
denominations were created, and then they created civil marriage.  I got
the feeling that we were just ignored.  I"m just guessing, maybe because
Jews had been expelled from England at the time.  All that time???
Nonetheless, the result is good.

Is it possible the Jews in Brent didn't know there was an exception for

The poster says, in post 17, that "at least as respects Jews who are
members of a synagogue which is designated by (I think) the Board of
Deputies for the purposes of the Marriage Acts", they may be married
outdoors (and anywhere, anytime).

>I understand there is Christian influence, because Britain is a
>Christian country. The British (Orthodox) United Synagogue, when there
>was a choice of halachic opinions to accept as its established minhag
>(custom), tended to choose the opinion that fitted better with British
>society and that was comfortable with its membership at the time.  Thus
>getting married in a shul was (or is) the Orthodox norm in the UK,
>although I think this might be changing now.

It's quite amazing how our perceptions are so different, and there is
probably a lesson there for all sorts of topics.

<meirman@...>  Baltimore, MD, USA


From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:03:22 -0500
Subject: Japan kosher

From: Daniel Wells
> My daughter is leaving soon for a week on a business school sponsored
> trip to Tokyo.  If anyone has any ideas of how to survive on a kosher
> diet (other than brining a suitcase of tuna fish cans with her) please
> let me know directly at <RYehoshua@...> All information is apreciated.


However there are other problems involved...like on what day will she
keep Shabbat, sefiat haomer etc.  According to the Chazon Ish she will
be on the other side of the dateline:


Interestingly, the Star-K website, which gives the most comprehensive
discussion of the halachic dateline issue I have seen, ends up in
virtually all cases with the psak that one observes Shabbat on the local
Saturday, despite the variety of poskim and piskei halacha referenced.
Although they do not acknowledge it, this is in keeping with the ruling
made during WWII by Chief Rabbi Herzog in consultation with all the
gedolim of the yishuv in Eretz Yisrael at the time: one observes Shabbat
on the day that the local Jewish community does. This inevitably means
on Saturday, so that however much we may wish to deny the applicability
of the "civil" dateline, this ends up controlling in most cases.

Note: The Chazon Ish made his ruling before being invited to join in the
decision of the rabbis of the yishuv. There is some reason to suggest
that he would have joined in their ruling if he had not already ruled

b'shalom--Bernie R.


From: <chips@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:44:33 -0800
Subject: Re: Jewish Observer article, Disney, et al

>  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.

On the other hand, when OREOS came under kosher supervision there was great 
rejoicing throughout the land.


From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:26:15 +0200
Subject: Kitzur Shulchan Arukh

> I would like to point out that the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (6:3) says
> the  contrary:
> "It is forbidden to pronounce the name of Hashem in vain.... Not
>only the ineffable name of Hashem, but all names that are attributed
>to  Him.... Not only in Hebrew, but in any language... ">

The question is what weight a psak of the kitzur carries. I understood
it was not that highly regarded - certainly not on the level of Chaye


From: Richard Dine <richard.dine@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:00:44 -0500
Subject: RE: Passover Game

Each year for Passover, our extended family has a pre-Seder game (among
other things, it helps smooth the issue of when to start the Seder,
since we can start this earlier but begin the halachic part of the Seder
at the proper time).  We have used Who Wants to be a Millionaire,
Jeopardy, and Hollywood Squares in the past, and would like this time to
use "Family Feud."  But to do so we need to collect surveys, so I and a
couple of siblings are trying to line up a variety of responders.
Please e-mail me (<richard.dine@...>) if you are willing to answer (or
have your kids answer) about 30 simple questions regarding Passover.  If
you want, I will send you the final outcomes which you can use for your
own game, and which might be interesting if answers differ between the
various sources of the survey. 

Richard Dine
email: <richard.dine@...>


From: Leah Aharoni <leah25@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 23:08:15 +0200
Subject: Torah in the Midbar

Rav Kuperman always says that God gave the Torah in the midbar on
purpose.  Before beginning to study the Torah, we must disengage
ourselves from all preconceived notions, agendas, and personal
preferences. In other words, it's imperative to learn the Torah "as is"
and not force it into a certain slot.

All the best,



From: Eliezer Shemtov <shemtov@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:10:17 -0300
Subject: Re: Writing the name of G-d

Regarding the status of G-d's name in other languages, please see
Shulchan Aruch Admur Hazokein 85:3 and Mishnah Berurah 85:12 (quoting
Admur Hazakein).

I would like to point out that the issue here is not if it is
permissible or not to write the word "G-d" without a hyphen. The issue
is if G-d's name in other languages has any holiness to it. It is clear
that although it be permitted to ERASE the word G-d or its equivalent in
other languages even when spelled out fully, it is still not permitted
to defile it when written or to pronounce it in unrespectable places. In
addition to bringing this concept in summarized form, the Kitzur
Shulchan Aruch also gives sound advice as to how to avoid defiling the
name G-d: just don't write it (unless it is in a document or book that
will not be thrown into the garbage).

Eliezer Shemtov
Montevideo, Uruguay


End of Volume 42 Issue 28