Volume 42 Number 34
Produced: Mon Mar 29 23:06:04 US/Eastern 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Comments requested on Dynamics of Dispute
[Harold Lampel]
Did Esther and Ahashverosh have any children?
[Paul Shaviv]
How does Maarit Eiyin Change (Mail.Jewish: V42N28)
[Sam Saal]
Japan kosher
[Charlie Hafner]
Kosher Fish
[Hanno Mott]
Kosher Versions of non-kosher & Reaction to Forbidden Items
[Sam Saal]
Pesach Seder
[Chaim Tatel]
Rav of Warsaw
[Seth & Sheri Kadish]
Shetar Halitzah
[<FriedmanJ@...>]
taleysim
[Perets Mett]
Talis/ marriage conection
[Joseph Ginzberg]
Tunes for Brachot Acharona?
[Joel Wiesen]
Weddings in England
[Perets Mett]
Yom Haatzmaut 5764
[Elanit Z. Rothschild]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harold Lampel <hlampel@...>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:17:46 -0500
Subject: Comments requested on Dynamics of Dispute
I am gratified to see that that in the past my book, The Dynamics of
Dispute: The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times, has entered the
Mail-Jewish discussions. I am currently preparing a revised edition with
correcitons and improvements. Any comments or questions on the current
edition would be greatly appreciated. Also, I am thinking of making
available the major changes (particularly corrections) to those who are
interested, and would like to hear from m-j readers who are.
Zvi Lampel
213 High Street
Passaic, NJ 077055
<hlampel@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Shaviv <shaviv@...>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 05:14:09 -0500
Subject: Did Esther and Ahashverosh have any children?
Is there any tradition - in any form - that Esther and Ahashverosh had
children? If so, who were they? (Altogether, is there any tradition of
what happened to the royal couple after the Purim story?)
Paul Shaviv, Toronto
<pshaviv@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sam Saal <ssaal@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 18:50:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: How does Maarit Eiyin Change (Mail.Jewish: V42N28)
<Joelirich@...> (Joel Rich) wrote (V42N28):
>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?
I am a little uncomfortable using the term "sin" with regard to
transgressing Maarit Eiyin in a case of sociological evolution. With the
regularity that (nearly) every Jewish community takes on some of the
practices of its surroundings (look at food, alone), the notion of
Maarit Eiyin seems to find a balance with the mitzvah of not taking on
their ways (b'chukotayhem lo tayleychu) and makes calling such a
decision a "sin" seems, in some way, harsh.
Sam Saal
<ssaal@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rebcharles@...> (Charlie Hafner)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 19:15:29 +0000
Subject: re: Japan kosher
I read with interest the "Note" portion of the submission, specifically
where it says "There is some reason to suggest....".
It brought to mind something I had heard recently regarding an idea
kicking around the Yeshiva world, and perhaps others have heard about it
too. Namely, some important tshuvos of recent leading poskim were
influenced/edited/altered, especially in their later years, and they are
therefore questionable. Any opinions or factual information on this?
thx
Charlie Hafner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hanno Mott <hdm@...>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 12:29:15 -0500
Subject: Kosher Fish
There have been several comments recently about Kosher fish and
specifically that John Dory is not a kosher fish.
All the Kosher fish lists that I have seen including that of the UOJCA
and the Rabbinical Council of America list the John Dory [scientific
name "Zeus faber") as a Kosher fish.
Also see http://www.kashrut.com/articles/fish/
Hanno D. Mott
<hdm@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sam Saal <ssaal@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 18:42:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: re: Kosher Versions of non-kosher & Reaction to Forbidden Items
Steven Oppenheimer, DDS (<oppy49@...>) wrote:
>It would seem that taking pride in detesting non-kosher items or
>forbidden activity is not the preferred approach. The realization
>should be that as a Jew, alternative behavior is required of us, and we
>act accordingly in the service of HaShem.
When someone asks me with astonishment: "you mean you've never eaten
shellfish?" I respond: "have you ever eaten X?" (where X varies by the
culture of my questioner and my take a couple tries). When they say "no,
it's disgusting", I explain that I have my own reasons for not being
interested in eating shellfish, even when some of it looks quite tasty.
On the other hand, I have no problem agreeing with my non-Jewish friends
that claim eating raw clams is cause to gag.
Sam Saal
<ssaal@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Tatel <chaimyt@...>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:10:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Pesach Seder
I remember hearing once (many years ago) that during the time of the 2nd
Beis HaMikdash the custom was to eat the meal first and then have the
seder.
Due to a problem of people falling asleep, the order was reversed, so
today we recite the haggadah first and then eat the meal.
I asked my Rov and he said he never heard this.
Can anyone confirm or deny the truth of this statement?
Kol Tuv,
Chaim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Seth & Sheri Kadish <skadish@...>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:53:59 +0200
Subject: Rav of Warsaw
Hi. Might someone on this list be able to refer me to Rav Michael
Sudrick (I think that's the name), an American who serves part time as
rav in Poland (Warsaw and Lodz)?
Thanks,
Seth Kadish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <FriedmanJ@...>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 10:27:11 EST
Subject: Shetar Halitzah
I am currently investigating a document I have that is a Shetar
Halitzah. The document was executed in early nineteenth century
Charleston, on behalf of Rebecca Moses, by her brother-in-law Levi Moses
at the time of her marriage in 1807 to Isaiah Moses, Levi's brother.
I have been told that Shetar Halitzah arose c. 1800 when traditional
cohesive Jewish communities were no longer available to prevent extortion
by a brother-in-law from the widow of his late brother in order to grant
Halitzah. The article on Halitzah in the "The Jewish Encyclopedia," Funk
& Wagnalls (English, 1904: New York) includes a form for the Shetar
Halitzah printed in Amsterdam and said to be used at that time by modern
Amsterdam Jews. The Shetar Halitzah was a sort of pre-nuptial document
to ensure the brother-in-law would free the widow from the bonds of
Leverite marriage, and allow her to remarry. I have also been told that
the problem of withheld Halitzah is very parallel to that of a withheld
Get, and that Shetar Halitzah, with a goal of preventing extortion, is
intended to prevent a situation parallel to the current aguna problem
whereby a woman whose husband leaves her is not free to re-marry, unless
he grants her a Get and may extort money before he grants the Get.
I am trying to learn more about the practice of Shetar Halitzah in
America, in Charleston--how common were they, and who gave them. Are you
aware of any other Shetar Halitzah from the early 19th century, and/or
the practice of giving such a document? Practices regarding Shetar
Halitzah in Europe would also be relevant: The groom and his brother
were born in Germany, moved to England in 1790, and to Charleston in
1800. My goal is to understanding the document I have, and how it fits
into a bigger picture. Are you aware of anyone who has researched or
published in this area? Or of other such documents? If my
understanding(s) are incorrect, please let me know.
PLEASE RESPOND TO
: <jshanks@...>
Jeanette
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 00:49:43 +0000
Subject: Re: taleysim
On 25 Feb 2004, at 12:19, Yehonatan Chipman wrote:
> 2. The whole custom of bachelors not wearing tallitot (or
> "talleisim," as they're mistakenly called abroad), is itself rather
It is an unfortunate habit of Israelis to criticise any usage which
differs from their own.
There is nothing mistaken about the word taleysm - it is the correct
plural of the Yiddish word talis, albeit borrowed from Hebrew.
No-one is asking Yehonatan to speak Yiddish, but he does not need to be
dismissive of those who do.
a freylekhn purim
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 09:10:05 -0500
Subject: Talis/ marriage conection
I have had numerous queries for the source of my earlier posting on this
subject, and have not yet been able to locate my original
dimly-remembered source.
However, in searching, I found that the contemporary sefer "Minhag
Yisroel Torah" quotes the "Sheilot Uteshuvot Levush Mordechai" 3:3 as
saying that the original reason was that boys were customarily starting
to wear a talis at Bar-Mitzvah, which was also about when they were
married, so it became customary to combine the two and start
simultaneously, which also allowed for an appropriate gift from the new
in-laws to the groom.
He than goes on to say that the custom should be abandoned now, since
men are waiting until as late as 20 (!) to marry.
I'll keep looking for the other source.
B'bracha
Yossi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Wiesen <wiesen@...>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:05:00 -0500
Subject: Tunes for Brachot Acharona?
Does anyone know any tunes for brachot acharona?
Yehuda
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 00:18:35 +0000
Subject: Weddings in England
I hesitate to criticise David Ziants as he wrote an informative piece
about the United Synagogue in England, but there was one small error
which crept inot his posting.
David wrote:
>
> 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.
The law about a house of worship indeed used to apply to church
weddings, but never applied to weddings held under the Jewish Marriages
Act. Such marriages could always be held in the open air, provided this
was specified when giving notice of marriage.
> Part of the roof of the "new" Machzikei Hadat shul in NW
> London (maybe it's 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.
Outdoor weddings have been held for many a year in the courtyard of the
Adath shuls as well as the courtyards of Town Hall Assembly Rooms (not
just Brent Town Hall) which were popular venues for holding chasenes.
Of course the Brent Town Hall is very conveniently located for the NW
London Jewish community, so numerous outdoor chupos are held there
(included that of me eldest son).
Although indoor weddings used to be pretty much the norm, there was no
legal impediment when wishing to hold an outdoor chupo. The weather in
England is always a hazard, but does not deter those who wish to have an
outdoor ceremony.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elanit Z. Rothschild <ezrothschild@...>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:34:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Yom Haatzmaut 5764
Regarding the issue raised by Michael Broyde of when to celebrate Yom
Haatzmaut chutz l'aretz, please see the follow-up letter recently
released by the RCA, pasted below.
Elanit Rothschild
-----------------------------------------------
To the Chaverim of the RCA:
I recently issued a psak regarding the observance date of Yom Haatzmaut
this year, in light of the position taken by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate
to delay observances of Yom Hazikaron and Yom Haatzmaut by one day. The
position I took was to maintain 5 Iyyar (i.e., Sunday evening April
25th/Monday April 26th ) as the day of observance, given the fact that
the key consideration invoked by the Rabbanut of chillul Shabbas on
Motzaei Shabbas did not apply in America.
I have subsequently been approached by one of the Rabbanim Harashiim.
While they understand the rationale of the position I have taken, they
have requested that I reconsider in the interest of uniformity of
practice. I have given the matter due thought, and as a result wish to
recommend that our chaverim should indeed make every effort to schedule
their local commemoration of Yom Hazikaron and celebration of Yom
Haatzmaut to Sunday evening/Monday, and Monday evening/Tuesday April
26/27, respectively. Of course if programs have already been scheduled
for the earlier dates, and cannot be changed, they can continue to be
held on the original date.
As always, if individual rabbanim wish to discuss this matter with me
directly, they should feel free to do so.
Rabbi Gedaliah Dov Schwartz.
Av Beis Din
The Beth Din of America
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 42 Issue 34
