Volume 42 Number 86
                 Produced: Mon May 31  9:47:57 US/Eastern 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

48 hour Yahrzeit candle
         [Sheila Tanenbaum]
Auto donation of hair
         [Ed Greenberg]
Droit de seigneur
         [N Miller]
Droit de seigneur (correction)
         [Mike Gerver]
Electricity on YomTov
         [Joseph Mosseri]
Is this a plausible understanding of a well-known Gemara?
         [Paul Shaviv]
Kosher in Adelaide Australia
Marrying Someone with your Mother's Name
         [Sharon and Joseph Kaplan]
Middle-Ages and "Droit"
         [Joseph Ginzberg]
Obeying poskim (was:  Wigs)
         [Richard Schultz]
Reputable Poskim (was Re: Wigs)
         [Janet Rosenbaum]
Sotah, Goose and Gander
         [Batya Medad]
Wigs (2)
         [Martin Stern, N Miller]


From: Sheila Tanenbaum <sheilat@...>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 15:36:33 -0400
Subject: 48 hour Yahrzeit candle

Another advantage is for those who won't strike a match, but will
transfer from an already burning source, it will last long enough into
the holiday for lighting the 2nd night yom tov candles, and even more
things, as needed, the following day

Sheila Tanenbaum


From: Ed Greenberg <edg@...>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 10:17:58 -0700
Subject: Re: Auto donation of hair

> From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
>> If an unmarried woman grows her hair long and then marries, may
>> she cut her hair and use that hair to fashion a wig for herself?
> I remember learning that it's forbidden.

Could not the frum community establish a Hair Bank? This would allow
known non-idolatrous hair to be reused on other Jewish woman.


From: N Miller <nm1921@...>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 18:07:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Droit de seigneur

Mike Gerver writes:

> How about Rashi on "ki tovot hena" in Gen. [6:2]? Not exactly a
> reference to Jews being subject to this practice, but at least an
> indication that the practice occurred and that Jews were aware of it.

Fair enough, but which practice?  As near as I can tell, Rashi relies
not on his own knowledge of events in 12th Century France but on
R. Yudan, an amora of the 3rd Century, who reported not only that the
head ruler slept not only with beautiful women but also with men and
animals.  So with all due respect to Mike, I fail to see what this has
to do with the alleged medieval practice also known as jus primae
noctis.  For a more learned view of the matter see

In short, while such things _may_ have occurred and Jews _may_ have been
aware of them, the absence of any hard evidence suggests that it may be
another one of those evergreen myths--like the one about the use of
Christian blood for making matzo.

Noyekh Miller

From: <MJGerver@...> (Mike Gerver)
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 16:57:35 EDT
Subject: Droit de seigneur (correction)

The Rashi I mentioned in my posting in v42n82 is on Gen. 6:2, not Gen.
5:2. Thanks to Noyekh Miller for pointing this out.

Mike Gerver
Raanana, Israel


From: Joseph Mosseri <joseph.mosseri@...>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 08:38:34 -0400
Subject: Electricity on YomTov

I've been searching the MailJewish archives and I see that this subject
hasn't been touched upon in many years.

I was wondering what new findings have been made on this issue if any.
Why was it once permissible to turn lights on, on YomTov and now
everyone seems to say this is asur?  Is it really asur or is it just a
Humra?  What about turning them off?  What about electric items other
than lights like stoves, ovens, microwaves, etc.  Is there truly an iron
clad reason to forbid or is it more like a modern day gezera so that we
don't come to do it on Shabbat?

Thank you, Joseph Mosseri

[For English based sources, I would start with R. Michael Broyde's
review / summary article "The Use of Electricity on Shabbat and Yom Tov"
21 J. Halacha and Conte. Soci 6-23. It is from a number of years ago,
but gives (in my opinion) a very good summary of the issues, as well as
extensive references if you wish to review to primary sources. For
mail-jewish discussion on the topic, there was a discussion in Volume 12
(around issues 40-50) which included submissions from R. Broyde,
R. Edelstein and R. Dweck, among others.  Mod.]


From: Paul Shaviv <shaviv@...>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 22:53:50 -0400
Subject: Is this a plausible understanding of a well-known Gemara?

At the Tikkun Leil Shavuot in our shul last week, our Rav (whom I deeply
respect) spoke on aspects and implications of the 'Avot vs. korbanot'
argument concerning how our three daily tefillot originated.  The first
source was the familiar Gemara (Brachot 26b).  Although I have learnt
and, in fact, taught this Gemara on several occasions, I noticed
something that I haven't seen before, and would welcome and value
reactions from the list.

The "Avot" argument suggets that shacharit derives from an incident
involving Avraham, mincha from Yitzhak, and maariv from Yaakov. Biblical
verse is quoted to support each suggestion.

I will try to be brief.

In each case, the 'proof' hinges on exegesis of a verb in the quoted
pasuk, understood to imply that what each of the Avot was doing was

Yet I believe that there is an additional component to the proof.
(Perhaps the Gemara thought it was so obvious that it didn't need
comment). And that is that in each verse a 'kinnui' ( = synonym) for the
name of G-d appears. In the case of Avraham and Yaakov "Hamakom /
bamakom" -- a well known 'kinnui'.  Therefore, using the exegesis in the
text, these verses could be construed to read:

Abraham rose up in the morning *to G-d*, and prayed there.


He [Yaakov] prayed *to G-d*.

What though, of Yitzhak?  The word 'SDH' ( = field) I believe is
understood here by the Gemara as a synonym for "Sh-D-Y", which gives the
reading: Yitzhak went out to pray *to G-d*.  In every case, these
readings immensely strengthen the Midrashic proof-text.

The reader will ask for further attestation of the last reading. Compare
Shir HaShirim (in several places) - Hishbati etchem b'not Yerushalayim,
b'tzvaot uv'ayalot ha-sadeh. - rendered awkwardly as something like - I
make you swear, daughters of Jerusalem, by the deer and the gazelles of
the field. - The meforshim go to lengths to explain this imagery /
analogy. I believe there is a simpler explanation.  The phrase is a
'kinnui', and the 'b'not Yerushalayim' are being asked to swear on the
names of Hashem - Hashem tzvakot v'kel Sha-ddai.  Our Gemara is an
exactly similar usage.

Well, when I suggested this to our (very Litvish) Rav, he gave me an
affectionate, but pitying look and told me that he "always knew I had a
Chassidish heart". (That was not necessarily a compliment!)  But do
readers of our list think that my reading of the Gemara is plausible -
and not as 'drush', but as the real and original intention of trhe

Paul Shaviv, Toronto


From: Channah <frumin@...>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 05:17:25 +0200
Subject: Kosher in Adelaide Australia

 I am traveling to Adelaide Australia, Can you give me a list of any
kosher products there by the manufacturer so I might eat something
besides veggies.


[As we have a number of Austrailian list members, I'm sure someone will
be able to assist Channah.]


From: Sharon and Joseph Kaplan <penkap@...>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 21:10:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Marrying Someone with your Mother's Name

I just heard a shiur on this topic on Shavu'ot. Its source is the
tzava'ah (ethical will) of Rav Yehudah Hachasid.  It also includes a
woman not marrying a man with her father's name.  I mention this because
R.  Moshe Feinstein says we need not follow this minhag.  This becomes
more significant when one remembers that R. Moshe's daughter is married
to R.  Moshe D. tendler.  One person noted at the shiur that R. Tendler
strongly prefers using Moshe Dovid for this reason.  There are many
other poskim who do not follow this tzava'ah, and others who say that
one can change the name of the bride or groom (or add a second or third
name), as necessary, to get around it.

Joseph Kaplan


From: Joseph Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 10:01:41 -0400
Subject: Middle-Ages and "Droit"

>    Those dreadful 'middle ages'!  There are a number of things wrong
>  with this explanation.  First, Jews were not vassals and hence were
>  not bound to their liege (sic) lords. Second, there are no references
>  to this practice in the voluminous Jewish record that I know of
>  (though I am prepared to be corrected).

While I strongly took a stand against this simplistic explanation of a
minhag Yisroel offline, here I must point out that there is a long and
very well-known mishnaic sugya of "Betula Niseis", (days of the week
when a virgin is allowed to marry), and the Talmud elaborates on the
issue (and avoidance of) "tiboel L'hegmon techila", the "right" of the
local governor to deflower her.

While this clearly was not in the middle ages, nor was it the reason for
head-shaving, it did figure into Jewish issues, and I think this would
certainly qualify as "in the voliminous Jewish record".

Yossi Ginzberg


From: <Danmim@...> (Tsvi)
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 16:08:26 EDT
Subject: Re: Mikveh

If bathing is prohibited on shabbos- how do men go to the Mikveh on
shabbos , it surely is not obligatory.



From: Richard Schultz <schultr@...>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 11:05:02 +0300
Subject: Obeying poskim (was:  Wigs)

In mail-jewish 42:82, Esther Posen writes:

: Once Rav Elyashiv has decreed that we should not wear Indian hair
: wigs there was instant, literally overnight global action to comply with
: the decree to stop wearing indian hair wigs.  This is really commendable
: on the part of the Orthodox Jewish community.  So this whole issue is
: more about emunas chachamim then avodah zorah.

I look forward to the day when Rav Elyashiv points out that smoking is
assur d'oraita [forbidden by Torah law] and his psak [legal decision] is
obeyed by the Orthodox community with equal alacrity.  But I'm not
holding my breath, even though I would if I could when I'm around
yeshiva bochrim who think that smoking is the in thing.

Richard Schultz


From: Janet Rosenbaum <jerosenb@...>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 18:16:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Reputable Poskim (was Re: Wigs)

> From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...> writes:
> Tiraputi!), as I recall being mentioned in the literature, not long
> tresses hanging out at the back. The latter would not protrude from a
> properly fixed tichel unlike the case with many hats. Though many women
> wear such hats I do not know of any reputable posek who has allowed them
> rather than merely not actively objecting, probably assessing that the
> women would otherwise not even partially cover their hair. Perhaps
> someone could let me know of any of which they are aware.

Before people answer your question, perhaps you should define what you
mean by reputable.

There are rabbis who are talmidei chachamim and are consulted around the
country on halachic matters, but my experience has been that whenever I
have mentioned their names, they have been dismissed as not reputable
since they are mattir things which are obviously asur, in the speaker's

The author of _Hide and Seek_ mentioned in her overview of the halachic
sources of hair covering that there are a number of rabbanim today who
say that hair covering is not obligatory, but would not go on record for
the book with their names due to fear of the above reaction.

In fact, it's not clear to me that saying the names of rabbanim who are
mekiel on hot button issues is not lashon hara, since it really does
seem to diminish their stature in the eyes of the judgemental.



From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 09:39:35 +0200
Subject: Sotah, Goose and Gander

While reading the parsha this week (Naso) from the Artscroll Shabbat
Chumash siddur, I came accross a commentary (no source in English) that
the "sotah proof" only works if the husband himself is "perfect."  Or
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

This aspect doesn't get the same publicity as the simplistic wife guilt
= sotah.  Does anyone know more of this interpretation?



From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 20:38:05 +0100
Subject: Re: Wigs

on 30/5/04 1:02 pm, Nachman Yaakov Ziskind <awacs@...> wrote:

> The kabbalistic concepts behind covering women's hair
> emphasize (as far as I remember) the evil inflicted behind the
> emanations from the scalp - something to the effect that the hair give a
> yenikah (feeding) to chitzoniyim (external, i.e. evil, forces) from the
> holiness in the body to which they are connected to. Cut the hair, break
> the connection and the attractiveness to the evil side goes away.

We are talking about halachah and not kabbalah. As far as I am aware
there is a halachic problem with wearing a sheitel made from one's own
shorn hair and no amount of kabbalistic speculation can be used to
permit what is halachicly prohibited.

Martin Stern

From: N Miller <nm1921@...>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 14:09:06 -0400
Subject: Wigs

A friend whose Yiddish is better than mine has gently reminded me
off-line that my use of 'shaytl' is wrong (in Yiddish a shayt is a log)
and that it should be spelled 'sheytl'.  (Harkavy, btw, in fact gives
shaytl, but the Weinreich is more authoritative.  I thank him for the

However pronounced, the word has an interesting history. Scheiteln in
German means 'to part'; der Scheitel means both the top of the head and
a hairparting. It does not mean wig however: the German for that is
Perucke, whence the Yiddish peruk. But the center-parted sheytl some of
us remember fits the description of a Scheitel. My hunch is that the
word originally denotes that particular style of peruque/perucke/peruk
which was popular in 19th Century Europe (it shows up in one of Andre
Gide's novels for instance).  No surprise that Jewish women who could
afford such luxuries followed the mode.

Noyekh Miller


End of Volume 42 Issue 86