Volume 43 Number 44
                    Produced: Thu Jul 15  4:51:00 EDT 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

         [Janet E. Rosenbaum]
Beis Lechem Yehudah
         [Alex Heppenheimer]
Brachot or Tefila with no Printed Text
         [David Curwin]
Education re 'the facts of life' in Jewish Schools and Families
         [Steven White]
Meat and Milk (3)
         [Binyamin Lemkin, Andrew Marks, Tal Benschar]
Quoting partial verses of the Torah
         [Jay F Shachter]
Shva Nach at the Start of a Word?
         [Michael Poppers]
Tallit Designs
         [Alissa Stern]
Torah scroll
         [Eli Delman]
Treife Envelopes??
         [Benyamin Wynberg]
Why can bread be touched before washing?
         [David Curwin]


From: Janet E. Rosenbaum <jerosenb@...>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 19:31:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Autopsies

A poster mentioned autopsies in a comparison with another case.  I
haven't looked into the halachic literature on autopsies, but I was
stunned that they were framed by the Noda B'Yehuda as providing only
"remote benefit to medical science" somewhere down the line.  Although
the error rate is decreasing, autopsies reveal major misdiagnoses in
about 8% of -all- deaths (i.e., not just those for which there are
autopsies), mostly for common conditions; 4-8% of the time, the
misdiagnosis likely contributed to death.  Currently only about 5% of
deaths have autopsies.  If more autopsies were performed, there would be
immediate benefits to physicians' other patients.  See:

Janet Rosenbaum					 <jerosenb@...>
Harvard Injury Control Research Center,   Harvard School of Public Health


From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Beis Lechem Yehudah

In MJ 43:38, Aliza Berger asked about the identity of the author of Beis
Lechem Yehudah on Shulchan Aruch.

The author is R' Tzvi Hirsch b"r Azriel of Vilna. The first edition
(Zholkva, 1733) spelled the last word of the title with an aleph instead
of a hei, and subsequent editions (until it was included in the margin
of the Shulchan Aruch) followed suit, which is presumably why it didn't
come up in your search.

[The Hebrew University library's catalog lists three editions of it,
including the first edition. The Chabad library catalog
(http://www.chabadlibrary.org) lists five editions, also including the
one of 1733; all of them spell the title the same way.]

I don't have any more bibliographic information on R' Tzvi Hirsch (such
as when he lived), but you could probably look him up in a sefer such as
Atlas Etz Chaim or Otzar HaRabbanim.

Kol tuv,


From: David Curwin <tobyndave@...>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:58:19 +0300
Subject: Brachot or Tefila with no Printed Text

Is anyone aware of halachic reference to what to do in a situation where
one needs to make a bracha or say a tefila but doesn't have the printed
text in front of him, and doesn't remember the exact wording? I know in
some cases one can wait until the text is available or ask someone else.
But what if that isn't an option? Is it better to try from memory, or
not to say the bracha or tefila at all?

Dave Curwin


From: <Phyllostac@...> (Mordechai)
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 13:20:31 EDT
Subject: Education re 'the facts of life' in Jewish Schools and Families

> From: Janet Elise Rosenbaum <jerosenb@...>
> Hi.  I've been doing some academic work on sex education in general
> American society, including the trend towards "abstinence education", so
> began wondering about sex ed in day schools

I recently received a very interesting series of articles entitled
"Educating Our Children About Sexuality within Halachic Parameters" by
Rabbi Simcha Feuerman CSW and Mrs. Chaya Feuerman, CSW
(<simcha_chaya@...>), which I think should be read by interested
parties and plan to send to Janet for her examination. I will also send
it to others from the Mail-Jewish family upon request.



From: Steven White <InfoSeaker@...>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 14:20:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Gender-Segregation

In MJ 43:37, Anonymous writes:

> [snip]
> 3) Socialization- Eventually, most males must end up interacting with
> females.  
> [snip]
>         And for those boys who behave themselves and never interact with 
> a female before entering college or the workforce at around 20... can 
> they make the adjustment properly. Can they understand the difference 
> between a friendly attitude and sexual interest? Will they jump out of 
> their skin every time they are addressed by a women of their age? With 
> time these issues should pass, but it seems like we are encouraging a 
> delayed adolescence here. 

I'd like to add a case in point, based on an incident in B'nei Brak that
happened to me and a friend close on twenty years ago -- but which still
upsets me to think about today.  A female friend (and that's all) and I
were supposed to find the house of a certain Rav where she was to stay
for Shabbat, and where I was to meet hosts for Shabbat.  We were lost,
and at the time my Hebrew was not good enough even to ask directions.
So my friend and I walked together up to a young man, and she asked him
directions.  He proceeded to cross the street without saying a word.

My friend was really upset by this, and ended up leaving after dinner,
walking to Ramat Gan (I think) to get a cab.  In the end, she became
datit, but that didn't help.  And what's worse is that at the end of
Shabbat, this Rav told me that because she was my friend, I had an
obligation to tell her why she was wrong in leaving over Shabbat and
therefore being Mechallel Shabbos.

The fact is plain and simple:  This was a Chillul Hashem of great
magnitude.  I can't see any halachic grounds whatsoever for someone not
to greet someone "b'sever panim yafot" [pleasantly] in general, and not
to give directions to a lost traveler in particular.

Steven White
Highland Park, NJ


From: Binyamin Lemkin <docben10@...>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 07:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Meat and Milk

While without question it is forbidden to eat poultry and milk together,
most Rishonim hold that one can eat poultry immediately after milk. So
holds Rav David Bar Hayim of Jerusalem (www.torahlight.com).

                                     -Binyamin Lemkin

[I assume that Binyamin means that the prohibition is Rabbinic, and the
"without question" refers to practical halacha today. It is clear that
whether or not there is a rabbinic prohibition was NOT without question
during the Talmudic period. Mod.]

From: Andrew Marks <machmir@...>
Subject: Re: Meat and Milk

There are three Torah prohibitions regarding milk and meat (though they
only apply when the milk and meat themselves are kosher): cooking,
eating, and receiving any hano'ah.  See the mishna in Chulin (8:4) and
the related gemorrah - "Bassar behema tehora b'chalav behema tehora,
assur l'vashel v'assur b'hannaoh" ("meat of a kosher animals and milk of
a kosher animal are forbiidne to be cooked [together] and forbidden from
benefitting [from a mixture].").

Hope this clears things up.


From: Tal Benschar <tbenschar@...>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 09:29:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Meat and Milk

Another poster wrote:
> The Torah prohibition (D'oraisah) is COOKING meat and milk together.
> (common translation, "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.)

This statement is incomplete.  Chazal learn from the fact that the
prohibition is mentioned three times in the Torah that there are three
prohibitions: cooking meat and milk together, eating the combination
after cooking, and deriving benefit from the combination after cooking. 

It is correct that where they have not been cooked together, the
prohibition is Rabbinic (d'rabbanan), as is the prohibition of eating
milk and meat together on the same table. 


From: Jay F Shachter <jay@...>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 10:39:04 -0600 (CDT)
Subject: Quoting partial verses of the Torah

In v43n37, the following point was made:
> The dictum is "Kol pasuk d'lo paskeh Moshe anan lo paskinan, v'Khol
> parash d'lo poskeh Moshe anan lo paskinan" -- Literally, Any verse
> or paragraph which Moshe did not split, we may not split.

The Talmudic source for this law, as others have already pointed out,
involved the public Torah reading, not private speech.  However, all our
codes of law have generalized this principle to private speech.  Now, we
are free to dispute the existing codes of law and rule otherwise, if we
know what we are doing, so long as there is basis for our ruling in the
Talmud (or Tosefta).  But to do so is to assume a great responsibility
which few in our generation are willing to assume (though I point out in
passing that all the authors of our codes of law did do so, at times).

Let us assume that our codes of law are correct, though, and that the
above-cited dictum applies to private speech.  Is this law, then,
regarding the quoting of Scripture, itself Scriptural in stature, or is
it only Rabbinic?

The reason to pose this question is that Moshe himself violated this
law, an interesting point that no one else has yet mentioned.  In
Numbers 14:18, Moshe misquotes Exodus 34:6-7, skipping words in the
middle of both verses.  You can say that the law against misquoting the
Torah, even if it is Scriptural in nature, only became operative after
the entire Torah was written down -- and when Moshe spoke Numbers 14:18,
the entire Torah had not yet been written down.  Even so, however, even
if we cannot charge Moshe with misquoting the Torah, we can still charge
him with misquoting something that God Himself said to him.  It seems to
me that if God said something directly to Moshe, especially after taking
steps to dramatize the revelation the way He did, Moshe should treat
those words with enough reverence not to misquote them later.

Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
6424 N Whipple St; Chicago IL  60645-4111


From: <MPoppers@...> (Michael Poppers)
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:24:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Shva Nach at the Start of a Word?

In M-J V43#34, SLebowitz notes:
> In the Siddur Tefillat Shai (nusach Ashkenaz) by Feldheim, in the
> Tehillim section in the back, I saw a strange footnote.  On the pasuk
> 62:12 "Achat diber Elokim, shtayim zu shama`ti", there is an asterisk
> on the word shtayim. At the bottom of the page the note says "shva
> nach".

The rationale is due to the dagaish [qal] in the tav: if the shva
gracing the shin is na, there should be no dagaish.  This rationale
explains, I believe, that the word actually is "eshtayim" (aleph ahead
of shin), such that the shva nach and dagaish qal remained even though
the initial letter didn't.

All the best from

-- Michael Poppers via RIM pager


From: Alissa Stern <alissa.stern@...>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 22:39:25 -0400
Subject: Tallit Designs

As a tallit weaver, I'm trying to learn more about the development of
tallit design.  I'm particularly interested in finding out about designs
(pre-20th century) that departed from the traditional white with
black/blue stripes (or the reverse coloring).  I've heard, for example,
that in 18th and 19th century Italy, tapestry-style tallit were in
demand.  I'm wondering if this trend was only among the wealthy (or was
it more pervasive than that) and whether there were other parts of the
world where more ornate or unique tallit were prevalent.

Many thanks for your help.


From: Eli Delman <eli.delman@...>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 12:58:24 -0400
Subject: RE: Torah scroll

>What is the purpose of the paroches when there already is a set of
>doors on the aron kodesh?

>From the Paroches in the Mikdash and the extra layer covering the Ark
while transporting the Mishkan (see Malbim, Num. 4:5-6) we observe that
the Paroches provides a degree of enclosure and restraint that doors do
not. [R.  Yishmael HaCohen in Teshuvos Zera Emmes Hil. Bais HaKnesses
26, based on Terumas HaDeshen 68]. See also Igros Moshe OC 4:41:22.

>What is the purpose of the gartel on the Torah?

Originally, instead of the ribbon-like sash we have today, the Sefer
Torah was wrapped with two full-length wrappers of cloth. Each of these
wraps were generally comprised of two layers, an attractive material on
one side, and a more practical one on the other. Like the Aron housing
the Tablets, which was gold-plated both on the inside and outside, the
two wraps were scrupulously positioned so that the inner one had the
beauty-side facing the scroll, and the outer wrap's nicer side was
facing the observer (Mishna Berura, 147:9). Based on the next comment
(#10) of the Mishna Berura, as well as paragraph 5 in the Shulchan
Aruch, it seems that at least the inner wrap was fashioned in a way that
when wrapped tightly around the scroll it would bind and hold it
together in a steady manner; this is what the sash of today
accomplishes. What we refer to as the "mantle" is the outer wrap.



From: Benyamin Wynberg <wynbergj@...>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 16:23:45 -0400 
Subject: Treife Envelopes??

I've wondered for a long time...and now that I've been stationed at my
desk, I have time to remember...so here goes...you know how glue is made
from processed horse, well, do you think that envelope glue, that you
lick, is such glue, in which case, one might be licking dead horse,
which may not be considered kosher by all poskim (or any?)...of course,
it's really not 'food' and licking really isn't 'eating', but anyway,
the question remains...

Good Shabbos...



From: David Curwin <tobyndave@...>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 22:01:00 +0300
Subject: Why can bread be touched before washing?

I have heard that in a situation where one can't wash their hands before
eating bread, it is acceptable to not directly touch the bread when
eating it (say with a plastic bag or napkin). If that is indeed true,
why is it permitted in general to touch bread - let's say in the
preparation of a sandwich - without washing one's hands?

Dave Curwin


End of Volume 43 Issue 44