Volume 44 Number 20
                    Produced: Mon Aug 16  5:59:30 EDT 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Chassidim vs Misnagdim
         [Susan Shapiro]
Cryptic Torah
         [Richard Dine]
Dairy Bread
         [Art Werschulz]
Fake Marriage (3)
         [Shimon Lebowitz, Jeanette Friedman, Stuart Feldhamer]
Font Size in Siddur
         [Shimon Lebowitz]
Hebrew Grammar
         [Eli Turkel]
Jewish source?
         [Stan Tenen]
         [Perets Mett]
Lubavitch Farbrengen
         [Susan Shapiro]
Rubin/Horowitz (2)
         [<rubin20@...>, Leah Perl Shollar]
"SO" vs. "partner" etc.
         [Leah S. Gordon]
Who were these rabbis?
         [Stuart Feldhamer]


From: <SShap23859@...> (Susan Shapiro)
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:52:20 EDT
Subject: Chassidim vs Misnagdim

In reference to your comment:

      Boruch Hashem (thank G-d), in recent years a number of works have
      appeared which explain the viewpoint(s) of the Misnagdim vis a vis
      the Hassidim, so people can better understand this issue. A few of
      them that come to mind are, in English, 'The Hassidic Movement and
      the Gaon of Vilna' by Elijah Schochet (Aronson), ' The Faith of
      the Mithnagdim - Rabbinic Responses to Hassidic Rapture' by Allan
      Nadler (Johns Hopkins University Press), and, in Hebrew, 'HaGaon'
      by Rav Dov Eliach ((Mochon Moreshes Hayeshivos, Jerusalem - volume
      three contains two chapters, twenty eight and twenty nine, which
      are devoted to the matter), and 'Chassidim uMisnagdim' by
      Mordechai Wilensky (Mossad Bialik, Jerusalem).

      I recommend that those interested in understanding the position of
      the Misnagdim look at those works, especially the first and third
      of them.

I would point out that those books are written NOT from the Chassidish
view point, from what I understand, and I get my information from
Chassidic sources, including an incredible set of Tapes by Rabbi Shloma

One would imagine, as usual, that the stories differ when hearing them
from each side. As it certainly seems in this case.

Susan Shapiro


From: Richard Dine <richard.dine@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:53:58 -0400
Subject: Cryptic Torah

I thought the reason the Torah used "eye for an eye" (I think Rabbi
S.R. Hirsch says this but do not have the source handy) was to show that
in G-d's eyes (pardon the pun) the criminal really does deserve to have
his eye out.  The courts are only authorized to exact monetary
compensation since that is all the justice we can achieve here on earth,
but in the grand scheme of themes the criminal deserves worse, and G-d
will one way or another settle up.

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


From: Art Werschulz <agw@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:41:31 -0400
Subject: Dairy Bread


With all this discussion, I'm pretty sure that Pepperidge Farm products
are OU-D (at least those products that are certified).  In particular,
ISTR being especially surprised by the sight of OU-D hamburger and hot
dog buns.

Art Werschulz
GCS/M (GAT): d? -p+ c++ l u+(-) e--- m* s n+ h f g+ w+ t++ r- y? 
Internet: <agw@...><a href="http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~agw/">WWW</a>
ATTnet:   Columbia U. (212) 939-7060, Fordham U. (212) 636-6325


From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:17:29 +0300
Subject: Re: Fake Marriage

>  From a jewish point of view i am wondering.
> What if a jewish woman takes the ring when getting married but does not
> intend to get married. Would she in principle stay single?

I would guess that having gone through the public performance of a
wedding ceremony (which includes valid witnesses), any later claim to
have had intention to remain single would not be accepted.  "Dvarim
shebalev einam devarim" - what a person thinks doesn't count.

This applies to business dealings in general, the exception being if
*before* the business was concluded, a "moda`a" (statement of intent to
perform an action which is not meant... or something like that) was
made, also before valid witnesses.

I assume a person could make such a moda`a before getting married, and
then pull the witnesses out of a hat when it is convenient to prove
unmarried status. (Presumably the situation would be more complicated if
there was consummation).

Shimon Lebowitz                           mailto:<shimonl@...>
Jerusalem, Israel            PGP: http://www.poboxes.com/shimonpgp

From: <FriedmanJ@...> (Jeanette Friedman)
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:33:25 EDT
Subject: Re: Fake Marriage

      What if a jewish woman takes the ring when getting married but
      does not intend to get married. Would she in principle stay

no. and besides that, she would be trapped if her "husband" was


From: Stuart Feldhamer <Stuart.Feldhamer@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 13:03:12 -0400
Subject: RE: Fake Marriage

I certainly hope not. If so, I could sign a contract, but secretly not
intend to fulfill my part of the contract, and the contract wouldn't be

In general I believe there's a principle "devarim shebaleiv einam
devarim" - roughly translated as things you're thinking about and don't
say have no significance.



From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:17:30 +0300
Subject: Re: Font Size in Siddur

> If he is talking about the Rinat Yirael, the answer is that, in nusah
> Askenaz, he goes largely according to Nusah Ha'Gra in his comments and
> type sizing.  According to this nusah, that verse is not said at all,
> therefore Rinat Yisrael (and some other Israeli siddurim) use smaller type
> to denote this.
> This is also true re the comment on V'shamru in the Maariv service for
> Shabbat (Most congregations don't say this is the comment) and elsewhere.

That is not the comment in the Rinat Yisrael Ashkenaz currently open in
front of me. It reads "umosifim psukim eileh beshabatot uveyamim tovim
(the following verses are added on Shabbat and holidays). veyesh
kehillot she-ein mosifim psukim eileh (and [or 'but'] there are
communities which do not add these verses)."

That certainly sounds to me like omitting them is the exception rather
than the rule.

My own peeve with tachanun in siddurim is editions that expect you to
turn a page in the middle of it! That same R.Y. has it beautifully at
the start of a page in Shacharis, but wants me to juggle with one hand
at mincha. :-(

Shimon Lebowitz                           mailto:<shimonl@...>
Jerusalem, Israel            PGP: http://www.poboxes.com/shimonpgp


From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:18:53 +0300
Subject: Hebrew Grammar

> With all the discussions on this list about nikkud and the like, I was
> wondering whether anyone could refer me to Hebrew seforim on dikduk and
> nikkud, esp. those of ashkenazi rabbanim. (Not works of rishonim, like
> radak or ibn Janah, nor to modern anthology-type seforim of the past
> century or so, nor to academic works.) E.g. of the type of R. Uri Shraga
> Feibush's Minhat Kalil. (Types of seforim which poskim quote when asked
> about grammatical issues.)

There was a book put out on Hebrew grammar a few years ago by Mandlebaum
who is a talmid chacham living in Jerusalem (grew up in Cleveland before
moving to Raanana and then on to Jerusalem).

Eli Turkel


From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:39:02 -0400
Subject: Jewish source?

I recently used a quote attributed to Jefferson (as presented in the
film "1776").  The question arose as to whether there was a traditional
source teaching that might have been the source of Jefferson's
statement.  We couldn't think of it; perhaps someone on m-j knows.

In the film, Jefferson, in explaining the need for the US Declaration of
Independence, says:

"To place before [hu]mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms
so plain and firm as to command their assent."

Does anyone know?
Thanks. Best,


From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:06:48 +0100
Subject: Lubavi(t)ch

Andy Goldfinger wrote (about Lubavitch):

> P.P.S.
>         Some of us think that this was an unfair word to put in the
> spelling bee.  The student spelled it without the "t."  Oh come now --
> it is a tranliterated word from Cyrillic, isn't it?

That is what makes it so unfair!

The standard transliteration from Russian is to use ch for the Russian
'tsh' sound.  (Hence the spelling of Chernobyl, Berdychev)

Perets Mett


From: <SShap23859@...> (Susan Shapiro)
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:48:32 EDT
Subject: Lubavitch Farbrengen

In reference to your comment:

      I always thought that a " farbrengen " was at 770 with the Rebbe
      was still with us physically and held a community gathering.  Has
      the Lubavitcher Rebbe ever had a Tish per se' as the other
      chassidim have?  The Lubavitcher Rebbe held farbrengin's several
      times a year.

      Members of the Chabad and Lubavitch communities have gatherings to
      commemorate dates of important events which happened to previous
      Lubavitch Rebbe's.

I believe the definition of a farbrengen is "gathering'. And what
happens there is usually many l'chaims and sharing words of Torah
inspiration.  In Yeshivos, it is usually a time when the Mashpia will
give "musar" to the boys, as they say one can take it easier when one
has had a few l'chaims (not to the point of drunkenness, neecessarily,
unless it is abused).

The Rebbe, as our leader, would use that opportunity as well, and would
make L'chaims with the Chassidim.  A farbrengen, being 'a gathering' can
be with or without the Rebbe.

The way I understand a Tish was not held in recent years in Chabad, it
is not a Chabad custom.

Susan Shapiro


From: <rubin20@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:03:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Rubin/Horowitz

> but more importantly, can anyone explain why the Zera Kodesh's
> father is a Rubin whereas the Ropshitzer is a Horowitz?

In Europe, surnames were very flexible. People adopted other names to
escape the draft (by claiming to be the child of a sonless family),
obtain citizenship/residency (as above), used mothers surname because
the marriage wasn't registered (to avoid a marriage tax or because
permission wasn't granted in places such as Bohemia) etc. Rav Tvi
Rabinawitz, son of Rav YE Spector was once asked by a Russian minister
why his name was different from that of his father. Unable to say the
truth, that his parents had registered him as the son of a family that
had no other children to exempt him from the draft, he quickly replied
that since his father was such a big Rabbi, people started calling him
Rabinovitch (Rabbi's son in Russian)

From: Leah Perl Shollar <leahperl@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 12:39:42 -0400
Subject: Rubin/Horowitz

> [If you look through the geneological history of the Rabbinic families,
> you will find this occuring quite a number of times, there the person
> takes on the mothers family name if it is a promonent Rabbinic family
> name. Makes some of the charts very confusing. Mod.]

Case in point: Rabbi Akiva Eiger the younger

L Shollar


From: Leah S. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:35:29 -0700
Subject: "SO" vs. "partner" etc.

Martin Stern raises objections to using what he terms 'politically
correct' words to describe situations of which he disapproves.

It is my strong opinion that if someone describes his/her own life with
certain language ("wife" or "SO" or "partner" or whatever), that it
behooves the rest of the world to respect that language and use it to
describe them as well.  Can you imagine the rudeness, not to mention the
logical obstacles, if you decided to use your own descriptors: "Hello,
how is your adopted son and also your IVF-conceived daughter?  How about
your opposite-

We don't know what terminology Avi F removed from your original email,
but if the Jewish guy with the nonJewish SO would not have chosen such a
term, then I think it qualifies as unkind to use it about them.

Common decency requires that we use language to build communication, not
to insult other people.  I think it is a huge step forward to omit
descriptions such as "living in sin".  That description, in particular,
was never fair.  So many of us (perhaps all) live in sins of one kind or
another.  We all atone for them each year....

If it amuses you to torture the poor bureaucrat who asks for your
"partner," then please realize that it was probably the decision of
someone else to choose the most general term for all people who will use
the form.

And yes, I think "call a 'spade' a 'spade'" is out as well.  Choosing
one's words carefully is very important.  If there is a way to use words
that will refrain from insulting another person's life circumstances,
then so much the better.  I suppose this makes me a proponent of
'political correctness'.

--Leah S. R. Gordon


From: Stuart Feldhamer <Stuart.Feldhamer@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:32:13 -0400
Subject: RE: Who were these rabbis?

> From: Yisrael & Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
> Rabbi Ed Goldstein wrote:
> >R. Naftali Ropshitz ztl/hyd (I think this is correct) was 
> >the father in law of the current Bostoner Rebbe shlita
> Don't think so.
> He died in Lanzut, Galicia (now Poland), 1827.  Almost 180 years ago.
> Maybe another Naftali Tzvi?

I think I missed the beginning of this thread somehow, but there is a
decent short biography of Rav Naftali of Ropshitz on the OU Web site:


I remember that Rav Naftali came up quite a few times in the Tales of
our Gaonim section of the Jewish Press...



End of Volume 44 Issue 20