Volume 44 Number 54
                    Produced: Tue Aug 31  4:56:05 EDT 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Beer and Yayin Nesach
         [Bernard Raab]
Drinking Coffee and Beer as Stam Yeinam
         [Elozor Reich]
The Havdalah Paradox.
         [Immanuel Burton]
Kashrus of Benedictine
         [I. Balbin]
Lubavitch Practice for Newbies
         [I. Balbin]
Nusah Questions (3)
         [Elazar M Teitz, Kenneth G Miller, Daniel Lowinger]
Singing Voice as part of Tefilah
         [Janice Gelb]
women singing during davening at Shul


From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:20:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Beer and Yayin Nesach

>From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>  
>I think it is clear that Stam Yanum was instituted as a device to limit
>serious social interactions. I would be interested to see sources that
>it is related to the concern that the people will get drunk and we are
>worried about that behaviour. If my memory is correct that it was
>instituted as a social interaction inhibiter, because all serious social
>interaction would involve wine, as there were few other acceptable
>drinks at the time, then it is totally unrelated to whether the fathers
>"exchanged daughters" with or without permission.
>As to the comment about imposing new burdens, it has been completely
>clear from the discussion that no-one is proposing (and surely I am not
>proposing) to impose new burdens. What I am saying, is that from a pure
>logical extension of the original decree, it would make sense to extend
>it to from wine to beer. That does not mean that we do make that
>extension and actually impose that restriction.

I am puzzled as to why the "logical extension" would not also extend to
hard liquor and mixed drinks. And if we are not concerned with drunken
behavior but only with social interaction, then the takana should
probably extend to soft drinks as well!

I think this illustrates why we do not rely on "logical extentions" when
dealing with takanot the rationale for which may have expired.

[I see no reason to believe the rationale has expired. The theoretical
question of what would be forbidden today, if Chazal were instituting
this fence today, is what I see this discussion about, and it is not at
all clear to me that hard liquor and mixed drinks might not be
included. Again, as I have stated more than once, this is a discussion
of the logical implication of the intent of the fence, not a proposal
for practical extensions of the gezeirah (decree). Avi.]


From: Elozor Reich <reichleslie@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:53:03 +0100
Subject: Drinking Coffee and Beer as Stam Yeinam

> For a long time i have wondered about a similar problem. Many Jews buy
> and then drink coffee where it is sold (by non-Jews). I am unsure of how
> this is justified (other than the fact the many seem to do it and i have
> not heard it called problematic). See Pischei Teshuva on Yoreh De'ah
> 104:1. Is this discussed anywhere by poskim (in teshuvos, etc.)?

Coffee drinking in a non-Jewish coffee house is the subject of a long
and most interesting Teshuvah in She'ilas Yaavetz ( 2:142)

Rav Yaakov Emden goes to great lengths to exculpate himself from such a
visit when he visted London.

Elozor Reich


From: Immanuel Burton <IBURTON@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:23:57 +0100
Subject: The Havdalah Paradox.

Havdalah on Motzei Shabbos requires a new flame, i.e. one lit after
Shabbos has gone out.  However, lighting a flame is a melachah [action
forbidden on Shabbos], and one is not allowed to perform any melachah
after Shabbos until one has made havdalah.  This is normally done by
saying "atta chonantonu" in maariv.  However, if one had forgotten to
say this one would then have to say "boruch ha'mavdil bain kodesh
le'chol" before lighting the candles for havdalah.

Why is the havdalah ceremony with wine, spices and lights arranged such
that one must already have made a basic havdalah first?

Immanuel Burton.


From: I. Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:38:43 +1000
Subject: Kashrus of Benedictine

I thought this item would come up, but it hasn't, so I'll raise it.

I was sent the following
by a friend.
It caused a stir.
It is on the not recommended list of Rav Moshe Heinemann
states that

> Liqueurs are generally made by adding flavoring to high proof 
> distilled spirit. A liqueur can contain many ingredients of concern to 
> the kosher consumer. The first ingredient to check is the alcohol base 
> itself. This is sometimes a grape alcohol from the surplus grape crop.


> Since the essence of a liqueur is in its flavor, many are shrouded in 
> secrecy. Benedictine, for instance, is made by a company founded in 
> 1863 in Normandy. Among its ingredients are: cinnamon, cardomom, 
> bitter aloes, nutmeg, saffron, musk seeds, myrrh, angelica seeds, mace 
> and 17 other ingredients.

In respect of Rabbi Gutnick's claims the following questions arise:

a) if the alcohol was grape based, then it won't be a problem for
allergies and maybe halachikally problematic anyway

b) what about the other ingredients? if he doesn't know them, then
presumably he hold they are Botel (annulled). If so, then presumably so
is the alleged Grape. Why bother with asking in the first place?

In respect of those who say that you cannot use Benedictine (and there
are quite a number)

a) is this because they have evidence that it contains non kosher or
grape based ingredients?

b) is this because they simply do not know.

If b) why not do a Coca Cola arrangement and find out. Surely some
Lubavitcher Rov in France could do that?

Or, perhaps they have already found out that it has a grape based
alcoholic content, and because of secrecy cannot say much.

This is not the same as Whiskey in Oak Barrels which may have contained
Wine (note that Star K unlike the accepted Poskim that Rabbi Gutnick
quotes also don't like those, and list them --- wonder why they don't
list many more, but I digress)

Can anyone shed any (more) light on the above issues?


From: I. Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:14:39 +1000
Subject: Re: Lubavitch Practice for Newbies

> From: Daniel Cohn <cohn3736@...>
> AFAIK there are two big differences. 1) Challah with no B"HM is not a
> minhag but a mitzva d'rabanan (instituted by the sages), and 2) Challah
> was accepted by the whole klal Israel while unmarried girls lightning
> candles is a (relatively new) Lubavitch minhag

When the Rav Soloveitchik ztl was asked his opinion about the "new"
Lubavitch campaign to get younger girls to light, his response was
allegedly along the lines of "what's new about that? We all did that in
Lithuania. That was the Minhag"

PS. It's not my minhag.

> From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
> 1 - the ONLY individuals I have ever seen try to "take over" the nusach
> or minhagim of an established shul were Lubavitchers. That is, on more
> than one occasion, I have seen Lubavitchers try/insist on davening
> nusach ari from the amud, or using the Lubavitch style hagbah even
> though that is clearly NOT the established minhag of the shul.

Well, I use this in reverse. I know that this is what Lubavitch do, and
so when I am in their Shule, which is every Shabbos :-) I answer and do
"my own thing" in a reasonably loud voice. After all, they will not be
offended by me exercising my practice, in the same way that they think
that I won't be if they exercise theirs!

> but it seems to me bizarre and troubling that they choose to send
> their young children out of town rather than send them to the right
> wing school available to them.

They are consistent. They often send their kids to an out of town school
when there IS a Lubavitch School when that School is more of a
"community oriented" Lubavitch School. What is wierd about that.  They
send their kids to hear what they would tell their kids.

> Part of what is troubling then, is that the Lubavitch community allows
> these unprepared youngsters to represent Lubavitch, and by extension
> Torah and G-d, to the secular community.

It's also their strength. The person who has to preach to someone else
becomes stronger in their own belief and enriched.


From: Elazar M Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:24:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Nusah Questions

<Hazarat hasha"tz begins in the weekday mode. Stop for people to say
zochrenu and mi khamokha, repeat these in the weekday mode, and

     This is far from unanimous custom.  The custom in Lita was, and in
the Litvishe yeshivos is, for the congregation _not_ to say Zochreinu
and Mi chamocha in the repetition of the Shmone Esrei, although Uchsov
and B'sefer are said.  Zochreinu is not said because it contains a Shem
Shamayim ("l'ma'ancha Elokim chayim"), and Mi chamocha is not said
because it is not a prayer for anything.


From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:03:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Nusah Questions

Baruch Schwartz wrote <<< ... in hazarat hasha"tz it is correct to begin
in the weekday mode and to switch to the melody of shabbat minha at the
end of the kedusha, and to continue thus until the conclusion of hazarat
hasha"tz and tzidkatcha tzedek. ... The use of the mode for "atah ehad
veshimkha ehad" etc. for avot, gevurot and kedusha is an error (although
pointing this out to adults is usually hopeless). >>>

I can't speak for other adults, but for me, yes, pointing out such
things is hopeless. UNLESS you can explain or document your views in
some manner. Virtually this entire post consists of telling us what to
and what not to do, with not a single authority cited, and almost no
attempt at explanation.

I did see one attempt at explanation: <<< The logic is: the full kaddish
is "sung" in one of its many elaborate renditions, each appropropriate
to the particular occasion, when the immediately preceding hazarat
hasha"tz has been augmented by the recitation of piyyutim. >>>

If that's how you like your davening, fine. But if there were no
piyyutim added to the chazaras hashatz, that means we can't sing the
kaddish afterwards? Why not? What's wrong with it?

Please tell me that I've misunderstood this post, and you're simply
describing the way your shul does things. Though the comment that <<<
pointing this out to adults is usually hopeless >>> suggests that you do
think that there's a right and wrong here.

Akiva Miller

From: Daniel Lowinger <Daniel.Lowinger@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:34:10 +1000
Subject: Nusah Questions

Baruch states that:
> The use of the mode for "atah ehad veshimkha ehad" etc. for avot,
> gevurot and kedusha is an error.

How does he know that? Is he then saying that the majority of the world
is in "error" - surely not!!

Daniel Lowinger


From: Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Singing Voice as part of Tefilah

Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
> on 24/8/04 10:45 am, Leah S. Gordon <leah@...> wrote:
> > To me, this begs the question--how in the world could a woman hide her
> > singing voice while she is davening (and presumably singing)??
> She should make sure that men cannot hear her, which means she should
> either not sing (as opposed to recite - the only prohibition is the
> singing voice) the davening in a place where there are men. There is a
> suggested hetter by the Seridei HaEsh that in certain circumstances
> (e.g. singing zemirot), men and women singing together does not come
> under the prohibition but, as not everyone accepts this, a woman should
> not rely on it where it might cause offence. After all, just as one
> should not impose one's chumras on other people, one should also not
> impose one's kullas.

Which, as usual, begs the question of why if the admonition is on the
man not to hear the voice of the woman, it isn't the man's obligation to
make sure he's not in range rather than the woman's obligation not to
sing. I understand this for davening but it really bothers me for
zemirot. There is as far as I know no obligation for men to sing
zemirot. If so, the answer if the men present hold that even mixed
voices are not permissible should be for no one to sing zemirot, not for
the men to sing and the women to be forced to keep silent due to a
stringency that is really on the men.

-- Janice


From: <chips@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:30:36 -0700
Subject: Re: women singing during davening at Shul

> Leah, this is why many charedi shuls (and I've seen this in actual
> shteiblach with ezrat nashim) have signs asking women not to sing
> during davening and have "shushing" shomrim to make sure they comply.

I used to daven at a very middle of the road , Misnagdish place. A woman
started attending who not only could sing but had a very professional,
luxuriant voice. There was a discussion at a breakfast meeting where
some wanted to have a rep go to her and ask her to stop and others
thought it was fine since it was davening/tefilah. There was no shul
Rabbi so they had to ask an outsider. First Rav they went to would not
give a psak since he thought that both points of view were correct (look
up Rav Soloveichik (sp?) and Kol Eisha in mailjewish).  Since this
didn't help matters, they went to a second Rav who ruled that: 
  since some were obviously attracted to her voice and there was no halachic
  imperitive for her to sing and that he doubted that the men in the shul
  were on the level of piety of those Rabbi's who used to allow women to
  sing that they should instruct her to sing softly.  
So they did. And she did. (Actually she also changed her seat so that
the women could hear her but the men really couldn't.)


End of Volume 44 Issue 54