Volume 44 Number 71
                    Produced: Fri Sep 10  4:52:13 EDT 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Batim (was Roshei vs Rashei)
         [Matthew Pearlman]
Nusach questions
         [Elazar M Teitz]
The Open Mishnah Project
         [Dovi Jacobs]
Pareve Chocolates
         [Joshua Hosseinof]
Pareve, Dairy, and Fleishig
         [Joshua Hosseinof]
         [P.V. Viswanath]
Query about R. Yohanan b. Zakkai
         [Joel Rich]
Rabbienu Tam Tfilin -- public community practice
         [Carl Singer]
Siddur question - Chabad minhag?
         [Paul Ginsburg]
         [Perets Mett]
         [Perets Mett]


From: Matthew Pearlman <Matthew.Pearlman@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 09:39:26 +0100
Subject: Batim (was Roshei vs Rashei)

I posted the following some time ago (apologies for repeating the whole
item but it was over a month ago)

> Following the discussion on the kamats in "rashei/roshei" I would be 
> grateful if someone could explain the nature of the kamats in "batim".

> This word appears several times with the kamats unaccented (and the 
> tav has a dagesh) which would normally imply that it should be a 
> kamats katan, but I had always assumed this was a kamats gadol.  
> Examples include Shemot 1:21 (vayaas lahem batim) and in compound 
> forms eg "batei" and "bateinu" in Shemot 12:27.

> However, in other compounds, there is sometimes a stress on the 
> kamats, eg "habatim" in Shemot 12:13, but not on "habatim" in Shemot 
> 8:9 and 9:20.

The only response posted was from Martin Stern who noted:

>I checked the last three cases and, in all of them, the stress is 
>on the last syllable not the one with the kamats.

I was using the Koren Chumash, and now having looked at another Chumash
I can see Martin's point.  However, even there "habatim" in Shemot 12:7
has a stress on the kamats.  I should also add that perhaps I am using
the word "stress" loosely - I really mean a meteg or secondary note (in
this case a munach). These seem to me generally to be placed on a kamats
to show that it is a kamats gadol when one might have otherwise confused
it for a kamats katan.  A case in point here is "rasheichem" at the
beginning of parashat Nitsavim (subject of the previous debate) where
the kamats under the reish has a meteg.

Can anyone explain whether the examples in my original post should be
kamats gadol or katan, and if the former, why they do not have a meteg.



From: Elazar M Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 05:38:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Nusach questions

<does Telz use the weekday nusach for Ashrei/Uva Letzion/Kaddish etc, or
is it just at the beginning of the chazores hashatz?>

     Shabbos Mincha nusach from Ashrei through the returning of the
sefer Torah; weekday for the second kaddish and the beginning of the
repetition of the Amidah, until (but not including) the last line of
k'dusha; Shabbos Mincha tune through Tzidkascha Tzedek; weekday tune



From: Dovi Jacobs <dovijacobs@...>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 08:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: The Open Mishnah Project

Stuart Feldhamer wrote:

"I very much dislike what I have seen so far from these wikipedia
things. The problem with them is that any idiot can and does
contribute. There is no way to determine the quality of anything that
you read. I would much rather stick with my Kehatis."

That is a serious point.  Here's what I added in response that point in
a revised version of my "Open Mishnah Project" post:

A wiki text is never done.  It can always be changed and improved.  If
it is "vandalized" it can be reverted.

If you want a knowledgeable teacher to "review" the translations for
accuracy, here is how to do it: The teacher needs to create an account,
and should probably use his own real name as him user name (e.g.  "Rabbi
Yaakov Cohen").  Once he has done this, and let his students know, he
can correct the translation his students have done, and when he saves
the page he can comment: "This version of the translation has been
reviewed by Rav Yaakov Cohen."  From then on, there will always be a
"verified" translation from which to judge the accuracy of past and
future versions.

In order to see the various versions of an article (mishnah), including
the one that has been "verified," simply click on the "history" tab for
that article.

Hope that helps.

Kol tuv!
Dovi J.


From: Joshua Hosseinof <JHosseinof@...>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:30:40 -0400
Subject: Pareve Chocolates

The issue came out a few years ago regarding the procedure for kashering
chocolate manufacturing machines between milk and pareve chocolates.
Until that time, the universally accepted way to kasher the machines was
to put through a run of pareve chocolate, which would clean out all the
milk chocolates deposits from the machine.  That run of "pareve"
chocolate would still be considered dairy, but the following runs would
be pareve.  It was discovered however that significant traces of dairy
remained in the future runs of supposedly pareve chocolate.  The reason
boiling water was not used to kasher the machines is that for most
chocolate machinery the hot water would damage the chocolate machinery.
There is also a disagreement as to whether the chocolate liquid is
halachically a "liquid" that can be used for kashering the equipment.

The change in kashrus policy occurred around the time Stella D'oro
(almost) went dairy, and in fact this change in policy helped
precipitate the Stella D'oro dairy decision, because it drove up the
cost of pareve chocolate.  See Mail-Jewish v35n1 where I posted about
this topic, unfortunately the article link I gave at that time no longer
works, perhaps it is still available through archive.org however.  So
until about 4-5 years ago, all hechsherim were satisfied with kashering
the equipment with a run of pareve chocolate, but since then the OU,
Badatz, and other hechsherim apparently, insist on a kashering process
using boiling water for the chocolate to be considered pareve.  However
I don't think one claim that using the "chocolate only" kashering
process is not a "thorough" cleaning since it was accepted by all
hashgachot until only a few years ago.


From: Joshua Hosseinof <JHosseinof@...>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:53:30 -0400
Subject: Pareve, Dairy, and Fleishig

See Shulchan Aruch YD 95:2 - the Rema clearly indicates that Bitul
applies even with a "davar charif" (sharp tasting food).  All that a
"davar charif" brings into the picture is the question of cooking dairy
in a pot that had previously cooked a "davar charif" item which had a
piece of meat fall into it by mistake.  "Davar charif" is defined by the
Rema as an item with more than 50% of its ingredients considered charif.
In the case of a Davar Charif pot, the pot would keep it's meat status
forever, as opposed to only 24 hours for a non-davar charif pot.
Regarding the salad bar situation, or even the mustard, these are
clearly not intentional mixtures, thus the laws of bitul should apply.
Now as for whether the meat is distinguishable from the salad or mustard
- I think the question that must be asked is to what extent must one
inspect the salad/mustard to see if a piece of meat did actually fall
in?  I would posit that all one must do in such a situation is conduct a
cursory visual inspection of the item, determine that there is no
obvious meat object in there, also determine that if there was a tiny
piece of meat in there, then there is also at least 60 times volume of
non-meat items to nullify the meat.  Then one can use the mustard and/or
salad with whatever other food one was eating and still be halachically
pareve (assuming one wasn't eating any other meat).

Joshua Hosseinof


From: P.V. Viswanath <pviswanath@...>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 12:35:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Pets

Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...> wrote in vol. 44.62:

>Rabbi J. David Bleich quotes extensively from Rav Kook NOT approving of
>vegetarianism in our day. He attributes to Rav Kook four reasons why it
>is inappropriate:
>1. before worrying about animals, worry about other more important
>problems (like poor people)
>4. having the moral outlet of carrying for animals allows a person to be
>crueler to humans

Have these reasons been used to prohibit or at least discourage having
pets?  Being a vegetarian takes very little time and effort away from
mitsves and caring for other human beings (besides having the added
advantage of a smaller likelihood of eating treyf).  Having pets takes
much more money and effort and time (besides having to worry about other
shabbos issurim related to pets)!

Meylekh Viswanath


From: <Joelirich@...> (Joel Rich)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 08:03:13 EDT
Subject: Re: Query about R. Yohanan b. Zakkai

      I, for one, would be most interested in learning more about Rav
      Soloveitchik's interpretation.
      David Roth

The Rav's point was that R' Yochanan on his death bed was still unsure
as to whether he had made the right call on asking for Yavneh
vchachameha (her scholars) rather than for Jerusalem not to be
destroyed.  An important message to those of us (like me) who are always
sure we are right.

Joel Rich


From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 08:10:06 -0400
Subject: Rabbienu Tam Tfilin -- public community practice

    I believe Carl is making an error, and it can be demonstrated by the
    internal inconsistency he described. If there is a real concern that
    Rabbeinu Tam tfilin are _the_ right ones, the custom to wait till
    marriage would make little sense. ---

I may very well be wrong -- but inconsistent or not, the community
practice among certain Sfardim is to wait until marriage.  Perhaps it's
a practical accommodation so as not to burden a 13 year old with
shlepping two sets to school every morning, or a cost thing, or minhag.

In fact I know someone who wears five or six different pairs of
tefilin. He comes home from shul and puts them on in private. Few people
know that he does this, and he clearly does not believe this is a
requirement. And he certainly feels it would be yuhara for him to
publicly wear these different pairs of tefilin.

Exactly -- this person does it in private.  And my original posting
focused on this aspect -- the tefilin were only an example and, as is
frequently the case, discussions went off on a tangent.  Let's go back
to your friend.  If he wore 2 sets of tefilin in shule it would still be
within the realm of socially acceptable and, depending on the community,
not viewed as yahura or upsmanship, or whatever.  If he wore 5 or 6
different pairs (in public at shule) he would be beyond the acceptable
limits of most communities and people would either consider this yahura
or mishigas (craziness.)

So to it is with many things -- community has limits, perhaps a few
tiers of acceptable (public, or public aware) behavior, but beyond those
tiers lies unacceptable behavior.  1 pair of tefillin OK, 2 pair OK, 3
pair??  Shabbos chulent OK, letting cooked food stay warm on Shabbos OK,
eating coldcuts, and "cold" Shabbos lunch, OK -- sitting in the dark,
turning off the furnace / air conditioner, etc.  not OK.

Carl Singer


From: Paul Ginsburg <GinsburgP@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 07:09:53 -0400 
Subject: Siddur question - Chabad minhag?

At the very beginning of the Chabad "Tehillas Hashem" siddur (before Mah
Tovu) it is quoted in the name of the AriZal that it is correct to make
the following statement: "I accept upon myself the responsibility to
fulfill the positive commandment: 'Love your fellow as yourself.'"

I have not found this quote in other Nusach Sefard siddurim.  Is this
practice solely a Chabad minhag or is it also the practice of other
Chassidim as well?

Paul W. Ginsburg
Rockville, Maryland


From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 11:31:21 +0100
Subject: Tal/Geshem

Menashe Elyashiv wrote, quoting Rabbi S'royo Deblicki:

> BTW, other interesting customs -
> 1} Most places in eretz Israel say Tal and Geshem before Mussaf,
> therefore, no Tal or Geshem tune for Kaddish.

This has to be understood in its context, i.e. most places in Erets
Yisroel ***which daven Nusach Ashkenaz*** bentsh Tal/Geshem before Musaf

Places which Daven Nusach 'Sfard' in Erets Yisroel bentsh Tal/Geshem
during Shmone Esrei as in Chuts Lo-orets, with he traditional tune for
Kadish/Ovos and the opening piyutim

Perets Mett


From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 11:52:37 +0100
Subject: Yiddish

Dr Katz:

> Most people would argue that Yiddish is distinct enough (alphabet,
> some hebrew, polish and russian) to merit its being considered a
> seperate language, yet it is mutually intelligible with german
> speakers.

He obviously has not heard the apocryphal story of the Rov who, on
embarkation of a ship, asked his shames to inform the captain that he
'understood German'. The captain duly made a short welcoming speech in
German, of which the Rov failed to understand a single word.

Or the story of the German who was charged in a Lithunaian court with
the theft of a horse. Since Jews speak Yidish, a Jew was the obvious
choice of interpreter.

On the instruction of the judge, he addressed the accused: "der oden
zogt az ir hot gelakkhet a sus fun yenem orel"

The German, unsurprisingly failed to understand this and responded
blankly, "Was?"

After three attempts the interpreter addressed the judge thus: "nisht
nor vos er iz a ganev, er iz a ligener oykhet - er iz bikhlal nisht keyn

(Not only is he a thief, he is a liar too - he isn't even German!)

Well spoken Yiddish (as opposed to Germanized Yiddish spoken by Yiddish
speakers with an inferiority complex) is by and large not readily
intelligible to most German speakers

I suspect that most (all?) those who claim Yiddish is just a corrupted
form of German don't speak Yiddish.

Perets Mett


End of Volume 44 Issue 71