Volume 44 Number 93
                    Produced: Fri Sep 24  5:54:13 EDT 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Cholah or Cholanit (s)
         [Joshua Hosseinof]
High Holiday Services
         [Ira Bauman]
Jaine Restaurants and non-Kosher Keilim
         [Orrin Tilevitz]
A New approach to Genesis 1 and Evolution
         [Russell Jay Hendel]
Opening and Closing the Aron on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur
         [Ben Katz]
Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin
         [Jack Gross]
Saturday work? - babysitting
         [Akiva Miller]
Third Person
         [Akiva Miller]
"Unmarried girls" [sic]
         [Nathan Lamm]
         [Nathan Lamm]


From: Joshua Hosseinof <JHosseinof@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:23:29 -0400
Subject: Cholah or Cholanit (s)

I personally prefer the third approach as to how to refer to the sick
person - don't label them as anything because of the principle of "al
tiftach peh lasatan" (let's not give ideas to the satan).  You can still
say the entire text of the mi-sheberach asking that hashem give a refuah
sheleimah for ploni ben ploni, without needing to label the person as
cholah or cholanit.  The general text that i've seen requests that
hashem give a refuah shleimah to all the sick of the nation of israel
and then "uvichlal haberachah yishlach refuah shleimah le-...." (within
the blessing of refuah shleimah to all of Israel, give a refuah shleimah
for the individual ploni ben ploni).  Most sephardic congregations that
I've been to follow this text, as well as some ashkenazi ones in Israel.
U.S. congregations will usually follow whatever it says in Artscroll or
the Gabbai's handbook.

Josh Hosseinof


From: <Yisyis@...> (Ira Bauman)
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:09:41 EDT
Subject: Re: High Holiday Services

>>With the HHD services so full of words, when does one find the time to
>>think/reflect on one's past/future actions, teshuva, and the like?

> Aren't the HHD prayers all about tshuva and serving Hashem.

To reflect my experience, it may be beneficial to restate the question
somewhat differently.  As a davener with a typical American Yeshiva
education, I can translate most of the tefilot as I hastily run through
them on the Yomim Noraim.  I can even make sense of some of the piyutim
as I speed through them trying to say every word.  When I'm in top form,
as I rarely am, I can concentrate for extended periods of time on
figuring out the meaning of the words..

To fully have kavanah in my prayers, once I say the words of a sentence,
translate them, and appreciate their context, I have to them assimilate
them as my own feelings and resolve how to act on them.  To do this
properly, I need several minutes of contemplation.  However, as soon as
I finish one sentence, the next one immediately follows.  This keeps on
happening until after the Maariv following Ne'ilah.  Of course I may opt
to delete several prayers to concentrate on the others but that is not
how the tefilot are set up.

 Ira Bauman


From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Jaine Restaurants and non-Kosher Keilim

Let me see if I understand the thread so far:

1.  Even if the food is all kosher, maybe the keilim were used to cook
something treif, so we can't eat the food anyway.
2.  Stam keilim of non-Jews are considered not ben yomo, so (of course,
bedi avad) we can eat the food cooked in them.
3.  In fact, the keilim are used every day in the restaurant so they are
all ben yomo.
4.  Even in a restaurant, we can assume that they're not ben yomo, and in
fact they probably aren't.

My understanding is that something is that a kli is ben yomo only if it's
been used for forbidden food, not merely used, within the previous 24
hours. If the first assumption, that  all food entering the restaurant,
is kosher, once the restaurant has owned its keilim for 24 hours, doesn't
that problem go away?


From: Russell Jay Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:12:34 GMT
Subject: RE: A New approach to Genesis 1 and Evolution

Yitzchak, Alexis, Jonathan and others (v44n89) discuss how to teach

I offer a new approach that does not contradict either science or (some)
commentaries, in my article, published in BOR HATORAH, GENESIS 1 SPEAKS

You can download and review the article at

But here is the gist of the article. Using criteria for symbolic
interpretation I suggest that Genesis 1 **must** be interpreted
symbolically (Rashi hints at this on the phrase LET THERE BE LIGHT). I
suggest consistent with several midrashim and Rishonim that what
happened 6000 years ago is that God created the first prophet.

In other words the universe the solar system, earth and man are all
several billion/million years old. What happened 6000 years ago is that
the first prophecy occurred.

I then suggest using this for teaching things like biology: Science
deals with the physical world and how it runs while The torah deals with
prophetic encounter and its consequences

There is no contradiction and no "defensiveness". The only "hard part"
is the assertion that Genesis 1 must be interpreted symbolically and
this is defended using Rav Hirschs famous essay GROUNDLINES OF JEWISH

A Happy New Year to ALl with many more Sweet Mail Jewish postings
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/


From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:05:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Opening and Closing the Aron on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur

>From: Sholom Parnes <merbe@...>
>On the eve of Rosh Hashana (Jewish New Year) after T'filat Amidah (the
>silent prayer) we opened the Ark and the Shaliach Tzibur (prayer leader)
>chanted l'Dovid Mizmor (psalm 24) verse by verse with the congregation
>repeating each verse. (Yasher Koach to fellow MJ'er, Jay Bailey who was
>our Shaliach Tzibur ).
>I'd imagine that this custom is pretty universal.
>One of my fellow congregants pointed out that in his Machzor (holiday
>prayer book) there was no instruction to open the ark for this
>prayer. My Machzor also lacked this instruction. I then did a rather
>unscientific canvassing of about 12 or 15 different Machzorim and did
>not find any instruction to open the ark. The prayer books checked
>included, Rinat Yisrael, Koren, Machzor Ha'mikdash, Machzor Raba,
>Machzor Kol Bo etc.In the Artscroll Machzor I found the notation that
>some congregations have the custom of opening the ark (no source
>given). I wonder if the basis for the Artscroll notation is based on a
>reflection of reality rather than an identifiable source.

         As is stated in one of the Gokldschmidt/Finkel machzorim,
opening and closing the ark really only needs to be done when one takes
out or returns the Torah.  Sometime in the Middle Ages, for "more
important" parts of the service, it became customary to also open and
close the ark (the maimonidean in me shudders at the sense that God is
somehow more present with the ark open).  it is all minhag.  the
shulchan aruch does not even require standing when the ark is open,
although that has become a fairly universal custom today.

Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
e-mail: <bkatz@...>


From: Jack Gross <ibijbgross@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:30:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin

> From: Ben Z. Katz <bkatz@...>
> "I think Mr. Teichman and I agree, although his language may be
> more elegant than mine.  Essentially "no one cared" until the Middle
> Ages as long as there were 4 parshiyot."

Middle ages??  It's all quite clear from the cited page in Menachos.

1. There is a Beraisa that states the proper order.  200 CE at latest.
(Rashi and R. Tam disagree over how to parse the text, and what physical
order emerges: "[A B C D]", or "[A B D C]" -- but both agree that the
Beraisa is establishing a unique canonical order.)

2. The gemara askes: Another version of the beraisa has the "opposite"
order ("Ve-ha-tanya Ipcha").  The Gemara regards that as a
contradiction, and resolves it so that the two descriptions are
equivalent, describing the order as seen from two different vantage
points ("kan miymin hakorei, k. m.  hameiniach").  -- Clearly, the
underlying assumption throughout is that #1 (and its variant) specify
the mandatory order, or at least the one and only optimal order.

3. There is a statement of R. Chananel in the name of Rav, that
inverting the order renders the Tephilla unfit.

4.  Abaye and Rava disagree over whether a reflection of that order is
equivalent.  (Abaye may hold that #1 gives the preferable one of the
only two permutations allowed; Rava holds #1 gives the mandatory order.)
The halacha follows Rava.  [The discussion in #2 may have occurred after
Rava's opinion became the established law.]


From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:46:36 GMT
Subject: re: Saturday work? - babysitting

Leah Gordon asks <<< why is there a problem with paying the baby sitter
if s/he doesn't do any melacha?  Can't we assume, that like the rabbi
etc., she is thinking/planning/packing-toys etc. before shabbat? >>>

As I quoted the Shemiras Shabbas Kehilchasa in MJ 44:80, <<< One may not
engage a guard or any other kind of paid employee, for working on
Shabbos alone, beause of this prohibition. If he has no need for him to
work except on Shabbos itself, he should stipulate that he'll work a
little bit on Erev Shabbos or on Motzaei Shabbos, so that he'll be able
to be paid "absorbed". >>>

So if the baby-sitter really does do some sort of preparation, such as
rehearsing a story to be read, or bringing a toy to that house *before*
Shabbos begins, AND that preparation is a required part of the
agreement, then Leah is correct that the sitter could be paid. But in my
experience, no such preparation usually occurs; the sitter just goes to
the house and watches the kids there.

Leah also asked <<< And, does it matter if s/he is Jewish? >>>

One of the points in the Shmiras Shabbos that I did *not* quote there,
is that this prohibition of "Shabbos salary" is on the employee, not the
employer. Therefore, if a Jewish babysitter works for a non-Jewish
family, all these laws apply (and others too, I suppose). But if a
non-Jewish babysitter works for a Jewish family, none of these laws
apply (though other laws very well might).

Akiva Miller


From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:29:48 GMT
Subject: re: Third Person

In MJ 44:86, Batya Medad noticed <<< We pray directly to G-d, using the
simple second person, as if we're talking directly to a friend. It's
unlike many languages that dictate that when speaking to someone
distinguished, one speaks in third person. >>>

What I've seen is that we use both persons, often in the same
sentence. This is most easily seen in any short bracha, which begins
"Blessed are YOU", but then goes on to talk *about* G-d -- "Who brought
bread", "Who created the...", or whatever.

Other examples are in Birkas Hamazon, which begin with the "you", and
almost immediately switches to "Hu nosen lechem" (He gives bread),
"uvtuvo" (and in His goodness), and so on.

Glancing through my siddur, I'll admit that I can't find any use of the
third person in Shmoneh Esreh, perhaps this is due to the very personal
nature of that prayer.

I do know that this topic is discussed in many books about tefilah in
general, but I can't find any specific examples right now. I think I
once referred to it as the "Avinu Malkenu dilemma", for HaShem is both
our relative (first person) and our leader (third person) at the same

Akiva Miller


From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: "Unmarried girls" [sic]

Shoshana Ziskind mentions childless couples and how they are
judged. Unfortunately, in talking about "syatta d'shmaya" needed, she's
already making a judgment call: Some couples do not want (or cannot
support) children at that early stage, and are taking steps (and yes,
halakhically allowed) to prevent pregnancy. Perhaps it's best to assume
the couple is fully knowledgeable of their own affairs and not think
about such things at all.

Nachum Lamm


From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Verses

There's a large chart at the end of Oxford's new "Jewish Study Bible"
showing all the variants in verses between Jewish and Christian
Bibles. The vast majority consist of Jews counting "introductions" to
Psalms as verses or part of verses, and Christians not counting them as

However, there are a number of other differences. When one examines
them, it becomes clear that there's a theological point being made with
many- and as it was Christians (more specifically, Stephen Langton,
1150-1228, an English priest who later became Archbishop of Cantebury)
who made them, it's clear that Jews accepted the verses because they had
to for convenience's sake, but altered some divisions that were
unacceptable. I believe there's a point in Bamidbar where Christians
(and, as it happens, the Masoretic division) separate a line about
creating new gods from another (I can't find the exact reference at the

I don't see an apparent problem with some of these, so there may indeed
have simply been variants. But there are other points to bear in mind as
well. For example, (Protestant) Christian Bibles place Malachi, and not
Chronicles, at the end of the "Old Testament."  Therefore, the last few
verses of Malachi are placed in their own chapter, as if to imply that
the redemption promised there will, in fact, begin on the next page,
with Jesus. Jews, however, place all of these verses within the previous
chapter, placing them within the context of Malachi as a whole.

Nachum Lamm


End of Volume 44 Issue 93