Volume 45 Number 06
                    Produced: Wed Sep 29  0:26:13 EDT 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Buying Arba Minim
         [Shmuel Himelstein]
Can one eat at Jaine restaurants in India (2)
         [Martin Stern, David Riceman]
         [Marc Joseph]
Dairy bread
         [Israel Caspi]
Haviva Ner-David
         [Janice Gelb]
Kodesh v'khol
         [Bernard Raab]
Separate Seating at Weddings (Reprise) (2)
         [Bernard Raab, Aliza Fischman]
Sukkahs made from material that blows in the wind
         [Daniel Lowinger]
Third Person
         [Akiva Miller]
Yemenite customs
         [Jack Gross]


From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:18:05 +0200
Subject: Buying Arba Minim

Considering that the Four Species have to be owned by the person (at
least on the first day of Sukkot), is there any Halachic basis for
people buying (especially) the Aravot from someone under BarMitzvah age?
By Halachah, someone under BarMitzvah age does not have the ability to
be "Makneh" (transfer the ownership of an object) to anyone else. If I'm
correct, wouldn't it mean that the person who "bought" the Aravot from a
minor doesn't own them, and thus only owns three of the four species?

Or is there a fallacy in my logic?

Shmuel Himelstein


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 06:39:56 +0100
Subject: Re: Can one eat at Jaine restaurants in India

Subject: Re: Can one eat at Jaine restaurants in India
>> From: David Riceman <driceman@...>
>> I'm surprised no one has mentioned the problem of tikroves avoda
>> zara.
>> I once had a Hindu colleague who told me that both her mother and her
>> mother-in-law, whenever they cooked, took a bit out of the food and
>> offered it to the gods.
> I do not have any understanding why this would ever be considered
> a problem of Tikroves.
> Even if we assume that they take the bit out and give it directly to the
> getchke in their living room, what does this have to do with the rest of
> the food?

This is precisely the way avodah zarah was done in the times of Chazal
and makes the remaining food assur, similar lehavdil to the way a
minchah is consecrated by offering the komets.

Martin Stern

From: David Riceman <driceman@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 07:51:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Can one eat at Jaine restaurants in India

Based on Rambam H. AZ 7:15 it depends on the order.  If they take a bit
out and then go to the shrine there's no problem.  If they take the pot
to the shrine and then take the food out there is.  I think it's
worthwhile to check before you eat there.

David Riceman


From: Marc Joseph <marc@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:09:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Coffee

The standard practice is that separate grinders are used for flavored
and non-flavored coffees as the flavoring will contaminate anything that
it comes in contact with. So while you can say that some establishments
may have this problem, most should not.



From: Israel Caspi <icaspi@...>
Subject: Dairy bread

With regard to my statement that "those who do buy and eat dairy bread
 ... yesh al mi lismoch," Anonymous asks: "Can the writer cite the poskim
who stated that a wrapper designation suffices?"

Similarly, Andrew (Avraham) Marks writes "With all due respect, without
a major posek poskening that [the marking on the wrapper is sufficient
to permit dairy bread as an option, I'm not sure that one has al mi
lismoch in the face of a g'zeras chochomim."

My statement was based on the content of Rabbi Howard Jachter's Halacha
column from the TABC Student publication, the reference to which was
posted by Shmuel Himelstein


"Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik follows his father's ruling as well as the
ruling of the Chochmat Adam and Aruch Hashulchan and rules (reported by
Rav Hershel Schachter and Rav Menachem Genack) that a sign on the
packaging of bread indicating that it is dairy is a sufficient reminder
that the bread should not be used with meat."

--Israel Caspi


From: Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Haviva Ner-David

Joseph Kaplan <penkap@...> wrote:
> I think the Moderator's initial concern about posting the item about
> Haviva Ner-David being a Modern Orthodox scholar was well taken, and I
> wish he would have followed that first instinct.  The post that was
> included did not merely dispute whether Haviva Ner-David is a Modern
> Orthodox scholar; it called her a Reform Jew.  Now, my guess is that the
> vast majority of the members of this list consider themselves Orthodox,
> and are proud of it.  How would we like it if someone called us Reform
> Jews.  Not if someone disagreed strongly with something we wrote or we
> said, and not even if someone wrote that something we wrote or said is
> not within Jewish tradition or Orthodoxy; but if they called us Reform
> Jews.  Any way you look at it, that is a personal insult; an ad hominmem
> attack.  One can legitimately debate someone's views; one cannot debate
> what is in someone's heart, and that's what being a Modern Orthodox Jew
> (or any type of Orthodox Jew) is all about.  We are all sinners, and if
> sinning, or disagreeing with some aspect of Orthodox Judaism (or what
> someone else considers part of Orthodox Judaism) makes us non-Orthodox,
> then our numbers would shrink substantially. 

I certainly agree that just because someone disagrees with some aspect
of Orthodox Judaism, that person should not be considered as no longer
being an Orthodox Jew. But you insult many other Jews by claiming that
the designation "Reform Jew" itself is an insult or an attack. I object
when people call other Jews "Reform" when what they really mean is that
the person does not observe anything Jewish in ritual or
philosophy. Reform Judaism has a philosophy and practice of its own, and
to claim that naming someone a Reform Jew is in and of itself an insult
or an attack verges on sinat chinam.

-- Janice


From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 01:25:22 -0400
Subject: Kodesh v'khol

>From: Noyekh Miller <nmiller@...>  

>I try not to use the word "myth" (often referred to as "pure myth" or
>"mere myth") because it's so heavily freighted with what we
>all/most/some remember from the behavior of those permanent adolescents
>on Olympus. But myth is not to be put aside so lightly, for among its
>various meanings is precisely the kind of foundation story found in
>seyfer Bereyshis.
>There's something else worth thinking about: a sacred myth is _beyond_
>questions of truth. Being invested with kedusha, it makes a single claim
>on man--obedience. If only the Ribonoy-Shel-Oylem had wired us
>differently, so that at Sinai we had shouted simply "naase!", things
>would have been much simpler. Instead we added "v'nishma" and that is
>where, as we say in Yiddish, the dog lies buried. In short, we--along
>with all other humans--spend our lives trying to explain things to
>others and to ourselves, trying to prove to ourselves that what we're
>ordered to accept on faith is "true". The flood of words goes on and it
>is but little consolation that the Christians are even more obsessed.
>The flood itself, on my reading, is a perfectly legitimate subject of
>skeptical thought.

I am grateful to Noyekh Miller for introducing me to the concept of
"sacred myth" and making me aware of its power. It is undeniable that
this concept relieves us of the necessity to "prove" the "truth" of
everything in our canon or else to derive an "explanation" for those
things that we cannot prove. However, the sticking point for me is
simply this: How do we avoid extending the concept to the idea of the
Ribono-Shel-Olam It-Him-Her-self? I don't see how a mythical Gd could
command us to such very real obedience.

Regarding the flood story, an M-J thread some 2 years ago induced me to
some research which led me to an "explanation" which does not contravene
the pshat of the chumash as much as it reinterprets it. But that is for
another day.

b'shalom--Bernie R.


From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:55:45 -0400
Subject: Separate Seating at Weddings (Reprise)

>I have heard that, for example, the Chofetz Chaim had family seating at
>his own wedding.  Any pro / con "facts" re: that statement.
>If we look at the current and recent past leadership of Agudah (and
>perhaps other substantial Orthodox organizations) would we find that the
>senior leadership -- Roshei Yeshiva, etc., (probably, 'til 120, in their
>70's and 80's) had family seating at their own weddings and separate
>seating at their children's weddings.

I have been told that R. Moshe Feinstein ZT"L had mixed seating at the
weddings of his children.

>A similar question --    at weddings
>Do bride and groom walk to the chuppa with their respective parents OR
>groom with (both) fathers and bride with (both) mothers.

I have never seen or heard of this. Has anyone?

b'shalom--Bernie R.

[Yes, I have seen both customs. Avi]

From: Aliza Fischman <fisch.chips@...>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:08:54 -0400
Subject: RE: Separate Seating at Weddings (Reprise)

I heard the following story.  Please note that I do not know the
identity of the person involved.

A Yeshiva University bochur was in a quandary.  He was invited to his
friend's wedding.  It was a very close friend.  He wanted to go, he felt
he SHOULD go.  BUT - he knew it was going to be mixed seating.  He went
to the Rav and said, "Rebbe, what do I do?  I want to go.  He will be
insulted if I don't go.  But it's mixed seating!"  The Rav looked at
him, smiled and said, "How do you think I met my wife?"

My husband and I had mixed seating at our wedding.  There is one friend
of ours who left early because her Chatan was uncomfortable with that
fact.  On the other hand, my husband and I have been to weddings where
it was separate seating and the only people we knew aside from the bride
or groom were each other!  That is a less than comfortable situation
many times, even for someone outgoing (as I tend to be), all the more so
for someone more introverted.

I have heard of people who have mixed seating for couples and then
separate for singles.  This brings us back to the shidduchim questions.

I was the first of many of my friends to get married (I was 20 at the
time) and I remember that when we arranged the seating I purposely put
various (single) people together because I wanted them to meet each
other.  Not necessarily for shidduchim as much as Long-Time-Friend A
(from my neighborhood) had heard so much about Long-Time-Friend B (from
across the country) and vise versa that I wanted them to finally meet
each other.  On the video, Friend A is seen saying into the camera,
"Look, Aliza!  I finally met Friend B!"  A few of my friends have met
their spouses this way.  They never would have met (or it would have
taken much longer) if those weddings had had separate seating.



From: Daniel Lowinger <Daniel.Lowinger@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:47:50 +1000
Subject: Sukkahs made from material that blows in the wind

Does any one out there have any opinions on the succahs that you can buy
which are made from material that flaps in the wind. What is the
halachic permissability of them. Obviously there are heterim that exist
as so many people have them. I am looking for reasons why and why not
they could be used.

Daniel Lowinger


From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 01:29:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Third Person

Apropos to this discussion, I just wanted to mention something I noticed
on Kol Nidre night in Maariv. If we leave out the status of the standard
"Atah" in all brachos, an interesting pattern appears.

The first bracha of Maariv is entirely in the third person, and uses it
explicitly at least three times: "bidvaro", "kirtzono", "sh'mo". The
next bracha, in sharp contrast, is entirely in the second person, using
it exlicitly at least eight times: "amcha", "ahavta", "limadta",
"b'chukecha", "sorasecha", "uvmitzvosecha", "v'ahavas'cha", "tasir".

The above is based on my nusach Ashkenaz. Others may vary. Still, an
interesting pattern. I'm not sure what, if anything, to make of it. Just
wanted to share it.

Akiva Miller


From: Jack Gross <ibijbgross@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:11:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Yemenite customs

>From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
>This phenomenon occurred throughout the Jewish world where the
>introduction of printing produced standardised texts and led to local
>customs being abandoned.

I believe the printing industry similarly contributed to the elimination
of Selichot from the Yom Kippur shacharit, musaf, and mincha services.
The selection of Selichot varied with time and locality -- as evidenced
by the range of dates of authorship in the weekday Selichot.

Because of that non-uniformity, the printers simply incorporated the
local custom by reference ("Der Chazen hebt ohn Slach Lanu un m'zogt
Selichos, dernoch sogt men dos: Zechor Rachamecha..."), leaving it to
local communities to produce their own texts. With time, even that
instruction was largely dropped.

I presume that the selections for Arvit and Neila had become universal
(within the target markets), and thus made it into print and survived.

Note that the Adler machzor included selichot.


End of Volume 45 Issue 6