Volume 45 Number 14
                    Produced: Mon Oct 11  5:41:56 EDT 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Aleinu on Yom Kippur
         [Carl Singer]
A Beautiful Theory Of Biblical Chapter Divisions (3)
         [Shimon Lebowitz, Martin Stern, Nathan Lamm]
Chazarat Hashatz
         [Ira L. Jacobson]
Gmar Tov
         [Joel Rich]
Hallel with Instrumental Accompaniment?
         [Baruch J. Schwartz]
Molad Zokan Tidrosh
         [Art Kamlet]
New Chumrah (3)
         [Tzvi Stein, Kenneth G Miller, Carl Singer]
Odd Questions
         [Ira L. Jacobson]
         [Shmuel Himelstein]


From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 08:03:23 -0400
Subject: Aleinu on Yom Kippur

> In several shuls where I have davened over the years and which do have a
> break Aleinu is not said in Mussaf, Minchah or Nei'lah on Yom Kippur.  I
> believe this is the normative practice / halakha. Two questions then:
> (1) Is this the halakha/practice in all nuscha'ot tefillah or just
> nusach Ashkenaz? (2) can anyone offer an explanation?

Interesting.  A friend of mine who is an avail this year approached me
asking why mourner's kaddish was not said -- I take it this is a related
issue.  I'm hard pressed to think of other times that mourner's kaddish
is not said at least once during each service.

Carl Singer


From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:43:12 +0200
Subject: Re: A Beautiful Theory Of Biblical Chapter Divisions

> There are 365 days in the (solar) year. Assuming that Jews did not learn
> new material (just reviewed) on Sabbath and holidays we must deduct 52
> Shabbos+7 days Passover+1 Day Shavuoth+ 8 days Succoth+2 days Rosh
> Hashana+1 Day Yom Kippur. Finally deduct one day for Tisha Beav when we
> dont learn. The result is 293.
> Concludes, Professor Kosobovsky, God intended that we learn one Chapter of
> Bible each day where Chapter is defined as Sinaitic chapters.

And according to this theory G-d *intended* that we have a day of Tish`a
be-Av with learning prohibited???

I doubt that.

With all due respect, the explanation looks a bit suspicious to me. What
about a solar year with TWO Tish`a be'Avs in it? (It fell on the 7th of
August 2003, but less than a year later, on the 27th of July 2004).

Perhaps there are some more details in this pshat which would clarify

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

From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:42:05 +0100
Subject: Re: A Beautiful Theory Of Biblical Chapter Divisions

Nice bit of drush but numerically inaccurate since it counts shabbat
twice on at least two occasions: both 7 days Passover and 8 days Succoth
must each contain at least one shabbat. So there are still two extra
days to be accounted for.

Martin Stern

From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 07:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: A Beautiful Theory Of Biblical Chapter Divisions

Regarding Russell Hendel's post, a few thoughts:

Although today we divide the Torah into 54 weekly sections and finish it
in a year, there was an old three-year cycle in which the Torah was
divided into 150 or more (the number varies widely) sections. The Koren
Tanach marks these, as do some other editions.  They don't always match
divisions in the text (which, it should be pointed out, are not uniform
in all versions).

The Koren also divides Nach into slightly less than 300 sections (I
believe this is their original system, as any older divisions have been
lost). By reading one a day less the days listed in Mr. Hendel's post,
one can finish Nach in a year. I believe Koren's system only counts one
day of Rosh Hashana (as it is min hatorah), doesn't count Shabbos when
it coincides with a Chag, and has Eicha fall on Tisha B'av, so the total
may be slightly greater than 293.

Nachum Lamm


From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 13:42:34 +0200
Subject: Re: Chazarat Hashatz

Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...> stated the following on Tue, 28 Sep 2004
14:03:50 -0700 (PDT):

      The sources for Hekhe Kedusha in general are so sparse that it's
      hard to track down precise "rules" in any event. (For example: If
      davening along, does one say L'dor Vador, or Ata Kadosh?)

If one is davening Nusah Sefard or Minhag Hasefaradim, in both of which
there is no "Ledor Vador," but rather everyone says "Ata Qadosh."

IRA L. JACOBSON         


From: <Joelirich@...> (Joel Rich)
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:14:28 EDT
Subject: Gmar Tov

       Does anybody know the origin of saying "gemar tov" rather than
     "Gemar hatimah tovah" between Yom Kippur and Hoshana Rabba? The
     rabbi of my local shul pointed out, to my mind quite correctly,
     that "Gemar tov" means "a good end,", which can be understood as
     referring to a person's death! He commented ironically, "I'd be
     afraid of a gemar tov!"

The assumption is similar to why we stop saying ktivah at 1st day of
Rosh Hashana-if the individual is worthy, they've already been
written(R"H) or sealed (Y"K) , thus we leave that part out.

Gmar Tov as used in language of decisors always (as far as I can tell)
means a favorable completion (as we are wishing the other for their
judgement). In any event if you prefer aramaic you can use Ptka tava.

Ptka Tava,
Joel Rich


From: Baruch J. Schwartz <schwrtz@...>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:33:30 +0200
Subject: Hallel with Instrumental Accompaniment?

In recent years I have seen occasional community notices inviting one
and all to participate in a local minyan that adverstises "musical
hallel" -- i.e. hallel recited with instrumental accompaniment -- on
days such as Rosh Hodesh, Hanukkah and Hol HaMoed. I have not heard of
any reaction from local rabbinic authorities, and yet I am
puzzled. Somewhere in the back of my mind I had the impression that the
use of musical instruments in the davening has been prohibited since the
destruction of the Temple, and not only on Shabbat and Yomtov. Can
anyone clarify this point for me?



From: <Artkamlet@...> (Art Kamlet)
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 22:59:43 EDT
Subject: Re: Molad Zokan Tidrosh

      Elozor Reich <lreich@...> writes:

      Molad Zokan Tidrosh: Has anyone noticed that the Molad for the
      forthcoming Marcheshvan lands precisely on the hour. This is not a
      common occurence.

In recent decades, every few years a Leap Second is added to the
official "clock" due to a change in rotation time of the earth.

So with several leap seconds added over the past few decades, would that
change the calculation?

Art Kamlet


From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 07:43:10 -0400
Subject: Re: New Chumrah

> From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
> and cut and folded and packaged .... .  The possible chumrah is was
> referring to someone who would claim that their tissues are somehow less
> likely to stick and tear and thus are more Shabbos-worthy.  And thus
> we'd get "glatt tissues"

No, that's not it.  They are not facial tissues ... they're fairly rough
and fairly small sheets of toilet paper that are completely separated.
The only chumra is a guarantee that they were not cut on Shabbos.  So it
is really a quite "indirect" concern.  It's not a chumra about what you
will be doing...  it's all about what the manufacturer did.  I've
noticed that trend particularly in Eretz Yisroel, of chumras concenering
being associated with or benefitting from "someone else's aveiros".

From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 09:37:34 -0400
Subject: Re: New Chumrah

I'm glad to see (MJ 45:10) that Carl Singer and I agree that tearing
tissues along the perforations is assur on Shabbos.

He wrote <<< ... individual sheets which are interleaved for dispensing
purpose (not perforated at all) can sometimes stick together and thus
tear as they are being dispensed. ... The possible chumrah was referring
to someone who would claim that their tissues are somehow less likely to
stick and tear and thus are more Shabbos-worthy. >>>

I think he's talking about individual tissues whose edges got crimped
together at the edges, and merely *appear* to be connected with a
perforation. When such tissues are separated, it is theoretically
possible to carefully unfold them so that nothing gets torn, and
therefore, I would agree that even if they do get torn when being pulled
out of the box, there is no benefit accrued, and so it would be
permissible as a "safek psik reishei d'lo nicha lay".

But there is another situation which I noticed about five years ago.
(I've been wanting to write the list about this for quite some time, and
this is the perfect opportunity.)

I had been under the impression that my tissues were separate and
interleaved as described above, but I happened to notice that they were
actually connected. The cut area spanned *almost* the entire length of
the tissue, but there were still a couple of points where there was a
one or two millimeter connection between the adjacent tissues. I later
noticed the same thing in another brand of tissues.

I soon developed a procedure for determining the status of an unknown
brand of tissues. (Obviously, this should be done during the week, not
on Shabbos.) I found that if I were to grab a bunch of tissues and pull
them out of the box as a group, this was an *unreliable* testing method,
because the stress of squeezing and removal would cause some of those
connections to separate on their own.

Instead, my advice is to open the *side* of the box, and gently remove
the whole stack of tissues, and place it on a table. (This is easier if
the box has already been partially emptied.) Then, gently unfold the
interleaved tissues until one either sees that they are connected, or
one is confident that they are not. The stack can then be put back into
the box, and the side taped closed.

Based on these tests, we have found a couple of brands which we know to
be okay, and we try to buy them exclusively. (They tend to be the
cheapest ones anyway.) When we are unable to find them, there is another
way to be sure, even when dealing with an opaque sealed box: If the
box's perforations are only on the top, then it is a gamble; but if the
perforated area extends from the top to the side as well, such a box
does not allow for the "pop-up" ability which is the whole point of the
interleaving. Such boxes always contain non-interleaved tissues, which
are folded so that both of the cut edges are on the top.

Akiva Miller

From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 08:24:04 -0400
Subject: New Chumrah


Are there folks who now imply that items (such as toilet paper)
manufactured (possibly involving not-yet-observant Jews) on Shabbos are
assur?  I take it the emphasis on Eretz Yisroel is that there are so
many Jews that the likelihood is that Jews are involved in the

What then about foodstuffs and their containers.  Can one grant
hashgocha to food that is processed on Shabbos (there may be a
non-observant Jew working.)

Or whose container / label, etc. was printed, designed, etc., on
Shabbos?  Or shipped on Shabbos?  Or put on the supermarket shelf on

What of clothes -- again, design, manufacture, distribution may have
taken place on Shabbos and Jews may have been involved.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic -- I'm just puzzled as to where this
realistically can lead.  Face it, in a world where work does not
universally cease on Shabbos the odds are that nothing (commercial) that
you purchase and consume is has no element of Shabbos work involved.
Even the computer that you're using to read this email.

Carl Singer

[It would seem to me that the fundimental question is not whether there
is "Shabbos work involved" but rather if there is "Shabbos work by a Jew
involved". If by a non-Jew, it would only require waiting "kedai
sheyasu" - the amount of time it would require to do the action after
Shabbat ended - at most if the product was specifically targeted to the
Jewish audience, and for any commercial activity, that would not
be relevant. But if the case is that we need to assume that it was done
by a Jew, what are the bounds of what is forbidden forever, which is
what the above "chumrah" appears to be addressing. Avi]


From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 13:20:48 +0200
Subject: Re: Odd Questions

Joseph Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...> stated the following on Tue, 28
Sep 2004 21:09:47 -0400:

      2) About 30 tears ago I purchased an Ethiopian amulet, written on
      parchment, supposedly of Jewish origin, and written in Gez.  It
      recently occurred to me that the reliability of the seller might
      not be good enough to be sure that it is in fact Jewish, since it
      does contain some odd pictorial images.  Does anyone on list know
      Gez, or of where I might find someone with knowledge of Ethiopian

No, but I do want to point out that Ghez is the sacred language not only
of those Ethiopians who call themselves Jewish, but it is also the
sacred language of other religions in Ethiopia, such a Xtianity.

Thus, unless the text in Ghez is clearly Jewish in its content, the
amulet may not be Jewish at all.

[The question of whether the amulet is Jewish or not appears to be the
original question in the posting. Mod.]

IRA L. JACOBSON         


From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:05:57 +0200
Subject: Shneur

Masny years ago, I heard a learned commentary on this on the radio by
Dr.  Avshalom Kor, a noted Israeli authority on such matters.

According to him, "Shneur Zalman" (a very common double-barrelled name)
is derived from the Spanish "Senor Salomon."

He also gave two other examples of such derivations from Spanish:
"Sphrintze" from "Esperanza"
"Yentel" from "Gentile."

Shmuel Himelstein


End of Volume 45 Issue 14