Volume 45 Number 23
                    Produced: Sat Oct 16 22:44:00 EDT 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

         [Chana Luntz]
         [Joseph Tabory]
Drisha offering Bat Mitzvah programs
         [Freda B Birnbaum]
         [Martin Stern]
         [Eitan Fiorino]
Kiddush Customs -- Mitsvah Bo Yoser MibeShlucho
         [Tal Benschar]
Missing Methuselah?
         [Stephen Phillips]
Rav Harlap's philosophy
Sephardi Yom Kippur
         [Ken Bloom]
         [Martin Stern]
T'filos Ha-Shachar
         [Joseph Tabory]


From: Chana Luntz <chana@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:27:50 +0100
Subject: Re: Bochur

Rephael <raphi@...>   writes:
>The very simple expression "single man" seems to be very difficult to
>use for those who are not. Why it is so is a mystery for me.

Because the expression "single man" is a modern day euphemism for the
correct English term, which is batchelor.

However, in English batchelor has negative connotations ranging from
"confirmed old" to "playboy" (note that the female equivalent, spinster
these days is even worse).

Hence most people in English avoid the terms, using a variety of work

However, the term bochur as used colloquially today avoids at least some
aspects of those negative connotations, perhaps because of the
association of bochur with yeshiva, and the implication that just maybe
the person in question might be a Ben Azzai, who was so dedicated to
learning Torah that he was permitted not to wed, so that marriage did
not interfere with the quality of his learning.



From: Joseph Tabory <taborj@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:48:31 +0200
Subject: RE: brachot

When I saw that the plurality evidenced in the four mimin was brought as
an example of honoring the custom of everybody making Kiddush, I
couldn't resist pointing out that between all four minim there is only
one bracha.

In a more serious vein, a similar custom appears in connection with
birkos hashachar. Since these brachot are basically private brachot
rather than part of the communal prayer, it was customary for many of
the people in shul, if not everybody, to recite the brakhot out loud.
Many poskim rejected the custom and, off the top of my head, I don't
remember anybody who justifies it, even though it makes more sense than
everybody making Kiddush.

Kol tuv

Joseph Tabory


From: Freda B Birnbaum <fbb6@...>
Subject: Drisha offering Bat Mitzvah programs

This just announced by Drisha (actually it's in their catalog also).
I've been asked to pass it on, and am happy to do so.  Their instructors
are all top-quality.

Freda Birnbaum

Drisha is offering programs for girls who are preparing for their Bat
Mitzvah, or within a year of their Bat Mitzvah.  Girls enroll with their
mother or learning partner.  Knowledge of Hebrew is helpful but not
necessary. First session begins Sunday, October 24 at 10:30 am on
"Prayer, Not Just Words" at the Beit Midrash at Drisha, 37 West 65th
Street, near Broadway.  Second session begins Sunday, January 9 at 4 pm
on "Jewish Women Through the Ages."  The second session will be offered
in New York and at a satellite location in Connecticut.  Advance
registration required.  Please call Drisha at 212.595.0307 or visit


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:16:53 +0100
Subject: Re: Glassware

on 15/10/04 10:21 am, Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@...> wrote:

> In any case, my statement about the generic similarity of "ordinary"
> soda-lime glass and borosilicate glass (e.g. Pyrex) remains.  Both are
> non-porous and non-absorptive, and can be remelted and reformed.  What
> is the basis then of speculating about a possible halachic distinction?

Isaac is quite clearly an expert on glass technology and I am sure he is
correct about the non-absorptive nature of borosilicate glass. There is
just one point that may need further consideration: what is usually
translated as 'absorbed' in halachic texts may perhaps be better
considered as what is referred to in scientific terms as being
'adsorbed' i.e. a purely surface phenomenon. If this is so perhaps Isaac
could compare soda-lime glass and borosilicate glasses and let us know
if they also display the same properties in this respect.

Martin Stern


From: Eitan Fiorino <Fiorino@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:42:13 -0400
Subject: RE: Kiddush

> From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
> <snip>
> he considered "b'rov am hadrat melekh" not to be simply an 
> eitzah tovah but a halachic category and the only point at 
> issue was whether it applied in this case, which he opined it 
> did, in which case it is certainly assur to do otherwise.

Hmm, I've not been following this discussion closely so maybe this has
been put out there already, I'd like to see a source that defines the
halachic "weightiness" of b'rav am hadrat melech.  The rabbi consulted
by Martin seems to feel that the multitude of reasons (some with
meaningful halachic weight behind them) are so overweighed by b'rav am
that b'rav am renders the minhag "taut."  With all do respect this seems
to be substantially overstating the case.

I would add several additional reasons for one to make their own kiddush
(for the record I do not generally make kiddush for myself/family when a
guest at someone else's house so I have no vested interest in defending
this minhag).  First, sometimes there are questions about whether the
person making kiddush actually understands that he needs to have daat to
be motzei his guests.  Second, for those who hold with certain poskim on
issues of havara, one may not be lechatchila yotzei kiddush if said in a
different havara (leaving aside the distinct issue of sloppy and
outright incorrect pronunciation of Hebrew which might also render a
kiddush suboptimal or even invalid).  Finally, as a chinuch issue, if
one has a particular minhag with respect to the tune used for kiddush,
one might want to expose one's children to that tune.  This is not an
issue for most people on shabbat, but it is an issue if one spends many
yamim tovim with one's in-laws who use an Ashkenazi yom tov tune for
kiddush (speaking from personal experience; a problem for which I have
yet to find an appropriate solution).

Finally, according to this shita which holds that b'rav am trumps all
other considerations and renders the alternate approach "taut," then why
is the "taut" limited to only kiddush?  Why not all the time?  Thus why
not insist that whenever one is eating with others that only one person
make the bracha on whatever food is being eaten by the assembled group?
A couple of people sit down to lunch - is it a "taut" for each to make
his/her own hamotzi or mezonot or whatever? How about a few people about
to say any bracha whatsoever - candle lighting, seeing lightening,
netilat lulav, etc. etc.  Surely it would be a fulfillment of b'rav am
hadrat melech for one person to recite "lehitatef tzitzit" and then the
entire congregation to put on their tallitot - is it not a "taut" to do
otherwise?  How does this shita distinguish among all of these cases?
Or is it that the shita cannot distinguish between these cases because
b'rav am is simply not that weighty a halachic concept?  How often do we
poskin from a pasuk in Mishlei, after all?


PS I'm not trying to be flippant I am at work and just trying to get my
thoughts down quickly.


From: Tal Benschar <tbenschar@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:29:03 -0400
Subject: Kiddush Customs -- Mitsvah Bo Yoser MibeShlucho

Regarding the discussion of making kiddush individually vs. having one
person say it for everyone, some have commented that the mechanism
whereby one person says it for everyone is not the classic shlichus, or
agency, but rather shomea k'oneh.

I do not think that the principle of Mitsvah Bo Yoser MibeShlucho is
limited to situation of strict shlichus in the sense that a person is
performing a halakhic act and that act relates back to me.  One example
given by the gemara in Kiddushin (41a) is marrying a woman through a
shaliach -- which clearly is classic shlichus.  But the gemara then
gives an example of Kavod and Oneg shabbos -- specifically two Amoraim
who personally were involved in preparing food for shabbos, rather than
delegate that task to others.  I do not think that having one's maid,
for example, cook Shabbos dinner constitutes classic "shlichus" for the
mitzvos of Kavod and Oneg Shabbos.  (For example, one could even have a
non-Jew do the work -- assuming one dealt with any bishul akum problems.
Normally, shlichus requires that the shaliach also be obligated in the
mitsvah.  One could not, for example, appoint a non-Jew as a shaliach to
effectuate a marriage.)

Mitsvah Bo Yoser MibeShlucho means simply that one shows a greater love
for a mitsvah by personal involvement rather than by delegating the task
to others -- even if the delegation works through some means other than

This is not to say, of course, that there is not a counter-consideration
-- namely, beRov Am Hadras Melekh.  (I have not seen the source for a
while, but if memory serves me correctly, some limit the application of
that principle to situations of pirsumei nisa -- or publicisizing a
miracle -- for example, reading the Megilla.  In that situation, the
larger the audience, the greater the pirsumei nisa.  Does anyone know of
any sources applying beRov Am Hadras Melekh outside the context of
pirsumei nisa?)


From: Stephen Phillips <admin@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:48:29 +0100
Subject: Re: Missing Methuselah?

>    The Artscroll Stone edition Chumash (page 25) notes that Methuselah
> died in 1656, after having lived 969 years.  But, 1656 was the year of
> the flood (page 53).  Did Methuselah die in the flood or before this?
> [My understanding is that the accepted timeline is that Methuselah died
> before the flood. If I am wrong, I'm sure that people will reply. Mod]

See Bereishis 7:4 - "For in another seven days I will cause it to rain
upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance
that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

And see Rashi on that Posuk that these 7 days were the 7 days of
mourning for Methuselah who was a righteous person, and for whose honour
HKBH postponed the punishment.

Stephen Phillips

[Similar responses sent in by:
	 Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
	 Joshua Seidemann <quartertones@...>
	 Elazar M Teitz <remt@...>
	 Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
	 Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
	 "Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz" <hsabbam@...>
	 Neal Jannol <njannol@...>


From: Leah <leah25@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:31:23 -0700
Subject: Rav Harlap's philosophy


IS anyone on the list familiar with Rav Harlap's philosophy and his Mei

If so, I'd appreciate it if you could contact me off-list.

Thanks in advance,
Leah Aharoni


From: Ken Bloom <kabloom@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:44:01 -0700
Subject: Sephardi Yom Kippur

> > In the Sephardi prayerbooks Aleinu is found after both Mussaph and
> > Minha on Yom Kippur. 
> 	What about Aveinu Malkeinu ?

Aveinu Malkeinu is said after Amidah and before Selichot at Shacharit
and Mincha. (Selichot are said at all 5 services, unlike Nusach

At least some Sephardic communities say Aveinu Malkeinu even on Shabbat,
even on Shabbat Shuva.

--Ken Bloom


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:48:20 +0100
Subject: Re: Songs

on 14/10/04 11:23 am, David Curwin <tobyndave@...> wrote:

> The issue of inappropriate songs has always interested me. I can think of
> more:
> - There is the famous story by the Maggid of Duvno that
> it is in appropriate to sing the last line of Avinu Malkeinu. But that
> is actually the line most likely to be sung.

He does not say it is inappropriate to sing it but explains why we say
it quietly unlike all the other ones which are said aloud by the chazan
and repeated by the congregation, which was the original Minhag Ashkenaz
and is still the practice of those originating from Germany.
Unfortunately the custom arose in Eastern Europe to say only a few of
those in the middle in this manner. In order to let the congregation
know it was time to say tachanun the chazan would say the last one aloud
despite it being the very one that should have been said in an

Martin Stern


From: Joseph Tabory <taborj@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 05:58:03 +0200
Subject: RE: T'filos Ha-Shachar

The tradition was that everything up to yishtabach was said privately.
The difference between the private prayers and the beginning of communal
prayer is emphasized in many shuls by the change in hazzan which takes
place just before yishtabach, especially on shabbatot an hagim. The
shulchan aruch has the laws pertaining to the hazzan just before the
laws of yishatabbahc. That is why birkhot krait shma start with barchu,
a call to prayer.

Joseph Tabory


End of Volume 45 Issue 23