Volume 45 Number 24
Produced: Tue Oct 19 6:02:02 EDT 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Chernobyl - Yeshiva Avir Yakov - New Square
[A Simple Jew]
clop for "U'lchaparat Pasha"
[Neil Normand]
Glassware (3)
[Stan Tenen, Kenneth G Miller, Martin Stern]
Meaning of Names
[N Miller]
Not benefiting from work done by Jew on Shabbat (2)
[Tzvi Stein, Carl Singer]
Objections to female rabbis
[Ari Trachtenberg]
Pre-Brich Shemay Prayer
[Nathan Lamm]
Separate Seating
[Sholom Parnes]
Shemot
[Nathan Lamm]
Simchas Torah (2)
[Gershon Dubin, Akiva Miller]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: A Simple Jew <asimplejew@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Chernobyl - Yeshiva Avir Yakov - New Square
In preparation for the yahrzeit of Rabbi Menachem Nachum of Chernobyl on
the 11th of Cheshvan, I want to find a "Chernobyl" organization that I
can give tzedakah to. I understand that the Skver Chassidim are part of
the Chernobyl dynasty and that they run the Yeshiva Avir Yakov in New
Square. Can someone confirm this?
Also, does any one know the names of any other "Chernobyl" or Skver
organizations, yeshivas, kollels, etc.?
Thank you and good Shabbos!
A Simple Jew
http://asimplejew.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Neil Normand <nachmanyak@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: clop for "U'lchaparat Pasha"
When I was davening mussaf this morning, I fortunately remembered that
since it is a leap year, I should add u'lchaparat pasha in mussaf. It
then occured to me that the last time that it was recited was probably a
year and a half ago, and it is very likely that people may not remember
to add it. I would assume that one does not need to repeat their
shemona esreh if it is left out, but ideally it would be preferable if
the tzibbur would be reminded, at least on Rosh Chodesh Marcheshvan of a
leap year, to insert it. I don't ever recall seeing this done, does
anyone know of shuls that remind their mitpallelim to recite u'lchaparat
pasha?
[The Rabbi did do so here in Allentown. Avi]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:08:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Glassware
At 05:21 AM 10/15/2004, Shayna Krevetz wrote:
>Allow me to contribute a little "kitchen wisdom" that may justify the
>widespread view that Pyrex should be treated differently. Because Pyrex
>is used for baking, in the nature of things it becomes stained with
>baked-on bits of food. Commonly, removing these bits requires soaking
>and often scrubbing with metallic scrubbers or steel wool pads. These
>wear away the smooth surface of the glass and create tiny scratches,
>chips, and crevices. So, although the actual glass itself may begin
>with similar properties, use impairs this similarity and leads to
>practical differences in how clean and smooth Pyrex is. Ordinary glass,
>not used for baking, is obviously not subjected to the same kind of
>staining and cleaning pressures.
I don't understand. When ordinary glass is cleaned, it also gets
scratched, and when it's cleaned in a dishwasher, it is often etched --
irreversibly. The etching roughens the surface, just as if it had been
scrubbed with steel wool -- except, the scratches are probably finer.
I don't know about others, but when I clean "baked on" Pyrex, I don't
use abrasives. It's not hard to remove the bake-on (pardon the
pun). (Just let it soak.)
Best,
Stan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:16:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Glassware
Yitzchok Zlochower 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. >>>
Since these posts are discussing these materials from a scientific
(i.e., chemical and engineering, rather than halachic) point of view, I
am presuming that your point is that these materials are non-porous and
non-absorptive from a scientific (besides halachic) point of view as
well.
I am interested in how these terms (non-porous and non-absorptive) are
defined in that scientific context. The reason why I'm asking is that my
amateur experimentation had led me to conclude that glass *is*
absorptive, at least for some materials. The specific experiment
involves buying a glass bottle of apple juice, emptying it, washing it,
and then trying to use it as a water bottle. To me, the water always has
a faint taste of apple juice, even the fifth or tenth time I've reused
it. This seems to be contrary to the concept of "non-absorptive" as I
understand it.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:21:21 +0100
Subject: Re: Glassware
on 15/10/04 10:21 am, Shayna Kravetz <skravetz@...> wrote:
> For me, the interesting question is the case of measuring cups which
> are made of Pyrex to resist hot liquids but are generally never used
> for baking. Is the hava-amina here that they are more like plain
> glass (i.e., they never go into an oven) or more like baking Pyrex
> (because of their composition)?
This would seem to touch on the distinction between a kli rishon and a
kli sheini and whether the problem of Pyrex is in fact 'chemical' at
all. Perhaps this should be submitted to a posek for decision.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: N Miller <nmiller@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:55:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Meaning of Names
Yeshaya Halevi writes:
While it's true that **El Senor** means Lord in Spanish, the same
is not true, AFAIK, regarding plain ol' senor, which just means
either "man," "mister" or "gentleman."
The English word "mister," OTOH, stems from Middle English, and is
an abbreviation of maister, master. Not lord, just master.
This isn't important enough to quibble about. I repeat: you don't do
etymology by inspecting _current_ meanings or definitions. At the time
that senor presumably made its way into Yiddish, senor was _not_ applied
to every Juan or Diego.
And for the purposes at hand I would say that 'lord' and 'master' are
equivalent terms. (Word-lovers, btw, might want to look at the origins
of 'lord' and 'lady'.)
I wrote that Shrage for Faybush might suggest some embarrassment at Jews
being named for strange gods. Not so, says Reb Yeshaya, and quotes (for
which I'm grateful) from the Jewish Encyclopedia, which tells us about
Esther and Mordechai. I can only say that I was writing to an Orthodox
list and had in mind Orthodox embarrassment. The test therefore is not
the classic Jewish Encyclopedia from which I've learned much, but what
is taught (or not taught) in Orthodox circles concerning these names.
And don't forget Isidore! (There was an Isidore of Seville in the early
medieval period but I don't know if this embarrassed Catholcs.)
Noyekh Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Subject: RE: Not benefiting from work done by Jew on Shabbat
> From: Immanuel Burton <IBURTON@...>
> > There's also a very common chumrah in Bnei Brak and Mea Shearim of not
> > using electricity on Shabbos, due to the possibility of Jews at the
> > electric company doing malachos. They use lamps with gas canisters,
> > battery operated lights or generators. Using generators is even
> > considered "lenient" in those circles because it may "appear" that you
> > are using regular electricity.
>
> Am I right in interpreting the last statement as meaning that "marit
> ayin" is being applied to a chumrah???
They hold that it is not a chumrah, rather it is completely assur to use
"Jewish" electricity on Shabbos, so "marit ayin" would apply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:02:13 -0400
Subject: Not benefiting from work done by Jew on Shabbat
There are two different issues that come to mind --
(1) relates to the choice or selection among goods and services
... people who would prefer to choose the "Shomre Shabbos" product
(when available.)
(2) the take-it or leave-it choice -- abstaining from goods and services
because there is no suitable "Shomre Shabbos" source.
#1 is a relatively innocuous personal choice. If institutionalized it
can have implications -- consider in a heterogeneous society an "Us
only" goods and services directory -- e.g., a Christian Yellow-pages.
It's one thing to advertise in the local Yeshiva's phone directory, but
that directory is "open" to any reasonable vendor, Jewish or not, who
wishes to pay for an ad. If it's closed to non-Jews, then we have a
slew of other issues.
re: #2 Where does this end. OK - use a generator on Shabbos so as not
to use the municipality's electric system (which may have Jews working
on Shabbos) -- but what of the light bulbs, etc. Where is the line to
be drawn -- go back to sitting in the dark and cold on Shabbos and
you're emulating a literalist sect that is not considered Jewish.
Additionally, some of the descriptions of such communities seemed to
indicate a fear of what the neighbors might think.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:59:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Objections to female rabbis
>From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
>The issue of true 'psak' is more complicated.
I would argue, rather controversially, that there really is no such
concept of 'psak' any more. Since we lost the rabbinic chain of
s'micha, there is no longer any authoritative designation of knowledge.
As such, when a person is asking a rabbi for a p'sak, he/she is actually
making a "p'sak" of their own - that this rabbi is suitable for giving
p'sak halacha. This is, I believe the central predicament of modern
Judaism and that which gives it both its diversity and its lack of
unity.
Ari Trachtenberg, Boston University
http://people.bu.edu/trachten mailto:<trachten@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 05:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Pre-Brich Shemay Prayer
I assume it's not said on Simchas Torah because things can be a little
confusing at that point. I noticed it especially this year, and I was at
a minyan with very orderly and very brief (one time around)
hakafot. Even so, at the end of the seventh hakafa, you're never sure
what to do, with people standing around and the like- say Brich Shemay?
Don't? Most shuls, I suppose, simply return most of the Sifrei Torah,
the chazan keeps one, and he starts with "Shema..." (or, at night,
"Gadlu..."), just to "keep things moving."
The Chazzan this year added "V'Nora" to "Echad hu Elokeinu," by the way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sholom Parnes <merbe@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:50:58 +0200
Subject: Separate Seating
Further to Carl Singer's post,
Did you ever wonder why the HW WH seating works on some ocassions and
not at others ?
(Here comes my amateur mathematician side). It depends on the total
number of people at the table.
If the number of couples is an even number, Carl's method works. If the
number of couples is odd, it does not work.
I will leave the proof to the mathematicians on the list.
To demonstate, let's take a table for ten that is pretty standard in
Israel:
By family:
B AA
B E
CC E
DD
Or by gender:
W HW
H W
HW H
WH
Husband A is sitting between 2 women ( A & B) and Wife B is sitting
between 2 men (A & B).
Of course the baal hasimcha can arrange the seating to include people
who have come without their spouses (was Significant Other, but let's
not get into that again !).
The only requirement is awareness by the guests as to how to sit at the
table.
Sholom Parnes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 06:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Shemot
I recall being told, by an eyewitness (probably my father, who was in
his shiur, but I'll have to ask again) of an incident in which Rav Yosef
Dov Soloveitchik wrote "God" on the blackboard and erased it, to prove
the point that English names are not a "shem."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:39:14 GMT
Subject: Simchas Torah
From: Meir Possenheimer <meir@...>
<<Can anyone quote a definitive source as to why, of all the Yomim Tovim
(with the exception of Yom Kippur other than when they fall on Shabbos),
Simchas Torah is the only one on which the Shelosh Esrai Middos and the
following Tefillah are omitted prior to taking out the Sifrei Torah?>>
The same question occurred to me this year and I have no answer. But
I'll follow the Jewish tradition of answering with another question: why
in fact should we not say 13 midos on Yom Kippur; we say the same 13
midos in selichos?
I asked this in my shul and a gentleman sitting behind me showed me the
Minchas Shelomo that Rav Shelomo Zalman Auerback wrote that it should be
said.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:28:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Simchas Torah
Meir Possenheimer asked why <<< the Shelosh Esrai Middos and the
following Tefillah are omitted prior to taking out the Sifrei Torah >>>
on Simchas Torah.
I don't have a definitive answer, but here are a few more facts which
might help clarify or confuse the issue:
1) It's not just those two tefilos and Va'ani Tfilasi. The usual Brich
Sh'meh which follows them is also skipped.
2) Note that Ayn Kamocha gets morphed into Atah Haraysa. I'll admit that
none of those pesukim are omitted, but some do end up out of sequence.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 45 Issue 24
