Volume 45 Number 57
                    Produced: Thu Nov 11  5:20:10 EST 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue:

Aliyot origins
         [Matthew Pearlman]
Alzheimer's / Halacha (2)
         [Carl Singer, Shmuel Carit]
Breastmilk unkosher for adults (2)
         [Abbi Adest, Bob Werman]
Cost of the Me'oras Hamachpelah
         [Elozor Reich]
A Jewish custom?
         [Janice Rosen]
Kashrut of Mother's Milk
         [Carl Singer]
Modern Orthodox
         [Bill Bernstein]
Query re Shmuel Shraga Feigenzohn and _Sha`arei Homat Yerushalayim_
         [Arieh Lebowitz]
The sociology of mail-jewish
         [Richard Schultz]
Tefilin & Mirrors
         [Carl Singer]
Tefilin and Mirrors
         [David Glasner]
Torah-Haftorah Readings
         [Ben Katz]


From: Matthew Pearlman <Matthew.Pearlman@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:18:32 -0000
Subject: Aliyot origins

Dov Teichman notes "The Minchas Elozor (Vol 2 Kuntress Shiurei Mincha
Siman 66) writes that the places to stop for aliyos as printed in
chumashim have no source in poskim at all. Often they are at an
inappropriate place to stop."

I have not seen this source, but it seems that there is a clear agenda
in certain parashiot to stop at a place that shows Hashem's glory.  For
example, several of the stops in Va'era do this but are right in the
middle of a speech.  Similarly, rishon of Vayera ends with "is anything
too wonderful for Hashem...and Sarah shall have a child" rather than the
next verse "and Sarah denied..." which is clearly the end of that

Matthew Pearlman


From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:10:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Alzheimer's / Halacha

I would add one factor to this discussion -- It is not enough for a
Rabbi to know halacha and (in this case) medicine.  It has been stressed
over and over again by the Rav of my shule (who is a Rabbi's Rabbi in
that he writes a newsletter for other Rabbis) -- to Pasken the Rabbi
must know the person (people) for whom he is paskening and their

Carl Singer

From: Shmuel Carit <cshmuel@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:06:30 +0000
Subject: Re: Alzheimer's / Halacha

This is certainly true. Otherwise we could all use a computer program to
come up with the answer to all our questions.

This also answers the question why is the answer to a shaylah for
person/family 'A' different than it was for person/family 'B'.



From: Abbi Adest <abbishapiro@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:47:58 +0200
Subject: Breastmilk unkosher for adults

It has already been stated a few times that breastmilk is unkosher for
adults. Can someone please provide a source for this halacha? I've never
heard this.

Abbi Adest

From: <RWERMAN@...> (Bob Werman)
Date: Wed,  10 Nov 2004 14:41 +0200
Subject: Breastmilk unkosher for adults

A number of your correspondents have stated categorically that human
milk is kosher only for INFANTS and not for ADULTS, without offering a
source.  I would appreciate a source.

My daughter and two [of three] daughters-in-law were told that expressed
human milk was excellent for making chocolate cookies, by rabaniyot.
They never asked, however, if they were parve, fleishig or milchicdik.

__Bob Werman


From: Elozor Reich <lreich@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:53:03 -0000
Subject: Cost of the Me'oras Hamachpelah

A young boy asked me in Shul about the cost of the Me'oras
Hamachpelah. This is what I answered him.

You asked me about the present day value of the 400 Shekalim which
Avrohom Ovinu paid for the Me'oras Hamachpelah.

A silver Shekel weighs about 14 gm, so 400 Shekoim come to 5600 gm.
There are about 31.1 gm to a Troy Ounce, so dividing by 31.1, we get
around 180 Troy Ounces. The current (Nov 2004) price of silver is about
4 per Troy 0unce, so 400 Shekalim (180 X 4) comes to 720.

This may not seem a lot, but bear in mind that although today gold costs
about sixty times as much as silver, in ancient times the ratio was far,
far smaller. Tosefos in Mesechta Bechoros (50:a) expresses surprise that
in the times of the Talmud gold was worth 25 times as much as silver,
whereas today, i.e. around 1200 C.E., it is not worth 10 times as much !

Elozor Reich


From: Janice Rosen <janicer@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:35:24 -0500
Subject: A Jewish custom?

re: Shmuel Himelstein's question -
> A famous entertainer in Israel was very close to the last suicide
> bombing in Tel Aviv. I heard her on the radio saying that because she
> was saved she will light candles in a synagogue. I've never heard of
> such a custom before, but then again I am generally only acquainted with
> Ashkenazic customs.
> Are there any Jewish bases for such a custom that anyone is aware of?

I suspect she is Sephardic, likely Moroccan in origin, and that the
candles will be lit in honour of whichever Jewish saint she considers
important. Issachar Ben-Ami wrote extensively about this practice in his
translation published 1998.)

Janice Rosen <janicer@...>


From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:30:08 -0500
Subject: Kashrut of Mother's Milk

> Only infants are permitted to suck milk from their mother's
> breasts. Specifically: all infants are allowed to nurse up to age two
> years; after that, once nursing has been inerrupted for 72 hours it can
> no longer be resumed, unless temporarily stopped due to illness.  If it
> has been continuous, the maximum age is age four for a healthy infant
> and five for a sickly infant.

Per my other posting --  I think the above statement is an excellent
example of the need to know the people and their circumstances before
paskening.   Stopping nursing at age two is no more machmir than
stopping at age four for five --   and resuming after a 72 hours may be
appropriate also based on circumstances of the mother and child
involved.  [For example, with breast pumps a child may be "nursing" in
one sense getting mother's milk without actually nursing --
circumstances such as illness might result in a 72+ hour gap between
times of actual nursing.]

Again the issue to me is that halacha is at the same time both rigid in
its constructs and flexible in its application -- the need for a
competent Rav is clear.

Carl Singer


From: Bill Bernstein <billbernstein@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:52:22 -0600
Subject: Re: Modern Orthodox

I want to agree with Dr. Hendel's posting that it is futile to define
chareidi and modern orthodox by any particular practice or custom.  In
fact, one feature of Orthodox life is that many people who appear
"modern Orthodox" in fact are chareidim by inclination.

The crucial difference, imho, is the attitude that one takes to the
world outside Orthodoxy.  The chareidi attitude is that contact with
this world is inherently and inevitably deleterious to observance and
faith.  There might be good reasons why someone would have to have such
contact (e.g. parnassah) but in a perfect world it would be unnecessary.
Thus all the elements of that culture, music, art, politics, language,
dress, law, and economics are acceptable only insofar as they are
necessary for living a Torah life in this society.  Where they are not
necessary they are not acceptable either, simply "bittul Torah."  And
even beyond unacceptable, they are outright corrosive to Torah values.

What I would call Modern Orthodox sees inherent positive value in such
contact, regardless of any economic or "practical" benefit.  It is not a
wholesale acceptance (obviously some art is more valuable than other)
but a general view that such contact is positive, even for one's Torah
values and life.  Even if it were possible to live a life entirely in
the confines of an Orthodox society that itself, on the MO view, would
be harmful to one's observance.

I will reiterate that it is all but impossible to find proponents of the
MO view as I have outlined in the pages of English-language Jewish
publications.  If anyone knows of such a publication I would be happy
for the reference.

Bill Bernstein
Nashville TN.


From: Arieh Lebowitz <ariehnyc@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:17:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Query re Shmuel Shraga Feigenzohn and _Sha`arei Homat Yerushalayim_

This appeared on a Judaic Studies list; perhaps someone "here" can
respond to Mr. Jaffee?

Arieh Lebowitz
From: Martin Jaffee <jaffee@...>

The Vilna edition of the Talmud Yerushalmi (ca. 1922) is introduced by a
long essay that essentially summarizes Zakhariah Frankel's Mavo
Hayerushalmi, the pioneering Wissentschaftliche work on the Palestinian
Talmud. Frankel is one of the intellectual architects of Positive
HIstorical Judaism, the ideological approach to Jewish culture that
ultimately emerged as American Conservative Judaism.

So I'm wondering--who is this Shmuel Shraga Feigenzohn? When did he
write Sha`arei Homat Yerushalayim? Was it written for the purpose of the
Vilna edition? Who commissioned the essay? Feigenzohn explicitly states
in his first note that he is summarizing Frankel's work, so there is no
question of any effort to "smuggle" Wissensch aft into a traditional
talmudic venue.

Feigenzohn's matter of fact reference to Frankel raises all sorts of
interesting questions about intended audience of the Vilna Yerushalmi.
If it was being marketed to the "bes medresh" crowd, would they have
tolerated an historical-critical introduction? If it was marketed to
maskilim, why was the Talmud itself outfitted only with rather
conservative commentaries, e.g, the Pnei Moshe of Moshe Margoliot and
the Korban ha-Edah of David Frankel. Was there a substantial audience in
which maskilic and traditionalist distinctions were not important?

Thanks for any light! Stumped in Seattle
Martin S. Jaffee
Professor, Comparative Religion and Jewish Studies
Jackson School of International Studies
University of Washington  Box 353650  Seattle, WA 98195


From: Richard Schultz <schultr@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:36:58 +0200
Subject: The sociology of mail-jewish

When I began reading mail-jewish around a decade ago, there was a strict
policy that was fairly strictly adhered to that all Hebrew terms except
for the most basic must be accompanied with a translation.  Lately, I
have noticed that hardly anyone does so, even when discussing relatively
abstruse concepts.  This doesn't bother me particularly (although I
admit that sometimes I have difficulty translating from
poorly-transliterated Yeshivish into an actual human language), but it
does raise in my mind the question of why this has happened.  Several
possibilities come to mind:

(1) The nature of the people reading the list has changed, and people
with a less solid grasp of Hebrew no longer read the list.

(2) The people whose Hebrew skills are not so advanced still read the
list, but skip those submissions that have too much untranslated Hebrew
in them.

(3) None of the above.

My suspicion is that it's #1, which raises the question of whether
that's a good thing, and why such a shift occurred.  I'm curious what
other people think, and whether people think that the original
requirement that Hebrew terms be translated be reinstated.

                                        Richard Schultz

[Just to 'fess up on my side, the requirement has never gone away. It is
still in the Welcome message that goes out to every new user, is on the
web site and the periodic issue 00 I send out. I have to admit that I
have been less that careful in maintaining that requirement. So, while I
ask submitters to be cognizant of the request, I will also try a do a
better job. That does not invalidate the question above - what has
changed in the close to 2 decades since we started this list. Mod.]


From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:21:31 -0500
Subject: Tefilin & Mirrors

I believe to some extent this is an "a egg and a chicken" (sic)
situation.  Among the many tzchakes that are distributed at Bar Mitzvahs
and the like* are mirrors with the BM's name on them.  So some people
feel compelled to use them -- I agree that the "old" fashioned method
works fine -- even for those of us whose hairlines keep receding.

                      * Now if someone is looking for tzakehs to give
away  -- how about a USB memory stick or an I-Pod.

Carl Singer


From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:17:08 -0500
Subject: Tefilin and Mirrors

While many people are exceedingly concerned about the position of the
bayit of the shel rosh, fewer seem to care about the position of the
kesher of the shel rosh.  Casual observation suggests that perhaps 25 to
50 percent of regular tefilin wearers don't have the kesher in the
correct position centered at base of the skull.  I have often speculated
that a good engineer could make a lot of money by constructing a
retractable double mirror that would allow a person simultaneously to
check both the position of the bayit and the kesher, especially if a
patent could be secured and the appropriate haskamot were conferred.

David Glasner


From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:48:26 -0600
Subject: Re: Torah-Haftorah Readings

>From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
>The primary obligation of reading the Torah on Shabbath is also
>learning. This is also true for the Haftorah and even for some of the
>megilloth (The primary reason we read Megillath ester on Purim is to
>publicize the miracle and thank God).

         If this is the case then why is there no obligation to read
Torah without a minyan?

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@...>


End of Volume 45 Issue 57