Volume 47 Number 36
                    Produced: Wed Mar 23  6:44:59 EST 2005

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

lEHashem Haaretz U'Meloah
         [Martin Stern]
Lubavitch and Chabad
         [Martin Stern]
Purim and aliyah
         [Dr. Noah Dana-Picard]
Rav Mendlowitz and Torah V'Daas
         [Binyomin Segal]
The Schiavo case
         [Carl Singer]
Shalach Manot
         [Eli Turkel]
Shelo asani nochri
         [Shmuel Himelstein]
Sh'lo assany Nachri (3)
         [Martin Stern, David Roth, Matthew Pearlman]
Spices for Pesach
         [Carl Singer]
Torah trop
         [David I. Cohen]


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:36:19 +0000
Subject: Re: lEHashem Haaretz U'Meloah

on 23/3/05 3:00 am, Joseph Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...> wrote:

>> What is the origin of the custom of writing "LaHashem Haaertz Umelo'ah"

The correct reading should be LaShem not LEhashem nor Lahashem, just as
the actual word it replaces is Ladon....

Martin Stern


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:42:30 +0000
Subject: Re: Lubavitch and Chabad

on 23/3/05 3:00 am, Nachman Yaakov Ziskind <awacs@...> wrote:

> I will tell my esteemed teacher that Agu'ch (the plaintiffs in this
> case) went to the Beis Din of Crown Heights, who issued summonses (on
> three different occasions) to Mr. Gourary. When they were ignored, they
> got permission from the Beis Din to sue in District Court. Incidentally,
> I heard that the Rebbe told the attorneys for Agu'ch to bring
> (translated) the page from the Shulchan Aruch allowing the lawsuit in
> this case.

As I am unfamiliar with the precise situation in New York, I wonder if
the Beis Din of Crown Heights is in fact a Chabad body. If so, I can
understand Mr. Gourary's reluctance to have it adjudicate the case. Can
anyone clarify the matter?

Martin Stern


From: Dr. Noah Dana-Picard <dana@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:15:29 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Re: Purim and aliyah

> From: Yakir <yakirhd@...>
> > From: Aliza Berger
> > I recently read on another list, with no annotation, the idea that
> > it's not necessary to make aliyah (move to Israel) because when the
> > Messiah comes, the whole world will become Eretz Yisrael.
> OK !
> Lets take this further.
> The only HolyDay I need to keep now is Purim as all the others will be 
> abolished when the Mashiach comes. (according to the Midrash).

This is a strange issue. After all, Purim is a miracle who should not
have happened: authorization to make aliya and to rebuild the
Bet-Hamikdash had been given by Koresh (Cyrus, not Vance) many years
before; please read the end of Divre Hayamim, this gentile king was a
zionist... . But most of the Jews decided to stay in Galut.

> Regarding :
> > I live in Jerusalem, but am planning to spend Shabbat outside
> > Jerusalem.
> My (!!!) understanding is that you miss out on Purim this
> year. i.e. there is no chiyuv (obligation) on either day.  (The chiyuv
> of each of the days is determined by where you are at daybreak of that
> day).  A neighbour of mine is in a similar situation. He is a ba'al
> koreh and my (!!!!) understanding is that we have the strange situation
> that everyone reads Thursday night./Fri morning but he will not be able
> to read the megillah for others because he is not obligated.

According to a recent puiblication by Rav Mordechai Eliyahu, Rishon
leTsion and Israels' former Chief-Rabbi:

1) everybody is obligated to read the Megila Thursday night./Fri
morning.  But as there is a Chashash of "out-of-time reading", we should
insist on reading with a minyan.

2) If somebody leaves Jerusalem for Shabbat and spends Shabat in "are
haperazim", he has to make "matanot levyonim" on Friday, as
everybody. He looses "al Hanissim" and Purim's Tora reading on Shabat
(of course he looses the Haftara, the same as Zachor). It seems that he
cane say al Hanissim, not on regular place, but at the end of the tefila
and Birkat Hamazon, because he is not obligated to say it.  When he
returns to Jerusalem on Motsae Shabat, his duty for Sunday is Mishloach
manot and Seudat Purim (with al Hanissim in birkat Hamazon).

Anyway, I"m not a posek. So please, consult your Rabbi.

Shabat Shalom and Purim Sameach.
Noach (Thierry) Dana-Picard


From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:36:44 -0600
Subject: Re: Rav Mendlowitz and Torah V'Daas

The information that M. Frankel recently reported re the Malachim and
their breakaway from Torah V'Daas is information that I had read
about. I had not previously realized however that the "Malach" being
described as a student of Lubavitch in our thread here was the same
historical figure. - Very interesting.

I do however want to clarify/disagree/ask about a couple of details in
Mechy's post.

> (then) very modern orthodox institution - Torah V'Daas.  The story
> goes something like this.  R. Feivel Mendlowitz - founder of TV
> (which, as its name indicates, was a modern O institution in the 1930s
> preparing its students for college and assimilation into the
> professional classes. R. Mendlowitz was a firm follower of R. Simshon
> Rafael Hirsch and Torah Im Derech Eretz as R. Hirsch understood it -
> not Torah U'Farnosoh as today's revisionists portray it)

My understanding of these details is a bit different. Torah V'Daas
opened in 1917 or 1918. It was indeed a "modern" institution, as denoted
by its name. Rav Mendlowitz however was not hired until somewhere
between 1921-23. And while there is some evidence that he had given
himself a private secular education, he was more right wing than the
people who hired him, perhaps his personal education impressed
them. Among the "traditional" changes that Rav Mendlowitz instituted was
a gradual weakening of the Hebrew language curriculum. So while Rav
Mendlowitz may have been personally Hirschian, at least to some extent,
and as such may have been "less black" than some of the alternatives
that were out there, it would be a mistake to associate him with the
original philosophy implied in the name Torah V'Daas, he innovated
towards a more traditional curriculum.

My sources for these assertions include Kramer's 1979 dissertation (YU)
on Torah Umesorah, Parson's 1983 dissertation (NYU) on the life of Rav
Mendlowitz, Scharfstein's 1962 work on modern Jewish education, and
Schiff's 1966 work on the Jewish Day School.

If there is evidence to the contrary, I would be _VERY_ interested in
it. Thanks very much.



From: Carl Singer <csngr@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:18:11 -0500
Subject: The Schiavo case

The Schiavo case probably should be looked at from several vantage

1 - Halachically, basic issues of euthanasia.  

2 - Halachic / pragmatic issues of jurisdiction / responsibility for
others (ie., who makes / carries out decisions and how.)

3 - Politically -- outside scope of this discussion group. 

Carl  A. Singer[IMAGE] Ph.D.


From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:45:35 +0200
Subject: Shalach Manot

> As it turns out, the purpose behind the mitzvah of mishloach manot is
> the subject of a machloket rishonim.  The Terumas HaDeshen (siman 111)
> writes, as Martin says, that the purpose is to ensure that every person
> has enough food to provide for his seudah.  In his peirush on the
> Megillah entitled Manot HaLevi, however, R' Shlomo Alkevitz, author of
> Lechah Dodi, writes that the purpose of mishloach manot is to increase
> the sense of shalom and rei'ut among the Jewish people, demonstrating
> the opposite of Haman's claim that we are an "am mefuzar u'mefurad". 
> In his teshuvot (O'C 196), the Chatam Sofer uses this distinction to
> explain the pesak of the Rema that if one sent mishloach manot to a
> recipient who refused to receive them, one has fulfilled the mitzvah.
> According to the rationale of the Terumas HaDeshen, the recipient's
> refusal to receive the gift means that one has failed to actually
> provide food for the recipient's seudah, and thus one has not fulfilled
> the mitzvah. According to the Manot HaLevi, however, the recipient's
> refusal to accept the gift does not detract from the fact that one has
> demonstrated one's sense of fraternity and love for his fellow Jew, and
> therefore, as the Rema paskens, one has fulfilled the mitzvah.

I just came back from a great shiur in which the speaker (a well known
rabbi from Jerusalem) disagreed with CS. First Manot Halevi is not a
rishon but a contemporary of the Ramah. Hence, it is highly unlikely
that Ramah would be lenient based on a contemporary (not even clear he
knew of it) against a major posek like Terumat Hadeshen. Rather even
Terumat HaDeshen agrees that the attempt to give shalach manot is
enough. He disagreed with other statements of the CS but that would take
a while to write up.

In any case on an ordinary Purim one can give shalach manot late in the
day and so it is necessary though preferable to be before the meal even
according to Terumat Hadeshen

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel


From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 05:36:25 +0200
Subject: Shelo asani nochri

"Shelo asani nochri" (as opposed to "shelo asani goy") is the way it is
found in the British "Standard Prayer Book" (the authorized Siddur of
the British rabbinate), as well as the (I believe) semi-standard British
"Service of the Synagogue" set of Machzorim.

Shmuel Himelstein


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:19:15 +0000
Subject: Re: Sh'lo assany Nachri

> This morning at a shiva minyan (at a private home, not the regular shul
> minyan but all daveners present were from our shul) -- the ba'al tefilah
> (choosen because he had completed putting on his tallis & tephillin and
> "volunteered") said "sh'lo assany nachri" instead of the "sh'lo assany
> goy"
> Three questions --
> 1 - Is this substitution valid -- nachri is "Christian", goy is "(any
> other) nation" -- so isn't this construct incorrect as it's more
> limiting.

This is the standard form used among German Jews. Nokhri (it has a
kamats katan) means 'stranger' or 'outsider', in this context 'non-Jew'
as, for example, in Deut. 17, 15. It certainly does not apply
specifically to Christians. In Biblical Hebrew goy means 'nation' and
can be applied even to the Jewish people e.g. "umi ke'amekha Yisrael goy
echad ba'arets" (II Sam.  7, 23, I Chron. 17,21), though in later
Rabbinic usage it took on the connotation of a non-Jew as is current

> 2 - Does minhag ha-makom extend to the shiva minyan attended only by
> members of a single congregation

Surely this would be true only where there was only one minhag in the
town.  Where there are several shuls with different minhagim, it seems
difficult to see why it should do so since one might expect people from
different shuls to attend such an ad hoc minyan.

> 3 - What would be the proper response if this had taken place in a shul
> where the minhag was to say .... "goy"

Nobody should alter the fixed minhag ha-makom of a shul, if such should
exist, since this gives rise to ill-feeling. Therefore, in such
circumstances, visitors who wish to be shats should be given the shul's
official siddur where all special local variants are clearly marked and
be told to follow its nusach precisely. If he feels unable to do so he
should not act as shats even if he is the only chiyuv present.

Martin Stern

From: David Roth <davidyonah@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:19:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Sh'lo assany Nachri

> 1 - Is this substitution valid -- nachri is "Christian" goy is "(any
> other) nation" -- so isn't this construct incorrect as it's more
> limiting.

The Rav always said Nachri.  BTW, Nachri is any non-Jew, Goy is any
nation, technically, including BN''Y (eg Shomer Goy Kadosh).

David Roth

From: Matthew Pearlman <Matthew.Pearlman@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:18:40 -0000
Subject: Sh'lo assany Nachri

Just a small point - the word is "Nochri" as the kamats is a kamats
katan.  Also should be "Shelo" rather than "Sh'lo".



From: Carl Singer <csngr@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:08:42 -0500
Subject: Spices for Pesach

Cardamom, saffrin & cloves are a "problem" for Pesach because the drying
process usually involves grains (wheat) which likely contaminate the

Someone better versed than I in these processes might explain.  The
status (or utility) of these items in their "fresh"or "raw" is beyond my

Carl  A. Singer


From: <bdcohen@...> (David I. Cohen)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:13:47 -0500
Subject: Torah trop

I was taught that a "mercha" followed by a "pashta" is treated as a

David I. Cohen


End of Volume 47 Issue 36