Volume 48 Number 23
                    Produced: Mon May 30 14:22:11 EDT 2005

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Accepting Psak without reviewing sources
         [Ira Bauman]
Artscroll Error
         [Mark Steiner]
Bloodshed, Courts, and  Minyan (2)
         [c.halevi, Avi Feldblum]
Heinz Baked Beanz
         [Gershon Dubin]
Heinz Vegetarian Beans
         [W. Baker]
Kaddish (3)
         [Martin Stern, Carl Singer, Avi Feldblum]
         [Fred Sanders]
"K'vod bat hamelech p'nima"
         [Leah S. Gordon]
Women's issues
         [Joel Rich]


From: <Yisyis@...> (Ira Bauman)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 18:07:04 EDT
Subject: Re: Accepting Psak without reviewing sources

      Even more than the narrow point of this particular issue is the
      fact that my friend had accepted the rabbi's statement without any
      authority to back it up, and without checking on it himself. How
      many communities and generations of men have accepted such
      statements and practices without ever examining whether they are
      based on halacha and source-related rabbinic opinion?

This was a psak regarding women and the Torah on Simchat torah.
However, would you have everyone challenge their rav's psak on all
decisions.  If the rav decides that the spoon is fleishig, would you
only accept the psak if your own research concurs?  In a niddah question
to your own rav or yoetzet, would you challenge him or her to cite their
sources, look it up and check that there are no dissenting views
mentioned?  When you choose someone to be your posek you must abide by
those decisions.  To do otherwise would wreak havoc on the halachic

Ira Bauman


From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 01:35:23 +0300
Subject: RE: Artscroll Error

There seems to be a confusion about what error Artscroll made (or put
back in) in their siddur.

Martin Stern points out that in the Yom Tov Musaf prayer, the phrase
retzei bimenuhatenu should not be inserted after melekh rahaman--he says
that Artscroll does so insert (I actually don't own an Artscroll siddur
so I'm relying on Mr. Stern).  If so, it is indeed an "error".  By error
I would mean that it is not found in the ancient sources for our siddur.

Ben Katz says that this error was already corrected by "Emden" (I assume
he means R. Yaakov Emden, zatzal), and pointed out by Birnbaum in his
siddur.  In fact, however, the "error" they were talking about is not in
the melekh rahaman prayer, but in the "vehasienu" prayer, said during
every Yom Tov amidah, not only musaf.  Furthermore, the "error" has to
do with Yom Tov on weekdays, not on sabbath.  Namely, the formula
"elokenu velokey avotenu kadshenu..."--they say--should be said on
weekdays too, not only on the sabbath, when we say "elokenu velokey
avotenu retzey vimnuhatenu..."

There is only one problem with this.  I have not found a single ancient
source for saying elokenu veylokei avotenu retzey vimnuhatanu on shabbat
ANYWHERE in the Yom Tov amida, including "vehasienu".  I consulted the
following: siddur R. Saadia Gaon, siddur R. Amram Gaon, the Rambam's
siddur (included in Mishneh Torah), Mahzor Vitry, siddur Rashi, and my
favorite 1691 siddur from Franfurt.  Similarly, there is no evidence for
the formula "elokenu veylokey avotenu" in the "va-hasienu" prayer at

Mark Steiner


From: c.halevi <c.halevi@...>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 09:50:39 -0500
Subject: Bloodshed, Courts, and  Minyan

Shalom, All:

Regarding insulting a Jew by not counting them for a minyan, I noted
that >>It takes only three Jewish men to make a beit din (ecclesiastic
court). Instead of metaphorically shedding Jewish blood, shouldn't we
convene a beit din on the spot and permit all Jews to be counted in our

Ira L. Jacobson wrote >>If we were of greater stature than the Mishna
Berura, which forbids such a thing, then perhaps we could.<<

I think it's the opposite, that the question really falls upon the
Mishna Berura. After all, as I wrote earlier, it was Rabbi Meir of
Rothenberg who prefixed Kol Nidre with the declaration that it was
permissible to daven with sinners. He didn't qualify it by adding, "And
oh, BTW, you can daven with sinners but you can't count them for a

Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg lived about 700 years ago, long before the
Mishna Berura was written. I suspect that the author of the Mishna
Berura, Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan (1838 -1933) -- better known as the
Chafetz Chaim -- would say that Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg was "of greater
stature" than he was.

Don't like Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg's decree? Remember, he based it on
the **G'mara** that says "A public fast where Jewish sinners don't
participate is not a fast."

Although I am saddened by the people who don't want to count another Jew
for a minyan, I am tremendously heartened by the people on this list who
cite halacha, tradition and logic to prove that we should.

Yeshaya (Charles Chi) Halevi

From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 
Subject: Bloodshed, Courts, and  Minyan

I would tend to understand the statement at Kol Nidrei time as more of a
support for Ira's position than Yeshaya's position. If R' Meir of
Rothenberg felt it necessary to add this statement to the beginning of
the Kol Nidrei prayers, I would understand that in general, this which
is being permitted now, is otherwise forbidden. This would appear to be
a much more stringent opinion than what has been presented by a number
of posters here during this discussion. The issue we have been dealing
with is whether they count for a minyan. R' Meir's opinion, it would
appear, is that even if you have a minyan without them, you still cannot
daven if they are part of the congregation. It would be of interest to
understand if that is really the implication of the introductory passage
to Kol Nidre, and whether there is such an opinion in Halacha. If not,
what does that passage really mean.

However, I do not think that one can make any arguement from that
passage to support Yeshaya's position.

Avi Feldblum


From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 18:16:14 GMT
Subject: Heinz Baked Beanz

From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
> Here's a question -- would someone please site (with sources) re:
> botul be shishim -- whether this applies only to an ACCIDENTAL mixture
> or to any such mixture (by a Jew or a non-Jew.)  For example, if someone
> uses a recipe that calls for 1 cup of milk with 61 cups of meat (so to
> speak.)

Accidental only. Yoreh Deah 99:5.  If it was mixed purposely, it is
forbidden to the one who mixed it and to anyone for whom the mixture was
made.  I am not sure but believe that a nonJew simply following a recipe
and not specifically marketing to Jews is NOT included here.



From: W. Baker <wbaker@...>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 11:53:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Heinz Vegetarian Beans

Carl Singer Wrote
> Today Heinz Vegetarian Baked Beans (sic) have an O-U hechser.  Although
> "food science" or sanitary production practices would have likely
> precluded the use of uncleaned vessels that produced "pork & beans" from
> being used for the "vegetarian" line, years ago the issue with many
> products was a lack of supervision. In general people did not have the
> assurance that, indeed, products were as they were both re: (trace)
> ingredients and processing.

The OU hechsher on Heinz Vegetarian Beans is very old. I personally know it 
was there 41 years ago when I married and my Mother  stopped making her own 
from scratch baked beans when she fund a way to "doctor-up" the can of OU 
Heinz beans back when I was a girl in pre=historic times.

By the way, here is Mom's recipe:-) for each can of beans, add 1 Tbs
mustard, 1 Tbs Chili Sauce (Heinz also kosher) and 1 Tbs of brown sugar.
Bake for about 40 minutes in a moderate oven.  If you like add cocktail
franks or pieces of franks before cooking.  This is great for a crowd,
particularly of young people an can be expanded as much as you want.  My
record, for a graduate student's end of year party was 11 cans of beans
and who remembers how many franks.

Wendy Baker.


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 12:00:31 +0100
Subject: Re: Kaddish

on 27/5/05 11:33 am, Carl Singer at <casinger@...> wrote:

> I believe there is a common thread in recent discussions re: Kaddish.
> From an halachic viewpoint the necessity of saying Kaddish is, at best,
> ambiguous.  And several postings have provided important sources to that
> effect.
> However,  IMHO (although none of the postings have gone this far)
> leveraging the above as a basis for denying access or  accommodation to
> davening (say as in the case of a woman during weekday minyan) or
> trivializing the emotional need for someone to say Kaddish or Yizkor
> doesn't fly.  One may posit that we are causing someone emotional pain
> by denying them the opportunity to recite Kaddish, and this might
> involve several avayrahs.

Of course one should try to give every aveil the opportunity to say a
kaddish but do they have to say every possible one they can find in the
siddur, let alone 'manufacture' extra ones by saying (not learning) a
mishnah and a quick Rebi Chananiah ben Aksashyah omer ...

> Imagine if you would that during ma'ariv someone got up and said --
> "we're running late, let's skip (the mourner's) kaddish -- after all
> it's not halachically mandated."

For Carl's information, the minhag in many German communities, where
mincha and ma'ariv are davenned together with no gap such as a short
shiur on dinim or sedra, aleinu and kaddish are skipped after minchah.

Martin Stern

From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 07:32:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Kaddish

In Cleveland, some 35+ years ago, Rabbi Hildesheimer,  ztl, a "yeckkie" 
would honor us with a 10 or 15 minute shiur between Mincha / Ma'ariv so 
that, among other things, kaddish might be recited. 

Carl Singer
Passaic, NJ  07055-5328

From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 07:32:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Kaddish

> For Carl's information, the minhag in many German communities, where
> mincha and ma'ariv are davenned together with no gap such as a short
> shiur on dinim or sedra, aleinu and kaddish are skipped after minchah.

I think that it is clear that much of the discussion about Kaddish being
said by a women is not relevent to the shuls like Martins that keep to
the German traditions that Martin has written about. But the focus of
the discussion, I believe, is the large number of shuls that do not
follow those traditions. In these shuls, all the people who are saying
Kaddish, some for near relatives as well as others who seem to always be
saying Kaddish, say it together (somewhat) at each occasion where
the mourners Kaddish is listed as being said. In most of these shuls,
the custom I have seen is that if there is no mourner or other saying
Kaddish, the Kaddish is skipped, with the usual exception of the Kaddish
following Alainu, which is viewed as a part of the tefilah and always

It is in the above set of circumstances where the question of a women
saying Kaddish is being discussed, and there that Carl's comment of the
appropriateness (or more the lack of such) of someone saying that we are
running late so we will skip the other mourners Kaddish and just do teh
Alainu one.

Avi Feldblum


From: Fred Sanders <fred.sanders@...>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 12:30:20 +0200
Subject: Kitka

The word "kitka" meaning the plaited bread served with the sabbath meal,
is used widely in South Afirca, but in other parts of th sworld,
particularly the USA, it is usually referred to as the "hallah".

What is the origin of he word "kitka"? We have often been told that it
is the name of the original baker of the hallah loaves in a suburb of
Johannesburg in South Africa, but this appears to be apocryphal. Do you
have the true facts?

Fred N Sanders


From: Leah S. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 03:30:28 -0700
Subject: "K'vod bat hamelech p'nima"

I suspect that Mr. Teichman and I may be so far from one another in
viewpoint that there is no point to further correspondence, but I did
want to comment on his extensive reliance on the Psalms quote, "K'vod
bat hamelech p'nima".

It has always struck me as odd that so much importance would be
attributed to such a small phrase in Psalms, and to such a narrow
reading of the phrase itself.  I could imagine the phrase meaning
something totally different than, "women should stay in their own
Domestic Sphere".  For example, it could mean, "princesses have an inner
poise and self-confidence".

Would someone who has access to good sources, kindly confirm or prove
otherwise my suspicion that this particular
translation/interpretation/emphasis was begun during the
late-industrial-revolution period, i.e. a time when it was considered
socially ideal in the broader middle-class society for women to be home
and presiding over a "holy sphere of influence" at the hearth?

Even if the translation/interpretation must stand as it is, why such
attention to a tiny fragment, seemingly invoked way beyond its original
scope?  No one takes e.g. Kohelet's "all is vanity" phrase and tries to
develop whole bodies of social policy based on it.  The choice of which
phrases get the most significance/influence is, again, unfortunately
influenced by sexist social mores.

Finally, I would suggest to Mr. Teichman that in matters of personal
attitude, it is not really appropriate for men to presume to tell women
what we ourselves must be thinking/believing.

--Leah S. R. Gordon


From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 10:44:44 -0400
Subject: Women's issues

> I seize on this sentence to point out that we see nothing unusual in
> regular synagogue attendance today by crowds of women, B"H, on Shabbat
> and Y"T, at least. But, based on the testimony of many people I have
> spoken to, including my sainted grandmother A"H, this was far from true
> in frum European communities a few generations ago. Women from even the
> most famous rabbinic families rarely attended on an ordinary Shabbat. 
> The truly pious would pray at home. Is this change a result of
> "feminism"? I doubt it. Rather it is most likely a result of the same
> social dynamic operating across all segments of society, resulting from
> the general change in the status and education level of women in society.
> b'shalom--Bernie R.

Is this regular attendance true across the broad spectrum of the charedi
community?  If so, it reinforces my earlier post about change being
accepted more readily and across a broader spectrum if it's viewed as
being driven by halacha naturally responding to changing conditions on
its own terms rather than having change forced upon it by external

Joel Rich


End of Volume 48 Issue 23