Volume 48 Number 35
                    Produced: Fri Jun  3  6:21:18 EDT 2005

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Appointment of a New Rav (2)
         [Ari Trachtenberg, Carl Singer]
Citing Biblical Verses
         [Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Heinz Vegetarian Baked Beans (3)
         [Alexis Rosoff Treeby, Tzvi Stein, Stephen Phillips]
         [Jack Gross]
         [Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Minyan / Shul (2)
         [Saul Newman, Harry Weiss]
Minyan Counting
         [Aliza Berger]
Mistakes in Torah Reading too Insignificant to Correct? (2)
         [Arie, Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
"not kosher" vs. "not supervised"
         [Carl Singer]
Supporting Shules
         [Saul Newman]


From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 10:21:56 -0400
Subject: Appointment of a New Rav

Though I know it is the best time to meet a congregation, it somehow
just feels wrong for a rabbi to be interviewing on Shabbat.

Ari Trachtenberg,                                      Boston University
http://people.bu.edu/trachten                    mailto:<trachten@...>

From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 10:29:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Appointment of a New Rav

He was NOT interviewing on Shabbos.  He was giving a drosh and a shiur.
Just the same as any shul Rabbi does (and does not get paid for his
Shabbos work.)  The "interviews" were conducted well in advance during
weekdays -- the congregational discussion period was MOTZEI SHABBOS.



From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 13:48:28 EDT
Subject: Citing Biblical Verses

Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter in (MJv48n32) correctly states:

<<Quoting Biblical verses out of context is an old and venerable

"kol kevudah vat melech penimah" (Tehilim 45:14) is explained by Moshe
Anat and my late father Haim Gevaryahu (Tanach La-am, Ketuvim I, Am Oved
1974, p. 545) as the riches of the princess is brought into the rooms in
the palace; that is, the gifts of rich patrons are paraded in a festive
march, to be followed by her property and jewelry to be followed by the
bride herself. So this is a clear case of property not honor, and chazal
used this pasuk in a midrashic way. Any attempt to find the meaning of
the honor of a woman is in the house in this verse is against the simple
meaning of the text.

Gilad J. Gevaryahu


From: Alexis Rosoff Treeby <alexis@...>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 12:23:24 +0100
Subject: Re: Heinz Vegetarian Baked Beans

On 2/6/05 10:16, "Avi Feldblum" <feldblum@...> wrote:
> While I would not go so far as to call it slander in a case where there
> is no stated hashgacha, I do feel it is a lazy use of language to call
> something like UK vegetarian baked beans "not kosher". To me, that is
> making the definitive statement that according to halacha it is
> forbidden to eat that food. While it is clear that for a large number of
> us, we do not eat any processed foods without the food being under a
> reliable (to each of us individually) supervision, such items are not
> necessarily "not kosher". I think it is more accurate to characterize
> them simply as not being under supervision and therefore not used.

In the case of Heinz baked beans, the London Beth Din does approve of
some Heinz products. However, in their kashrut guide, Heinz Baked Beans
are explicitly listed as not kosher (yes, the LBD guide explicitly
labels items as "NK"). Far fewer products here carry a hechsher--you
have to rely on the printed guide.

However, having checked the label in Sainsbury's yesterday, none of the
ingredients are treif. It is also labelled as "suitable for
vegetarians".  (the first is what probably led to them being served in
the first place). So the LBD may be privy to information about the
manufacturing processes-- British Marmite is not kosher for this
reason. (Though maybe it will be again now that Bovril is vegetarian...)

And yes, Vegetarian Baked Beans were the first product to carry the (U),
according to the Heinz web site.


From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 07:38:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Heinz Vegetarian Baked Beans

>>I asked Rabbi Conway - Head of London Beis Din Kashrus Dept
>> - whether Heinz Baked Beanz are kosher and he categorically told me
>> that they are not kosher.
> This is rather surprising ... here in the US I have never heard a rabbi
> making such a pronouncement (maybe I'm simply travelling in the "wrong"
> circles).

If you look closely at the "kashrus updates" of the various agencies,
you will notice that they use different wording in different situations.
I have seen, on the exact same edition of an update, one item where it
says a certain product simply "bears an unauthorized symbol" and another
item which says a different product "bears an unauthorized symbol and is
not kosher".

From: Stephen Phillips <admin@...>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:40:21 +0100
Subject: Re: Heinz Vegetarian Baked Beans

> From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
> [Same quote as above]

I don't think it was Heinz Vegetarian Baked Beans that was being
referred to, rather the regular sort. I'm not even sure that Heinz
Vegetarian Baked Beans is available in the UK.

Stephen Phillips


From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 20:16:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Kaddish

> I realise that we are talking at cross purposes since I do not accept
> Jack's premise in the first place, as he should have realised from my
> original words (m-j 48#20):
> "I think he has made a fundamental error in his concept of the chiyuv to
> say kaddish. Apart from the one I mentioned, which is part of the seder
> hatephillah, like chatsi kaddish and kaddish shaleim, and therefore an
> obligation on the tsibbur as a whole, there is no obligation whatsoever
> that any other kaddish be said."
> Martin Stern

In the sense you use, the last Kaddish of "the seder hatephillah" is
Kaddish Shalem ("titkabel").

Seder hatefilla varies widely with era, "eda" and locality -- but
whatever the shul sets up as its standard practice is obligatory.


From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 12:56:21 EDT
Subject: Kol

From: Perets Mett (MJv48n31) writes:
<<Gilad J. Gevaryahu wrote:
>> Kaf Lamed in the Torah are spelled exclusively with a Kamatz Katan
>> (875 times) or Cholam (92 times), thus always pronounced by both
>> Asahkenazi and Sephardic readers as "Oh" and never "Ah". There is
>> but a single case in the entire Bible where Kaf Lamed has a Kamatz
>> Gadol and that is in Tehilim 35:10 per the masorah. Since there is
>> only one way to pronounce Kaf Lamed, and not two, a mistake like
>> that should not be listed.

>Only one way?
>Why should a choilom be pronounced like a komats?

Ashkenazim pronounce Cholam and Kamatz Katan and Kamatz Gadol the same
way in Havara Segurah. Try the experiment with a group of people saying
several examples of Kaf Lamed with a Cholam [Haser] and several examples
of Kamatz Katan, and give the recording to a different group to write
down what they have heard. That is a blind test. If the correlation will
be more than 50% between the way it was expressed and the reading, then
you have a point.  If you find a positive correlation let us know. I am
being told that there is no difference. Try Bereshit 1:21,29 and 33:11.

Gilad J. Gevaryahu


From: Saul Newman <Saul.Z.Newman@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 12:31:07 -0700 
Subject: Minyan / Shul

let's say a typical shul membership is $1000.  let's prorate-- about
half is for davening activities, half for everything else. half for him
half for her.  that would be about 75cents per day, or a quarter a
davening.  maybe that should be the nominal charge to come in---- less
than a newspaper, but more mitzvot....

From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 19:17:40 -0700
Subject: Minyan / Shul

From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
>If it were necessary for the daveners to support both the shuls of which
>they are members (and where they daven Shabbat and yomtov) as well as
>the ones where they daven on weekdays, I suspect that everyone would
>suffer.  People would stop strengthening minyanim that need their
>presence, and some might even stop davening in a minyan.
>This is not to suggest that the people don't put the daily coin into the
>pushke, but if you are talking about supporting two or more shuls in a
>serious way, then I think that would be a hardship for many people.  A
>classic case of "yotze sekharo behefsedo.

Part time pariticpants in a shul such as going to weekday or even mincha
Maariv only often also help support that shul by participating in the
various fundraising activities of that shul.  Most shuls that have a big
annual fund raiser rely on people outside their shul regulars to help.


From: Aliza Berger <alizadov@...>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 13:21:16 +0200
Subject: Minyan Counting

   Someone (I'm sorry I forgot who) wrote:

> Regarding a davar shebikidusha (such as Kaddish, Kiddusha, and Barchu)
> a mechalel shabbos can be counted, but he may not be counted for
> Tifelah B'Tzebur

How do the criteria differ between being able to be "counted for saying
devarim she'bekedushah" and " counted for tefilah betzibur?"

   Aliza Berger-Cooper, PhD
   English Editing: www.editing-proofreading.com
   Statistics Consulting: www.statistics-help.com


From: <aliw@...> (Arie)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 21:00:46 +0200
Subject: Re: Mistakes in Torah Reading too Insignificant to Correct?

Bill Page asked in 48/25 about leining mistakes.

in our shul we have designated "correctors" so that the whole shul
doesn't jump and yell about mistakes, especially since the majority of
mistakes corrected by the tzibbur in general need not be corrected,
e.g. the vowel change at an etnachta (shemesh instead of shamesh is not
a mistake that needs correcting). the posts in response to b.p. referred
to milail and milra, and to vowels.

we did a lot of this a few months back when someone asked about the vav

what hasn't been touched, (i think) is the punctuation controlled by the
trop itself. if reading a tipcha mercha instead of a mercha tipcha
changes the meaning, that is a mistake which is rarely corrected in my
experience, but needs to be.

there are many examples, some more serious than others. a common example
of the concept is at the end of this morning's yom. your average shat"z
has a rock of honey rather than honey from a rock - umitzur, d'vash
asbiekah is often read as umitzur d'vash, asbiekah. if that were in
leining, i would call it out and see it repeated correctly. another
common error is in the last aliyah of rosh chodesh - k'vasim b'nei shana
shiv'a temimim. shiv'a is over a tipcha, and the pause is there because
temimim refers not only to the k'vasim, but also to the parim and the
ayil. most times it's read without the pause, either as a mercha, or
just too fast, meaning that only the k'vasim are temimim. that, too is a
mistake that we correct in our shul.  


From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:03:17 EDT
Subject: Mistakes in Torah Reading too Insignificant to Correct?

Martin Stern (MJv48n31) writes:
<<on 1/6/05 10:38 am, <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu) wrote:
>> Kaf Lamed in the Torah are spelled exclusively with a Kamatz Katan (875
>> times) or Cholam (92 times), thus always pronounced by both Asahkenazi
>> and Sephardic readers as "Oh" and never "Ah". There is a but single case
>> in the entire Bible where Kaf Lamed has a Kamatz Gadol and that is in
>> Tehilim 35:10 per the masorah.

>Not entirely correct. The word Kaf Lamed with a Kamatz Gadol is also
>found in Yeshaya 40,12 (Haftarah for Shabbat Nachamu) but comes,
>according to the Redak in Sefer Hasherashim, from the root Kaf Vav Lamed
>and means something quite different - he measured!>>

I specifically excluded cases of Kaf Lamed with a prefix, to avoid a
possible confusion, and the word in Isaiah 40:12 has a prefix
("ve"). That exclusion of mine is in the next paragraph to the one cited

Gilad J. Gevaryahu


From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 06:47:19 -0400
Subject: "not kosher" vs. "not supervised"

At the risk of stating the obvious, nowadays, with such an abundant and
varied supply of products that bear "good" hashgochas (as opposed to the
anonymous "K") it is no hardship to avoid products that are "not

Interestingly, for Pesach we see a category of products that need no
special supervision / certification for Passover.  These usually appear
in lists from the various supervising agencies.  I.e., product A that we
supervise for year-round use needs no special certification and is
Kosher for Passover use.  These include both foodstuffs and cosmetics,
soaps, etc.

TODAY there seem to few, if any, manufactured products that people will
use without an hashgocha.  This was not the case 30 / 40 years ago.

Carl Singer


From: Saul Newman <Saul.Z.Newman@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 12:11:53 -0700 
Subject: Supporting Shules

i would like to ask cp what his rationale is for NOT supporting the shul
he uses financially.  if it is that he cant afford it i could understand
the rationale.


End of Volume 48 Issue 35