Volume 48 Number 46
Produced: Thu Jun 9 6:12:04 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
2nd wine for guest
[.cp.]
Accepting Psak without reviewing sources
[Jack Gross]
Artscroll errors
[Baruch J. Schwartz]
"Checking vegetables for insects" discussed in Acharonim
[Josh Backon]
Kaddish
[Lipman Phillip Minden]
leave a shul?
[Stuart Pilichowski]
Mistakes in Torah Reading too Insignificant to Correct?
[Mark Steiner]
Munkacser Rebbe
[Jeanette Friedman]
Religious Feminism in Islam
[Sam Gamoran]
Relying on the Mashgiach?
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Yiddish
[Mark Steiner]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: .cp. <chips@...>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 23:36:09 -0700
Subject: 2nd wine for guest
For some reason, I can not get an answer from various Rabbis about
this. Hopefully at least one of Rabbis of the list is willing to take it
on.
Is a guest's knowledge of the available wines for a meal `botul` to that
of the hosts?
The host plans to serve a second , different type bottle of wine at the
meal. When the wine is brought to the table the host obviously does not
make a `tov umeitiv`. But what about the guest?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 23:31:37 -0400
Subject: Accepting Psak without reviewing sources
> From: Chaim Tabasky <tabafkc@...>
> 5. I have been told that in Lithuania one did not go to "ask" the rav,
> but rather to "discuss' (duch-redin) an issue with the rav. It is not
> halachically necessary to ask a question for a psak/ One may ask a
> Rabbis opinion, ask for guidance, ask to understand his position,
> etc. IMHO shopping around for a psak that meets my kula/chumra quotient
> is abhorrent, but asking various opinions to deepen understanding is in
> the finest Talmudic tradition.
As long as you're up-front. In asking a sh'eilah, you may specify that
you are asking for an opinion but will not be bound by it -- and the rov
is then entitled to decline. Rav Elyashiv, asked for an "opinion"
("Chavat Da'at"), is reported to have responded "Ani lo 'mechaveh
de'ot'; ani posek halachot" [I don't 'offer opinions' - I decide
issues.]
But if you ask without such qualification, you are bound by the rov's
response, and need his permission to seek a second opinion. To ask a
sheilah with no intention to be bound by the response (or to pose a
hypothetical question as though it is of immediate practical concern) is
real g'neivas daas, and disregards the effort that may be expended in
coming up with a responsible decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Baruch J. Schwartz <schwrtz@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 18:34:05 +0300
Subject: Artscroll errors
A footnote to the "Errors in Artscroll" thread:
I seem to recall that a few years ago there was a discussion here
regarding the dagesh many Artscroll books have placed in the gimel in
"umevi goel" in the first benediction of the Amida. This dagesh, as I
explained at the time, is completely erroneous and not found in other
siddurim. As I recall there were some Artscroll loyalists out there who
tirelessly suggested ways of defending this dagesh, but I believe that I
demonstrated that it cannot be anything but a printer's (or copy
editor's) error.
Baruch Schwartz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 18:24 +0300
Subject: "Checking vegetables for insects" discussed in Acharonim
To all those who think that checking fruit and vegetables for insect
infestation is a modern stringency, check the Maarechet haShulchan on
Shulchan Aruch YOREH DEAH Siman 84 for the extensive references of
poskim in the 17th-19th centuries in checking for insects. See
especially his comments on YD 84:8. Ditto for the Aruch haShulchan YD 84
# 60-65. See AH YD 84 #62 for a description how to check vegetables.
Josh Backon
<backon@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <phminden@...> (Lipman Phillip Minden)
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:29:36 +0200
Subject: re: Kaddish
Martin Stern wrote:
> I think Jack is not entirely correct since it has been accepted in all
> communities for at least the last 700 years to say aleinu at the end
> of shacharit. So this kaddish became the last one in the seder
> hatephillah and hence acquired the nature of an integral part of
> it. Sephardim who do not follow the Rema's opinion that it justifies a
> kaddish because it contains pesukim, therefore attach the same
> importance to the kaddish after the mizmor they customarily say
> immediately before it.
Slight modification:
The psukem and the kaddish after Oleinu are one of those additions for
the convenience of an additional ovel. In the original Ashkenazi minneg,
kept in some German minhogem, Oleinu ends with "timlouch
bechovoud". Nevertheless, according to this nusech, Shir mizmour le-osof
is said before Oleinu, and Yosem kaddish is said after it, so even
traditionally, there is another kaddish after Kaddish tiskabbal.
Lipman Phillip Minden
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Pilichowski <cshmuel@...>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 09:50:20 +0000
Subject: leave a shul?
How can you daven in a shul (and feel comfortable there) with the kind
of questions you're asking?
It seems to me you have no choice but to leave this because you feel
yourself to be an honorable and ethical person and clearly the
leadership of the shul is not acting in consort with your hashkafah.
Perhaps your friends should also re-consider their attendance at this
"house of ill repute."
Hey, even if the president and the board of directors are right about
the Rabbi being a no-goodnik, there are ways of dealing with these
prickly situations in a "bakovidikka" way. Derachehuh darchei noam,
after all.
I'd leave and take my kids to a new youth program elsewhere, even if I
had to organize a new one myself.
Finally, have you spoken to the Rabbi and asked him what his opinion is
about what you should do? Do you have a chance of fighting for truth and
justice and the Jewish way on behalf of the Rabbi as a member of the
shul? Or because your friend is there only a limited time this isn't
relevant???
Shul politics - Oy! Why can't we all learn to get along with each other?
Stuart Pilichowski
Mevaseret Zion, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 23:14:54 +0300
Subject: RE: Mistakes in Torah Reading too Insignificant to Correct?
I'd like to thank Yaakov Gorlin for his comments. It is clear that
I was in error and I retract the point about the dagesh.
Mark Steiner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <FriedmanJ@...> (Jeanette Friedman)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 05:50:35 EDT
Subject: Re: Munkacser Rebbe
> There is, I hope apocryphal, story concerning Jeanette's grandfather,
>the Munkacser Rebbe of the pre-WW2 era who was well known as being
>vehemently opposed to Zionism. In this he vied with the Satmarer Rebbe
>whom he considered to be too soft on what he considered to be a
>dangerous heresy. This rivalry is said to have resulted in his cursing
>the latter that he would be punished by having no son to succeed him to
>which the Satmarer responded with what he considered an even worse fate,
>that the Munkacser would have a son but he would become a Zionist! Both
>curses were fulfilled.
Hm. The Zionist Munkach Rebber was a son in law of the Minchas Elazar,
not a son!! Make the story unlikely.
OOOPS--MISSED THIS ONE. The story is TRUE. They cursed each other over
the grave of the Dinever Rebbe and neither of them had sons. I don't know
if it was about Zionism. They didn't like each other, period. BTW, the
ME was my uncle's father in law, not my granddad. My granddad was the
Partzever Rebbe and Reb Yoeli was my mom's first cousin--don't ask me
how, ask my mom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sam Gamoran <SGamoran@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:47:09 +0300
Subject: RE: Religious Feminism in Islam
> From: David Mescheloff <david_mescheloff@...>
> The following story about an Islamic feminist just appeared in the
> Washington Post.
> It is enlightening to note the similarities - and the differences - in
> the arguments used on the various sides of the issue, to arguments we
> hear in discussions on our own mail-Jewish. What do you think, fellow
> readers?
It does not surprise me that there are so many similarities in arguments
and tensions.
One VERY big difference that I note is the ease with which those who
oppose differing viewpoints make threats of violence and murder (and
sometimes carry them out).
I have not heard anyone on Mail Jewish suggest that we ought to
slaughter all the Shabbat violators. Only a Beit Din in proper
procedure with warnings and witnesses could do that - and even this is
discouraged.
Sam Gamoran
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:46:28 +0200
Subject: Relying on the Mashgiach?
A close friend of mine told me of a story which happened to him. He was
invited to a Simcha, and when he went there he found the Mashgiach was
someone he knew.
The Mashgiach went over to him and expressed surprise that my friend was
there, and told him: "You can't eat here."
To me, that's the height of hypocrisy.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 23:46:07 +0300
Subject: RE: Yiddish
I just made a discovery about Yiddish, which might interest some
readers. The Tosefta (Lieberman ed.) in berakhot 5:5 starts "keytzad
seder HESEV...", meaning "What is the order of reclining (i.e. for a
meal)." The word hesev seems to be a verbal noun which has the form
similar to many cases of Mishnaic Hebrew (MH): heter, hekesh, etc.
This throws light on the Yiddish expression "hesebet", meaning the place
where the one who conducts the seder reclines, usually on a pillow. We
can say that this term is a union of two words: hesev-bet, the latter
word meaning bed or couch. The reason this is interesting is that it
means that Yiddish preserves quite ancient forms of Hebrew, in this case
MH. I have checked this hypothesis with the head of the Israel Academy
for the Hebrew Language and he agrees with it.
I have pointed out on occasion that many of the Hebrew forms used by
Ashkenazic Jews, though often called "wrong" , are actually examples of
MH as preserved by Ashkenazic Jewish in Yiddish. An example of "wrong
dikduk" is the term "loshon hara`". Now "oyberkhakhomim" say that the
correct form is "Leshon hara`", what is called "semikhut." This is
true--in Biblical Hebrew. Yet in MH there is no such distinction, for
in MH the smikhut form of "lashon" is also "lashon." "Yasherkoyekh" (or
as you sometimes hear, "asherkoyekh") is another such non-mistake, as I
pointed out on mail-jewish years ago.
In some cases Yiddish has made up Hebrew words that never existed
before--one of them is "mekhutn", or the father of your son- or
daughter-in-law. (Note that English has no word for mekhutn, because in
English speaking culture a mekhutn is not your relative.) I have not
been able to find this word in any ancient Hebrew text including the
Talmudim.
Next, Yiddish seems to preserve ancient pronunciations of Hebrew
words--an example often given is dam "blood" and batim "the leather
boxes where the scrolls of the tefillin are placed", which are not
pronounced in Yiddish "dom" or "botim". Linguists say that this
reflects the period in Ashkenazic history in which the distinction
between kometz and patah had not yet become clear as it did later.
Finally, Yiddish contains words for halakhic concepts which do not exist
at all in Hebrew (pareve, yortsayt).
In a sense, Yiddish serves as a museum for the Hebrew language.
Mark Steiner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 48 Issue 46
