Volume 48 Number 82
                    Produced: Tue Jul  5  5:41:58 EDT 2005

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

early Maariv (2)
         [<chips@...>, chips@eskimo.com]
Early Shemini Aseret
         [Menashe Elyashiv]
Jewish drinking events
         [H Goldsmith]
Maariv and Shavuot
         [Akiva Miller]
Mechitza at Funeral Parlour and Placement of Cohanim
         [I. Balbin]
         [Shayna Kravetz]
         [N Miller]
Valid Marriage - Need for Get
         [Toby Katz]


From: <chips@...>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 10:33:47 -0700
Subject: Re: early Maariv

> Note that there are those who say that even davening alone is not good
> enough if there is no minyon in the community that accepts Shabbos at
> the later time.

Who gives a psak contrary to that?


From: <chips@...>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 10:33:46 -0700
Subject: Re: early Maariv

> However, you made the point about someone who would theoretically be
> able to drive back from shul before the zman on Shabbos.  I think that
> this is a case of "lo shchiach" (does not occur) since someone who is
> in shul would be there to daven.

As others on this list can atest, I do just that.



From: Menashe Elyashiv <elyashm@...>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 19:13:21 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Early Shemini Aseret

We once had this situation, on our IDF post, the night patrol would
leave at dusk. Therefore, we would have a Friday Plag minyan, and who
ever had to leave would eat before sundown, the other soldiers would
wait until dark and eat together with the non religious soldiers. We had
a problem on Succot night, as no Rabbi was present, I advised the early
eaters to eat in the Succa, but not to say Leshev Basucca. When they
came back, they ate a egg size of bread (because it was after midnight,
an olive size was not enough) and said Leshev Basuccah.

Next week was Shemini Aseret, and as we forgot to ask, we had a problem:
where should they eat? In the Succa? But they are making a Shemini
Aseret Kiddush and Shehehiyanu. Outside the Succa? But it is still
Succot. This question rarely occurs because of Hakafot in Israel, but we
had no time for Hakafot. I don't know if this was the right thing to do,
but they did a contradiction - tarte desatrey - that ate in the Succa.


From: <HHgoldsmith@...> (H Goldsmith)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 10:44:43 EDT
Subject: Jewish drinking events

I was very disturbed to see an ad in a Jewish newspaper for the "Scotch
Whisky Tasting Extravaganza," to take place in three locations in the
New York area. For a $50 admission charge, one can taste "Fifteen of the
World's Finest Scotch Whiskies," presented by a world-renowned Master

In my humble opinion, these kinds of events can lead to terrible
tragedies - specifically drunk driving accidents/deaths. (There is a
disclaimer on the ad that those involved in the event are not
responsible for any "drinking and driving related accidents" and a
suggestion that people bring a designated driver who will not drink.)

In addition, there is the potential for a chillul Hashem in front of the
non-Jewish workers at these venues when they witness Jewish people
drinking and getting drunk.

Finally, at a time when many Jewish communal organizations are working
hard to control a drinking problem that exists in certain circles, I
believe these kinds of event will impede the progress being made in this

I hope that these kinds of events do not become commonplace because they
are a recipe for disaster. If you agree, please inform the newspapers
that cover such events, and the places that are hosting them.

H. Goldsmith


From: <kennethgmiller@...> (Akiva Miller)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 11:37:57 -0400
Subject: re: Maariv and Shavuot

In MJ 48:76, Chaim Tabasky wrote:

> In Pesachim 105a the gemara considers the relationship between the
> beginning and ending of Shabbat. "Shabbat Kova'at" that is Shabbat
> begins by itself, without need of our declaration. The change is
> automatic in regards to several halachot. ... We cannot continue
> eating a meal started earlier without kiddush. At the end, however,
> Shabbat continues unless something stops it. One may continue eating
> seudah shlishit without making havdalah. Since "Shabbat demands
> kiddush" as it were, so kiddush demands kedushat Shabbat. Shabbat will
> come anyway, so the early kiddush is meaningful if it generates
> kedusha. OTOH motzei Shabbat does not automatically generate anything,
> so the announcement that Shabbat is ending does not have to generate
> "chol".

You're parially correct, but missing an important detail. It is true
that one may continue eating seudah shlishit without making havdalah,
but this is true only if he has already started the meal. If one has
*not* begun the meal, he may not begin it until reciting Havdala.

(Please note that I am deliberately avoiding the issue of exactly when
Motzaei Shabbos begins. It is true that there is some leeway, a period
of time after sunset during which one may begin seudah shlishis if he
didn't start earlier. But that leeway exists only because of the
uncertainty in the definition of these times. The important thing is
that however you want to define "the earliest time for Shabbos to end",
one certainly cannot begin a meal after that point without making
Havdala first.)

>From this we see that Motzaei Shabbos *does* automatically generate
something, though I'm not sure exactly what it is. That Gemara (as far
as I can tell) states these halachos, but does not explain WHY a new
meal requires havdala, while a continued meal does not. My thinking
would be that as long as one has not personally ended Shabbos, he ought
to be able to keep on beginning and ending several meals as much as he
wants, just like one can begin and end several meals on Friday after
making Kiddush (subject to the limitations of unnecessary brachos and
making adequate interruptions between the meals, of course).

Anyone have a guess WHY these time periods are not symmetrical? 

Akiva Miller


From: I. Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 14:17:00 +1000
Subject: Mechitza at Funeral Parlour and Placement of Cohanim

At present this is a hot issue in Melbourne.

There are 3 groups who perform Burial Services here.  The Reform, and
LeHavdil the "Mainstream" and the "Adass Yisroel".  The Adass have their
own set up for everything including burial and a small separate

The main burial society is the Chevra Kadisha which has functioned under
the guise of Trustees for many years and assumes a new legal entity now
(I'm not sure, they may be incorporated).

At any rate, the situation in the main society in Melbourne has always
been that there was a special room in the back for Cohanim (with audio
speakers) and a glass partition. The Aron containing the Mes (dead body)
usually was placed in the front of the parlour. There were benches on
either side of the room, with the men and women sitting separately.  The
mourners would sit together at the front of the room to one side
adjacent to the Aron.

A renovation took place to enlarge and modernise the parlour.  Two
important changes occurred. I am going on press reports here as Boruch
Hashem I haven't had any occasion of late to go there.

a) A Mechitza was placed dividing the males and females, with the
mourners apparently also separated onto either side.

b) There is no longer a Cohanim area. Instead, the Aron for the Mes is
now placed in an separate glass separated part so that the Cohanim can
sit inside with everyone else.

There has been an outcry from many regarding this. The argument has been
that whilst financial and operational control is effectively in the
hands of a number of people, those people (perhaps Zayin Tuvei Ho-ir ---
honourable community representatives) should not have changed the set up
without full consultation of the mainstream group of Orthodox Kehilas,
all who use the facility.  It is understood that the Rabbinic Council of
the State (the set of Communal Rabbis) were not consulted, although
apparently a Rabbinic ruling was obtained.  The Melbourne Beis Din was
also not consulted on the matter.

There would appear to be an extreme amount of Evah (acrimony) that has
been generated with allegations of forced "extremist orthodox practice"
being foisted on a "largely traditional" but respectful Community.

I am not aware of a single "mainstream" Orthodox Rabbi (including
Chabad) who have not officiated under the old arrangement.

Some have suggested that the "correct" approach would be to have a
sliding Mechitza curtain type arrangement for those who would prefer
this, and leave the status quo.

There have also been suggestions that by not having Cohanim in their
separate area, this has the effect of stopping a whole new generation of
not so knowledgeable people being aware that Cohanim are meant to keep
at a distance from a dead body. In the old arrangement people would have
asked "why are they sitting separately" and in our generation this may
have been the only opportunity for them to know a Din in Shulchan Oruch.

Some are also upset that the previous arrangement where at the
conclusion of the T'fillos people would file up to the Aron and ask
Mechila (forgiveness) is harder as the Aron is in a different room at
that moment.

I'm interested to hear other's perspectives on this problem from a
Halachik framework. Clearly the Rabbi(s) who were consulted decided that
the need for the Mechitza was so fundamental that it outweighed any
level of Aivo (acrimony) that might be generated against the frum
practicing community. That in of itself, in light of the fact that there
was already an established practice which must have had some implicit
Rabbinic impramatur is interesting.


From: Shayna Kravetz <skravetz@...>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 16:50:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Parev

Perets Mett <p.mett@...> enlightens us:
>I am surprised that Andy's Slavic expert could not come up with the
>The Yiddish word for steam is 'pa-re' - surely from a Slavic root.
>Now steam has no taste smell or colour, it is truly neutral.
>So anything which is neutral is 'steam-like' or 'pare-v' using the 'v'
>adjective marker
>That's my opinion anyway.

Well, if we're sharing opinions, I'd like to suggest a bilingual pun at
work.  Hasn't anyone noticed the resemblance between Yiddish "parve" and
Hebrew "paru'a" (wild, unkempt)? Peh-resh-vav-'ayin for both.  So how
about the idea that parve food is wild, unclassifiable, outside the
known categories?  Works for me.

Kol tuv from
Shayna in Toronto


From: N Miller <nmiller@...>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 16:43:19 -0400
Subject: Personals

Two small items if I may:

When I suggested that eating a cheeseburger in Chinatown constitutes a
"double aveyre", I had in mind that eating in a MacDonalds in Chinatown
is in its own right an aveyre.  I thank Avi for the correction, but it
was just a weak joke.

There's not the slightest reason for Bernard Raab do ask mekhile of me.
First, I learned something.  Second, I enjoyed it.  I regard him as one
of M-J's most rational writers and I look forward to spirited debates
down the line.

Noyekh Miller


From: <meirman@...> (Meir)
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:25:59 -0400
Subject: Re:  Valid Marriage - Need for Get

>From: Shoshana Ziskind <shosh@...>
>   One issue is my
>father is extremely ignorant of things Jewish (for example, he doesn't
>know what an aliyah to the torah means even though he was bar mitzvahed)
>and he is always going on about being an athiest although I do think its

There are atheist Americans, Jewish and goyish, and there are Americans
who don't like the US government either, but they all still cooperate
with most of the laws, because most of the laws are not the object of
their dislike.

It shouldn't matter if he's religious if he wants to be a Jew and obey
Jewish national laws.  That's a way that one can show that he takes
being a Jew** seriously, that he submits to Jewish national laws.  There
are lots of Jews who take seriously their membership in the Jewish
nation, even if they aren't observant of the religion, and even if they
don't believe in God.  In fact, I think a case could be made for a third
category of Jewish law, those between man and G-d, between man and man,
and between the nation of Israel and its citizens (that is, all Jews).

Not sure if this will help or hurt in your case, but when the US and
maybe most other countries passed laws about recording marriages and
having divorces, it really wasn't about religion, even I think in
countries that had a national religion.  It was mostly? about record
keeping and financial stuff.  Doesn't he want the records cleaned up?

**You need not bring up Judaism, which is a religion.

>Do I have the Rabbi talk to him?

He probably loves you more than the rabbi.  OTOH, don't ask someone to
do more than he's going to do.  It just makes the person who asks angry.
You'll have to decide how angry he is, if at all, at your mother, And as
to the Jewish part, for many non-observant, even secular or atheist
Jews, being a Jew is still the most important thing in their life, or
close.  If that is your father, you want to tie following these
administrative laws of the Jewish people to being a Jew and part of that
nation, and not to Judaism or to God.

Maybe just discuss this background stuff with him, and don't ask him to
do anything, and then get the O rabbi who does divorces in his town to
call and start off, "Shoshana asked me to call and see when you had two
hours free so we can wrap this [record keeping(?)] stuff up for good***"
***Double entendre acceptable.

<meirman@...>  Baltimore, MD, USA


From: <T613K@...> (Toby Katz)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 16:09:21 EDT
Subject: Re: Yitgadal-yitgadell

lehispallel means to pray, not to pray to oneself

in drashos you hear people say "when you daven you just judge yourself"
but that's not pshat

many examples of hispael where the meaning is not reflexive

Toby Katz


End of Volume 48 Issue 82