Volume 50 Number 49
                    Produced: Thu Dec  8  6:01:01 EST 2005

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Davening Times
         [Martin Stern]
Email address for Judy Ehrlich
         [Art Werschulz]
Escorting a Guest Out (3)
         [Joseph Ginzberg, Jeanette Friedman, Avi Feldblum]
lach vs. le'cha
         [Martin Stern]
         [Jack Gross]
Reality, Halachic Reality, and Bugs (2)
         [Martin Stern, Avi Feldblum]
Request for Document
         [Arieh Lebowitz]


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:45:10 +0000
Subject: Davening Times

on 7/12/05 10:50 am, Mordechai <mordechai@...> wrote:

> My complaint is about those who attack and criticise those who don't
> have the time for these ideal long davening times.  Most people don't
> have the time for these long times.  Let's take my shuls 40 minute
> Shacharit.  It must end at 7 AM to allow the school Rabbeim to get to
> work.  If we tried to get it started any earlier than 6:20 we wouldn't
> suceed.  As it is we have many shul members who go to the other shul
> down the blocks 6:25 - 7 AM minyan.  We also have the problem of people
> (including Rabbeim) coming late.  No matter how early you start a
> minyan, if people want a shorter minyan they will just come later.
> Yes it's easy to say someone else should get up 10-15 minutes earlier for
> a minyan.  If someone is up till late for their reasons, which can range
> from late night extra work, working on a community fundraiser or just
> needing to relax after getting the kids to bed.  They may not be
> physically able to get up in time for the longer minyan.

Those who want to daven more slowly should get to shul 10-15 minutes
earlier and start davenning, allowing the tsibbur to 'catch up' with
them. It is utterly reprehensible for them to try to impose their
personal piety on other people who may have different constraints on
their time. 40 minutes is not unreasonable except for days when their is
kriat hatorah and they should be able to manage starting earlier and
finishing later than the majority.

Martin Stern


From: Art Werschulz <agw@...>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:37:30 -0500
Subject: Email address for Judy Ehrlich


You may recall that Ed Ehrlich, a member of this list, passed away
recently.  Somebody on the list asked for an email to which condolences
may be directed.

Since I have some friends who belong to the same kehilla as the Ehrlich
family, I asked them for said address.

Judy Ehrlich's email is the same as Ed's, namely, <eehrlich@...>

Art Werschulz (8-{)}   "Metaphors be with you."  -- bumper sticker
GCS/M (GAT): d? -p+ c++ l u+(-) e--- m* s n+ h f g+ w+ t++ r- y? 
Internet: agw STRUDEL cs.columbia.edu
ATTnet:   Columbia U. (212) 939-7060, Fordham U. (212) 636-6325


From: Joseph Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:01:41 -0500
Subject: Escorting a Guest Out

>It was written:
>>Certainly ritual is holy and vital, but to such an extent? Is it really
>>an "obligation" for the host to walk a few steps accompanying his
>>visitor the same way it's an obligation to recite Shema?
>I agree !!

I hosted a well-known Rosh Yeshiva from Israel for dinner once, some
years ago.  After dinner, when we were about to leave for mincha in the
shul (it was summertime), his son dropped in to say goodbye, as he was
leaving back to Israel.

The Rosh Yeshiva ruled that driving his son to the airport trumped
davening mincha altogether (not just without a minyan, but totally), and
drove his son to the airport. His rationale was from Abraham, who left
the presence of the Shechina to greet guests.

Without his permission, I don't want to give his name, but he was
well-known in the Yeshiva world and very accepted even by real black-hat

Yossi Ginzberg

From: <FriedmanJ@...> (Jeanette Friedman)
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 07:08:34 EST
Subject: Escorting a Guest Out

      What exactly is your problem?
      #1: accompanying the visitor was, as stated, an example - there
      are other requirements of a host.
      #3: If as you claim , accompanying a visitor is unknown, then a
      host doing so when it would stick out would be of greater benefit
      to spreading the knowledge of such a rule.

My problem is the total lack of consideration for the cholleh by the
person being mevaker cholim, who EXPECTS a cholleh to get up--and the
Cholleh who feels he must, even though it may make him even sicker. No
where does it say the Cholleh is asking the question. It is the other
person asking.

Furthermore, if a cholleh has a caretaker, where I come from, the
caretaker walks the person to the door--so it was when my dad had
cancer....he was dying, more than 1,000 people came to visit him in the
last six months before the piteerah. (YEAH, I DID KEEP A LIST) that was
more than 20 years ago, and walking someone to the door was something he
was makbid about. Do you honestly think he got out of bed for all of
these people, with his iv and everything?

From: Avi Feldblum <avi@...>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 07:08:34 EST
Subject: Escorting a Guest Out

Jeanette, I do not see your justification for turning the original
question into a situation which is not what the original poster stated /
clarified and then berating people on their replies.

The original question asked what responsibilities a visitee (host) had
vis a vis any guests that came when the host is being visited because he
is ill. It is not explicit in that who is asking, but I would understand
it as the question, as most other similar questions, is from the point
of view of the person with the obligation. That is the likely individual
who would be asking a sheilah. In any case, in his reply,
.cp. explicitly states that it is the host who is asking this
question. As .cp. was the original poster, how can you say it was the
other person asking?

Second, and much more fundimental in my opinion, is that nowhere is
there a statement that the ill person / choleh is bed-ridden, in a
hospital hooked up to an IV, unable to walk, will get sicker due to
walking the person to the door etc. You are creating an extreme case
where all will clearly agree that even if a host who is being visited
has an obligation of escorting a guest out, in such cases clearly - ones
rachmana patrei - he is not obligated due to circumstances.

However, the mitzvah of visiting the sick is not limited to those who
are in cases of extreme illness that they are confined to bed and any
activity will cause them harm. Again, if we look to the archtypical case
of Avraham following the bris, while he is in pain, he is not
incapacitated. It is such cases, where the host is fully able to get
around and is fully able to escort the guest out, that the question was
raised. Under such circumstances, is there any halachic obligations on
the host vis a vis the guest, or as the guest is coming to visit for the
mitzvah of bikur cholim, does that remove any such obligations?

Let's keep the focus on the actual question rather than creating
circumstances that no-one proposed and then assign opinions to them in
order to make them appear unreasonable.

Avi Feldblum


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:12:33 +0000
Subject: lach vs. le'cha

on 7/12/05 9:49 am, Mark Symons <msymons@...> wrote:
> From: <Danmim@...>
>> what criteria does the torah use for distinquishing between the
>> vocalization of lach vs. le'cha?
> As I understand it, the basic rule is that lach is either feminine, or
> masculine pausal form - ie sof pasuk or etnachta, occasionally
> zaqef-qaton; le'cha is masculine in all other cases.

These rules apply to Biblical Hebrew only, in Mishnaic Hebrew I believe
only lach is used irrespective of gender, probably as a result of
Aramaic influence.

Martin Stern


From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 23:01:17 -0500
Subject: Mem-Chet-Lamed

Ben Katz wrote, in Vol. 50 #42:
> . . . But if the root machal never appears in the Bible, and only means 
> forgiving in Rabbbinic literature . . .
> . . . Chazal and Rashi in general were not as sensitive as we are to 
> anachronisms, be they historical or linguistic. . . .

a. I don't see justification for labelling Rashi's comment
"linguistically anachronistic".  Undoubtedly there are numerous ancient
Hebrew roots that happen not to appear in the Torah text.  Lo ra'inu
eino r'iya.

b. Rashi would (I presume) respond that the Author was aware, in
advance, of the directions in which the language would develop.


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:32:13 +0000
Subject: RE: Reality, Halachic Reality, and Bugs

on 7/12/05 10:05 am, Joel Rich <JRich@...> wrote:
>> In thinking things through, it occurred to me that there seems to be a
>> difference between scientific reality and Halachic reality.
>> [snip]
>> just as most of us eat meat from cattle that have not been examined
>> for all 18 possible treifos (relying on the talmudic chazakah),
>> R. Heinemann allows us to rely on chazakah in eating lettuce.
> If you really believe this, why don't we check animals for all possible
> treifot rather than just the common(lungs); why allow bitul brov......
> Perhaps because Halachik reality is reality?

Some treifot are almost impossible to check, for example perforations in
the krum hamoach (meninges). The reason for this is that in order to do
the check we would have to open the skull which would almost certainly
cause the meninges to be damaged. In this case we have no choice but to
rely on rov, so why should we be worried about other rare treifot?

Martin Stern

From: Avi Feldblum <avi@...>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:32:13 +0000
Subject: RE: Reality, Halachic Reality, and Bugs

Following up to Martin's reply above, the fact that Chazal identified a
significant number of treifot clearly means to me that they must exist
is some percentage of cases. The fundimental question to me is: what
level of activity do we need to take in order to not have to worry that
the meat is forbidden due to the halacha of treifah. Martin ties it to
at least one case where it is not possible to check for it. Based on my
memory of discussions with my father zt"l, I do not think he required
that condition. Basically, once Chazal determines that the treifah is
not common, then we have the halachic rule that we can depend on a rov
and there is no obligation to check for it. The meat may objectively be
"treif" but we are fully permitted to eat it. I think that is exactly
the case that was originally brought down that started this
discussion. To respond to Frank's posting in a previous issue, there is
no question here of bugs that are so small that one cannot see them with
the naked eye and are as such not forbidden. We are talking about bugs
that are absolutely forbidden. The question is whether we can take the
rules of rov and if we have checked X amount of a lot and have not seen
any bugs, we can then apply rov and are no longer required halachically
to check any further. If there "actually" are any bugs in the other
vegetables, it is no different than the "actual" treif meat we all eat
due to not checking the est of the listed treifot.

Avi Feldblum


From: Arieh Lebowitz <ariehnyc@...>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 14:46:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Request for Document

A small favor - 'er, favour!  A colleague in Australia is trying to
track down a document 

A colleague in Australia is trying to track down a document, I believe
it is an article in a publication, listed below.  Does anyone "here"
have this publication?

Sacks Jonathan: Halacha: Industrial Relations in Jewish Law in Ha-Zvi 13
( Mizrahi Journal) London Purim 5739 

Please be in contact.
Thank you.
 Arieh Lebowitz / Jewish Labor Committee / www.jewishlabor.org


End of Volume 50 Issue 49