Volume 51 Number 13
                    Produced: Fri Jan 27  6:08:05 EST 2006

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Avel during shloshim not eating meat
Drinking from the same cup w/nidah
         [Joseph Ginzberg]
Egalitarianism and Language
         [Irwin Weiss]
Hinduism and Monotheism
         [Russell J Hendel]
Kosher in Chinese
         [Andy Goldfinger]
Men talking to women
         [Tzvi Stein]
Moving a Sefer Torah
         [Ben Katz]
She'asani kirtzono
         [Emmanuel Ifrah]
Tune for AlHamichya
         [Ari Chwat]
Yitro, Moshe's father in law
         [Irwin Weiss]


From: <Danmim@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:09:10 EST
Subject: Re: Avel during shloshim not eating meat

someone mentioned that an avel for a parent is not allowed to eat meat or
poultry during shloshim. Did you ever see a source for this minhag?


From: Joseph Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 13:27:10 -0500
Subject: Drinking from the same cup w/nidah

I finally got around to looking up the Igros Moshe that I had posted from 
memory, and he goes even further than I remembered, answering also the 
question re a bride in nidah drinking from the same cup.

It is in Yoreh Deah 2, siman 83.

An off-the-cuff translation:

"Siman 195 in the Ram'a says that only the husband is prohibited from 
drinking of his wife's cup, but she is permitted to drink from his, and I 
have seen no one who disputes this".

He continues that if others are present and drinking from the same cup, she 
can pass it on, but if no one else will drink it she should finish it to 
prevent the husband from doing so.

Yossi Ginzberg


From: Irwin Weiss <irwin@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:19:34 -0500
Subject: Egalitarianism and Language

I think that belief in egalitarianism (treating people equally) does not
require treating all people identically.  For example, Pidyon HaBen
(redemption of the 1st born) is for boys, but only the first born of a
woman.  (let's for the moment not discuss C-sections vs. vaginal birth).
Pure egalitarianism would require Pidyon HaBen for the 2nd boy and the
3rd and so forth, and, logically, for the 1st born daughter and the
second and the third and so forth. This makes, of course, no sense.  So,
for the egalitarians out there, do you think we should have Pidyon HaBen
for all children, regardless of sex or birth order, or should we
eliminate it, despite the fact that it is Midoraita (from Torah). Or
call it something else, like Pidyon K'tanim, or what?

Disclaimer: I am not a first born male--I have an older brother.

Irwin Weiss
Baltimore, MD


From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:04:37 -0500
Subject: RE: Hinduism and Monotheism

Rabbi Wise writes
> I Balbin seems to prove my point that Hinduism is not avoda zara on a
> technicality. If there is no believe in One God there cannot be believe
> in "other gods".

Lets not play games with something so serious. Idolatry is worshipping
statutes or believing in a Deity OTHER than the Jewish deity.

As to the phrase "other gods" it doesn't exist. Rashi on Ex20-01:03
translates "You shall not have the gods OF OTHERS" (The juxtaposition of
"god" and "others" can equally mean "other gods" or "gods of others"
there are plenty of examples).

If the Hindus have statutes or if they believe in worshipping a
multiplicity of deities then they are idolaters. (That of course does
not mean we can't live with them, help them get jobs and give charity to
them---but we MUST as Jews stay away from their religion--they have

Russell Hendel;http://www.Rashiyomi.com


From: Andy Goldfinger <Andy.Goldfinger@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:31:31 -0500
Subject: Kosher in Chinese

The Star-K web site has a section for the Far East.  On this page:


there are two videos in Chinese.  In the first one, Rabbi Akiva Pearlman
discusses "What is Kosher?"

I have listened to this presentation, and since I don't speak Chinese, I
could understand none of it except the part in which he breaks up the
word "Kosher" into "Ko" and "Sher,"  apparently giving some Chinese
meanings to these terms.  I asked a colleague of mine, who is Chinese, to
listen to this, and this is what he wrote:

"By the way, the man Chinese video was talking about Kosher.  He broke
it down into "Ko" "Sher" because he was saying Ko means mouth, and Sher
means along the lines of agreement, or good taste.  So Kosher translates
into "good taste for the mouth", or something close to that meaning."

Pretty cool!


From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:15:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Men talking to women

> From: Daniel Wells <wells@...>
> 'excessively' to most people is a subjective variable. But in the Mishna
> it means plain and simple do not talk to the opposite gender any more
> then is absolutely necessary, even to the extent of being of being
> uncivil by not adding such words as 'Hallo' and 'Shalom' unless it's to
> gain her attention.

Well, I have lived in many frum communities, and the only people I have
seen act like you described are certain chasidim and a handful of rabbis
I knew in Bnei Brak.  In fact, every time I am at my shul rabbi's
Shabbos table, he goes around and speaks individually to each person at
the table, male and female, paying particular attention to anyone he
doesn't know well, asking them questions about their studies, work,
etc., which obviously goes beyond what is "absolutely necessary".

So it seems that we need to either find ways to interpret the Mishna in
a different way than you have presented, or conclude that my shul rabbi
and 99% of the frum people I have ever met are doing aveiras.


From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:40:21 -0600
Subject: Re: Moving a Sefer Torah

>From: Mark Symons <msymons@...>
>How do you reconcile this with the mitzva for the king to carry a sefer
>Torah with him wherever he goes?

         I think there are differences between public and private sifrei 
torah.  I believe I can carry my personal sefer torah with me wherever I go.

Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
e-mail: <bkatz@...>


From: Emmanuel Ifrah <emmanuel_ifrah@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 05:12:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: She'asani kirtzono

Gilad J. Gevaryahu wrote:
> R. Baruch Halevi Epstein in his book Baruch She'amar [page 30] >
> suggests that women should not say the "she'asani kirtzono" with
> beracha [beShem umalchut]...

This is already brought up as halacha le-maaseh by the Chida in his
"Kesher Gudal" (a sub-part of "Avodat ha-Kodesh"), in the name of the
"Peri Chadash".


From: Ari Chwat <shvataz@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:27:31 +0200
Subject: Tune for AlHamichya

In order to help people learn the long and confusing bracha of Al
HaMichya, BH a catchy "Country-Western" tune has been recorded and is
now being insitituted in the Israeli elementery mamlachti-dati school

About 6-7 hearings and you"ll know the bracha by-heart till 120!  It can
be heard and downloaded from the website: www.alhamichya.org BH an
audio-visual program will soon be added to the site.  Please publicize
and help add many brachot and thanks for our food and for Eretz Yisrael!

Ari Chwat


From: Irwin Weiss <irwin@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:11:54 -0500
Subject: Yitro, Moshe's father in law

In Parshat Shemot, Yitro first appears, and the text says he was Moshe's
father in law.  In Parshat Yitro, just in case we have forgotten the
relationship, in the first verse (Chap. 18) Yitro is again identified as
Moshe's father in law. Ok, we get it. We now know that Yitro was Moshe's
father in law, having been told twice.

So, how come in the next verse (18:2) he is once again identified as
Yitro, Moshe's father-in-law, and then, in verse 5, again identified as
Moshe's father in law, Yitro? I mean, having already been told he is
Moshe's father in law, do we have to hear it again and again? And then,
in verse 6, He said to Moshe, "I, your father-in-law, Yitro, am coming
to you along with your wife; her two sons are with her." Yitro picks it
up.  He says he is Moshe's father in law. We KNOW ALREADY!  In verse 7
and 8 he is not identified by name, but only "father in law". In verses
9 and 10 he is quoted only with the name Yitro. And then in verse 12, it
says" [Then] Yitro, Moshe's father-in-law, brought a burnt-offering and
[peace]-offerings to G-d. Aharon and all the elders of Yisrael came to
eat bread with [Yitro,] Moshe's father-in-law, before G-d.? Nu, we know
he is Moshe's father in law. Why keep saying, "Yitro, Moshe's father in
law" instead of just Yitro? Thereafter in verses 14 and 15 it's just
father in law, without the name Yitro. Same in 17. Finally, in verse
24: Moshe listened to the voice of his father-in-law and he did all that
he said.

When Aaron is mentioned the Torah doesn't repeatedly call him Moshe's
brother. When Miriam is mentioned, the Torah doesn't call her
repeatedly, Moshe's sister.  So, the question is, why the repetition?
Why keep saying Yitro, Moshe's father in law, over and over?

Has anyone any source with any answer?

Irwin Weiss


End of Volume 51 Issue 13