Volume 51 Number 66
                    Produced: Fri Mar 17  4:48:40 EST 2006

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

175 Pictures of the Purim Parade in Ma'aleh Adumim
         [Jacob Richman]
Agunas and extortion (2)
         [Chaim, Avi Feldblum]
Agunda question
         [Nadine Bonner]
Can an agunah sue?
         [Arnie Kuzmack]
Common Mispronunciations (2)
         [ELPh Minden, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Dunkin Donuts
         [Tobias Robison]
         [Yehonatan & Randy Chipman]
K'Omrom - B'Omrom?
         [Sammy Finkelman]
         [Eli Turkel]
Mordecai and Esther
         [Eli Turkel]
Rabbi Reuven Agushewitz
reason for mitzvot - Brisk
         [Eli Turkel]
"Shoshanat Yaakov" (2)
         [Leah S. Gordon, Avi Feldblum]
Washing Clothes on Rosh Chodesh
         [Batya Medad]
Zecher - Zeicher (was: K'Omrom - B'Omrom?)
         [David Roth]


From: Jacob Richman <jrichman@...>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:09:22 +0200
Subject: 175 Pictures of the Purim Parade in Ma'aleh Adumim

Hi Everyone!

On Tuesday, March 14, there was a Purim parade / carnival in Ma'aleh
Adumim. The festive event (called "Adloyada") started at 10:00am.

I posted 175 pictures of the parade at:


When the first page comes up, press the F11 key on the top of your
keyboard for a full page view.  Use the icon buttons on the bottom of
each page to navigate.

Enjoy the pictures!


From: <Dagoobster@...> (Chaim)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:16:22 EST
Subject: Agunas and extortion

I hate to say it, but not all husbands who refuse to give gitten want to
extort anything tangible.  Some just want to hurt their wives.


From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006
Subject: Agunas and extortion

That may well be true, but the number that want to do that when there is
significant fiscal impact to them might go down, relative to the number
currently, where there is little effective impact on those who do so.



From: Nadine Bonner <nfbonner@...>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:52:19 -0500
Subject: Agunda question

This is a pretty well-known case in Illinois--maybe some lawyers on the
list are familiar with it--in which a woman sued her husband for a get
through the court system. I know only the outlines of the case because
my daughter and her daughter were friends.

It ended up in the Illinois Supreme Court, which found for the wife,
requiring the husband to give the get.

After the verdict, the husband, who was himself an attorney, whispered
to her, "You'll only get a get over my dead body."  The wife told me
this story at his shiva--he died suddenly about two weeks after the

Nadine Bonner


From: Arnie Kuzmack <Arnie@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:24:10 -0500
Subject: Can an agunah sue?

If the issue has come up, I'm sure it's discussed in R.  Breitowitz'
encyclopedic book, Between Civil and Religious Law: The Plight of the
Agunah in American Society (Greenwood Press, 1993).  I do not have it in
hand to check, but I don't recall it being discussed.

I do recall discussion of contracts at the time of marriage where the
husband would commit himself to pay the wife a very large amount of
money if he does not give her a get in case of a civil divorce.
R. Breitowitz presented some very technical arguments why such a
contract would not be valid; I remember not understanding them when I
read the book years ago.

Arnie Kuzmack


From: ELPh Minden <phminden@...>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:06:26 +0100
Subject: Common Mispronunciations

yakir wrote
> Don't know if it has been mentioned, but in my experience the following  
> will catch quite a few people (It caught me)
> In the Amidah (regular or repitition):
> "Modim anachnu Lach, " the next word is ? (especially the first  
> syllable).

Sorry to disappoint, but that's purism (with an s...), though you're  
certainly right about many printed siddurim.

Actually, the correct forms are (in "Sephardi" pronunciation):
- Modim
- 'anu (not "anachnu", not "modima nachnu")
- lach (not "lecha" asin some siddurim)
- she-atta (not "sha-atta", "shatta", shyatta", "sheatta")

ELPh Minden

From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <Sabba.Hillel@...>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:28:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Common Mispronunciations

> From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
> Just a quick comment to Hillel's comment about e.g. reading VaAVadTeM
> MeHayRah in the recital of the shma. Hillel asserted that one must be
> careful NOT to slur the terminal M with the beginning M.

Actually, IIRC I was talking about slurring a final mem with the word es
(or eis) and gettin mes (or meis).

Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore."
<Sabba.Hillel@...> | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water.


From: Tobias Robison <tobyr21@...>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:38:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Dunkin Donuts

In the 1980's, I met perhaps a dozen people from all over the Eastern US
who assured me that there were exactly three kosher Dunkin Donuts
places.  I always asked them which the three were, and I always got
different answers!

- Tobias D. Robison
Princeton, NJ USA


From: Yehonatan & Randy Chipman <yonarand@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:14:44 +0200
Subject: Re: Hodu

     I wanted to note that the difference between "hodu" and "hodo" (in
Ps 148:13; "yehallu..") is really great; it's not just a matter of two
variant grammatical constructions, but two entirely different words.

     "Hodu" would be the imperative firm of the verb infinitive Y-D-H:
"Let us give thanks / praise / recognition..." as in the last psalm of
Hallel and many other psalms (118, 136, 105, 107).  ( the name Yehudah
comes from the same verb).  If you think about it, the word "hodu" would
make no sense in this verse: a) because there is no object if praise
named, i.e Gd, unlike the other examples mentioned; and, b) it would
have to be "ba-eretz va-shamayim," so as to mean "Give thanks to Him IN
earth and heaven."  Instead, we have "al eretz ve-shamayim" "upon earth
and heaven."

     The word "hodo" is a noun, "glory / beauty," with a possessive
suffix: "His glory / beauty, etc is upon earth and heaven, and He (Gd)
lifts up a horn..."  (If the subject of the sentence were the people who
are called upon to say praise, that last pharse wouldn't fit either).

     All of which goes to show how shamefully the horn of the Hebrew
language has declined among even pious,observant, non-Israeli Jews.  As
they used to say, many long moons ago: "Ivri, Daber ivrit."  which is
not a repetition, but means "Hebrew (i.e, Jew), speak Hebrew!"

     Yehonatan Chipman


From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 06 00:00:00 -0400
Subject: K'Omrom - B'Omrom?

>From: Andy Goldfinger <Andy.Goldfinger@...>
> In the Shearith Israel shul in Balitimore, I remember Chazan D. Baum
> laining it this way.

 I heard it repeated - actually a few words repeated - tonight, so right
or wrong this is definiteley around as a custom.


From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:18:04 +0200
Subject: Mispronunciation

> I believe we might draw a distinction, difficult as it may be.  We had
> a gentlemen in our shul (he recently moved away) whose pronunciation of
> the brachas for an Aliyah was "elokaynee ... ha-oy-lum" (To me) from him
> that was fine -- it reflected the authentic dialect that he grew up with
> some 70 years ago in Europe.
> The judgmental me would find this same pronunciation improper coming
> from a twenty-something who grew up and was educated in a main-stream US
> yeshiva.

The more serious question is with regard to Parshat Zachot.  R Zvi
Pesach Frank says that one is does not fulfill his obligation listening
to a chassidic accent since that is not proper Hebrew.  RMF seems to use
Carl's argument that Hebrew is defined by what any large group uses.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel


From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:10:06 +0200
Subject: Mordecai and Esther

I have heard and read several derashot by promiment rabbonim that talk
about Mordecai as the uncle of Esther. However, the Megilla uses the
phrase "bat dodo" meaning a cousin and again refers to Esther's father
as Mordecai's uncle.

Does anyone know any justification for calling Mordecai Esther's uncle
or alternatively why this error seems to be so common even among
talmidei chachamim.

Purim Sameach
Eli Turkel


From: Wiesen <wiesen@...>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 05:58:39 -0500
Subject: RE: Rabbi Reuven Agushewitz

Is Faith and Heresy available in English?



[The English translation of Faith and Heresy is what Dr. Steiner had
announced, as I understand it. It is put out by Ktav (I think) and here
is a link to their link for it: 




From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel@...>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:29:28 +0200
Subject: reason for mitzvot - Brisk

RYBS and the Brisker's in general claim that one cannot ask "why" about
mitzvot but only "how".  Does anyone know any sources in RYBS or other
Brisker works for this?

Eli Turkel


From: Leah S. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 02:32:03 -0800
Subject: "Shoshanat Yaakov"

I think of this question every year, but remembered to post it this year.

In almost every shul I've been to for Purim, after the megillah reading
someone starts singing the hymn "Shoshanat Yaakov" that appears in some
siddurim for Purim services.  But also, in almost every shul, only three
or four people really sing the song, and the rest kind of mill around
uncomfortably.  It seems to be a remarkably poorly-memorized part of the

So, what's the deal?  Is it halakhically necessary (part of the service)
to sing this hymn?  And, it reminds me of the same question that I have
re. singing "Maoz Tzur" after saying "Ha-nerot Hallalu" after lighting
Chanukah candles.  Is "Maoz Tzur" a necessary part of the service?  (For
that one, at least, most people know a verse or two.)

--Leah S. R. Gordon

From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006
Subject: "Shoshanat Yaakov"

I guess it depends on what the make-up of your shul is like. I would say
that in the great majority of shuls I have been part of, the
overwhelming majority of the people do sing Shoshanat Yaakov, and it is
a quite lively ending to the Megilla.

In terms of "necessary", I would guess that depends on one's approach to
the various peyutim that have been developed over the many centuries and
added to many tefilot. Clearly, it is not a requirement in the reading
of the Megilla. However, it is a clearly accepted part of (at least
Ashkenazi) seder hatefillah for Purim. I think it is fair to say that it
has been included in any siddur I have any used, I think.



From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:19:09 +0200
Subject: Re: Washing Clothes on Rosh Chodesh

It's supposed to be the "women's holiday," so if anyone is really
"forbidden" to wash clothes, they're female.  Taking it all further,
none of the prohibitions fall on the males, so, men, do you get it?  You
can wash the clothes, cook, clean and give your wives a holiday.

And I wish the yeshiva high school where I teach would stop scheduling
staff meetings on Rosh Chodesh.  They prevent me from observing the
"women's holiday."

http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/ ; http://me-ander.blogspot.com/         
http://samizdatblogfree.blogspot.com/ ; http://shilohpics.blogspot.com/


From: David Roth <davidyonah@...>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:02:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Zecher - Zeicher (was: K'Omrom - B'Omrom?)

> While the following probably isn't relevant to your baal koreh, it's
> worth pointing out that there does exist a minhag (Chabad; I don't know
> if there are any other communities that do this) to read Zecher-Zeicher
> in Beshallach as well.

This is also the Minhag of R' Soloveitchik.

David Roth


End of Volume 51 Issue 66