Volume 52 Number 60
Produced: Thu Jul 20 22:26:20 EDT 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
"Aseh Lecha Rav" -- "Make," not "Get" or "Take" One
[Ari Trachtenberg]
Chasidus
[Perets Mett]
Dateline
[.cp.]
Halachic Date Line
[Joel Rich]
Honors at a chuppah
[Joseph Ginzberg]
The Latest Kosher Cooking Carnival
[Batya Medad]
Masekhtot Qetanot
[Josh]
Protocols in Marriages (3)
[Ari Trachtenberg, Dov Bloom, Joel Rich]
Text of Ketubah
[Orrin Tilevitz]
Tzadi
[Mark Steiner]
Veal
[Binyomin Segal]
Wedding Protocols
[Joel Rich]
Yiro-kel
[Joshua Goldmeier]
Yom Kippur
[Robert Israel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0400
Subject: Re: "Aseh Lecha Rav" -- "Make," not "Get" or "Take" One
> From: <c.halevi@...> (Yeshaya Halevi)
> I have always found it interesting that the phrase is "Aseh Lecha Rav,"
> which literally means "Make for yourself a rav (rabbi/master). It
> doesn't say "Get yourself a rav" or "Take" one. I've heard conflicting
> explanations about this. Anyone care to discuss it?
My understanding is that you humble yourself to someone else's opinion
... in this way you are "making" yourself a rav, rather than finding a
rav.
Best,
-Ari
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:56:07 +0100
Subject: Re: Chasidus
someone wrote:
> Well, the changing of the long established prayer rite (nusach
> ha-tefilla) and the shechita knives, etc etc
>
> Any change of long established practices is a reform.
This is outrageous.
The change in the khalef was a hidur in shechito, not a kulo.
How can anyone possibly equate that with reform?
As far as change in nusach hatefilo is concerned that was happening
anyway - just compare a modern nusach ashkenaz with one from 300 years
ago.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: .cp. <chips@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:37:50 -0700
Subject: Re: Dateline
That a dateline was neccessary may not have been until the Age of
Adventure , but that there had to be one was obvious to everyone.
The Sun does not rise and set at the same time for everyone so the
day/night transition had to be different, therefore the day of the week
had to come at a different time.
As for specific mentions, well there is a Gemorah that talks about there
always being a time of sunrise somewhere on this world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:27:15 -0400
Subject: Halachic Date Line
> To go off on a slight tangent (after all that is what
> discussion groups are for :-)) I have always been bothered by this
> concept of a "halachic date line" which appears to me to be a complete
> retrojection. I have read articles about it, and still don't see the
> basis of it. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't known till
> relatively modern times that the further North or South you go that
> the days change in length (I believe the Vilna Gaon was the first
> Jewish rabbinic authority to note this phenomenon), and I don't
> believe it was much appreciated until the advent of standard time
> after the civil war that a date line was necessary. I would love to
> be corrected if I am mistaken.
See
http://www.koltorah.org/RAVJ/The%20International%20Date%20Line%20and%20Halacha.htm
The Baal Hamaor (IIRC) lived in the 12th century.
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:15:00 -0400
Subject: Honors at a chuppah
>Regardless of protocol, it is most inappropriate to slight anyone or to
>be disrespectful to any Rav.
I was at a very "yeshivishe" wedding where there was one grandfather who
was a Sabbath violator, and under the rulings they chose to abide by was
unqualified for any of the usual honors.
Still, he was a grandafther and elderly, so inventively they announced,
"the grandfather of the chatan, mr. xxxx xxxx, is being honored with
'levishas hakittel', and he ceremoniously strode under the chuppah with
the kittel, which he helped the chatan put on.
Brilliant solution, for that case at least.
Yossi Ginzberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:21:52 +0200
Subject: The Latest Kosher Cooking Carnival
http://me-ander.blogspot.com/2006/07/hermans-hermits-present-henry-8th.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Shuanoach@...> (Josh)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:02:53 EDT
Subject: Re: Masekhtot Qetanot
The standard scholarly editions of most of the minor tractates were
published by Michael Higger. (they were reviewed by Saul Lieberman, i
think in Qiryat Sefer.)
There is a translation of Semahot by D. Zlotnick.
josh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:14:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Protocols in Marriages
> From: Anonymous2
> If the community in question has only one rav, it is prohibited as
> hasagat gvul for another rav to be msader kiddushin without obtaining
> permission from the rav of the city, since payment for such services is
> considered part of the rav's remuneration, unless otherwise stipulated
> when he was hired.
What is the halachic basis for paying someone to perform the mitzva of
being m'sader kiddushin?
-Ari
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dov Bloom <dovb@...>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 07:15:56 +0300
Subject: Re: Protocols in Marriages
When we married off a daughter the chatan got first choice for mesader
kidushin. The rest was split. The brachot under the chupa were
certainly split, 3 and 3 in our case. The kallah's family is starting
off on the wrong foot. I hope they informed the chatan's family that
the ketuba states the chatan supports the kallah and not visa versa.
Dov A Bloom
<dovb@...>
02-9963196
052-8903727
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:36:31 -0400
Subject: Protocols in Marriages
From: Anonymous2
> It is told of Rav Soloveitchik that when Rav Moshe Feinstein was
> present at a wedding, RYBS would defer to RMF for the brachot. When
> one of his students protested that he wanted his rebbe to be msader
> kiddushin, RYBS responded, "I was. I took care of all the details. I
> was only mchabed RMF to say the birchot eirusin."
Just to clarify (see Nefesh Harav page 261 - hat tip to Neal Rich) RYBS
poured the wine, then called R'MF for the brachot and then RYBS took the
wine back and gave it to the couple.
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Text of Ketubah
In response to my posting that a pregnant bride probably ought to get
100 zuzim in her ketuba, Rabbi Weiss writes:
> As we celebrate 350 years of re-settlement in England, I can assure
> him that no pregnant bride was promised less than 200 zuz. Can he
> produce a ketuba to support his assertion?
Well, no, any more than he can produce a ketuba that shows she gets 200
zuzim; the bride's pregnancy or lack of same is not mentioned in the
ketuba. I did mention in a prior posting that a gioret gets 100 zuz; I
can produce a ketuba so providing; and the reason she gets 100 zuzim,
and not 200, is that she is presumptively a be-ula.
Also, by "no pregnant bride", Rabbi Wise presumably means "no pregnant
bride who was not previously married." It seems my rav once arranged a
get, and when the couple returned some months later to remarry each
other, she was visibly pregnant. My friend who reported this to me did
not see the ketuba, but presumably it said "100 zuzim" not because she
was pregnant but because she was a divorcee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:23:01 +0300
Subject: RE: Tzadi
Concerning the letter "tzadi" or perhaps "tsade", that is certainly its
name as attested in all rabbinic literature. However, the gemara
(Shabbat 104a)links the letter tzadi to the concept of a tzadik, and
says that the two kinds of tzadi (straight, i.e. final, and bent)
represent two kinds of tzaddikim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:44:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Veal
> From: <chips@...>
> Actually, I'd be interested in how many people do avoid 'white' veal.
> [It would seem to me that the only responses that have relevance to the
> discussion would be people that avoid 'white' veal because of R. Moshe's
> (or some other posek's) ruling.
As was correctly pointed out earlier, Rav Moshe does not prohibit the
eating of white veal. He prohibits the raising of white veal, and
discourages its consumption.
Based on this psak, I have avoided white veal for about 20 years now,
and I believe there are many others who do the same. Specifically, while
I have not purchased it, I have eaten it once or twice when I felt other
halachik considerations superseded Rav Moshe's discouragement
(e.g. kibud em). A number of years ago there was free range veal
available here in Chicago and my impression was that part of the market
niche was people like me.
As to why he distinguishes between raising and eating, a number of
points bear mentioning. Keeping in mind that any explanation of Rav
Moshe must leave room for Rav Ovadia to disagree.
Rav Ovadia forbids going to a bullfight because paying the fee is
"msayeh" (aiding) in the performance of the sin of tzar baalei chayim
(causing pain to living creatures). Note that he discusses msayeh and
not lifnei iver (enabling). Msayeh is a rabbinic prohibition where the
sin would occur without the aid, while lifnei iver is a Torah
prohibition where the sin could occur only with the aid of the enabler.
As such, it has always seemed to me logical that Rav Ovadia would
prohibit the consumption of white veal. But it also raises a number of
issues that might clarify why Rav Moshe permits it. Note this is all
speculation on my part.
In both the veal and bullfight case, it seems that the "sinner" is a
non-jew. It is not entirely clear to me that msayeh applies to a
non-jew. The gemara is explicit that a jew can not enable (lifnei iver)
a non-jew to violate the 7 noahide commandments, but it is a matter of
some dispute whether this extends to aiding.
Even if msayeh does include a non-jew it is not entirely clear that tzar
baalei chayim is part of the 7 noahide laws. As such, perhaps there is
no msayeh because there is no sinner.
Finally, there are a number of opinions that msayeh does not apply to a
mumer. That is, if someone is in the habit of performing a certain
violation, some achronim contend that msayeh does not apply. (I believe
Rav Moshe quotes this opinion upon occasion) A person whose job is a sin
would certainly be considered a mumer for that sin - and hence msayeh
might not apply.
comments?
binyomin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:09:45 -0400
Subject: Wedding Protocols
IIRC R' Reisman quoted R' Pam as saying something along the lines of "My
minhag is to do what the other parents want to do" when questioned about
the details of walking the chatan and kallah down the aisle (when R' Pam
was the parent of a chatan or kallah)
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joshua Goldmeier <Josh@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:34:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Yiro-kel
My wife sells invitations and many people are in a habit now of
seperating the aleph and lamed with a dash for all the names in the
invite. When I questioned one of the ba'alei simcha as to the reason,
they said - the halacha is not to write the "shem hashem". My wife gave
me a glare because she knew I was ready to jump, and she didn't want me
to beat her customer out the door with a broom handle. So I backed away
and just said ok.
As a side note - can someone please tell me how to do pidyon shevuyim on
my religion. I feel many days as if shomer shabbos judaism has been
kidnapped and replaced with some, Taliban-like, version. These stories
are a good example of a simple innocuous change and chumra, yet
completely wrong! On a grander scale, there are people proffessing the
halacha that women cannot halachically wear make-up and snoods/hats.
Plain and shaitels only are permissible. It gets worse from there.
Where did my religion go or am I just being too liberal?
Shaya Goldmeier
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Israel <israel@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Yom Kippur
Ben Katz <bkatz@...> wrote:
> To go off on a slight tangent (after all that is what
> discussion groups are for :-)) I have always been bothered by this
> concept of a "halachic date line" which appears to me to be a complete
> retrojection. I have read articles about it, and still don't see the
> basis of it. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't known till
> relatively modern times that the further North or South you go that the
> days change in length (I believe the Vilna Gaon was the first Jewish
> rabbinic authority to note this phenomenon), and I don't believe it was
> much appreciated until the advent of standard time after the civil war
> that a date line was necessary. I would love to be corrected if I am
> mistaken.
Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi is quite explicit about the necessity of a date
line, which he places 90 degrees east of Jerusalem. See the Kuzari,
book 2, # 20. By the way, the English translation by Hirschfeld is
available online at <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitab_al_Khazari>
Robert Israel <israel@...>
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 52 Issue 60
