Volume 54 Number 25
                    Produced: Fri Mar  9  6:26:43 EST 2007

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

314 Pictures of the Purim Parade in Ma'aleh Adumim
         [Jacob Richman]
Any source for Rashi "urban legend"?
         [Daniel Nachman]
Graven Images
         [Daniel Halperin]
Halacha and Torture (2)
         [<FriedmanJ@...>, Avi Feldblum]
Megilas Esther
Placing Challa on table rather than handing it
         [Mark Goldin]
Rashi in T'ruma: 13 vs 15 items
         [Saul Mashbaum]
Tefillin and Sheheheyanu
         [Saul Davis]
Zeikher-Zekher- Art Scroll?
         [Michael Frankel]


From: Jacob Richman <jrichman@...>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:23:09 +0200
Subject: 314 Pictures of the Purim Parade in Ma'aleh Adumim

Hi Everyone!

On Sunday, March 4, there was a Purim parade / carnival in Ma'aleh
Adumim. The parade (called "Adloyada") started at 11:00am. The theme of
the parade was bible stories.

I posted 314 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: Daniel Nachman <lhavdil@...>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 23:11:58 -0600
Subject: Any source for Rashi "urban legend"?

This question was asked in 1995 and apparently never answered, so I'll
ask again.  I have heard from more than one person that there is a Rashi
stating that the origin of "cholent" is French: "choud lent," meaning
"hot slow."  But nobody has been able to point me to a source.

Searching the net ("rashi cholent french lent") brings up other hits
saying the same thing, but none of them provide a source, either.  Which
leads me to wonder - do we have here a Rashi bubbe maiyse?



From: Daniel Halperin <dhalperin@...>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 18:10:04 -0500
Subject: Graven Images

With respect to the prohibition of forming (and owning) graven images, I
would like to determine whether or not it is permissible to cast
chocolate molds of a human face and bust (not full body). Does anyone
have any insight into this?

Thank you.


From: <FriedmanJ@...>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:09:28 EST
Subject: Re: Halacha and Torture

The question is is there a halacha against torture?

From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2007
Subject: Re: Halacha and Torture

I think that the objection to your question revolves around the way the
question is being asked, and what you write above has the same issue
with it. If one asks along the lines of:

     What is the Halacha permitting X
     What is the Halacha forbidding X

the implied assumption is that you already know the outcome of the
question, and what you are trying to do is find the sources for the
halacha. That form of question has validity, but more often in the
format of:

       Source ABC documents a psak halacha that X is [permitted /
       forbidden] but does not bring down the sources for the psak. Does
       anyone know what may be the underlying sources.

However, if the question is about a topic for which one is not starting
with a published psak, the more valid format of the question is:

     What is the Halacha concerning X
or probably better
     How does the Halacha deal with topic X
if X is a broad item, rather than a specific case.

This probably also touches on the earlier discussion of "Torah-Centered"
Judaism, is that I find that when the question is formulated as Jeanette
did, there is often a societal bias going in that the result should be
the one outside society is driving. One is basically saying that based
on what is "generally accepted in society", how do I find halachic
sources that will support that position. 

The objection to that from many is that the approach should be, what can
I understand from Halacha as to what the Jewish approach to this topic
is, and once that is understood, then compare / contrast that with the
general societal approach. If they are different, then it becomes more
important to look at what are the underlying differences that lead the
different conclusions.



From: .cp. <chips@...>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 19:47:44 -0800
Subject: KiTisa

why are the sizes of the aliyas so out of whack?


From: <chips@...>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 16:15:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Megilas Esther

Since the Megilla needs to be folded over itself as if it was a letter,
why is it kept in a scroll instead of a folio ?

At the end of the reading, why is the Megilla wound up before the



From: Mark Goldin <goldinfamily@...>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 23:00:55 -0800
Subject: Placing Challa on table rather than handing it

This is our custom at home and the reason for it that I once read
somewhere is that we are indicating, by making the recipient pick up the
bread from the table themselves, that bread comes from Hashem, and not
from man.

Mark Goldin
Los Angeles


From: Saul Mashbaum <smash52@...>
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:13:57 +0200
Subject: Re: Rashi in T'ruma: 13 vs 15 items

Mark Symons wote about the list of items for the tabernacle:

> But it seems to me that there is a much simpler explanation. Of the 15
> items listed, the Torah already tells us the purpose of 2 of them - oil
> ("for lighting") and spices ("for the anointing oil and aromatic
> incense"). So Rashi only has to tell us about the purpose of the
> remaining 13.
> Comments? Do any of the commentaries on Rashi make this point? I wanted
> to check Rosenbaum and Silbermann but I can't my Sh'mot volume.

Rosenbaum and Silbermann say almost the same thing. To Mark Symon's
thesis it may be objected that the purpose of the two items in verse 7
(two types of stones) are also stated. However, R&S come to the same
conclusion that Mark proposes: 13 of the items listed were used for the
construction of tht tabernacle or the priestly garments, the ones in
verse 6, the oil and spices, were not.

Interestingly, R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin in his "L'Torah Ul'Moadim" quotes
the Admor Tzemach Tzedek who says this very concept is found in a
midrash to Shir Hashirim 4:13.

Saul Mashbaum


From: Saul Davis <saul.davis@...>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 20:05:30 +0200
Subject: Tefillin and Sheheheyanu

I recently ordered new tefillin which should be arriving any day.
Should I say sheheheyanu when I "lay" them the first time? My bobba z"l
did not say tithadesh when someone had new shoes because an animal died
to make them. Would this apply to tefilin and can I make the
gezera-shava from tithadesh to sheheheyanu?

Saul Davis


From: .cp. <chips@...>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 8:11:40 -0800
Subject: Yishtabach

If Tfillin are not on yet when you get to Yishtabach and the zman
arrives, should one say Yishtabach first?

If one is a bit ahead (more than 3 minutes say) of the Chazan and hits
Yishtabach, should one wait for the Chazan or say Yishtabach and wait
for Barchu.



From: Michael Frankel <michaeljfrankel@...>
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 12:08:25 -0500
Subject: Zeikher-Zekher- Art Scroll?

Seasonally sensitized by my annual irritation at the (needless)
repetition of the zeikehr-zekher thingy in shul this week, I finally
woke up to an oddity in Art Scroll siddur.  Which is its choice of
"zekher" for the zayin sentence in Ashrei.  Since Ashrei is in fact just
a recitation of Psalm #145, I looked at the back of the Art Scroll which
provides a copy of sefer T'hillim and sure enough, there too Ashrei
renders zekher, consistent with Art Scroll's rendition of Ashrei in the

The problem is that there is not the slightest shemetz of doubt ever
raised by anyone that T'hillim 145 should be pointed zeikher, with (5
dots), rather than zekher (with six dots).  Not only in the more
accurate printed editions of the chomosh (the more careful editions in
my house which i was able to quickly check - Mosad Harrav Kook-R. Breuer
and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgardensia - both render it zeikher/5 dots.
Korein also, though i don't like korein because, unlike R. Breuer and
BHS, one doesn't know their methodology or sources for girsoh decisions)
but even the less accurate but venerable editions such as Letteris all
have the 5 dotted zeikher as well.  i.e. there is no variant reading
suggestion anywhere - even of the dubious kind associated with the
zekher of poroshas zokhore**.  So what is going on here?  it would seem
that in its rendition of Sefer T'hillim in its siddur Art Scroll has
deliberately changed the pointing of Tanach, giving precedence to its
own preference for rendition of the "davening" Ashrei to the "Tanachic"
Ashrei.  (Though of course there is no difference since davening Ashrei
IS just the Tanachic Ashrei.) So how weird is that, and what could they
have been thinking?

Mechy Frankel                    

**But it is even odder than that.  There is a s'tiroh mi'AS al AS.  AS
itself has published a tanach and I find that it too (correctly) renders
a 5 dotted zeikher in Psalm 145.  Indeed my possibly faulty memory of
the Radak - presumably the source of the confusion over the Gra's true
minhog for zeikher in poroshas zokhore - specifically differentiates it
from T'hillim which radak acknowledges as a 5 pointed word.  (though why
anyone would suggest we give any credence to a non-masorete over the
Ba'alei Mesorah in this matter - and a s'faradi to boot who presumably
didn't/couldn't distinguish between tzeirehs and segols in his own
hebrew speech - is an inexplicable wonder.  and of course the same could
be said of "ashkenazi" hebrew during that period).  Looking through a
variety of siddurim in my house i find the majority (including popular
editions like Shiloh and metzudoh) correctly render the 5 pointed
zeikher, but at least one - a 1920's edition of the "S'fas Emes" siddur
by the old Hebrew Publishing Company had a 6 dotted zekher.  so this
wasn't invented by AS, but why they chose to propagate it, even to the
point of contradicting their own tanach is beyond my explanatory
powers. But maybe I need to get a life rather than worry about such


End of Volume 54 Issue 25