Volume 56 Number 26
                    Produced: Wed Jan  9  5:06:26 EST 2008

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Characteristics of Frum Businesses (2)
         [Michael and Bonnie Rogovin, Frank Silbermann]
Intermarriage, Assimilation and Non Jewish Female Responsibility
         [Russell J Hendel]
Missing Simanim in Aruch Hashulchan
         [Ira L. Jacobson]
R. Shalom Carmy at ATID's 10th Annual Conference
         [Jeffrey Saks]
Zemanim on High (2)
         [Dr. William Gewirtz, Michael Frankel]


From: Michael and Bonnie Rogovin <rogovin@...>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:40:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Characteristics of Frum Businesses

I can only assume that those who find service and cleanliness in kosher
restaurants (not to mention to quality of food) "acceptable" have no
basis on which to compare. For a BT like myself, and also since I
occasionally join colleagues in non-kosher restaurants (with my packaged
meal of course), I can tell you that overall, the comparable-style
(though always cheaper) treif places have much better service, are
cleaner, decorated more tastefully and the food is (according to
colleagues who have joined me in kosher places) better prepared. It is a
sad truth, but since as others have noted, we patronize regardless,
there is little incentive except by those owners who know better and
truly care. There are a few exceptions, but that they are so notable
supports the basic thesis. While I don't pine so much for the food
itself, I do pine for the simple pleasures of a meal in a greek diner,
casual bistro and upscale steakhouse. Even the chain bakeries like au
bon pain in the Port Authority Bus Terminal are cleaner than the nicest
kosher bakeries in Queens or Teaneck. Sigh.  As for the recently closed
(but friendly, attractive and clean) bagel place in Teaneck, the only
other place with a comparable full menu is much filthier and has very
surly service. What does that tell you?

Michael Rogovin

From: Frank Silbermann <frank_silbermann@...>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 06:37:46 -0600
Subject:  Characteristics of Frum Businesses

I would ask those who complain about the level of service in frum-owned
businesses whether these businesses are large enough to employ gentile
service people.  If not, then you cannot expect them to offer the same
level of service for the money.  Frum workers are more expensive due to
their higher income needs (day school, weddings, bar/bat mitzvahs,
housing in a frum neighborhood).  Nor can you rely on frum teenagers to
supply much labor, because of all the studying they have to do.

To succeed, frum businesses must either rely substantially upon gentile
labor, or provide a kind of service that gentiles cannot provide.

Frank Silbermann                    Memphis, Tennessee


From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 09:28:15 -0500
Subject: Intermarriage, Assimilation and Non Jewish Female Responsibility

Several interesting points which change the way we look at the Rambam,
both positively and negatively, have been made since I requested more
participation in this intermarriage thread. Let me begin by addressing
Shoshana but then answering Jeneatte, Alex and Avi.

Shoshana spoke about the prevalance of Jewish Arab intermarriages. Let
us look at this psychologically. Some parts of Arab culture emphasize
female submissiveness. So if an Arab woman meets a Jewish man who treats
her like a person she can easily fall in love with him since he is
fuflfilling her needs. Similarly if this Jewish man has been abused in
the context of Jewish relationships he may find his needs met by an Arab
woman who sees her role as 2nd to that of the man (Albeit not thru
abusiveness). What happens is that they fall in love because they are
meeting each others needs.

Now let us get back to the Rambam. Neither party is intending to convert
the other person. They are not interested in religion. Their interest is
purely psychological. Perhaps the Imam marrying them wants the Jews to
convert to save his soul but the woman does not.

Before proceeding let me point out that Jewish-American relationships
are the same. The two people typically fulfill each others needs and are
in love. True they may get married in a church but we shouldn't use that
to accuse them of trying to convert each other.

I see the Jewish-Moabite situation the same. I previously cited Rav
HIrsch that even in Egypt people (like Pharoh's daughter) did not
blindly follow "orders." Pharoh's daughter saved Moses not for moral
reasons but because of psychological reasons (pity). I dont see a strong
reason to think that MOabite woman were any different. They did things
for emotional reasons (similar to my analysis of the arab and american
cases). As for sources (Avi's question) the sources blame Bilam. The
sources are silent on whether the moabite woman wanted to bring God's
wrath on the Jewish people. True they were punished but so were the
Egyptian women...People who follow orders (even if they disagree with
them) are punished (In passing I dont know why Avi was so angry at my
posting....I never contradicted that Bilam wanted to destroy the Jewish
people...I simply took one side in the MOabite case...I certainly did
not contradict any known source (or claim I knew more than original

We can now analyze the Rambam (Alex's / Jeanettes question). The Rambam
does use the word "intentionally." But what does "intentionally" mean.
Jeanette brought up that these people aren't trained in religion (sort
of like an infant that was taken captive).

Two points must therefore be made on "intentionality." (1st) True the
Jewish infant brought up by non-Jews does not have an intentional status
on sins he does but does have a 'negligent' status (Shogayg). The infant
is not considered "forced." This is the opinion accepted as Jewish law.
(2nd) Jewish law distinguishes between intention of action and intention
of consequence. For example if I tripped and fell onto somebody I do not
pay embarassment damages (Because embarassment requires intent). But if
I intentionally turned during the fall (to prevent my own damage) then I
do pay embarassment because "even though he didn't intend to embarass he
did intend the action and it is the intention of action that requires

We can now address Alex's and Jeanette's questions: Yes the Rambam says
"willfully" but it might be that all the Rambam required is willfulness
in intimacy. The willfullness in intimacy would translate to
willfullness of consequence (taking people away from the Jewish people)
EVEN THOUGH that was not their intent.

Jeanette's point has more strength: Why convict people who know nothing
about religion. They were brought up this way. I can meet Jeanette half
way (which I already have) You don't have to kill them. But
"negligently" doing something still entitles me to point a finger. I can
still accuse them of destroying the Jewish people. Jeanette will ask why
and I will point out that that is the ruling with a Jewish infant
brought up by non-Jews - he is NEGLIGENT not FORCED. He is suppose to
know that there is a God and He gave a Torah but because of his
upbringing we will not call this intentional (Perhaps then the thread
should shift gears and focus on why the "brought up Jewish infant in
captivity" is considered negligent.)

I believe there are still many topics here that can be discussed further.

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


From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:49:33 +0200
Subject: Re: Missing Simanim in Aruch Hashulchan

REW stated the following in mail-jewish Vol. 56 #24 Digest:

      As I was searching for something in the Aruch HaShulchan, I
      discovered that Vol. 1 Yoreh Deah ends with Siman 122 and
      Vol. 2 Yoreh Deah starts with Siman 183. That means that
      there are around 60 Simanim in Yoreh Deah that was not
      elaborated upon by the Aruch HaShulchan. Are there are
      readers who have any idea why this is so.

In my edition, Vol. I goes up to siman 60 (Warsaw 1901).  Then a new
part (Warsaw 1897) bound together with the first goes from siman 61 to
siman 78.  Vol. II goes from siman 79 to siman 97 (Warsaw 1897).  Then a
new part begins in the same volume (no title page) and goes from siman
98 to siman 122.  Then a new part begins in the same volume (Warsaw
1904) and goes from siman 183 to siman 202.  Vol. III (Vilna 1929) goes
from siman 240 to siman 304.  And then another part in the same volume
(Vilna 1925) goes from siman 305 to siman 403.

The same simanim are missing as in REW's set, plus those from 203 to
239.  One might have thought that this could be explained by the
different publishers, and the purchaser putting together partial sets.

It is stated clearly However, 

 that simanim 123 through 182 and 203 through 239 were missing from the
original.  The reason is not given.

IRA L. JACOBSON         

[My attempt to follow this link did not work. Mod.]


From: Jeffrey Saks <atid@...>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:41:07 +0200
Subject: R. Shalom Carmy at ATID's 10th Annual Conference

ATID's 10th Annual Mid-Winter Conference
Rabbi Shalom Carmy, Yeshiva University, NY
Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Menachem Begin Heritage Center, Jerusalem

Whether or not education is wasted on the young, we often fail to
consider sufficiently how it continues after school's out. This includes
intellectual growth, which often is frozen at graduation, or regresses
because of new challenges in budgeting of time; and emotional growth,
which first begins with adulthood and its challenges. Other specific
issues have to do with awareness of one's limitations, due to time
pressure and encroaching mortality, and the changing nature of relations
to teachers and rabbis as one grows older. How can teachers and parents
set children on a path for lifelong religious, spiritual and
intellectual growth? What can we as adults do to avoid the pitfalls of
religious inertia?

7:45 PM Refreshments
8:00 PM Rabbi Shalom Carmy in dialogue with
Rabbi Chaim Brovender, President, ATID Foundation

Rabbi Shalom Carmy is professor of Bible, Philosophy, and Jewish Thought
at Yeshiva University in New York. He is the editor of Tradition: A
Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, has authored scores of essays, and
edited volumes for the Orthodox Forum series, as well as Rabbi
Soloveitchik's writings on tefillah for the Otzar HaRav series. Rabbi
Carmy's essays can be sampled at: www.atid.org/resources/carmy.asp

Rabbi Carmy's lecture is being held as part of the intensive week he is
spending in Jerusalem, mentoring and teaching at ATID, as our 2008
Scholar-in-Residence.  RSVP to ATID 02-567-1719 or <office@...>

Rabbi Carmy will deliver a shiur on Parshat HaShavua in English
Thursday, January 17 at 8:00 PM Ohel Nechama, 3 Chopin Street, Jerusalem

Rabbi Jeffrey Saks
Director, ATID - Academy for Torah Initiatives and Directions
9 HaNassi St., Jerusalem 92188 ISRAEL
Tel. 02.567.1719 | Cell 052.321.4884 | Fax 02.567.1723
E-mail: <atid@...> | www.atid.org | www.WebYeshiva.org


From: <wgewirtz@...> (Dr. William Gewirtz)
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:16:52 +0000
Subject: Zemanim on High

There is a dispute among poskim: does 1) darkness/appearance of the sky
or 2) the appearance of stars define the end of shabbat; the other just
being an indication.  Building on Mechy Frankel's point, the gemara
about the righteousness of the residents of Teveryah/Tzippori as it is
meant to apply to the end of shabbat as well, is a bit difficult if one
is comparing visibility of stars.  I believe one of the Geonim interpret
the gemara assuming that they were observing the horizon and sky (and
not stars.)  I would argue that the gemara is supportive of that
position; however, those who consider stars as defining (the Gaon, for
example) might argue that perhaps at their altitude, see ing mo re
illumination on the western horizon (or some difference between the
eastern horizon and the apex of the sky) made them hesitant to end
Shabbat despite the defining appearance of 3 stars.  I do not remember
RMF's tshuva in detail either, but i believe he quotes one of the
geonim.  Benish discusses this at length and there was a charedi
pamphlet on this issue about 2-3 years ago, that was a bit over the top!

From: Michael Frankel <michaeljfrankel@...>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:39:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Zemanim on High

<From: Andy Goldfinger <Andy.Goldfinger@...>
>> Regarding the times of sunset or sunrise in high or low places, there
>> was some mention of Denver.  Please note that it is not the ABSOLUTE
>> height of the location that causes a variation in the sunrise/sunset
>> times, but the height RELATIVE to the surrounding terrain (except for
>> a very small and negligible effect).  Hence, since Denver is
>> surrounded by plains that are at about the same altitude (excluding
>> the mountains to the west), there should be no difference between its
>> zmanim and those at sea level.

> That is correct, but could use quantification.  Thus the surrounding
> plateau needs to cover the distance to the horizon for sea level
> z'manim to apply. (As andy says, with a negligible correction - at
> denver we're at a different earth radius, which counts only a little).
> So the surrounding plateau needs to be something close to 3 miles (the
> horizon for for average height people).

after quickly sending out above I realized that my own remark should
also contain a caveat, which is that a three mile radius plateau should
ensure the same sea level z'monim, as long as any hills beyond do not
intrude over the three mile horizon.  however, If a mountain range
beyond is still sticking up that obviously changes observed rise/set
times.  i remember being on the seemingly endless flat plains at white
sands new mexico waiting for sun rise (we needed calm air) keeping a
nervous eye on a herd of grazing ibex about 50 yards off (they're big
and have really wicked looking horns) while looking at the surrounding
mountains which must have been fifty miles off.  so 3 miles for the
surrounding terrain only if no big stuff visible beyond horizon.

Mechy Frankel


End of Volume 56 Issue 26