Volume 8 Number 25

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

         [Avi Feldblum]
Aliyot on Shabbat
         [Aaron Naiman]
Birkat Cohanim
         [Lon Eisenberg]
         [Evelyn Leeper]
Mars Inc Supervision
         [Reuven Bell]
Matbeah Shel Brachot
         [Josh Rapps]
Pepsi and Supervision
         [B Lehman]
Three Fourths of a Lulav
         [Gilbey Julian]
Vaad Hatzolah (2)
         [Moshe E. Rappoport, Moshe Sherman]
         [Shaul Wallach]


From: mljewish (Avi Feldblum)
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1993 07:44:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Administrivia

Found the problem with the previous sending out of this message, it
should be fixed now and here is the complete mail-jewish volume 8 number

Avi Feldblum
mail.jewish Moderator


From: <naiman@...> (Aaron Naiman)
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 93 18:04:02 -0400
Subject: Aliyot on Shabbat

Orin d Golubtchik <ogolubtc@...> asked:

" ... whether there is, and if so what is the makor (source) for
reading 7 aliyot on Shabbat."

The mishna in the forth chapter of Tractate Migeela says how we never
have less than three aliyot (opposite the Torah, Nivee'eem and
Kitooveem), and that we add at least one aliya when there is a musaf
tifeela, like on Rosh Chodesh or Chol HaMoed.  We then have another one
(totalling five) on a chag [holiday], because of the issur milacha
[creative work prohibition], and another (six) on Yom Kippur because of
the added issur milacha, even with regard to tzorech ochel nefesh [food
requirements].  We finally get to seven for Shabbat which has the same
level of issur milacha as Yom Kippur, but a more strict punishment
(sikeela [stoning] rather than karet [a heavenly form of being cut

(Much of the explanation is based on from Rav Kahati's commentary on the
mishna, quoting the traditional commentators.)

Aaron Naiman | MRJ, Inc.      | University of Maryland, Dept. of Mathematics
             | <naiman@...> | naiman@math.umd.edu


From: <eisenbrg@...> (Lon Eisenberg)
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 93 18:04:18 -0400
Subject: Birkat Cohanim

The "Jerusalm" custom of birkat Cohanim every morning, as well as for musaf
and minhah on a fast day, is kept in most of Israel; however, in the Galilee,
the prevailing custom is to say it only for musaf (I'm not sure about minhah
on a fast day), so most days, it is not said.


From: <Evelyn.Chimelis.Leeper@...> (Evelyn Leeper)
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 93 18:03:59 -0400
Subject: Re: M&M's

> The wrapper is actually quite fascinating because in addition to the
> English writing it has an inscription in Malay (I think?) for
> distribution in Singapore/Malaysia.  On top of that is the sticker in
> Hebrew.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Malay turned out to be a "halal"
certification for Muslim consumers.

Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | <ecl@...> /


From: <rbell@...> (Reuven Bell)
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 93 18:03:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Mars Inc Supervision

As far as the Mars, Inc. products that have Supervision are concerned, I
know that they used to have the Hashgacha of the Chief Rabbi of Zurich,
Rav Peron, but he returned to Israel in 1992 and has since been replaced
by Rav Kosowsky.  I have know idea if this Hashgacha has been continued
under Rav Kosowsky's supervision.  The best way to find out would be to
ask someone in Israel, as these products are commonly found there, but
are not available in America.

Reuven Bell


From: <jr@...> (Josh Rapps)
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 93 18:03:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Matbeah Shel Brachot

Additional sources: Gemara Pesachim 7a-7b. See Tosfot 7a D'H Bilevaer
and 7b Tosefot D'H Vehilcheta (interesting debate about rhyne/reason
on the berachot).
Also See the Rambam Hichot Berachot Perek 11 where the Rambam classifies
the Berachot according to categories.

josh rapps


From: <BLEHMAN@...> (B Lehman)
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 93 18:03:16 -0400
Subject: RE: Pepsi and Supervision

At the risk of repeating what i wrote several weeks ago, What Shaul
posted re the Pepsi decision; though the motive of the Badatz might have
been as per the conclusion of the posting, ie. to try and make Israel a
state with a more "religious" atmosphere, never the less I would think
that that should be seen as a side benefit, and not the cause.  The
Badatz hechsher is meant for the charedi community. This community
demands that "kosher" items can not be representative of companies that
support activities that are in violation of halacha (or even the
atmosphere of halacha).
 Pepsy loudly transgressed this issue and the Badatz could no longer
make the claim that Pepsy is "CHAREDI" kosher. That is all. It is still
kosher, and in my opinion the Israeli Rabbinate should be able to say
that Pepsi is kosher.
    Any non government kashrut committee can decide on curtain standards
and the customers (both the manufacturers and the people who buy) will
decide what they want.


From: <julian@...> (Gilbey Julian)
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 93 22:36:05 +0300
Subject: Three Fourths of a Lulav

In v8n13, Arthur Roth writes about women's prayer groups.  Part of the
argument involves making an analogy with shaking only three out of the
four species (Lulav etc.).  I am not going to attack the main
argument, for I have not done any research into the subject of Birchot
Hatorah, but I do want to comment on the lulav.

>     Suppose someone performs a positive commandment incorrectly.  Then
> he is still obligated to perform it correctly, but he has in most cases
> committed no sin.  For example, suppose someone shakes a lulav using
> only 3 of the 4 minim.  Ignoring the issue of the bracha, which is a
> totally separate issue (i.e., the mitzvah of lulav is fulfilled if the
> shaking is done correctly even if the bracha is not made at all), this
> person is still obligated to shake a proper lulav that day, but he has
> not done anything wrong.  There is no PROHIBITION against shaking a
> lulav that doesn't satisfy the halachic specifications.

There are two relevant verses for this case.  The first is D'varim
4:2: "Do not add onto the thing which I command you, and do not
detract from it,...."  The second is D'varim 13:1: "All of the thing
which I command you, you shall be careful to do it, do not add onto it
and do not detract from it."  
On the latter verse, the comment of the Siphre (the halachik midrash
on B'midbar and D'varim) says: 
"`Do not add onto it': From where do we know that one does not add on
to the lulav or to tzitzit?  The verse says: `Do not add onto it.'
And from where do we know that one does not detract from them?  The
verse says: `and do not detract from it.'"

Thus we see that the idea of shaking the lulav incorrectly IS a
problem, and not just the lack of a positive mitzva.  The g'mara does
not actually discuss the issue of Bal Tigra` (do not detract) in this
context, but the Rashb"a holds that this is not a problem - the only
case in which one transgresses the prohibition of Bal Tigra` is when
one actually fulfills the mitzvah, but without doing all of it.  For
an example, see the discussion in Rosh Hashana 28b.  Most of the
sources I have seen quoting the Rashb"a argue against him, based on
the fact that he appears to have no earlier sources backing him up,
and the Siphre against him.  So it appears that to shake a lulav on
Succot without one of the four species would not be such a good idea.
Mind you, it's not so difficult nowadays to get all four species. 8-)

[BTW, in the discussion on women's prayer groups, twice the hebrew
phrase for `Due to our many sins' has been misquoted.  The phrase
should be: `B'`avonotainu Harabim' (or B'`avonosainu), based on the word
`avon meaning sin.  Hopefully we will not have much further need for
such a phrase.]



From: Moshe E. Rappoport <mer@...>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 93 18:04:07 -0400
Subject: Vaad Hatzolah

Another book on their activities is "Heroine of Rescue" the story
of Recha Sternbuch and her helpers - who risked their lives and also spent
their personal fortunes getting people out of Europe during and after WWII.

M. E. Rappoport - Zurich Research Lab

From: <MSHERMAN@...> (Moshe Sherman)
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 09:10 EDT
Subject: Vaad Hatzolah

Reference has been made to A. Rothkoff's book on R. Eliezer Silver and
to the biography of Bunim. Far more important are the letters, doc
records and assorted documents of the Vaad Hatzoloh located at the
archives of Yeshiva University.  Y.U. obtained the records about ten
years ago. Happily, the Vaad Hatzoloh records have been catalogued by
the staff at Y.U. and a printed catalogue is available for those
interested in using primary documents.
        . . . .  Moshe Sherman,   Rutgers U.


From: Shaul Wallach <F66204@...>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 93 18:04:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Wigs

     Elisheva Schwartz asks about wigs:

>Much of the discussion so far has implicitly ranked non-wig head
>coverings as less halakhically problematic than wigs.  This makes sense
>to me, as well.
>Does anyone know, however, where the opposite sfora comes from?:
>namely, that a wig is more correct than a scarf?  In Boro Park there
>are yeshivas and Beis Yaakovs that won't accept children of women who
>cover their hair with a scarf (and I mean cover every hair, so that's
>not the question) but only if she wears a wig.  (?!)

      Here in Israel I've heard of similar examples. There might
be some social considerations involved, but in the absence of any
first-hand information I would rather not suggest what they
might be.

     On the halakhic side, the only thing I can think of right
now is what R. Moshe Sternbuch wrote in a book (can't remember
the name at the moment) in reply to R. Ovadia Yosef's famous
ruling. He argued on the basis of the Rambam (who required a
redid or veil in addition to the scarf) that Dat Yehudit required
a woman to cover her hair with two coverings. A scarf is only one
covering, while a wig is two - the net and the hair attached to
it - so the wig is preferable.


Shaul Wallach


End of Volume 8 Issue 25