Volume 8 Number 65

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

         [Avi Feldblum]
Ironic Aspect of Hair Covering
         [Jack Reiner]
Lemon Heksherim?
         [Pinchas Edelson]
Midwest Flood Relief
         [James Diamond]
Missing nun in Ashrei
         [Benjamin Svetitsky]
         [Warren Burstein]
Unmarried females & Modesty
         [Yisrael Medad]
Women and Hamotzi
         [Michael Kramer]
Women and Learning
         [Ellen Krischer]
Women and Megila -- Change in Girsa
         [Anthony Fiorino]
Women's Mezuman
         [Susannah Greenberg]


From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 93
Subject: Administrivia

I'm still working on getting things back to working conditions. I know
you all got two copies of the last message, that should be corrected
now. I've started trying to bring back those people that joined between
7/19 and 7/28. I'm also trying to drop those people that had dropped
from the list during that period. Thanks for your patience and I think
we will back to full working conditions within a few days.

Avi Feldblum
your moderator at work


From: <jack@...> (Jack Reiner)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 09:47:56 CDT
Subject: Ironic Aspect of Hair Covering

>Good point. And this situation is even more ironic in those communities 
>in which married women shave their heads - something I could never
>Rena Whiteson 

In which communities do married women shave their heads?	

Jack Reiner
New Orleans, La.


From: Pinchas Edelson <Edelson@...>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 12:34:50 EDT
Subject: Lemon Heksherim?

The stores are selling Minute Maid Pink Lemonade with a triangle K
heksher on it. This product contains grape juice. It is easy to simply
not use the product, but I am also concerned about others who may not
have read the ingredients (if there was a problem with the kashrus of
this product). If anyone has more information, it would be greatly
appreciated and if I have new information I will post it.

Pinchas Edelson


From: James Diamond <diamond@...>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 13:04:06 -0400
Subject: Midwest Flood Relief

The current Midwest Mabul presents a great opportunity - and need - for
tzedakah contributions.  The Jewish community itself, at least as far as
St. Louis is concerned (I don't know about the situation further up the
Mississippi) is not being affected, B"H, since it is concentrated in an
area far from the 2 rivers that converge in this part of American Bavel.
But many, many other people are suffering, and the trauma will deepen in
a few weeks, when the water goes down and the full extent of the
devastation is revealed.

The Jewish Federation here has organized an effective response by the
Jewish community, expressed in dollars ($100,000 contributed so far) and
non-perishable food and supplies (cleaning material, baby goods.)

The need now is mostly for dollars.  If you are so inclined, you may send
a check to:
                                    Jewish Federation of St. Louis
                                    12 Millstone Campus
                                    St. Louis, MO. 63130
But be sure to mark your check "flood relief."

           James Diamond (Hillel Foundation, Washington University)


From: Benjamin Svetitsky <FNBENJ@...>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 93 18:48:12 -0400
Subject: Missing nun in Ashrei

The missing nun in Ashrei is discussed, naturally, in Amos Chacham's
commentary in the Mossad Harav Kook edition of Tehillim.  In a footnote,
he mentions that there is a Nun verse in the Septuagint: Neeman H'
bidvarav ve-chasid bechol ma'asav.  The Qumran scroll has the same
verse, except that H' is replaced by Elokim.  Chacham quotes Prof. David
Plosser (Flosser?  I don't know the man) as opining that the use of
Elokim instead of H' indicates that the verse is a forgery, since the
rest of the Psalm uses H'.

As far as the Septuagint, the Gemara points out that there are several
places where the translators unanimously (and miraculously?) changed the
text to prevent misreadings by the goyim.  Surely it is possible to come
up with a reason why inventing this verse would fit in with their
constraints, even thought the Gemara doesn't do so.

Ben Svetitsky        <fnbenj@...>


From: <warren@...> (Warren Burstein)
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 17:49:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Sunrise/Sunset

Hillel A. Meyers writes:

>   For algorithms for computing sunrise and sunset, the book entitled
>"Practical Astronomy with Your Calculator" provides the details.  The
>book was written by Patrick Duffett-Smith and published by Cambridge
>University Press.  The book is clear and easily understandable for the

Thanks for the reference.  I know someone who used to work at Cambridge,
I'm going to find out from her how to order a copy.

Can anyone suggest a place where we might find out how the halachic
times differ from the astronomical times, and how this difference can be

 |warren@      But the ***
/ nysernet.org is not worried at all.


From: OZER_BLUM%<YARDEN.DECNET@...> (Yisrael Medad)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 04:33:50 -0400
Subject: Unmarried females & Modesty

Digressing a bit on the subject of unmarried females not covering their
heads, covering their heads and the element of modesty (in Mea Shearim
two braids mean they are still available for marriage and one braid
means they have been betrothed - all uncovered), I would like to mention
a point that came up as a result of my activity on behalf of a Jewish
presence on the Temple Mount:

A reason for not permitting women up on the Temple Mount is a problem of
*plitah* (a halachic consideration that after sexual intimacy, there is
a semi-unclean period of three days which would make the woman
ineligible to enter even if she was technically clean, that is,
non-niddah to her husband).  When we pursued the matter for unmarried
women/young girls who could conceivably simply go to a mikveh, we were
told by Rav Shlomo Goren that whereas some Sepharadim have been known to
allow unmarrieds to cleanse themselves in a mikveh, the Ashkenazi custom
is to disallow the practice so as not to mix up the girl as if she could
possibly have relations, a consideration of modesty.

Yisrael Medad


From: <mpkramer@...> (Michael Kramer)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 13:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Women and Hamotzi

Forgive me if the following question has been asked before.  In the
households of several friends, it is the minhag on Shabbat for the
husband/father to say kiddush and for the wife/mother to say hamotzi.  I
know about the issue of women being motzi someone for kiddush: would the
same concerns (pro and con) be relevant in the issue of a woman's being
motzi someone for hamotzi?  Does anyone know if this minhag has any
halachik, midrashic, of historical sources?

Michael P. Kramer
UC Davis


From: <ellen.krischer@...> (Ellen Krischer)
Date: 29 Jul 1993  11:35 EDT
Subject: re: Women and Learning

Thank you Avi, for your wonderful juxtaposition in Vol. 8  #44

> From: Lawrence J. Teitelman  <csljt@...>
> Subject: Halakhic Analysis and the Desire for Change
>  ... Accordingly, it is rather disturbing
> when proponents of a spiritually-motivated institution -- whatever it
> may be -- are not equipped to deal with the related halakhic issues.

> From: <eposen@...> (Esther R Posen )
> Subject: Re: Modern Intelligent Orthodox Women
> How many women (or men) out there have plumbed the entire depths of all
> of TANACH and have exhausted all its material so that if they did not
> study Gemarrah or Talmud their Jewish education would be over.  Those
> women should approach their rabbinical authorities PRIVATELY to discuss
> what they should do to fill their needs for intellectual stimulation
> from their religion.

I cannot agree with Larry more - it is incredibly disturbing that women
are not equipped to deal with the halakhic issues.

And I contend that it is exactly the practices suggested by Esther -
that women should not spend their time worrying about "intellectually
stimulating" topics in Talmud and Responsa - that create the problem
that Larry bemoans.

(BTW, kudos to Leora Morgenstern for her excellent response to Esther
Posen's article.  It is indeed difficult to "do the right thing" when
you are "spared" the underlying explainations for what you are doing.)

Ellen Krischer


From: Anthony Fiorino <fiorino@...>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 17:57:56 -0400
Subject: Women and Megila -- Change in Girsa

I noticed a possible reading of my megila posting which I wish to
preclude with this addendum.  The last paragraph began "So women are
prohibited..."  but should have begun "So those who prohibit women from
reading the megila for men do so for 2 reasons."  This was the intended
meaning, though it was not clear.



From: Susannah Greenberg <sjg@...>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 09:27:56 -0400
Subject: Women's Mezuman

I wanted to add a piece of information that I received about Women's
Mezuman several years ago in Israel.  I went with a friend of mine to
visit the house of Rav Scheinberg (for those who are not familiar, is of
the most prominent Poskim in Israel) and asked him this question.  His
answer was (and these are his exact words) "the Minhag is not to".  I
didn't press him any further, but my understanding is that despite the
fact that strict Halacha permits it and perhaps requires it, "Minhag
Yisrael K'Din" (a Jewish custom has the strength of a law).  Since the
custom for many years had been not to make a Women's Mezuman, this
became the preferred course of action.

 |Susannah Greenberg                                          |
 |Bell Communications Research                                |
 |Piscataway, NJ  08855              <sjd@...>   |
 |Phone: (908) 699-5623               Fax: (908) 562-0104     |


End of Volume 8 Issue 65