Volume 12 Number 09
Produced: Tue Mar 8 1:23:21 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Depression
[Mike Gerver]
disobeying parents
[Steve Roth]
Esther
[Elchanan Rappaport]
Grammar Question
[Finley Shapiro]
Holocaust Museum and Kohanim
[Uri Meth]
Intimidation of Dayanim
[Saul Djanogly]
Logic and Halacha
[Mike Gerver]
Name of Ger with Jewish Father
[Mike Gerver]
Non-sulfited wine
[sue zakar]
Pronounciation
[Yisroel Rotman]
Rashi's Torah
[Ari Kurtz]
Sutures on Shabbos
[Barry Greenberg]
The word Me'oraot
[Ezra Rosenfeld]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <GERVER@...> (Mike Gerver)
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 2:34:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Depression
In v11n85, Saul Djanogly speculates that "depression is a modern illness,
the dark side of our modern culture of entitlement." I'm not a psychologist,
but it seems to me that even a cursory reading of Shmuel Aleph [first
book of Samuel] shows that Saul's namesake, King Saul, suffered from some
form of clinical depression. Also, since changes in brain chemistry are a
big part of the cause of depression (although not the whole story), and I
wouldn't expect brain chemistry to change much during human history, I
would be surprised if depression did not always exist in some form.
Of course, the particular form that depression and other mental illness
takes _is_ strongly influenced by society. A friend who is a psychologist
once told me that hysterical paralysis, which was very common among women
in the 19th century, is now almost unknown, presumably due to the changing
role of women.
Mike Gerver, <gerver@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rot8@...> (Steve Roth)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 1994 22:53:23 +0000
Subject: disobeying parents
>Based on my knowledge of halachah, the only circumstance under which one
>can disobey a parent is when the parent asks the child to do an act
>which is contrary to halachah. To my mind, it seems that Shai Fhima is
>showing gross dishonor to his parents by not contacting them for over 2
>years. But there were individuals who were helping him survive, feeding
>him, etc. Are these "accomplices" free from culpability in this case?
>I invite a halachic perspective on this case.
There are several other reasons for disobeying parents, including living
in eretz yisrael, choice of yeshiva, where to daven,whom to marry, and
others. The basic sevora is that these mitzvos could be more important
than kibud av v'aim. There is an excellent little sefer called Sefer
Moreh Horeim Ukavodom, by Harav Naftali Yonah (from Yerushalayim); look
at Chapter 11 where he discusses this in detail.
Steve Roth, M.D.
email: <rot8@...>
312-702-4549 (voice), 312-702-3535 (FAX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <ELCHANAN@...> (Elchanan Rappaport)
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 94 14:36:01 IDT
Subject: Esther
As long as it's still Adar, I'll ask if anyone has any insight on one
aspect of the Purim story which troubles me greatly. (Yes, I know,
there are many troubling aspects.)
The one I'm referring to is Esther's personal tragedy. She is
doomed to living out her life as the "wife" of a non-Jewish
boor / wicked king, depending which opinion you follow.
If you count the opinion that she started out the story being married
to the gadol ha-dor, it makes the tragedy even worse.
But the part about this that REALLY troubles me is the question of
her descendents. The irony in Mordechai's message to her "...v'at
u'vais avicha tovaidu..." is that it appears her offspring do not
remain part of Klal Yisrael in any case. Even if her son Darius
does give permission for the Jews to return, does he or any of her
her children, grandchildren, etc. become and remain part of the
Jewish nation?
I not aware of any sources that say they do. If anyone is aware of
any, or has some logical insight into this, it would be most welcome.
Elchanan Rappaport
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Finley Shapiro <Finley_Shapiro@...>
Date: 6 Mar 1994 18:16:13 U
Subject: Grammar Question
In this past week's torah reading, Shemot (Exodus) chapter 35, verse 25
has the word "va-ya-viy-u." Why isn't it "va-ta-viy-u" as the implied
subject of the verb in the Hebrew sentence seems to be "women" so that
the verb should be feminine plural? All of the English translations I
checked clearly make "women" the subject of the verb.
Finley Shapiro
<shapiro@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <umeth@...> (Uri Meth)
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 09:47:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Holocaust Museum and Kohanim
In v12n03, Eric Mack asks:
>Keeping in mind that this list does not pasken, can anybody advise
>me whether a Kohen may visit the Holocaust Museum?
I assume you are referring to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. I
had the same question a couple of months ago. My brother who lives in
Baltimore asked Rabbi Anemer, head of the Vaad of the Greater Washington
area (he is a Rov of a shul in Silver Spring) and he said that it was
permissable for a Kohain to go to this museum.
Uri Meth (215) 674-0200 (voice)
SEMCOR, Inc. (215) 443-0474 (fax)
65 West Street Road <umeth@...>
Suite C-100
Warminster, PA 18974
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <saul@...> (Saul Djanogly)
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 94 14:13:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Intimidation of Dayanim
A recent posting suggested that a Dayan,according to some authorities,is
allowed to falsify Halacha to save his life.This maybe the case if there is
no alternative but the Poskim only talk about a Dayan withdrawing from a case
when threatened.
The Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 23.1. says a Dayan must judge even when his
son's life is threatened.
The Radvaz explains he can proceed because the community can protect him.
Presumably then, a Dayan could stand down if the community could not protect
him adequately.The Pitchei Teshuva in Choshen Mishpat also holds that a Dayan
can withdraw but only if life is at risk.
See Minchat Chinuch Mitzvah 315 who says that the above applies equally to
Non-Jewish judges under Noachide law.
saul djanogly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <GERVER@...> (Mike Gerver)
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 3:40:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Logic and Halacha
"Yasher Koach!" (or whatever) to Mitch Berger, whose posting in v11n92 is
one of the best I have read in the 2 years I have been reading mail-jewish.
Several years ago when I was learning mishnayot of yibamot [levirate marriage],
it seemed to me that certain halachot could best be understood if the yebamah
[widow whose husband left no children] was considered to be in a super-
position of being married to each potential yibum [each of her late husband's
brothers]. Only when yibum or chalitzah was performed did the "wave function"
collapse, after which she was definitely married to only one of them, or to
none of them.
I'd be interested in knowing if this idea has been brought up in any
traditional or recent commentary on yibamot.
Mike Gerver, <gerver@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <GERVER@...> (Mike Gerver)
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 0:39:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Name of Ger with Jewish Father
Stephen Phillips, in v11n99, discusses the name given a ger [convert]
who has a Jewish father, and says
>I don't think that there is any question that in documents such as a
>Kesubah it should be Yisroel ben Avrohom Ovinu. Has anyone had any
>experiences in this regard that they might be prepared to share with
>us?
I've told this story here before, maybe a year and a half ago, but I'll
repeat it because it is directly relevant. Many years ago I went to the
wedding of a woman whose father was Jewish (in fact a kohen) and whose
mother was a Reform convert. Some time after the woman was born, her
mother underwent a halachic (Orthodox) conversion (and had to divorce her
husband because he was a kohen), and so did the woman, since according to
halacha she was not Jewish when she was born. When the ketubah was read
at the wedding, I noticed that the bride's name was given as "so-and-so
bat so-and-so ha-kohen." I later asked the rabbi about this, saying I
would have expected the name to be "...bat Avraham Avinu." He said that
in fact a convert is not required to use "ben/bat Avraham Avinu" in
his or her name, but can choose any name, although it is customary to use
"Avraham Avinu" as the patronymic. In this case, I suppose the bride did
not want to embarrass her father (who was at the wedding) by publicly
calling attention to her past history, and chose to use her father's name
as her patronymic, even though halachically he would not be considered
her father.
Mike Gerver, <gerver@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <sue.zakar@...> (sue zakar)
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 1994 22:44:26
Subject: Non-sulfited wine
Does anyone know of a kosher wines or grape juices that do not have
sulfites added to them? It would be nice to drink wine this Pesach, but
I have a nasty allergy to the sulfites that seem to be in all of them
available here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisroel Rotman <SROTMAN@...>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 94 8:14 0200
Subject: Pronounciation
I have been following the discussions on various pronounciations with
great interest. In particular, the concept that many of the Ashkenazic
pronounciations are consistent with Mishnaic rather than Biblical hebrew
is fascinating.
Some questions arise:
1. Did the Rabbis in the time of the Mishna realize that their
pronounciation differed from that during the first temple?
2. When the Rabbis state that one should be careful in the way that
Shma is read, were they conciously suggesting that the Biblical
pronounciation must be used for Shma, or where they merely saying that
one should be careful with the pronounciation then common (the Mishnaic
pronounciation)?
3. Finally, if it is agreed that Hebrew pronouciation can develop (from
the Biblical to the Mishnaic period), why can we not say that modern
hebrew is merely a continuing evolution, and hence our whole discussion
of ancient Hebrew grammer is not relevant to how we should pray nowaday?
Yisroel Rotman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Kurtz <s1553072@...>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 20:57:43 +0200
Subject: Rashi's Torah
in regards to Howard Reich's closeing question about the inconsistensy
between quotes from the tanach by the Sages in the Midrash and the
accepted text today. Most of the Sages quotes from the tanach are
misquoted as this is also obvious in the Talmud this missmatching
derives from the custom of that time not to reproduce quotes from the
tanach . Therefore there is no validify of proof through quotes of the
Sages in the Midrash
Ari Kurtz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barry Greenberg <AER9801@...>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 94 10:06:22 IST
Subject: Sutures on Shabbos
In response to Yitzhak Adlerstein's question concerning sutures on shabbos:
I suggest you look in Nishmat Avraham by Dr. A.S. Abraham - Chelek 4,
Orach Chaim, Hilchot Shabbat, Siman 340, Se'if 6, gloss 2 (pages 59-63 in
the edition I have) - where the topic you ask about is discussed at great
length.
Barry Greenberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Rosenfeld <zomet@...>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 06:59:26 -0500 (CST)
Subject: The word Me'oraot
I think that the word Me'oraot is similar to the word Ma'achalot (foods)
and that we are dealing with "Rabbinic" Hebrew rather than what is
today considered "correct" grammatical Hebrew. The Rambam, for example,
refers to Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot (The Laws of Prohibited Foods)
rather than "Ma'achalot Asurim" which would be considered
grammatically correct hebrew.
Regarding the inclusion of "annaynu .." in "Shma Koleinu", I think that some
of the Sefaradim routinely include much of this prayer in the Bracha of
"Bareich Aleianu.
Ezra Rosenfeld
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 12 Issue 9
