Volume 13 Number 57
Produced: Mon Jun 13 18:46:29 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Bat Kol and Sinai
[Barry Freundel]
Chalov Yisrael
[Frank Silbermann]
Cholov Israel, kashrut of vessels from cholov akum
[Michael Chaim Katzenelson]
Hebrew Standard
["Ben Berliant, x72032"]
Isaiah and Current Events
[Mitchel Berger]
Separation of Church and State
[Ira Rosen]
Yosef & Bitachon
[Robert Ungar]
Yosef and Bitachon
[Hillel E. Markowitz]
Zionism and Sephardic Pronunciation
[Sam Juni]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Dialectic@...> (Barry Freundel)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 1994 13:36:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Bat Kol and Sinai
The difference between Bat Kol and Sinai is the level of prophecy. Only
Mosaic level prophecy can carry Halachik imperative that is eternal. In
fact acc. the Rambam prophecy is in effect a homonym conveying two
different meanings when applied to Moses as opposed to anyone else
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 1994 10:14:26 -0400
Subject: Chalov Yisrael
> Bruce mentioned that if you don't hold from R' Moshe (re Cholov Stam)
> the pots would become assur.
I disagree with the view that Cholov Stam is _only_ permitted because of
R' Moshe's heter. R' Moshe was a relative latecomer on the American
scene; I do not believe that all American Orthodox rabbis before him
refused to drink Cholov Stam.
R' Moshe did not _establish_ the permissibility of drinking Chalov Stam
in America. We quote R' Moshe because he was the most _authoritative_
posek to permit it.
For example, a friend who got smicha at the Brisker yeshiva in Chicago
quoted R. Aharon Soleveitchik telling his students that, because of
government law and supervision, Cholov Yisrael in America is simply not
an issue! My friend's understanding of his view is that American Cholov
Stam _satisfies_ the Halacha, i.e. drinking it does not even require a
heter.
Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Tulane University New Orleans, Louisiana USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nelson%<bnlmcn.dnet@...> (Michael Chaim Katzenelson)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 94 17:37:39 -0400
Subject: Cholov Israel, kashrut of vessels from cholov akum
It was recently suggested in this forum that pots used with cholov akum
might not become assur.
I know that there are poskim who do not hold like that.
For example:
A prominent Rav recently told me that in "certain circumstances", we can
apply the requirement of koshering the kalim to just the kali-rishon.
On a previous occasion the Rav told me that we do not accept the argument
that supervision by the government is sufficient.
It seems clear that the Rav holds that we kosher the kalim.
Hopefully nobody has implemented the idea, that the pots are kosher for
someone who does not accept cholov akum, without first asking their Rav.
(I have not mentioned the name of my Rav because I have not asked
his permission to cite him in this forum).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ben Berliant, x72032" <C14BZB@...>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 13:04:50 -0400
Subject: Hebrew Standard
>From: Reuben Gellman <rsg@...>
>"Tsereh bitten the dust?" "Accent on the first syllable?" Dunno who made
>that claim, but I sure know many speakers of ivrit who don't subscribe
>to that.
I hate to disagree with my good friend Reuven Gellman, but I DO
find that most Israeli speakers of Hebrew have almost eliminated the
Tzeireh from their speech -- as they have eliminated all Tenuot Gedolot
(long vowels) by using the corresponding tenuah ketana (short vowel)
instead.
Thus, I generally hear "Sefer" instead of "Seifer", "ken"
instead of "kein", (and "olam" instead of "oh-lam") etc. The only time
the Tzeireh will appear is where it is followed by a "yud" as in
"acharei".
As for accents on the first syllable, I agree that most spakers
of Hebrew will put the accents correctly on the last syllable (in most
cases). Accents in the first syllable seem to arise from influences of
other languages. -- or else from the influences of various song writers,
(As in the old song, "VayHI BiySHUrun MElech...")
BenZion Berliant
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mitchel Berger <aishdas@...>
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 1994 11:22:22 -0400
Subject: Isaiah and Current Events
In v13n33 Arnie Kuzmack cogently writes:
> Isaiah, of course, was preaching against the policy of forming an
> alliance with Egypt against Assyria. The relevance of this to Israel's
> current situation escapes me.
In general, no prophesy would have made it into the Tana"kh if it didn't
have some lasting message. Therefor, I would assume the verse has a
second, less immediate meaning.
More directly, Rash"i says the verse has a secondary reference to the
era immediately pre-messiana. Clearly he is reading a subtext here.
> Micha interprets the passage as warning against "peace treaties with
> terrorists". Aside from the fact that it is about a military alliance
> and not a peace treaty, the connection with terrorists is spurious. The
> only link is that Targum Yonatan explains "sheol" as "machbila".
Which I think is noteworthy, since the word usually means nether-most.
> But the use of the root chet-bet-lamed for "terrorist" is a 20th century
> innovation. ... In this case, the root means, simply,
> "destruction". The Targum is explaining "sheol" in the text as
> "destruction", which fits nicely with the context.
Chaval would be destruction, injury, or to wrong, to be violent (see
Jastrow). Mechabila would therefor be people who regularly causes
destruction or violence. (Much like tzedek - justice, matzdik - one
who/that jstifies.) It sure sounds like what we mean by "terrorist" to
me.
But more importantly than any of those things, the whole thing was
intended homiletically. One can't get practical halachah out of a
nevu'ah [prophecy] anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira Rosen <irosen@...>
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 94 14:20:08 EDT
Subject: Separation of Church and State
Though the pragmatic argument still wins in most cases (government
closed on Christmas, NY schools on high holidays also) the trend in the
US towards the increased inclusion of religion (read, yet again:
Christianity) makes me nervous. The president has every right to light
up a tree celebrating his holiday, but it annoys me that a tiny portion
of my donation to the IRS paid for it (let an outside group fund it as
Chabad does for the Menorah - or will someone tell me it is already
funded by a group other than the gov't?).
To Jules Reichel's point concerning help with scheduling by religious
Christians: i will give you no argument on the individual level. I have
found that individuals who believe strongly in their religions respect
my belief in judaism in a more profound way than non-religious Jews. As
individuals, many have allowed me to do a better job practicing Judaism.
However, on the grand scale, it is the Pat Robertsons and Billy Grahams
of the world that try to help the Jews (with support for Israel,
religious expression, etc.) in our interactions with the gov't. These
individuals and the groups that they represent frighten me. They would
rather convert us, but will help us until we 'see the light' (yes - this
liberal jew is either paranoid or correct - you may choose which).
I fear that although legally, as Daniel Barenholtz points out, as long
as something has a purpose other than religious is allowable, it is not
easy to set a line up that can't be crossed. Are Christian hymns
allowable in public school music classes, simply because they have nice
tunes? Should blue laws be accepted as a method of traffic reduction?
Should Christmas be accepted as secular just because of the number of
sales (the current trend in billboards and bumper stickers around the
holiday season seemed to be - 'Put the CHRIST back in Christmas')?
These are questions to which i have trouble saying 'yes'. I don't know
where the rationalizations of a religious institution having another
purpose (thus making it acceptable for gov't sponsorship) will stop.
Perhaps I fear needlessly, but history tells me otherwise.
Proud to be a politically liberal, American, orthodox Jew,
- Ira Rosen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <robert.a.ungar@...> (Robert Ungar)
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 94 22:27:57 -0700
Subject: Yosef & Bitachon
An interesting & somewhat novel interpretation of Yosef's error in
relying on the sar hamashkim (official cupbearer) is brought down by the
Chazon Ish in his sefer "Emunah U'bitachon" He delineates varying
degrees of hishtadlus (effort) that are not only permissible, but are in
fact obligatory in various circumstances. Yosef's sin did not lie in
that he expended efforts to extricate himself from prison...Indeed he
had an OBLIGATION to do so. His sin was made evident however, by the
almost irrational means he went about doing this. The cupbearer was not
on the same social stratum as the king and would ordinarily not be
engaged in social conversation with him. The fact that Yosef asked the
sar hamashkim to remember him to Pharoh SHOWED that he lacked bitachon
(faith) and thus became hopeless. When hope is lost one begins to clutch
at straws and seek implausible solutions. Perhaps he should have written
letters to his congressman or to the Egyptian Civil Liberties Union...
Robert Ungar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel E. Markowitz <HEM@...>
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 1994 15:27:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Yosef and Bitachon
>From: <ask@...> (Art Kamlet)
>So why wait two years? Joseph had learned that interpretation of dreams
>comes from G-d before he asked the butler to put in a good word for him.
>He does not seem to be acting very differently. He says before the two
>years: G-d interprets dreams. Having spent two more years in jail for
>trying to help himself, he is finally released, and he says: G-d
>interprets dreams. How does Joseph saying It all comes from G-d, teach
>us he has learned anything?
Two explanations:
I believe that Nechama Leibowitz in her Parsha studies talks about this.
This is from memory so it could be wrong. If Yosef had gotten out right
away, then he would have been in the position to open up a dream shop,
or to go home, but he would not have been in the position to become the
viceroy of Egypt. Hashem waited the two years in order for Pharoah's
dream to come at the correct time and Yosef to be in the correct
position for all the subsequent events to unfold.
A second explanation is that Yosef (at his level) should have said
something on the order of "Hashem may have sent you here in order to be
the means of my release. Therefore, please remember me when you return
to Pharoah." THe way he said it showed that he had lapsed in his
bitachon (though he could have still tried to use the butler as the
means Hashem had provided).
>And most importantly, how does the Torah teach us how to act if we were
>falsely accused of a crime, and imprisoned, and saw a chance to get a
>good word about us to the outside?
One should try to use any natural means to get out but it is a fine line
that must be walked to remember that Hashem is providing the opportunity
and the results.
<Insert story of man drowning with truck, boat, helicopter here>
| Hillel Eli Markowitz | Im ain ani li, mi li? |
| <H.E.Markowitz@...> | V'ahavta L'raiecha kamocha |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sam Juni <JUNI@...>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 16:27:18 -0400
Subject: Zionism and Sephardic Pronunciation
I was impressed by Eliyahu Juni's (5/26/94) comprehensive and insightful
analysis of the Ashkenaz-Sephardic interface problems. I am intrigued by
a premise he asserts, however.
Eliyahu is convinced that European Zionism appropriated the Sephardic
pronunciation as part of an overall strategy to dis-affiliate from the
European-based Jewish Establishment and to found a national movement
antithetical to religious observence. This is plausible, but it would
be nice if some documentation could be provided. I, for one, would never
have guessed it offhand. If I had to theorize why the Sephardic
pronunciation were chosen, I would suggest that it may have to do with
the assumption that the Sephardic style which is used by Jews in the
Middle East had less of a chance of being adulterated by nuances of
European host languages, and is therefore closest to the original spoken
Hebrew of the ancient Jews.
Dr. Sam Juni Fax (212) 995-3474
New York University Tel (212) 998-5548
400 East
New York, N.Y. 10003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 13 Issue 57