Volume 13 Number 91
Produced: Tue Jul 5 22:50:10 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Agunot
[Warren Burstein]
Ashkenaz/Sefard Pronunciation.
[Meir Lehrer]
Biblical Chronology, the missing 165 years
[Yechezkel Schatz]
Halakhah and email
[Eli Turkel]
Harlot Declares Bankrupcy
[Meylekh Viswanath ]
Hillul Hashem
["Ezra Dabbah"]
Kashrut of Ocean Spray Products
[Sue Kahana]
Passover dates
[Ed Cohen]
Personal Phone Calls
[Michael Shimshoni]
Rabeinu Gershom's Herem...
[Robert A. Light]
Shabbat and employers
[Stephen Phillips]
Sheva Brachot
[Mike Gerver]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <warren@...> (Warren Burstein)
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 23:33:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Agunot
Nosson Tuttle writes:
>If it is those who will be blackballed by their husband when they need
>a Get and cannot relay on Beit Din to beat up the husbands because of
>the limited power which Beit Din has in the Galut to resort to capital
>methods, maybe people should spend a little more time dating and
>determining who it is that they are marrying. I don't think we want to
>desecrate the institution of marriage just because there are some who
>unfortunately abuse it. Just be careful when entering.
One might get the impression from the qualification "in the Galut" that
the Beit Din in Israel has the power to beat up people. Well it
doesn't. It hardly even uses its power to jail people. I personally
heard a Dayyan who will jail husbands if they simply refuse to give a
Get (there are others here who won't even do that!) say that he advises
women to submit to extortionary demands in order to receive a Get.
As to "spend a little more time dating" - people change. The loving
spouse with wonderful midot of today can turn into tomorrow's abusive
and extortionate spouse. And the only thing that I would call
"descration of the institution of marriage" is what goes on today in
Batei Din. A way out wouldn't "descrate" marriage, it would sanctify
the courts!
|warren@ bein hashmashot, in which state are the survivors
/ nysernet.org buried?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lehrer%<milcse@...> (Meir Lehrer)
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 00:31:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Ashkenaz/Sefard Pronunciation.
On Mon, 27 Jun 1994 Pinchus Laufer wrote:
>In Section V. (Changes in Pronumciation) he states that R. Yaakov Emden
>(1697-1776) "complains that Sephardim do not distinguish... between a
>tzere and a segol"
>So it seems that this is not a new problem!
Okay, fair enough. Ashkenazim do not (on the whole) properly
distinguish between a 'Chet' and a 'Chuf', a 'Qoof' and a 'Kuf', an
'Aleph' and an 'Ayin', or a 'Vet' and a 'Wuw (Vuv)'. These are all
entirely different sounds al-pi (according to) Edut Hamizrach nusachim
(Iraqi's and Syrians, primarily). Although Iraqis are not Sefardim,
I'll use them as an example here. It is also not a hard-and-fast rule
that all Sefardi and Oriental Jews do not distinguish the difference
between a 'tzere' and a 'segol'. I've equally heard many Ashkenazim
improperly pronounce a Qamatz-Qatan, enunciating it as a regular Qamatz
(l'dugmah, 'as a sample', Kad-shenu instead of Kod-shenu). A
Qamatz-Qatan is not always an 'O' sound, but in many of the cases were
it is, I hear all kinds of Jews mispronounce the word in question.
B'sach hakol (in total), let's not use this forum to 'pick out the
faults of Sefardim'. There's plenty of problems on both sides of the
fence, and plenty of different Mesorot (traditions) to go around.
- Meir Lehrer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yechezkel Schatz <lpschatz@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 1994 04:54:36 -0400
Subject: Biblical Chronology, the missing 165 years
In his book "Amitut Cronologiat HaTanach" (The Credibility of Biblical
Chronology), Hotzaat Aleph, by Elihu Schatz, my father has a chapter on
this period of biblical history. He does not go into the philosophical
reasons for the discrepency in chazal's calculations, but rather
reinterprets the passages in the bible that might be misconstrued to
support their mistaken chronological analysis. He identifies the
Babylonian and Persian kings mentioned in the bible, and shows that the
biblical description is historically credible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <turkel@...> (Eli Turkel)
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 94 10:52:21 +0300
Subject: Halakhah and email
I have recently received several notices about new lists about
halakhah yomit and applications to practical problems. I will use this
opportunity to present one of my pet peeves.
It has become commonplace for both lists and major rabbis to give
notice that their book (or email) is only for information and is not to
be relied on for a real psak. I find this very misleading. I think it is
obvious that if a book or article is printed, then many people will rely
on the material for a psak no matter what qualifications are written in
the introduction. I once heard from Leo Levi then anything he writes he
assumes that people will be influenced by it and so he takes the effort
to make sure that it as correct as he can make it. He does not want to
make a silly mistake and then tell the reader - but I said not to rely
on it anyway.
I sometimes feel that if the Shulchan Arukh were written today it
would come with an introduction that it should not be used for a psak
but only as an introduction to the sources (actually many achronim
objected to the Shulchan Arukh on the grounds that it would encourage
laziness and people would not look up the sources).
Eli Turkel
<turkel@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meylekh Viswanath <PVISWANA@...>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 14:02:01 EST5EDT
Subject: Harlot Declares Bankrupcy
Sam Juni says:
> 2. (I am less sure about this, but...) Suppose a harlot repents and
> declares Chapter 11. I would imagine that she no longer
> maintains the prohibited status.
I think you mean Chapter 7. Chapter 11 involves reorganization of the
business, while Chapter 7 involves liquidation. :-)
Meylekh Viswanath, Rutgers University
Graduate School of Management, 92 New St, Newark NJ 07102
Tel: (201) 648-5899 Fax: (201) 648-1459 email: <pviswana@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ezra Dabbah" <ny001134@...>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 94 22:23:10 -0500
Subject: Hillul Hashem
In mj v13#69 Aryeh Blaut says that he bought dishes at May Co. and never
got billed. His Rav said not to pay because a) it would be a hillul Hashem
because of the cursing for the extra paperwok involved and b) he/she at
May Co. would get in trouble for their discovered error.
Aryeh, wouldn't it be a bigger hillul Hashem if the staff at May Co.
discovered the error and thought you wre trying to get away without
paying? Do you think that if you informed the staff at May they would
curse you? If everyone decided like you to reduce the paper load at May,
they may decide to reduce their staff because of lack of work. Would you
want them to lose their job? If you were looking for a refund from a store,
would you say it's a hillul Hashem because of the all the extra paperwork
and keep the unwanted object?
Ezra Dabbah
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sue Kahana <najman%<hadassah@...>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 1994 21:09:19 EDT
Subject: Kashrut of Ocean Spray Products
Last week there was an ad in the Jerusalem Post for Ocean Spray cranberry
products, including sauce, chicken sauce, juice etc. According to this
ad, the products are O-U D. Now, I have a can of Ocean Spray cranberry
sauce in my house, and it only has a K on it. I checked with the local
supermarket, and they also have the newer products, also with a K.
The question is, therefore, two-fold:
A) Does anyone out there know whether Ocean Spray has received the O-U,
B) If so, why should it be marked D...the ingredients are sugar, water
and cranberries.
Thanks.
Sue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ed Cohen <ELCSG@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 12:11:03 -0400
Subject: Passover dates
In response to David Curwin's "Pesach in Winter" posting (v13,#43), and
some answers thereafter, the following gives a little more information:
From the beginning of cycle 298 (of 19 years) starting in 5644
(1883-1884) until the end of cycle 309 in 5871 (2110-2111), the earliest
that (the first day of) Passover (Rosh Hashanah) can occur is March 26
(September 5). This happens in the years 1899, 2013, 2089. The last day
that Passover (Rosh Hashanah) can occur is April 25 (October 5). This
happens in the years 1929, 1967, 2043.
For a more complete reference, see an article by the mathematician C.F.
Gauss, Berechnung des judischen Osterfest, reprinted in Gauss Werke, VI,
pages 80-81.
Prof. Edward L. Cohen, Department of Mathematics,
University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1N 6N5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Shimshoni <MASH@...>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 94 11:39:16 +0300
Subject: Re: Personal Phone Calls
Aryeh Blaut described an advice he received from his Rav:
>A number of years ago, my wife & I purchased some new dishes for
>Pesach/Pesah/Passover at a department store (May Co) parking lot sale.
>We paid by store credit card (good old plastic money).
>
>Anyway, a couple of months went by and we still were not billed for this
>purchase. I asked my Rav if I should call the store and let them know.
>He answered that it actually may be a Chillul Hashem/Hillul Hashem to
>call. He explained that the clerk would probably be cursing us out
>because of all the extra paperwork we were causeing him by being honest.
>Besides this, by reporting it, the sales person could get into trouble.
While I do not wish to deny the correctness of what that Rav said
about the possible outcome of reporting the event to May Co will be, I
do not understand that decision. If in another case one receives bad
service in a store, any complaint might cause a sales person getting
into (justified) "trouble". Or if one wishes to exchange some
merchandise the sales person might "curse" because of the extra work.
Does it mean that one has to take everything lying down?
On a related point. Did the Rav advise the Blauts what to do with the
money they had "saved". Tzadaqa? It is perhaps a problem, as in *some
sense* it is "gezel" (theft).
Michael Shimshoni
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Robert_A._Light@...> (Robert A. Light)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 94 21:02:05 EDT
Subject: Rabeinu Gershom's Herem...
I understand that Rabeinu Gershom instituted a herem (ban) on a)
multiple wives and (b) that a wife must consent to accept a Get. I have
heard recently that the decree was instituted in the year 992 or 993 and
that it was declared to be in force for 1000 years. Can anyone shed
some light on this information? Can anyone offer me source material?
If my calculation is right, then the Herem should no longer be in force.
Not to say that I'm rushing off to marry a second wife but since I'm in
the middle of trying to avoid becoming a male agunah, I figured that I
better get all the information on the subject I could find.
Any assistance and/or discussion would be helpful.
- Robert Light
<Robert.Light@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Phillips <stephenp@...>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 09:14:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Shabbat and employers
> From: Gedalyah Berger <gberger@...>
> Stephen Phillips wrote in #67:
> > holidays and early Shabbosos. He asked my what I would do if a woman
> > came in to the office just before Shabbos needing an urgent
> > injunction to restrain her husband from beating her up. I replied
> > that in this case my religion had to come first. His response was
> > "Well you are honest; do you want the job?"
>
> I'm a bit confused: since in this case, as in all cases, religion indeed
> does come first, one must get the injunction to restrain the woman's
> husband from beating her up.
I'm afraid I put it rather badly. In most cases of wife battering, the
wife can, even if for a day of so, find somewhere to stay out of harm's
way, so I do not feel that Chilul Shabbos would be warranted. We are
not talking about danger to life, merely possible physical harm. All
such cases that I subsequently dealt with were for non-Jewish clients
and the occasion never arose when I had to make the decision as to
whether to break Shabbos or leave the client "in the lurch" as it were.
If asked the question now, I would still give much the same answer,
particularly in light of my experience that the vast majority of such
wives eventually returned to their husbands (for more of the same
treatment!).
Stephen Phillips.
<stephenp@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <GERVER@...> (Mike Gerver)
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 4:14:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Sheva Brachot
Tsiel Ohayon asks in v13n47 how he can avoid saying sheva brachot at the
wedding of his friend who is marrying a conservative convert, without
offending him, since he is concerned that he would be saying a brachah
batalah [blessing in vain]. If he can arrange to say "boreh pri hagafen"
then at least he would not be saying a brachah batalah, since this brachah
must be said whenever you drink wine, even not at a wedding.
Mike Gerver, <gerver@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 13 Issue 91
