Volume 16 Number 26
Produced: Tue Nov 1 23:28:33 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Coffee and Tea on Shabbat
[Mike Stein]
Driver's license
[Roth Arnold]
Ga'oh Ga'ah: Polyptotonic language?
[Marc Epstein]
Israeli Army
[Josh Cappell]
Israeli army service
["Dr. Mark Press"]
Marriage
[Zvi Weiss]
Sefer Torah
[Irwin Keller]
Shlomo Carlebach z"l
[Moshe Koppel]
Tea Bags on Shabbat
[Joseph Steinberg]
Yeshiva Driving
[Esther R Posen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <mike@...> (Mike Stein)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 14:36:01 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Coffee and Tea on Shabbat
In Volume 16 Number 24, Connie Stillinger asks about the halachot of
preparing coffee and tea on shabbat. I recently read a t'shuva
(responsum) of Rav Ovadiah Yosef (I believe it's in Y'chave Da'at vol. 4
#44, but I don't have the sources here in my office) in which he discusses
the "preparing real coffee from ground coffee" issue (as opposed, say, to
instant coffee). More specifically, he rules that s'fardim may pour water
directly from a k'li rishon (for example, the hot water kettle) onto ground
coffee on shabbat to make coffee.
Since coffee beans are roasted, and in fact are sometimes eaten in that
state, the issue revolves around whether there is cooking ("bishul") after
roasting ("t'zlia") or not. He marshalls arguments to show that the s'fardi
p'sak is that this does not occur. Since the R'MA rules that this may
occur, Rav Ovadiah states that ashkenazim may not make coffee in this way.
My LOR tells me that there would be no problem for ashkenazim in preparing
coffee in this way if the water comes from a k'li shlishi. It would be
interesting to read an analysis of whether a k'li sheni is permissible.
Mike Stein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roth Arnold <roth@...>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 21:03:00 PST
Subject: Driver's license
Regarding the Charedi psak about drivers' licenses- according to the
Jerusalem Post last week, Vaad Hayeshivot BeEretz Yisrael (which gives out
the certificates to prove that people are learning in Yeshivot and therefore
are exempt from army service )said that bochrim should not take out licenses.
This is because (they said) someone who has the time, money and need to get a
license is obviosly not a real Ben Torah and does not deserve an exemption.
More specifically, they must be doing it in order to get involved in
business.
As to Chazir-chazar, in an article in Tradition(Fall 1985) titled "The
Baribusa: A Kosher Pig?", J.David Bleich wrote "The phenomenon of a kosher
pig is not entirely unknown in rabbinic literature. R. Hayyim ibn Attar, Or
ha-Hayyim, Leviticus 11:3 quotes an unidentified aggadic source which
comments:"Why is it named hazir? Because it will one day 'return' to become
permissible."... Asimilar statement is made by Rema of Panu, Asarah Ma'marot,
Ma'amar Hikur Din, 11, chapter 17". And in a footnote he refers to R. Moshe
Sofer, Torat Moshe Dvarim 14:8.
Pinchas Roth <roth@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <maepstein@...> (Marc Epstein)
Date: 31 Oct 1994 12:04:58 +0500
Subject: Ga'oh Ga'ah: Polyptotonic language?
What exactly is happening gramatically in Exodus 15:1b: "Ashirah l'H ki
ga'oh ga'ah"? Do we have the present and past tense of a verb in sequence,
or is one an adverb? Is this technically called polyptoton?
Marc Epstein
Vassar College
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <josh@...> (Josh Cappell)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 13:22:18 EST
Subject: Re: Israeli Army
David Rier claims an intent by zionist leaders to "assimilate"
observant Jews in Israel, and describes it as being analogous to the
phenomenon elsewhere. I don't see any parallel. Assimilation consists
of the abandonment of the immigrant group's culture in an effort to
blend into the host country. There is no such distinction between
immigrant and host group in Israel's history, as both were the same
group. Not that zionist ideology advocated traditional Jewish life; of
course it didn't. BUt what the zionists did was to encourage alteration
not abandonment of Jewish life. They didn't discourage a Jewish
language (Yiddish or Ladino) in favor of a non-Jewish language
(e.g. English, as happenned in America), but in favor of a different
Jewish language (Hebrew). Similarly they didn't want anyone to abandon
their Jewishness, rather they wanted to change (or revert, as they saw
it) to a different form of Jewish identity. While I lament the
abandonment of religious life that took place it is inaccurate to call
it "assimilation", unfair to equate it with what has happenned in the
T'fuzah (Diaspora communities) and unjust to attribute anti-Jewish
motives to the zionists.
Josh Cappell
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dr. Mark Press" <PRESS@...>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 94 02:11:29 EST
Subject: Israeli army service
Dr. Turkel is probably correct in stating that universal army service
in Israel was not primarily motivated by a desire to destroy the Torah-
observant community. At the same time there is much evidence that such
destruction of observance was and still is a major goal of the leftist
forces in the State in the same way that other agencies of the state are
used in the tragic "kulturkampf" that still persists. If this were not
so, why then did Dr. Turkel find serving in the army such a challenge?
In a religious state this would hardly be the case.
The reasons for the opposition of so many G'dolei Torah to army service
are not completely clear to me and I am often troubled by the thought
that others serve while most yeshiva students do not. I can offer
theological reasons for this with the best of them, but in my gut I am
still bothered. I personally find the assimilatory role of the army to
be the most plausible reason for the danger of military service.
Melech Press
M. Press, Ph.D. 718-270-2409
Dept. Of Psychiatry, SUNY Health Science Center At Brooklyn
450 Clarkson Avenue, Box 32 Brooklyn, NY 11203
Acknowledge-To: <PRESS@SNYBKSAC>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 13:58:39 -0400
Subject: Marriage
I am seriously bothered when -- in order to "defend his point", Shaul Wallach
finds a need to denigrate the Avot -- specifically Yaakov and his marriage to
Rachel. First, it is clear that Yaakov ALWAYS regarded Rachel as his "main
wife" (among other places, cf Rashi at the end of Ruth where the b'racha given
to Boaz and Ruth mentions both Rachel and Leah)... The "practical" reason why
Rachel was buried where she was -- was because she died in childbirth and the
gemara is quite specific that in such a case we NEVER delay the burial ....
Since it was known that the me'arat Hamachpela would have four "pairs", and
Yaakov knew that the pairs did not include the so-called "maidservants" (who
were actually freed BEFORE Yaakov married them), Yaakov realized that --
WHATEVER his personal feelings toward LEah/Rachel were, it would be Leah who
would be buried there.
Binyamin (who is "almost wiped out" is the tribe described by Moshe as
"Yedid Hashem" -- Special Friend of G-d. IT is on HIS portion that
[most] of the holy part of the Beit Mikdash is built. King Shaul is
described in the Gemara -- despite his flaws/mistakes as a tremendous
Tzaddik... It is the BROTHERS who misinterpreted Yaakov's conduct
toward Yosef (Cf the Netziv at the beginning of VaYeshev) -- i.e., it is
LEAH's children who plot murderously... BTW, I have a problem when
Midrashim are used SO selectively and admixed with P'shat in such a
"biased" fashion.. It appears that this is what Shaul Wallach is doing.
Citing certain midrashim -- ignoring others -- all in order to make his
point. I can only conclude that his point must actually be VERY VERY
weak if he has to rely upon such methods to bolster his ideas. Shaul
ignores Rachel's tremendous selflessness in telling Leah the "secret
signs of Yaakov" that were to have been used to prevent a deception by
Lavan. In- deed, Hashem gave her children -- as compensation for the
fact that Yaakov harbored MUCH anger towards her. Is this the sort of
union that we should be seeking?
I have no desire to besmirch Leah Emainu or impugn Yaakov in any manner.
The point that -- I believe -- Alan Stadtmauer was making is that we
CANNOT simply look at an ISOLATED incident -- such as the conduct of
Yitzchak getting married -- and then "falling in love" -- any more than
we can select an isolated incident in life of Yaakov. We regard the
Torah as being "full of EVERYTHING"... In some situations, Yitzchak's
lifestyle may be suitable... in other cases, Yaakov's life style might
be the right one. There is NO single way to go -- and it is that point
that strikes me as the most pathetic in this discussion. Shaul's
attempts to "prove" that a certain way is "really" the correct way to go
strike me as an exercise in futility. The Torah is eternal and we can
get guidance for all situations. Instead of looking back to the past --
often through a fog of nostalgia -- let us look at our CURRENT situaiton
and see all that the Torah can teach us about THAT. In some cases, we
may be like a Yitzchak, in others, we may be like a Yaakov with
Rachel... in others, perhaps, we will be like Yaakov with Leah -- or
with one of the "Amot"... but --- it all DEPENDS. It is the abiltiy to
be "flexible" in the process of observing the halacha to the best of our
ability that we should really be focusing on.
--Zvi.
P.S. I did not try to do a point-by-point refutation of Shaul's analysis
although I feel that it can be done without difficulty (I want to keep this
post reasonably short)...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Irwin Keller <keller@...>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 20:48:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Sefer Torah
My shul is in the process of starting a project to get a Sofer to write a
Sefer Torah for us. The expected cost of the project, excluding the potential
fundraising excesses, is in the range of $23-25,000.
I understand that writing a Sefer Torah is a big Mitzvah, in fact it is
one of the 613 Mitzot that one may rarely have the opportunity to
participate in. I think that this is a very worthwhile
project. However, I also understand that there are several sources for
"used" Sifrei Torah. Realizing that some of these may be in bad
condition, and that at least some of those that are available may need
much work to get them to a level in which they would be acceptable for
use, I assume that some of those that are available are in pretty good
condition. To put it succinctly,I guess I have several questions:
1)Is it a bigger, lesser, or equal Mitzvah to purchase a used Sefer Torah
versus writing a new one? Is this a fair question?
2)In the used Torah market, from a quality standpoint, what is
generally available? What is the difference between "new world" and
old world Sifrei Torah? What is the range of prices of these? Where
are they accessible? What kind of due dilligence types of questions
should one ask to verify the authenticity of the source of the
Sefer?
I would appreciate any response to this or part thereof.
Thanks,
Irwin Keller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <koppel@...> (Moshe Koppel)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 23:52:30 +0200
Subject: Shlomo Carlebach z"l
I was sorry to see that the passing of Shlomo Carlebach z"l has elicited
no comment on mail-jewish (other than the dry announcement of the
fact). So, though many others are no doubt more qualified, I feel
compelled to say a few words about the impact Shlomo had on my
generation. Shlomo was one of the two charismatic 'gurus' (the other
was Meir Kahane) who brought the counter-culture into the
beis-midrash. For many frum teenagers in New York in the late 60's and
early 70's, each of these men and the very different aspects of the
counter-culture which they represented (ethnic pride and flower-power,
respectively), offered the only possibility for staying 'in the fold'
while at the same time experimenting with ideas which frightened the
frum establishment. Shlomo was original, he was authentic and he was a
damn good musician. I'm not ashamed to admit that Yom Kippur davening
doesn't really get to me (well, occasionally Nesaneh Tokef strikes a
chord) but lounging on the couch listening to a tape of Shlomo doing
Haneshama Lach gets me right in the kishkes every time. I'll miss him.
Y'hei zichro baruch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Steinberg <steinber@...>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 15:25:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Tea Bags on Shabbat
If the water being used is very hot (hot enough that if you were to stick
your hand into it you would reflexively yank it out) then in a kli rishon
it is definitely prohibited. However, it is possible that tea leaves are
kalei habishul and if the water is very hot -- even in a kli sheni and
shlishi, etc. it may be prohibited.
Best Advice: use water that is not so hot //OR// make thick tea on friday
and mix in hot water on shabbat.
E=mc^2 | Joseph Steinberg | New York, USA | <steinber@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <eposen@...> (Esther R Posen)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 13:24:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Yeshiva Driving
I know nothing about this particular incident. However, in most cases
where Yeshivot and summer camps stop "bochurim" from driving it is to
prevent accidents and perhaps to curtail freedom of going anywhere at
anytime. It is not, chas v'shalom a ploy to prevent chilul shabbat or
yom tov. (Statistically, males under the age of 25 have the highest
accident rates and are considered, as a group, the most irresponsible
set of drivers.)
ESTHER
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 16 Issue 26
