Volume 25 Number 48
Produced: Sun Dec 22 7:30:58 1996
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Al Techanem
[Yisrael Medad]
Aneinu on Asara bTeves and Taanit Esther
[Jeff Fischer]
Caring for Sick people vs Mechallel Shabbos
[Russell Hendel]
Chamar Medinah
[Elozor Preil]
Compromise with Secular Jews
[Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer]
Following Beis Shammai after Moshiach
[Micha Berger]
Problems and Psuedo Problems-The yediah-bechira question
[Shoshana L. Boublil]
Serving the Entire Population
[Eli Turkel]
Special Tefilah after Hallel
[Stephen Colman]
Tehillim; Intermarriage in Britain
[Yitzchok Adlerstein]
Working Together
[Tszvi Klugerman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <isrmedia@...> (Yisrael Medad)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 96 17:12:40 PST
Subject: Al Techanem
A while back, there was a discussion on the subject of the mitzva "Al
Techanem" - not selling land or houses to non-Jews in Eretz-Yisrael.
For your information, a fairly comprehensive article has just been
published in the "Ha'Ma'ayan" journal of Tevet 5757, 17 pages, authored
by HaRav Yaakov Charlap.
Yisrael Medad
E-mail: isrmedia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rabbi_gabbai@...> (Jeff Fischer)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:41:39, -0500
Subject: Aneinu on Asara bTeves and Taanit Esther
I asked my rabbi this question and he had no idea. He said to post it
here.
I know why we say Aneinu, Avinu Malkaynu and Tachanun on just about all
fast days.
I also know why we do NOT say Tachanun and Avinu Malkaynu on Ta'anis
Esther that is Erev Purim (as compared to it falling on Thu. and Purim
being Sunday), Tisha b'Av, and on Asara b'Teves that falls on Friday.
The question that I have is why do we say Aneinu on Asara b'Teves that
falls on Friday, Ta'anit Esther that is the day before Purim and on
Tisha b'Av. We omitted Avinu Malkaynu and Tachanun because you are not
supposed to ask for supplications (Techina) on a happy day. So that
omits Tachanun and Avinu Malkaynu easily. However, Aneinu is also a
prayer about Techina because it says "ve'Al Taster panecha mimenu ve'Al
Tis'Alem Mit'chinasaynu). Mit'chinasaynu means our supplications, so we
should also omit Aneinu since we should not be mentioning our
supplications.
Does anyone have an answer?
Have an easy fast!
Thanks,
Jeff Fischer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rhendel@...> (Russell Hendel)
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 11:54:09 -0500
Subject: Caring for Sick people vs Mechallel Shabbos
I am sure we were all touched by the recent anonymous posting of a woman
who is dying of cancer and therefore rides to shule on shabbath because
she can no longer walk. Her friends have begun slandering her and not
trusting her Kashruth.
I would like to offer some simple suggestions which might help:
1) I would suggest that the Rav of the community set up a rotational
sequence of members to visit this woman on Shabboth...that way she gets
visited once a week while no one member has to say spend more than one
Shabboth a month by her.
2) I would suggest Mishebayrachs be made for her every week in her shule
3) I would also suggest that her friends visit her during the week with
prepared foods they have made (after all if she can't walk to shule she
probably has difficulty preparing food).
4) I urge that people have an attitude that even though this is a
serious disease there are people who have been cured of it.
5) Finally with respect to the halachic problems of eating Kosher by a
person who is Mechallel Shabbos. The issue of helping such people (this
is a different question than say eating by them) is discussed in Rambam
Laws of Murder, Chap 13, last law: Rambam states that even if you see a
Jew sinning and rebuke him and he doesn't accept it, nevertheless, as
long as he believes and is attached to the Jewish people it is incumbent
to help his overladen animals "lest the person become anxious about his
property ...".
If we have to care about the women's property we certainly have to care
about her herself (Bikur Cholim). I would strongly urge the Rav of the
community to urge his congregants to separate eating and caring issues.
Hopefully of course, if enough people visit her she may stop riding.
Finally, let us remember that the Talmud relates that one of Rabbi
Akivah's students was sick and Rabbi Akibah visited him every day until
he got better. Rabbi Akiva then realized how important Bikur Cholim is
since it led to this student getting better and began preaching to that
effect.
Refuah Shlemah to you, among the sick of Israel
Russell Hendel, Ph.d, ASA, rhendel @ mcs drexel edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elozor Preil <rpry@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 17:36:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Chamar Medinah
I have recently completed a thorough study of the this subject,
including the teshuvot of Rav Ovadia Yosef, Rav Moshe zt"l, and the
Tzitz Eliezer. None permit soda to be used; and although Rav Waldenberg
mentions juices favorably in the body of his discussion (in the name of
Bet Yosef), he backs away from permitting it in his conclusion. It has
been reported in the name of Rav Ruderman zt"l that he allowed soda
(Pepsi) to be used for havdalah.
I have heard that more than a few Jews use soda or juice for kiddush or
havdalah. Does anyone have any authoritative sources for permiting soda
or juice as chamar medinah, especially in light of the ready
availability of wine and grape juice in the US today?
Kol tuv,
Elozor Preil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer <sbechhof@...>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:54:29 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Compromise with Secular Jews
Eli Turkel raised some provocative questions in his post, I realize that
most of them were practical in nature and have to be resolved on the
strategic level. I believe, however, that we in Galus must realize a
basic distinction between the Israeli scenario and the American one.
one that will occasionally impact on the practical issues as well.
In Israel, until recently, at least, the issue was compromise with those
who are not observant. This is a compromise with a lifestyle, not a
philosophy. I believe, personally, that in the interest of Achdus,
Darchei Shalom and Kiddush Hashem, etc., such compromises should be
sought.
Here, however, and, unfortunately, recently in Israel as well, the
scenario entails dealing with alternate, illegitimate philosophies of
Judaism. In this past Saturday's NY Times religion page there was a
description of some ongoing "Jewish continuity" conference that stated
that "pluralism" is an essential component of any continuity in America.
Our local federation paper last week had two op-ed pieces on this issue,
pushing pluralism.
Let us get this straight: "Pluralism" is a euphemism for accepting the
legitimacy of other philosophies of Judaism besides Orthodoxy. This, we
cannot accept under any circumstances.
Thus, cooperation and compromise cannot ever be yielded on the basis of
pluralism. I believe it was the ultimate impossibility of granting such
leeway that lead to the recent demise of the Synagogue Council.
If Judaism is not based on the Thirteen Principles of Maimonides, or
some classic variation thereupon, it is not, from our perspective
Judaism, and cannot be treated as such.
Thus, compromise with non-observant Jews, by all means. But not with
movements.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <micha@...> (Micha Berger)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:33:33 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Following Beis Shammai after Moshiach
I think the origin for this idea is in kabbalah, which tends to view the
Beis Shammai / Beis Hillel debate as one of gevurah vs. chessed. These
are two of the sephiros, which I'd hesitatingly translate to might vs.
kindness. At least, that's the literal translation.
In the messianic age, after the funeral for the evil inclination (as
described in Tr. Megillah) there will be little need for man to recieve
chessed, and gevurah (and din, strict justice) will be the domanant
mode.
Therefor, Beis Shammai, whose philosophy is built on gevurah will
dominate.
Please don't press for explanations -- I'm no mekubal.
Micha Berger 201 916-0287 Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3626 days!
<micha@...> (16-Oct-86 - 19-Sep-96)
<a href=news:alt.religion.aishdas>Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed</a>
<a href=http://aishdas.org>AishDas Society's Home Page</a>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <toramada@...> (Shoshana L. Boublil)
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 96 20:36:51 PST
Subject: Problems and Psuedo Problems-The yediah-bechira question
Chaim Twerski discusses the Knowledge of Hashem vs. Free Will. He
raises the tough question of how can He know and yet His knowledge does
not determine our actions.
I think that one of the factors to take note of is the nature of time.
Throughout his discourse he describes time as linear and vector-like
(past-present-future). What if Hashem's view of time is
multi-dimensional? What if it is also non-linear? We could hypothesis a
system wherein each possible action and the consequences of the action
are a seperate dimension in time. As long as an action hasn't been
taken - all paths exist simultaneously. Our action would be a type of
constraint on the system limiting the system to a specific course of
action.
In such a system, the knowledge of all the dimensions, which is
impossible for a human, would be total knowledge, yet until the person
acts - there would be no determination of the person's future actions.
This would also explain why jewish philosophy spends a lot of time on
the fact that an initial action not only brings on a punishment/reward,
but also a series of additional consequences as the person's actions are
constrained to follow a specific path, at least until another "branch"
in the shows up in the path (a non-linearity?).
This is very theoretical, and I really have no proof that the above has
any validity, so, it is just a thought.
Shoshana
Name: Shoshana L. Boublil
E-mail: <toramada@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 15:40:34 +0200 (GMT+0200)
Subject: Serving the Entire Population
Steve Albert writes
>> Let me raise a question of political theory: If one is elected to an
>> office to serve the entire population of a city, does that impose an
>> ethical obligation to respect (at least to some extent) the wishes of
>> the minority that voted against one? Does running for mayor, in itself,
>> indicate a willingness to be mayor of all the city's residents, and not
>> just one's supporters? And if so, shouldn't one try hard to find ways
>> *not* to make the minority feel disenfranchised?
To support Steve's question there was a big arguement in Israel
right after I wrote my note. Hammer is the minister of Education and
culture and is a representative of NRP (Mizrachi). He was attacked by a
fellow knesset member from his own party Bibi. Bibi critcized Hammer for
giving money to the Habima theater. Bibi demanded that no money be given
to secular events and all money for cultural events be transferred to
yeshivot only. He threatened to have Hammer thrown out of the NRP if any
government money under NRP ministries went to secular institutions.
Hammer responded as Steve Alpert said that he was minister for all
Israelis.
In todays (Dec 2) Maariv there is a survey that 15% of Israelis are
sure there will be a civil war between religious secular Jews, another
20% think there will be a civil war and 12% responded maybe. Thus 47%
responded that there is a chance of a major clash.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Colman <ARBAMINIM@...>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 22:59:21 +0000
Subject: Special Tefilah after Hallel
Can anybody tell me anything about the special Posuk/Tefilah printed in
some Siddurim after Hallel, to be said on Rosh Chodesh, which is a
segulah for Arichas Yomim. The Tefilah following the Posuk, starts with
a small 'Vayomer' followed by the name of a Malech. Where does this come
from? Any observations would be appreciated.
Stephen Colman
<arbaminim@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yitzchok Adlerstein <yadler@...>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 21:24:55 -0800
Subject: Tehillim; Intermarriage in Britain
1) A friend asked me for an approximation of the date that Tehillim became
the mode of prayer of choice for individual petition. No mention is made
in the Gemara (to the best of my memory) of reciting Tehillim specifically
at times of need; OTOH, today this is virtually standard in most
communities. When did this practice start?
2) At a debate on religious pluralism today at the LA Federation, I took
the position that there are advantages in having a single kind of Judaism
available, even for those who do not practice it. I had seen the advantage
in communities like Johannesburg and Melbourne that had very limited
incursion of non-Orthodox "denominations." A sociologist in the audience
claimed that the rate of intermarriage in Britain was comparable to that of
the US. I was surprised at the claim. Can anyone shed some light on this
please?
Yitzchok Adlerstein
Yeshiva of Los Angeles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Klugerman@...> (Tszvi Klugerman)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 06:51:33 -0500
Subject: Working Together
Regarding Eli Clark's post in response to Eli Turkel's example #2
(reform services), although Eli clark is entitled to voice his opinion
as to whether piskei halacha rgarding attending reform services are
blown out of hand, the concept of condoning an act which is not proper
by silence was given great import by the halcha, namely Shtika kehodaya
dami, silence implies agreement. Kal Vachomer by one's attendence which
probably ups the ante to mar'it ayin.
Nonetheless, as a former chaplain and small town congregational rabbi, I
was faced with the quandry quite often. Many of my actions were done
under the precept of Hora'at Sha'ah, which limited them to time and
scope. However, in my study of the reform prayer outline, until only
recently, a reform service was considered kfira by many orthodox
standards, since it denied by omission tchiyat hameitim, and changed
many brachot, not just tefilot. It is my understanding that some in the
reform movement may be looking at bringing their services more to the
center, but that is for future discussion.
I am intrigued as to the possibility, of utilizing the ethic of darchei
shalom, rather than evah , since the thought of having to placate a
fellow jew so that s/he wouldn't kill me is somewhat troubling.
Tszvi Klugerman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 25 Issue 48