Volume 32 Number 05
Produced: Sun Apr 9 9:46:22 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Gluten-free Matzoh
[Barry S Bank]
Kashrus Symbol Query
[Al Silberman]
Kitzur Shulchan Aruch
[Jack Hollander]
The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch
[SBA]
A Mishna Schedule and an Oath
[David Riceman]
Motion Detectors on Shabbos
[Danny Geretz]
Number of Orthodox in USA
[Alan Davidson]
Rav Hirsch's Neo-Orthodoxy
[Esther Zar]
Rav Hirsch's Theory of Torah-Science-Art
[Russell Hendel]
Shushan Purim
[Shlomo Argamon]
Tena'im (2)
[Daniel Katsman, Ellen Krischer]
Timcheh et Zecher Amalek
[David and Toby Curwin]
Violating Shabbat
[Janet Rosenbaum]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barry S Bank <bsbank@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 08:04:23 -0400
Subject: Gluten-free Matzoh
Is there such a thing as gluten-free matzah -- and if so, does anyone
know where can it be obtained?
--B. Bank
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Al Silberman <alfred.silberman@...>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 09:00:57 -0400
Subject: Kashrus Symbol Query
I am curious about a Kashrus symbol which I saw on a can of Libby's
fruit cocktail.
It has a stylized K surrounded by a circle of Hebrew words as follows:
Qeramin (? - Qoph/Resh/Mem/Yud/Nun) al pi Yabia Omer Cheleq Cheth Siman
Yud Aleph.
Can someone provide information on what this is about? Thank you.
Moshe Silberman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Hollander <hollander@...>
Date: 5 Apr 2000 07:35:30 -0000
Subject: Kitzur Shulchan Aruch
Yisrael Meidad quotes: "if there was bookburning in Judaism, the Kitzur
would surely be a candidate".
I also recall a Rabbi (Modern Orth.) who was of the same opinion. I
can-not quote him because I don't have permission, and he is no longer
with us ( O.H.).
Jack
<hollander@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 21:48:17 +1000
Subject: The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch
>Jeanette Friedman wrote:
>>...warning.. in Kitzur Shulchan Oruch (198:10) against men and women
>> seeing each other during and after funerals.
>On what basis? -JF
My (office) copy brings sources - Yoreh Deah 359 and the Zohar Parshas
Vayakhel.
>Yisrael Medad wrote:
>...one of my Rabeiim muttering something about "if there was bookburning
>in Judaism, the Kitzur would surely be a candidate"
So would your rebbe burn the Yoreh Deah and Zohar too? (or only certain
sections of them...?)
The KSA is without doubt the most popular, most accepted and widely used
Sefer Halocho in the history of Am Yisroel. It has been reprinted
hundreds of times in dozens of languages.
>......extreme regulations adopted by Rav Ganzfreid which didn't receive
>total approbation.
Really? And besides your rebbe, can you quote others who were Dan the
KSA liSrefo (ordered its burning)?
SBA
[Despite how SBA has turned this response, the original posting never
said that YM's rebbe was "Dan the KSA liSrefo (ordered its burning)". I
understand the statement as an expression of his opinion that the KSA
includes "extreme regulations adopted by Rav Ganzfreid which didn't
receive total approbation", which is an opinion I have heard from a
number of Rabonim. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Riceman <driceman@...>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 01:35:24 +0000
Subject: A Mishna Schedule and an Oath
Hi:
I found a years schedule for completing shisha sidrei [the six orders
of] mishna [how am I supposed to translate that? (That is fine toi leave
untranslated - Mod.) ] in my files. Loosely speaking, it seems to be
two perakim [chapters] a day for the first four sedarim [orders], and
one a day for the last two, but there are deviations from the rule.
More details on request.
A simpler option is just to have your son pick his favorite peirush
[commentary] and do it by numbers of pages based on the edition he's
using.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the halachic [Jewish legal] force of
the oath with which the [no English equivalent] Rambam [Maimonides]
abjures all students of the Moreh Nebuchim [Guide for the Perplexed] in
the introduction?
David Riceman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Danny Geretz <DGeretz@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 11:11:29 EDT
Subject: Re: Motion Detectors on Shabbos
In a message dated 4/6/00 6:41:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Alan Strauss
<Alan_Strauss@...> writes:
> So my question is, if a person's movement causes the motion detector to
> send a signal to a controller and the controller then executes a few
> lines of a program, is that a problem on Shabbos?
What about high-resolution photographs taken from aircraft or
sattelites? I'm not familiar with the resolution of these images, but I
understand that the technology is constantly improving. Should I time
my Shabbat walks to and from shul so that I'm only outside when no
sattelites or aircraft are overhead?
Another scenario: What if I live in a building with video monitoring of
the front door/halls/etc.? Or I walk by a 7-11 or a bank or a gas
station with video monitoring (either to tape or to a monitor) of the
property?
We live in an increasingly technological world. What are the basic
issues involved in each of these scenarios?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Davidson <perzvi@...>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 13:09:08 -0400
Subject: Number of Orthodox in USA
10% is the percent of vadai [positive - Mod.] Jews in national surveys
who are Orthodox (throwing out non-halachic Jews, Jews with a 2000 or so
year old Moshiach, and other folks who might answer a survey claiming to
be Jewish). The percent of those claiming to be Jewish who are
ortho. is 6%, and it is 12-15% once you consider membership stats,
synagogue attendance, etc. Of course in Brooklyn it is more (or at
least seems that way). However, of metropolitan areas Baltimore (and
perhaps Miami) has a larger percentage than does New York.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Esther Zar <ESTABESTAH@...>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 00:30:49 EDT
Subject: Re: Rav Hirsch's Neo-Orthodoxy
<< In MJ 31:79, <<< Hirsch notes in his Nineteen Letters that the same
G-d who created the universe also created the Torah. He is equally the
Creator of both the material universe and the ethical universe. So that
the study of science, music, art and literature -- reflecting human
knowledge of the world -- is studying that which is no less part of
G-d's creation as the Torah. >>
Perhaps this statement, although I have not seen it inside yet, could be
interpreted as : Everything (well almost everything) in the world
whether falling into the category of holy or secular can be used
ultimately for the purpose of serving G-D. Some of these things possess
an intrinsic value inherent in the act/object itself ( or to borrow a
term, divrei kdusha) and others serve objects which can bring one to
serve G-D (meshamshei de'kdusha). Therefore, it comes out that
everything was created in order to glorify the Creator. Consequently, in
theory, one can come close to G-D through observing his next door
neighbor take out the garbage. The fact that one might laugh at the
example just given proves that it takes one of high character
development, attachment to G-D, and proper Torah insight in order to be
able to do this. Therefore, lema'aseh I think I'll stick to trying to
keep the "easy" mitzvot first. Additionally, keep in mind when and
where this was written, and to what audience Rav Hirsch was addressing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 23:55:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Rav Hirsch's Theory of Torah-Science-Art
Ken Miller in v31n94 cites Steve Bailey v31n79 who cites Rav Hirsch
<<< Hirsch notes in his Nineteen Letters that the same G-d who created
the universe also created the Torah. He is equally the Creator of both
the material universe and the ethical universe. So that the study of
science, music, art and literature -- reflecting human knowledge of the
world -- is studying that which is no less part of G-d's creation as the
Torah. >>>
There is then discussion by Ken on WHAT the study of (a) TOrah, (b) Natural
Law & (c) Man made art have in common as "studying Gods ways".
Actually I think it clear that studying Torah has a status of religious
study which eg requires a blessing. Studying Science or Art has NO such
status. (Ken then makes further distinctions between ART which is
man made and SCIENCE-the study of Nature, which was made by God.)
My understanding of Rav Hirsch's statement is that the METHODOLOGY by
which we study Science and (Man Made) Art is also the SAME METHODOLOGY
by which we SHOULD study the Torah. In particular one of Rav Hirsch's
great contributions to Torah learning is his magnificent study of
symbolism--Rav Hirsch used the scientific method (hypothesis testing
plus reproducable phenomena) to show that symbolic analysis of Torah
commandments can be done and yield the same reproducable results by
different people. Rav Hirsch tried to place symbolism on a scientific
basis which would make it more objective.
Rav Hirsch's beautiful theory of symbolism is outlined in his "Groundlines
of Jewish Symbolism" which can be found in Volume 3 of his collected
works translated by Feldheim. It is also found in Breuers Timeless Torah
Finally a short condensed summary will appear in my article "Gen 1 speaks
about the creation of prophecy not the creation of the world" which was
presented at the 3rd international conference on science and religion and
will appear in BOR HATORAH(A 4 page email version is available on request)
Russell Jay Hendel;Phd ASA; <RHendel@...>
Moderator Rashi is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shlomo Argamon <argamon@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 13:02:11 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Shushan Purim
The ancient city of Shushan is not Susa, but another city (with a long
name which I forget) in SW Iran IIRC. In that city, they *do not*
celebrate Shushan purim, since the city was not walled at the time of
Yehoshua` bin Nun. As a friend of mine said when hearing this: "Eizeh
`am `aqum ana`hnu!" [what a twisted nation we are!]
-Shlomo-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Katsman <hannah@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 23:12:50 +0200
Subject: Tena'im
Esther Zar wrote:
>As the Ba'al Shem Tov and Gra rule, Tno'im is considered a vow and
>therefore is prohibited to be broken.
Is there a written source for this?
>And that's why you will find amongst those who still do
>Tno'im in the traditional sense and take it seriously, that they will
>get married anyways (I doubt it would be a big bash though), even if
>they would normally break the shidduch, and then write up a get (bill of
>divorce) in order to avoid the severity of breaking a vow.
I found this custom incredible when I first heard of it a few years ago
(reported as the practice of Gerrer Hasidim), and I still find it
incredible. Did the Gr"a and the Besh"t really intend that a woman
whose shidduch is broken should be disqualified from marrying a kohen?
Vows (if that's what the tena'im really are, as opposed to a contract)
can be dealt with through hatarat nedarim.
Daniel Katsman
Petah Tikva
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ellen Krischer <krischer@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 09:25:17 -0400
Subject: RE: Tena'im
Esther Zar writes (presumably about people who got married and then
gave/received a get rather than break te'naim)
> Yes, i have chassidishe friends who know people personally who have done
> this.
The notion that we should let women become halachik divorcees rather
than break a contract between the parents seems to me to be a travesty
and a distortion of halachik intent.
Rabbi Saul Berman once spoke about the historical background of te'naim
(which echos much of what has already been written here by others.) His
conclusion at the time (about a dozen years ago) was that 'Vort' would
develop to replace the function of te'naim as the 'official'
announcement of what secular society would call 'engagement'. It seems
to have done just that.
His hope was that people who embraced the Vort concept would not attach
to it the same - in his view - misguided, halachik implications that
would bring people to the terrible step of making women into divorcees
in case the engagement broke off.
(BTW, people on this list have treated the notion of a broken engagement
as if it were some terrible "lo alenu" (it should never happen to us)
situation. While a broken engagement is a very traumatic thing for the
parties involved and their families and friends, I think the community
needs to be much, much more accepting of them. Far better that the
pressures of planning the wedding and making life decisions should bring
out incompatibilities between the couple that may not have surfaced in
the perhaps-too-short dating period rather than waiting until after the
marriage. Allowing the societal and parental pressure and real (and
very unfortuneate) stigma of a broken engagement propel the young couple
to the chupa can have terrible consequences.)
Ellen Krischer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David and Toby Curwin <curwin@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 16:47:12 +0300
Subject: Re: Timcheh et Zecher Amalek
Sam Gamoran <gamoran@...> wrote:
> A question for the linguists among us: Does "Timcheh" mean "to erase" or
> could it possibly mean "to protest"? (Hebrew l'mcho vs. l'mchot). Very
> closely related.
According to Rabbi Klein in A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of
the Hebrew Language, "l'mchot" as "to protest" does not derive from
"l'mchot" as "to wipe out". He writes that it comes from another use of
"l'mchot" -- "to strkie upon". (See Bamidbar 34:11, also connected to
"m'chiat kapaim" - "clapping hands"). He sais that the original term was
"macha b'yado" = "he hindered him, prevented him", literally "he struck
on his hand".
David Curwin
Kvutzat Yavne, Israel
<curwin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Janet Rosenbaum <jerosenb@...>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 12:58:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Violating Shabbat
Why is violating shabbat not yehareg v'al yaavor [something one ought to
die rather than do, which is not to imply suicide, just the proverbial
villian with a gun to one's head]?
Janet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 32 Issue 5