Volume 32 Number 64
Produced: Mon Jun 26 22:36:04 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Bulmos
[Janet Rosenbaum]
Burial on Yom Tov (4)
[Gershon Dubin, Shlomo Abeles, Alan Davidson, Mark Steiner]
Calendar Question
[Ben Z. Katz]
Candle caused fires, rachmuneh L'tzlan (3)
[Stephen Colman, Shlomo Abeles, Carl Singer]
"Catching up to Israel" in the leining
[Art Roth ]
Honesty in Prayer / Nahem (2)
[I. Balbin, Andrew Klafter]
Ketubot
[David Cohen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Janet Rosenbaum <jerosenb@...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:26:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Bulmos
Everyone cites an etymological connection between bulimia and bulmos,
but it's not clear this is so diagnostically, from the description.
Modern bulimia involves binging and usually purging, but the mishna
refers to darkening vision, which is not at all part of the diagnosis.
I would suggest that bulmos and perhaps what used to be called bulimia
in English is actually low blood sugar, as that would be consistent with
the symptom of darkened vision.
Janet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 23:31:53 -0400
Subject: Burial on Yom Tov
<<[From a conversation in shul today, my understanding is that Satmar
is one of the few groups that paskin that Kavod Hames takes precedence
and requires kevurah even on Yom Tov. Anyone with further information is
encouraged to elaborate. Mod.]>>
Actually, the question should be why everyone else does not act in
accordance with this halacha. It is in fact an undisputed halacha in
Shulchan Oruch Orach Chaim, Hilchos Yom Tov, that someone who dies
should be buried on the first day of Yom Tov and not even held over until
the second day. This, despite the fact that on the first day the
funeral is conducted with nonJews and on the second day with Jews.
There appears to be a fairly wide spread custom in America not
to follow this halacha; it may be related to the chilul Yom Tov which
could come about when people who are ignorant of the halacha are
"behulim al meisom" (over-wrought over their loss) and do things that
are not permitted on Yom Tov.
I have only seen one funeral on Yom Tov by shomrei Torah (I live
one block from a funeral home, and two blocks from another) on Yom Tov.
However, the Satmar community, as a cohesive, insular kehila with strong
leadership, is entitled to follow Shulchan Oruch in spite of customs to
the contrary in the general community.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shlomo Abeles <sba@...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:43:43 +1000
Subject: Burial on Yom Tov
See Kitzur Shulchan Oruch (200 1 & 2): if non-Jews
do the grave-digging and certain other Melochos, it is permissible
(and according to Yesh Omrim a Chiyuv to do the burial on first
day Yom Tov.
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Davidson <perzvi@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:55:55 -0400
Subject: Burial on Yom Tov
In chassidishe circles many make a levayah on yomtov -- especially second
day yomtov in chutz la'aretz -- what was unique is this was first-day
yomtov but perhaps they figured that b/c the second day was shabbos it
was better to conduct it first day yomtov than wait until Sunday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:04:49 +0300
Subject: Burial on Yom Tov
The Talmud in Betza (I don't have the reference handy) states that
on the first day Yom Tov it is permitted to allow Gentiles to perform a
Jewish burial; on the second day (i.e. in Hutz La'aaretz) even Jews are
allowed to perform the burial.
In the U. S. this law is I believe not followed, probably for two reasons:
(a) the availability of refrigeration which prevents defilement of the corpse;
(b) the fear that the practice would lead to widespread desecration of Yom
Tov in the future. The Talmud itself limits the permission of performing
funerals on Yom Tov to communities where knowledge of the Torah is widespread,
so that the observance of the people will not be weakened. I assume that
Satmar sees itself as a closed community and continues the practices of
Europe. I was told that the Breuer community in Washington Heights at least
used to perform funerals even by (a few selected) Jews on the Second Day of
Yom Tov
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Z. Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:23:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Calendar Question
>From: David E Cohen <ddcohen@...>
>In years like this, when the Torah reading outside of Israel falls a
>week behind due to the second day of Shavuot being on Shabbat, we make
>it up with Chukat-Balak. But in those years where it falls behind due
>to the eighth day of Pesach being on Shabbat, we do not catch up until
>Matot-Masei.
>
>Does anybody know the reason for this difference?
Yes. The reason is that we in galut (odd as it sounds) do not need to
"catch up" to Israel, it is Israel that needs to slow down to us; in
other words, we do not double-up a parasha we normally would not double
to "catch up", but Israel waits till a parasha that we double and split
it to slow down to us in galut. The annual Torah reading cycle was
established in galut (Babylonia) and then was "back-transplanted" to
Israel, accounting for several anomalies, such as the one mentioned by
David Cohen. Other anomalies include the odd Torah reading for chol
hamoed succot in Israel (where the same portion is read 4 times because
of the lack of sefayka deyoma in Israel) and the fact that Chukat-Balak
is never doubled in Israel because the only time Chukat-Balak is read
together is when the second day of shavuot is shabat, which, of coutrse,
never happens in Israel where there is no second day of shavuot.
Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
Ph 773-880-4187
Fax 773-880-8226
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Colman <stephen.colman@...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:53:48 +0100
Subject: Candle caused fires, rachmuneh L'tzlan
I am afraid my experience with the 'Neronim' candle-in-a-glass differs
to that of Aliza (Novogroder) Fischman. We have also been using these
glasses for a number of years, and I think that at least 3 glasses have
cracked in use. Luckily, each time it cracked above the level of hot
melted wax and the wick just kept on burningin the brocked glass. It is
therefore vital - in my opinion at least - to ensure that even with
these glass containers, the candlesticks are always placed on a metal
tray
Stephen Colman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shlomo Abeles <sba@...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:56:54 +1000
Subject: Candle caused fires, rachmuneh L'tzlan
> They now make these great candles that come in little glass cups. The
> cups fit directly into the candlesticks. They fit so well that they
> will not tip over. The candles are smaller than normal Shabbat candles,
> but they don't just melt the wax. The wax melts to liquid, and then the
> liquid wax is consumed.
We also have these glass cup candles. However we have found that they
often crack and break - and this can be quite dangerous. So please be
careful.
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:19:21 EDT
Subject: Re: Candle caused fires, rachmuneh L'tzlan
<< From: Jeanette Friedman <FriedmanJ@...>
Dear Carl:
I appreciate your thoughts, since it was my cousins who were nifter in
that tragic Yom Tov fire in Williamsburgh. She lit 16 candles in the
kitchen.
I cannot understand why 16 candles had to be lit. They were on a
counter, UNDER the cabinets. In addition to a fire extinguisher, I was
thinking that perhaps a fire safety course should have been given.
>>
There is a fire safety pamphlet. A few years ago, my wife coordinated a
yiddish-language pamphlet dealing with fire safety (working with
Cornel's burn unit and a Rebbe in her school - for proper Yiddish --
alas I speak "street" Yiddish.)
I don't currently have a copy -- perhaps putting it up on the web would
be a useful undertaking.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Art Roth <AJROTH@...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:13:32 -0500
Subject: "Catching up to Israel" in the leining
Someone (sorry, I forgot who and already erased it) asks why we "catch
up" to Israel this year with Xuqat-Balaq but wait till Matot-Mas`ei when
the eighth day of Pesax falls on Shabbat.
First of all, we don't ALWAYS wait till Matot-Mas`ei, but there are
certainly some years in which we do so.
The explanation is that the leining calendar was established originally
in Bavel when there were almost no Jews in Israel. When Jews started to
move back to Israel, they were faced with the problem of how to "fall
back" to the galut schedule in cases when Israel got a week ahead
because of Yom Tov Sheini. It is crucial to realize that we are not
"catching up" to them, but rather they are "falling back" to us, i.e.,
this is an exception to the usual situation where halakhot are first
established in Israel and must later be adapted to life in galut. This
being the case, Israel cannot "fall back" to OUR schedule until the
first time WE read a double parasha. In years when we are a week behind
Israel till Matot-Mas`ei, we have no doubled parashot between Pesax and
Matot-Mas`ei, and hence there is no earlier opportunity for Israel to
"fall back" to us by separating two parashot that we read together.
Art Roth
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: I. Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:00:21 +1000
Subject: Re: Honesty in Prayer / Nahem
> From: Sheri & Seth Kadish <skadish@...> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:34:19
> On the other hand, there is a teshuvah by Rav Ovadyah in Yechaveh Daat where
> he argues vehemently against any changes in the Nusach as long as the Temple
> is not rebuilt. This was also the position of the Rav zt"l who in
> general was very conservative when it came to liturgical changes.
My understanding is that Rav Soloveitchik Z"TL was not just against this
because of the opinion of the Rambam, but perhaps even more important to
him was the fact that Reform and Conservative had been proposing changes
and as such we are duty bound to not embrace even halachikally
mandated/justified changes to liturgy and architecture etc There is his
famous advice to a Talmid to stay home and not hear Tkias Shofar rather
than do so in a shule with no Mechitzah. Unlike similar views regarding
changes in liturgy which may have stemmed from "Chodosh Assur Min
HaTorah" or Kabbalistically aligned Psokim of Chassidim where there is a
Machlokes Rishonim, the Rov was very mindful of the ramifications of
certain decisions which intersected the newer approaches of Conservative
or Reform. Accordingly, one can have proper Kavonos on Ir Habezuya
Vehashomeima which are not simplistic interpretations from anti-zionist
factions that might relate this to the State of Israel. One can
certainly think of the relative differences that will exist between
where we are now in Golus in Yerusholaim (albeit with great and
tremendous and unparalleled advances in our age) as compared to the
descriptions of the Rambam in Hilchos Melochim regarding the time of the
Geuloh.
In some sense, those who say Reishis Zmichas Ge-uloseinu also need to
look at those words and ask themselves if we haven't moved on from
"Reishis Zmichas". If they agree that it is still *Reishis* Zmichas, and
say those words, then presumably they can use those thoughts to
reconcile and compare the status quo with where we are heading,
Bimheyroh Beyomeinu. In a similar vein, although we aren't talking about
T'fillo, when one is in a group who are singing Hatikvah, some (apart
from the fact that Hashem's name isn't there) feel wrong saying the
words "Lihyos Am Chofshi". I can recall asking Rav Zimmerman from Mercaz
HoRav many years ago about this. He said that the point is to focus on
the correct Kavonos. I think the issue of Dovev Sheker is only germane
when there is no Kavono/interpretation which can be reconciled with the
words and be meaningful.
Let this issue be our greatest problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Klafter <andrew.klafter@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 23:57:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Honesty in Prayer / Nahem
> personal conversation with Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, Rav Aharon told
> him that he feels the statement "hachareivah, hashomeimah mibli baneha"
> is simply not true and therefore maybe "dover shkarim lifnei hashem".
> He leaves these words out, and perhaps certain other words.
>
> On the other hand, there is a teshuvah by Rav Ovadyah in Yechaveh Daat
> where he argues vehemently against any changes in the Nusach as long as
> the Temple is not rebuilt. This was also the position of the Rav zt"l
> who in general was very conservative when it came to liturgical changes.
Why not simply concentrate on the current state of Har HaBayis when saying
these words?
-Nachum Klafter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Cohen <bdcohen@...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:55:52 -0400
Subject: Ketubot
As the daf yomi has been progressing through Masechet Ketubot, we were
wondering if anyone can point us to source concerning the adoption of
the current text of the ketuba that is in use. When did the text become
fixed? Nowadays can one vary the text of a ketuba? If so, what are the
parameters?
David I. Cohen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 32 Issue 64
