Volume 32 Number 78
Produced: Mon Jul 3 7:08:08 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Burial on Yom Tov
[Bert l. Kahn]
Calendar Question (2)
[Yitschak Goldberg, Rich Wolpoe]
Geshem or Gashem again (2)
[Rich Wolpoe, Gershon Dubin]
Kashrut Organizations' "Mandate to Control"
[Mark Feldman]
Kosher L'Mehadrin
[Gershon Dubin]
Kosher L'Mehadrin, request for correction
[Chaim Tatel]
Kosher L'Mehadrin: Retraction
[Kenneth G Miller]
Number of Bechorim
[Danny Skaist]
Polygamy and Takkanat Rabbeinu Gershom
[Andrew M Greene]
Pre-Chuppa wedding pictures
[Joel Goldberg]
prenup vs ketuba
[Anonymous]
Shabboth Belts are garments
[Russell Hendel]
New List: Sicha
[Anonymous]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bert l. Kahn <bilk1@...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:53:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Burial on Yom Tov
Re Yisrael Medad's posting 0f 6/19 the moderator asked if the
kvurah was on the chag. The answer is found in Saturday's NY Times. The
article stated that the mini-van carrying two plain coffins draped in
black pased through and was met by the Satmar Rebbi;that there were no
eulogies because of the holyday.
bert l. kahn <bilk1@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yitschak Goldberg <yits@...>
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?
It's actually not when you can catch up, but when we in Israel have the
availability to wait for you (We have to read in two weeks what you read
in one). The cases you mentioned where you "catch up" only on
Matot-Masei, like 5752 (1992) are leap years with 54 shabatot in one
year, and the only "double" sedra in the diaspora is Matot-Masei.
Therefor you cannot "catch up" sooner. When the eighth day of Pesach
falls on Shabat on a non leap year, we in Israel read Bahar-Behukoti
separate (before Shavuot) while you read them together, and such you
"catch up". This happened among other times in 5745 (1985).
Yitschak Goldberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rich Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@...>
Subject: Calendar Question
Here is a partial answer:
The rule for Matos Mas'ei is:
When Nasso precedes Shavuos, Matos and Mas'ei are separate. In case of
the 8th day of Pesach falling out on Shabbos in Golah, this precipates a
long period when Israel and Golah are out of sync.
While I cannot tell you why this rule is so, nevertheless the rule
itself is consistent. The last time Nasso preceded Sahvuos in chutz
la'areatz was during 1981.
Rich Wolpoe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rich Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@...>
Subject: Geshem or Gashem again
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
> Be that as it may, Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky says in his sefer that the word
> division is different: morid hageshem is one of several attributes of
> HKBH which we enumerate:
> <snip>
> Mechayeh meisim ata,
> Rav lehoshia,
> how? by morid hatol.
> New sentence (or at least new clause): Mechalkel chayim
Did R. Yaakov address the case when reciting Tefillas Tal in which the
nusach includes Mashiv haruach as in: "Mashiv haRuach uMorid haTal"?
Rich Wolpoe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Subject: Re: Geshem or Gashem again
<<Did R. Yaakov address the case when reciting Tefillas Tal in which the
nusach includes Mashiv haruach as in: "Mashiv haRuach uMorid haTal"?>>
No.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Feldman <MFeldman@...>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 20:59:33 -0400
Subject: RE: Kashrut Organizations' "Mandate to Control"
Jay F Shachter <jay@...> wrote in v.32 #62:
> It is not speculation on my part that the Chaf-K disapproved of the
> character of Lansky's Lounge. The manager at Ratner's, with whom I
> have a speaking relationship, once told me that the Chaf-K required
> Ratner's -- as a condition of obtaining continued hashgaxa -- to erect
> opaque partitions at the washing stations, so that Ratner's customers
> washing their hands for the meal could not see into Lansky's Lounge.
> If the owners of Ratner's chose to give up their hashgaxa because they
> wanted Lansky's Lounge to be open on Friday nights, then that is not
> something for which the Torah-observant community should take direct
> responsibility. But that is not what the manager told me when I
> telephoned last week. He told me that Ratner's was giving up its
> hashgaxa because they "didn't get the support of the Jewish
> community". We should consider what this might mean.
> . . .
> I think the more likely explanation is that the kashrut organizations
> insisted on incorporating increased social control into their kashrut
> supervision, and that the Jewish community allowed them to do so.
> This is speculation on my part, and it may not be what really
> happened, but it is plausible, and it fits the facts, and it is
> certainly probable enough that we should look into whether it happened
> or not. If it did happen, it was wrong.
I think, based on the article in the June 5 Jerusalem Post, that your
speculation is incorrect:
::Which brings us back to Ratner's, which in an effort to attract this
::younger, hipper crowd closed off a section of its kosher dairy restaurant
::and turned it into a bar dubbed the Lansky Lounge, after an old patron,
::legendary mobster Meyer Lansky. The bar has become so popular that Ratner's
::owners decided to expand it at the expense of the original restaurant. Since
::the Lansky Lounge will start serving a meat menu, and both eateries will
::stay open on Shabbat, the original Ratner's will have to forgo its kosher
::certification despite the fact it will still serve the same dairy fare.
::. . .
::"We've had some complaints from a few of the old-timers," Harmatz responded.
::"But you have to understand that most of these people, who say they really
::love Ratner's, only visit every few months, or even once a year. The younger
::people moving into the neighborhood don't really care for the heavy kind of
::food we've always served, and they come in all the time to the Lansky
::Lounge." The irony here is that it's safe to say, without doing a survey,
::that many of those yuppies are also Jews (I know quite a few myself) whose
::families three or four generations back chose to flee the neighborhood at
::the first opportunity.
I would guess that the Kof K objected to the atmosphere at Lansky's, but was
content with the opaque mechitza.
Kol tuv,
Moshe Feldman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:58:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Kosher L'Mehadrin
<<kashruth has several issues -- only one of them is "standards", others
include level of supervision (periodicity, completeness, etc.) ability
to supervise (ie resources, knowlege), independence, procedures for
resolving issues, trustyworthiness of both supervisor and supervisee.>>
And every one of your non-"standard" issues is a standard.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Tatel <chaimyt@...>
Subject: Kosher L'Mehadrin, request for correction
Akiva Miller incorrectly quoted me in mail-jewish Vol. 32 #63, as
saying: "Chaim Tatel wrote <<< it is a "given" that every Rabbinate
accepts every other Rabbinate's hechsher. >>>
I don't recall who said this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 12:47:19 EDT
Subject: Kosher L'Mehadrin: Retraction
In Mail-Jewish 32:63, I **incorrectly** quoted Chaim Tatel as saying: <<<
it is a "given" that every Rabbinate accepts every other Rabbinate's
hechsher. >>> He did *not* say that.
Chaim's original post, which started this whole "Kosher L'Mehadrin"
thread, appeared in MJ 32:39. In MJ 32:45, "Anonymous" responded to that
question, and *he* is the one who made that statement about the
Rabbinates.
A *different* Anonymous poster responded in MJ 32:51, and quoted from
those two postings, but did not clearly label the different quotes, and
that is what led to my error in my posting which appeared in MJ 32:63.
These mistakes can be avoided if people mark their quotations clearly.
They can also be avoided by double-checking one's sources to begin with;
I was negligent in this and I publicly apologize.
Those who would like to see the original postings which I am talking
about, can go to the Mail-Jewish WebSite (http://mail-jewish.org), or
send an e-mail to <listproc@...> containing any or all of the
following lines:
get listproc/mail-jewish/volume32 v32n39
get listproc/mail-jewish/volume32 v32n45
get listproc/mail-jewish/volume32 v32n51
get listproc/mail-jewish/volume32 v32n63
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Danny Skaist <danny@...>
Subject: Number of Bechorim
The "bechorim problem" can be solved by remembering that 80% of the Jews
died in Egypt, during the plague of darkness. Their children were
"adopted" by the other Israelites, so each Israelite family could have
had up to 5 times the normal number of bechorim.
danny
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew M Greene <agreene@...>
Subject: Polygamy and Takkanat Rabbeinu Gershom
I saw "The Ride Down Mt. Morgan" on Broadway last week, and it got me
wondering what the halachic situation is now regarding polygamy. My
understanding is that takkanat Rabbeinu Gershom, which prohibited
polygamy, was for a period of 1,000 years and that this period recently
expired.
So, several questions come to mind. (For all of these, I'm primarily
curious about the answers in an American Ashkenazic community.)
First of all, is it true that the takkanah itself has expired?
Second, if so, what is the halachic status of a bigamous marriage?
Third, on the assumption that a bigamous marriage would still be
forbidden d'rabbanan, if a bigamous marriage is nonetheless undertaken
(intentionally by all three parties), what are the consequences? Do we
compel a get and, if so, how and for which wife? What is the status of
the edim in the community, assuming that they knew all the relevant
facts at the time they signed the ketubah?
(Who says you can't find Torah in the theater? :-)
Thanks,
Andrew
[This topic has been discussed a number of times on the list, search on
either polygamy or Gershom at the mail-jewish archives search engine on
the mail-jewish home page (http://www.mail-jewish.org). One of the last
issues that deal with this is in Vol 31 number 89. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Goldberg <joel@...>
Subject: Re: Pre-Chuppa wedding pictures
The reason for the separation is that the bride may, in her excitement
at seeing the groom, become niddah. Without taking a position on whether
or not this is "scientific", it would seem to me to be as much a problem
whether in the bagel shop, the aufruf or while taking pictures before
the wedding.
Joel Goldberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anonymous
Subject: prenup vs ketuba
Now let's be honest. The truth is that when it's needed, the words on
the ketuba are useless. Women are told that if they want a get, they
have to give up their rights. Rabbinic lawyers tell them; rabbis tell
them. The men sign whatever is put before them when they get married,
because when the marriage needs to be ended, many, if not most women,
are told that it's standard procedure to give up ketuba to get the get.
I've been helping a friend through her divorce. She has been told by her
Beit Din lawyer and some of the rabbis helping her that if she wants the
get, she should give up her rights to her ketuba. Now, isn't that
supposed to be the document that protects the woman if the marriage
can't continue? It's signed in public by the husband. Isn't that good
enough? Why should a prenup be stronger? I can see the time when the
woman will be told: "If you want a get, give up your rights to the
ketuba and prenup. Everyone does it; it's routine." Besides that, the
present situation makes a travesty, a mockery of halacha. These rabbis
and lawyers are hypocrites concerning their respect for halacha.
I don't want to get into a long tirade concerning the tactics used to
weaken the women, so they'll make a deal detrimental to themselves. I just
want to remind everyone that someone who lives a truly halachik life has
an obligation to see that the divorcing husband gives his wife a proper
ketuba and all that he signed to give her in the ketuba.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 22:57:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: Shabboth Belts are garments
Shalom Krischer in mjv32n33 writes
>>>
Wait a minute, AFAIU a "shabbos belt" (one where the buckle has been
"modified" to use a key instead of the usual clasp) is allowed ONLY
because it too is a "non normal" way of carrying ("k'liacher yad"
{literally "as if on the back of the hand" ie "non normal method of
carrying"}), and as such, both methods "rely" on the same heter.
>>>
My understanding is that a Shabbos belt is permissable because it is A
GARMENT(if it is made properly). You can wear a shabbos belt for the
same reason you can wear shoes and glasses. As for the key if it is an
integrated intrinsic functioning part of the garment there is no problem
Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA
<RHendel@...>; Math, Towson
Moderator Rashi is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anonymous
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:16:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: New List: Sicha
Orthodox Jews who are homosexual are in a difficult situation. Not only
must they deal with many issues of self-esteem, but, as a mostly
invisible part of the larger Orthodox community, they must withstand a
large amount of indirect hostility.
Sicha (dialogue) is a new list based at Shamash that is devoted to
creating dialogues between heterosexual and homosexual Orthodox Jews.
In this way, it is hoped that this invisible part of the observant
community will be recognized and acknowledged, leading to greater
understanding.
Sicha is unmoderated. Subscriptions, however, are not automatic; each
subscriber will be queried as to their intent on subscribing.
To subscribe, send a message to: <listproc@...>
with the words: sub sicha Firstname Lastname
...where "Firstname Lastname" corresponds to those parts of your name.
Unless you post, you name will not be visible to other subscribers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 32 Issue 78
