Volume 32 Number 99
Produced: Tue Jul 18 6:09:28 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
3rd Year Old Custom
[Susan Shapiro]
Catching up on layning
[Ira N. Jacobson]
"Catching up to Israel" in the leining
[Shlomo Godick]
Double Parshiyos (3)
[Jeff Fischer, Sammy Finkelman, E. Preil]
The Gematria in Nu06-05 (2)
[Russell Hendel, Avi Feldblum]
Hebrew Language Tapes?
[Jonathan Katz]
The MJ Answer to the "ending in 50" problem
[Russell Hendel]
Parking in another store's lot
[Stan Tenen]
Separation Of Matot and Massei
[David Cohen]
Upsherin
[Laurie Cohen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Shapiro <SShap23859@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 22:24:21 EDT
Subject: 3rd Year Old Custom
<< Does anyone know of similar Mitzvot that a girl can start doing at or
around her 3rd birthday as a sign of her 'maturity'? Not neccesarily as
a way of having a ceremony, but rather as a way to allow her to actively
participate in Mitzvot? >>
Yes, the Lubavitcher Rebbe instituted girls starting to light a Shabbos
candle at three years old (before her mother does, so her mother can
help her). Some have the custom of starting them as soon as they can
say the brocha, and with boys, the tzitzis as soon as they are toilet
trained, but 3 is the age of training for mitzvos.
Susan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira N. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 22:49:23 +0300
Subject: Re: Catching up on layning
I. Harvey Poch <harvpoch@...> wrote a very interesting survey
of double parshiot. But there was a minor error, which I intend to
correct:
> It is also interesting that the pattern of separating the aliyos for a
> double parshoh is different for each set of doubles (except for
> Chukas-Bolok, which is never doubled in Israel).
It also came as a surprise to me, but the Teimanim, even in Israel, this
year (for example) combine Hukkat and Balaq, and then they separate
Mattot and Mass'ei.
So "never" is a dangerous term to use, and also one that's not so easy to
check. Perhaps "never bei unz" would be more appropriate?
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shlomo Godick <shlomog@...>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:02:09 +0200
Subject: "Catching up to Israel" in the leining
An interesting addendum to the previous discussion: my son reported to
me the other day that a Yemenite friend at school told him that in
accordance with the Baladi Yemenite custom, his kehilla doubles up
Chukat-Balak instead of Matot-Masei this year, meaning that they are
out-of-sync with other *Israeli* kehillot for a number of Shabbatot.
Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeff Fischer <NJGabbai@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 07:43:53 EDT
Subject: Re: Double Parshiyos
For most sets of double parshiyos, the question of whether they are
together or not depend on whether it is a leap year or not. There are a
few exceptions to that rule, however:
1. Nitzvaim Vayelech are together if Rosh HaShana falls on a Thu. or
Shabbos. They are separate if Rosh HaShana falls on Monday or
Tueday.
2. Mattos Massay are always together unless Pesach falls on a Sunday AND
it is a leap year which VERY RARELY happens. There might be 1 or 2
other times that we read them separately, but it is very rare.
3. Chukat Balak is always read separately except when Shavuos falls on
Shabbos like it did this year.
4. Vayakhel Pekuide is sometimes read separately in a regular year.
Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 00 17:05:00 -0400
Subject: Double Parshiyos
Ben Katz wrote:
BK> Nitzovim-Vayelech is not really a double parasha. It was a single
BK> parasha that was split when we started reading V'zot ha-beracha on
BK> Simchat Torah (thus eliminating one shabat from the annual cycly).
BK> That is why it is so short (even together, it is the shortest
BK> parasha - 70 verses).
My Rabbi (in my shul) remarks at every opportunity that when we have two
Parashas that are combined it is not really two Parashahs that are read
together sometimes but one that is split. In other words Tazria-Metzora
is really one Parashah. From talking I have heard from someone that this
is not altogether correct - Chukas and Balak really are two separate
Parashahs and I think I remember something about Netzoim Vayelech. Maybe
I will be able to say more after Shabbos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: E. Preil <EMPreil@...>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:09:23 EDT
Subject: Re: Double Parshiyos
> Nitzovim-Vayelech is not really a double parasha. It was a single
> parasha that was split when we started reading V'zot ha-beracha on
> Simchat Torah (thus eliminating one shabat from the annual cycly). That
> is why it is so short (even together, it is the shortest parasha - 70
> verses).
Behar - 57
Tazria - 66
Kedoshim - 67
Kol tuv,
E. Preil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:37:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: The Gematria in Nu06-05
Alexander Heppenheimer in v32n40 gives a very lengthy response to
my question about "What is the real reason for avoiding nuts on
Rosh Hashana" as well as "Should we be following laws based on
Gematrias". Most of his comments were very informative and brought
new issues to light (For example I was unaware of the Mordechai)
2 Small corrections: Alex incorrectly argues against my claim that
"doing rabbinical ordinances because of gematrias is superstitious
and hence prohibited" by citing the famous Sifrah on Nu06-05 that
if a person says "I vow to abstain from wine" then he must abstain
for 30 days. The Talmud derives this because the GEMATRIA of the
verses words "he shall be in his nazariteness (YHYH)"is 30. (To be
fair to Alex he offers other arguments against my superstitious
classification)
But according to the Malbim the derivation is NOT from the Gematria
Rather the derivation is from the fact that the Hebrew word WILL BE
always denotes EMPHASIS and hence a nontransient period (The minimum
"non transient" period in many parts of Jewish law (like renting) is
30 days)
Even without this Malbim it is an accepted principle that "Quantities come
from Moses at Sinai". In other words the law was NOT derived from the
Gematria but from a Sinaitic tradition.
So...I don't know of any laws which were DERIVED from Gematrias...and
hence following Alex's sources I ask if we are allowed to follow
the recommendation of the Rma not to eat nuts seeing that the Rma's
1st reason is a numerical association.
My 2nd point is on Alexs citation of Rambam, Shechitah 10:12-13
where Rambam states that we do not use Medical Authorities to override
classification of TRAYFAH in an Animal (ie a deadly disease).Correct! But
my understanding is that it is only in certain Biblical commandments where
we do not use Medical authorities. In certain areas (eg violation of
Shabbath) and in all Rabbinical ordinances my understanding is that
we do use Medical authorities.
Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA; <RHendel@...>
Moderator Rashi is Simple
http://www.RashiYomi.Com/
Surfing the Talmudic Sea
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 06:00:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: The Gematria in Nu06-05
On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, Russell Hendel wrote:
> 2 Small corrections: Alex incorrectly argues against my claim that
> "doing rabbinical ordinances because of gematrias is superstitious
> and hence prohibited" by citing the famous Sifrah on Nu06-05 that
> if a person says "I vow to abstain from wine" then he must abstain
> for 30 days. The Talmud derives this because the GEMATRIA of the
> verses words "he shall be in his nazariteness (YHYH)"is 30. (To be
> fair to Alex he offers other arguments against my superstitious
> classification)
>
> But according to the Malbim the derivation is NOT from the Gematria
> ...
> Even without this Malbim it is an accepted principle that "Quantities come
> from Moses at Sinai". In other words the law was NOT derived from the
> Gematria but from a Sinaitic tradition.
> ...
I do not see that you support in any way that Alex has incorrectly argued.
Alex has brought a clear Gemarah that can be easily explained as Alex has
assumed. You have brought one acharon that interpret's that Gemarah
differently. I can see that you may want to hold like the Malbim, and
therefore hold the opinion that there is no gemarah that rules based on a
gematria, but I cannot see any validity at all in questioning someone else
who choses to intrepret the gemarah as it is written to indicate that we
pasken based on a gematria.
Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator
<mljewish@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonathan Katz <jkatz@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:54:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Hebrew Language Tapes?
Can anyone recommend a good set of tapes (or even better, CDs) which
would help someone who already knows intermediate/advanced Hebrew become
more fluent? Specifically-designed language courses are one possibility,
but tapes (entirely in Hebrew) of lectures, current events, books,
divrei Torah, etc. would also be great.
Jonathan Katz
<jkatz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:33:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: The MJ Answer to the "ending in 50" problem
Chaim Manaster enlarges upon my grandfathers question.
It seems to me that the same answer (that was given in MJ several years
ago) would apply to his enlarged question. Here is a brief summary
Assume the following rule: Round all Biblical numbers to the nearest 100
UNLESS the number ends in exactly 50. So eg 1234 1289 and 1250 would
appear as 1200 1300 and 1250 respectively
We can now ask the probability that among 16 tribes exactly 1 should
have an exact count of 50. This is a routine exercise in introductory
probability courses and is equal to 13.8%, not an unreasonable
number. (If we only deal with 12 tribes the probability of exactly one
census ending in 50 is 10.7%)
An intuitive defense of this number is as follows: The probability of a
census ending in 50 is 1% (since only 1 2-digit number ends in 50)
However there are 16 tribes which can have this census ending in 50.
Hence the probability that one of them ends in 50 is roughly 16%. We
however must multiply this 16% by the probability that NO OTHER tribe
ends in 50. There are 99 out of 100 ways that a tribe will not end in
50. Combining all the numbers we get 13.8%
Hope this helps
Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA; Math Towson; <RHendel@...>
Moderator Rashi is Simple
http://www.RashiYomi.Com/---------NEW IMPROVED
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 08:46:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Parking in another store's lot
>From: Chaim Shapiro <Dagoobster@...>
>Carl wrote,
> >> However, that pizza shop relies on people parking in that lot, as
> >> there is no other parking nearby. On occasion, when the lot is towing
> >> on a regular basis, the pizza shop posts a warning. Outside of that, it
> >> seems, everyone parks there.
> >
> > Is the pizza shop being a "good neighbor" -- perhaps it could make an
> > arrangement to pay to allow his/her customers to park in that lot. >>
>
>I would doubt that such permission would ever be granted, as it is
>already hard enough to find parking in that lot, even when one is
>shopping at the stores for which it is intended.
>
>The only possibility would be for the pizza store to ask for permission
>after hours, when most of the stores in the lot are closed, and parking
>is comparatively easy to find. These times, by the way, may be the
>busiest time of day/week for the pizza store (Saturday night and supper
>time)
Basically, in large cities where Jews live, and where generally business
is formal (as opposed to "out on the farm," where people may be friends,
but there aren't any kosher pizza parlors), the problem isn't just the
space, but the insurance. Who pays if a non-customer, after hours, has
an accident on the lot, or if a crime takes place? Parking in a lot
when you're not supposed to exposes you, the owner, and other persons
who may be appropriately parking there, to lawsuits, and it exposes the
owner of the lot to increased insurance premiums, which in some cases
can be substantial or prohibitive.
I know about this sort of thing because 25 years ago, when I was living
in the San Francisco area, I used to spend Sunday mornings making the
rounds of the industrial parks looking for discarded electronics
(trashed and smashed, but repairable,TV's, power tools, and like that)
in unlocked dumpsters. But then, around the time of Reagan, all of a
sudden, all of the dumpsters became locked and guarded. The reason was
simple. Companies were being held liable if someone hurt themselves
(like a child digging through their dumpster) and the companies were
beginning to fear that the Feds would overenforce security regulations
for companies with security clearances. So, company managers decided to
put up fences, lock gates, and lock all dumpsters and parking lots. The
issue wasn't that they didn't want people to take away what might be
valuable to others in what they were throwing out. The issue was fear of
liability, fear of regulations, and fear of all the paperwork if
something untoward happened. The same sort of thing is true with regard
to individuals who want to give out free food. Local authority insists
on all kinds of inspections and regulations, and in some locales people
can't give out free food without fear of tons of paperwork. An
overindustrialized and overly fearful society restricts and constricts
positive aspects of human nature, and prevents the full use of valuables
that are discarded because IMO it has more yirat-ha-insurance-company
than Yirat Hashem.
Best,
Stan
Meru Foundation http://www.meru.org <meru1@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Cohen <bdcohen@...>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:40:44 -0400
Subject: Separation Of Matot and Massei
<<From: Rich Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@...>
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. >>
The separation of the reading of Matot and Maasei is a function of the
fact that Shabbat Chazon (the Shabbat before Tisha B'av) always has
Parshat Devorim as its reading. Therefore, if Parshat Pinchas comes
before the beginning of the 3 weeks (before the 17th of Tammuz) we split
Matot and Maasei. In most years, however, Pinchas is the 1st Shabbat of
the 3 weeks, Matot and Maasei the 2nd, and Devorim, the 3rd.
David I. Cohen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Laurie Cohen <LSCHP@...>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:30:37 EDT
Subject: Re: Upsherin
> I know that some people use an 'Upsherin' as an opportunity to have a
> child start to wear a kippah and Tzizit as a sign of 'maturity' and a
> way to actively begin to perform 'mitzvot'. Does anyone know of similar
> Mitzvot that a girl can start doing at or around her 3rd birthday as a
> sign of her 'maturity'? Not neccesarily as a way of having a ceremony,
> but rather as a way to allow her to actively participate in Mitzvot?
There are some Chasidim that begin having their daughters light Shabbos
candles (or one candle) on their 3rd birthday. However, this is not the
minhag of most Orthodox--women usually begin lighting candles after
marriage. We started are own "minhag," whereas our daughters received
their first becher (silver kiddush cup) on their third Pesach. This
allowed them to more fully participate in the mitzvah of drinking the
four cups at the Seder, and then they continue to use it each Shabbos.
(Note that they do not say their own Kiddush.)
Laurie Cohen
<LSCHP@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 32 Issue 99