Volume 33 Number 54
Produced: Sun Sep 10 10:07:51 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Children in Shul - Children's Service
[Edward Ehrlich]
Dishes not used for a Year
[Michael Hoffman]
Gematria and Pi
[Sheldon Meth]
Jesus
[Yisrael Medad]
Parents Walking Down at Weddings (2)
[Freda B Birnbaum, Rick Turkel]
Seperate Cemetaries, was - Parents Walking Down at Weddings
[Andy Goldfinger]
Steps
[Yisrael Medad]
Tefilin & Wedding Rings (5)
[Aaron Fischman, Mike Gerver, Michael Poppers, Y. Askotzky,
Rachel Swirsky]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Edward Ehrlich <eehrlich@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 16:33:07 +0200
Subject: Children in Shul - Children's Service
David Weitz <weitzd@...> wrote:
>I am amazed that the British institution of the Children's Service
>has not become more widespread. This is essentially a shortened sevice
>(about an hour or so) led by parents or responsible teenagers held in
>the shul's Bet Midrash or other suitable location and gives children an
>educational experience while preventing them from disturbing the
>davenning in shul.
David has brought up some good points regarding a Children's Service,
but there is a down side also. The synagogue of my youth had a pre-Bar
Mitzvah service. The regular Shabbat service was at least 3 hours long
and in the tradition of Conservative syngagoues, decorum was tightly
maintained, so children were not especially welcomed. There was even a
seperate service for post Bar Mitzvah teenagers.
The problem is that the "main synagogue service" became an imposing and
not a very welcoming place. I understand that children running around
during a service can be disturbing to the adults there, but don't forget
that the children are receiving an important message: that they're part
of the congretation and have a place in the community which they will
eventaully become full members of.
It would be a worthy goal to find some sort of middle ground where
children are not a major disturbance without having to segregate them to
a seperate room.
Ed Ehrlich <eehrlich@...>
Jerusalem, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Hoffman <hoffmanm@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 14:37:18 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Re: Dishes not used for a Year
The Chacham Tzvi holds that if food was cooked in chometz keilim that
have not been used for 12 months (lunar) that this food is permissible
on Pesach. Several poskim hold like the Chacham Tzvi, but many oppose
this view, even if what was cooked was not a "dovor chorif", especially
according to the Rama who holds that we forbid "nosen taam lif'gam" on
Pesach, even bediavad. (See Pri Megadim YD 103 Sifsei Daas 17, who is
machmir even with an issur derabanan")
The consensus today seems to be not like the Chacham Tzvi. However, if
there are other heteirim, we do "metzaref" the Chacham Tzvi. The Tur
(YD 121) brings the Baal haIttur, who holds that klei cheres can be
kashered by doing hagolo three times. (When Chazal said that an issur
doesn't leave the walls of a kli cheres through hagolo, the Ittur takes
that to mean one hagolo, but with three hagolos it is possible to remove
the issur.) We do not pasken like the Baal haIttur, but since he is
brought down in the Tur, we use this opinion as a tziruf with other
heteirim. Thus, Rav Moshe paskens (Igros Moshe YD 2nd part siman 46)
regarding a fancy set of porcelain dishes that had not been used for
over one year, and where there would be a great monetary loss by
forbidding the set, and furthermore the plates are usually only a kli
sheini etc. in this case he allowed doing hagolo three times on the
plates.
In other words - we do not pasken like the Chacham Tzvi alone, and we do
not pasken like the Ittur, but putting them together, especially when
there are other kulos as well, is acceptable.
Ksivah vachasimah tovah,
Michael Hoffman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon Meth <SHELDON.Z.METH@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 07:50:20 -0400
Subject: Gematria and Pi
In v33 n50, Stan Tenen writes:
"There are some Hebrew words that could be understood to be metaphors
for a circle and a radius (or diameter). For example: the gematria for
"year", Shin-Nun-He, Shana, is 355. A year, of course, was a complete
circle of the heavens, which our sages certainly were aware of because
this knowledge was necessary for the calendar"
There's a more accurate "relationship" between "year" and "Pi."
The number of seconds in a solar year, 31556940, is ten million times
Pi, to within 0.45%.
-Sheldon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 15:29:29 +0200
Subject: Jesus
Gilad J. Gevaryahu <Gevaryahu@...> wrote:
>The line was censored because of
> the gematria of "varik." "varik" [vav, reish, yod, kuf=316] and so is
> Jesus [yod, shin, vav=316].
Since we really don't know how the man spelled his name, his Gematria
would be problematic.
The letters Yud-Shin-Vav are what appear in censored portions of the
Talmud - see the fascinating little booklet "Chisronot HaShas" - but
seem to stand for: yimach sh'mo v'zichro. My Hebrew New Testament
spells his name with an Ayin so as to play on "Salvation".
So maybe we have to count all over again?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Freda B Birnbaum <fbb6@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 09:54:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Parents Walking Down at Weddings
One more anecdotal account...:
At our wedding, we had the fathers/groom - mothers/bride arrangement,
and I know my mother (not brought up frum so no family minhag in the
background) thought it was cool because it symbolized the two families
getting together etc.
And as has already been noted, it can be very helpful when there are
family circumstances that would make the other model not so workable.
Freda Birnbaum, <fbb6@...>
"Call on God, but row away from the rocks"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick Turkel <rturkel@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 10:20:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Parents Walking Down at Weddings
Another mayse on this subject:
Last year my daughter married a seventh-generation Yerushalmi
from a very frum family, and I ran into a problem because of a local
custom I'd never encountered before. Their minhag is that each of the
wedding participants walk to the chupa attended by a married couple, the
chatan by his parents and the kala by hers. Problem was, I'm a widower
who hasn't (yet) remarried. In other similar cases I've seen, the
living parent walks his/her child alone, which to my mind gives honor to
the deceased parent.
My daughter has some very close friends in Har Nof who
befriended her while she was learning there, and she had chosen them to
do the honor. My feeling was that, as her father, the honor of walking
her to the chupa should be mine, regardless of whether or not I had a
wife at the time. Several options were considered, one of which was to
have that couple walk with her and I would walk right behind them. (If
I'm not mistaken, that was what the chatan's parents did at their
wedding, since his mother's father was no longer alive at the time.)
Needless to say, that was entirely unacceptable to me; quite frankly, it
made me feel that the only thing I was good for was paying the bills.
:-(
The peshara (compromise) we came up with was for us to walk four
abreast - the wife of that couple, my daughter, myself and the husband.
I felt a little put out because it seemed to me as though I was tagging
along with them, but it was far better than (a) insisting on getting my
way and violating a minhag that was important to them, or (b) walking
behind them and _really_ looking like a "fifth wheel."
Incidentally, the happily married couple has a beautiful
eight-month-old baby boy, my first grandchild, b`"h.
Kol tuv.
Rick Turkel (___ _____ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ ___
<rturkel@...> ) | | \ ) |/ \ ein |navi| be|iro\__) |
<rturkel@...> / | _| __)/ | ___) | ___|_ | _( \ |
Rich or poor, it's good to have money. Ko rano | rani, u jamu pada.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Goldfinger <Andy.Goldfinger@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 08:51:57 -0400
Subject: Seperate Cemetaries, was - Parents Walking Down at Weddings
I would like to direct the discussion to another direction. That of
cemetaries.
At a wedding, live people are involved and I can therefore understand
that some people are sensitive to mixing men and women due to tznius
(modesty) and the potential for sexual attraction.
When my father was niftar (passed away), however, I found that the
cemetary we wanted to use did not allow men and women to be buried in
the same section. They required separate burial. We ended up using a
different cemetary, since my mother wanted to acquire a plot next to my
father.
What is the reason for this? Certainly the potential for sexual
attraction is not an issue in cemetaries? Does anyone know the status
of, and the reasons for, the various minhagim (customs)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 15:19:52 +0200
Subject: Steps
Danny Skaist <danny@...> wrote:
>No they had me in mind. The steps are a work of genius. 2 steps flat
>and 1 up means that the "up steps" fall on alternate feet. This makes
>it very comfortable. A child would require 3 and 1 making it a lot harder.
well, since I know Danny, I also know he has very long legs. But it
doesn't make a difference, the more steps a kid goes "flat", is easier
for him instead of constantly ascending with not enough breathing space
inbetween.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Fischman <afischman@...>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 13:10:53 +0000
Subject: Re: Tefilin & Wedding Rings
Paul Ginsburg Asks:
>When putting on the Tefilin shel Yad, does Halachah require one to take
>off their wedding ring/band? (I recognize that most frum Jews don't
>wear wedding rings).
I wear a ring too, and I follow the washing rule - if you don't take
your ring off to knead bread (change oil, etc..) you do not need to take
it off to wash netilat yadayim since it is not a chatzizah
[interference?]. By extention, its not a chatzizah for tefilin as well.
Aharon
<afischman@...>
H (201) 833-0801
F (208) 330-1402
www.alluregraphics.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Gerver <Mike.Gerver@...>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 10:41:06 +0200
Subject: Tefilin & Wedding Rings
Paul Ginsburg asks, in v33n51,
> When putting on the Tefilin shel Yad, does Halachah require one to take
> off their wedding ring/band? (I recognize that most frum Jews don't
> wear wedding rings).
Huh? I wear a wedding ring, and all my frum married male contemporaries
wear wedding rings (I got married 25 years ago). True, frum Jews don't
have double ring ceremonies under the chuppah, but men not wearing
wedding rings at all? Is this some new chumrah that the younger
generation has taken up, which I missed?
Regarding Paul's question, I'm pretty sure there is no halachic
requirement to take off your wedding ring when putting on
tefillin. First of all, depending on your minhag, the retsua [strap]
might not even go around your ring finger. But even if it does, I think
that there is no requirement for the retsua to be in direct contact with
your skin, it's only the bayit that has to be in direct contact with
your skin. A Lubavitcher friend, who sometimes went around getting
strangers to put on tefillin, once told me that he didn't make a point
of asking them to remove their wristwatches. It's not halachically
necessary, and insisting on it might make them suspicious-- is this some
kind of scam to steal my watch?
Mike Gerver
Raanana, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Poppers <MPoppers@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 12:44:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Tefilin & Wedding Rings
> When putting on the Tefilin shel Yad, does Halachah require one to take
off their wedding ring/band? <
See the Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 27:4 and the 27:16 commentary of the
Mishna B'rurah -- based on it, later authorities apparently insist that
we should be stringent and avoid having any item on either our heads or
our arms & hands that would prevent the straps from touching our bodies
(while it's normative Halacha that nothing should interfere between our
flesh and the actual t'fillin [boxes]). Indeed, I do take my ring off
before putting my tallis gadol (and, subsequently, my t'fillin) on.
> (I recognize that most frum Jews don't wear wedding rings).
That depends on the community and/or the wishes of the kallah (e.g. my
wife _wanted_ to buy me a ring).
All the best (including wishes for a great Shabbos!) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Y. Askotzky <sofer@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 17:52:21 +0200
Subject: Tefilin & Wedding Rings
I haven't heard a psak on this but I would presume that it would be the
same as a watch. The Tchbiner Rav ZT"L, one of the foremost poskim of
the last generation and Rav Ovadiah Yosef hold that one may wrap the
tefillin over the watch. If I recall the reasoning is that this is
something that is almost always worn and therefore would not be
considered as a halachic separation between the tefillin and skin. Those
who wear a ring, even though its not an accepted practice among many
frum Jews (is it because it may be considered "beged Isha", literally
womans clothes?) wear it all the time like a watch.
kol tuv,
Rabbi Yerachmiel Askotzky, certified sofer and examiner
<sofer@...> www.stam.net 1-888-404-STAM(7826)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rachel Swirsky <yu211366@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 14:31:00 -0700
Subject: Tefilin & Wedding Rings
I do not have an answer for whether or not one should wear their wedding
ring while they are wearing their teffillin, but I would like to address
something else said in the e-mail.
>I recognize that most frum Jews don't wear wedding rings
Here in Toronto it is becoming more and more common amongst frum couple
for the husband to wear a wedding ring as well. When we first got
engaged, my husband was not so thrilled with the idea of wearing a ring
and thought that it might even be considered begged isha. His rebbe
said that not only was it allright to wear a ring, but that it was
recommended! Frum women who are married are easy to spot. For the most
part, we do not get hit on at the grocery store and shadchanim leave us
alone. A hat on a woman is a sure sign. Friends of my husband who were
long married were approached by shadchanim.
Historically this has not been a problem as there were different styles
of dress for single and married people of both genders. Now this is
only (relatively) true in shule. A ring is a visible sign that a man is
not available. This is even more true for people who work in the
business world.
Rachel Swirsky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 33 Issue 54
