Volume 33 Number 78
Produced: Sat Nov 11 21:19:54 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Conversion
[Cheryl Hall]
Glatt
[Carl Singer]
Halacha & the Latest Intifada
[Yisrael Medad]
Halachically pregnant
[Chaim G Steinmetz]
Scarf, tsitsit, and narrow silk tallit (was: Towels and tsitsit)
[Harry Weiss]
Science in the Talmud
[Ahron]
Upsherin
[Perets Mett]
Wearing Tefilin all day
[Chaim Mateh]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Cheryl Hall <hallcheryl@...>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 17:33:34 -0800
Subject: Re: Conversion
>From: I.H Fox <ilan_25@...>
>Does anyone know of a posek that had a different view for a conservative
>conversion than a reform one? I saw this idea in a short essay that also
>added that the reason for this was that some of the Conservative leaders
>were shomrey mitvot. He also added that those conversions are not valid but
>there is some kind of meaning to this procedure. I was very surprised to see
>this.
I only have anecdotal comment, but a firsthand one. When I met with the
Av Bet Din regarding an Orthodox conversion, the first thing he did was
discuss the potential of the conservative conversion as being a valid
halakhic conversion. The main points to determine were first if there
was mikvah and if so was it a kosher mikveh, the other was the status of
the eidim/Bet Din, were these valid witnesses, were they Shomer Shabbat,
Shomer Mitzvot. We didn't need to investigate very far, I knew the
mikveh was fine but by orthodox standard the eidim would not have been
valid. With that determined we proceeded with his requirements.
Cheryl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:17:29 EST
Subject: Re: Glatt
> I recently heard a theory that many of the chumrot being observed were
> started by commercial companies to increase their profits.
> Eli Turkel
With all due respect, I'm not speaking of chumras -- the issue of
washing meat prior to kashering is not a chumra.
What I'm speaking of is reliability -- as I've mentioned on other
occasions, growing up as a child, I "knew" my meat was kosher because
the butcher my Mother went to, also davened in our shule. Today things
seem to be different.
Kol Tov
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:46:40 +0200
Subject: Halacha & the Latest Intifada
I'm sorry this is a bit late but...
As a result of the recent wave of violence, we here at Shiloh
(and other locations) had to deal with specific halachic qunadries
arising from the security situation.
a. on Yom Kippur, since almost two dozen Shilonians were mobilized, our
Rav gave out specific instructions as to how much water they were to
drink if a need arose that they become operational.
b. as for Succot, all families that had their Succot facing a potential
dangerous direction without any form of protection (that is, they could
be shot at) were strongly urged, I think the Rav just stopped short of
*forbidding*, to sleep in the Succa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim G Steinmetz <cgsteinmetz@...>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:13:47 -0800
Subject: Re: Halachically pregnant
Joshua Hosseinof <hosseino@...> writes
> b. See Encyclopedia Talmudit v.11 column 540 where you will see that
> Most Rishonim hold that a woman without a veset kavua has to treat the
> "onah beinonit" (the 30 day veset) as a veset kavua and as such would
> need to wait three months into the pregnancy (and not seeing blood) in
> order to cancel out the "onah beinonit".
The intention of those Rishonim is that the "onah beinonit" (the 30 day
veset)" is like "veset Kavua" concerning bedika (if you were not bodek
in the OB - see See Encyclopedia Talmudit further in that column). It
also dosn't get uprooted even if you don't usually see on the 30th day,
but if you didn't see AT ALL (i.e. she has a month without seeing at
all) there is "no onah beinonit". In other words, it's 30 days from an
ACTUAL period. Therefore, she wouldn't keep the onah beinonit" after the
first month of not seeing at all the whole month. See achronim YD
189:4.(The only one who disagrees and holds like what you wrote is
possibly the Lvush 189:13, but the other Achronim disagree).
Gut Shabbos
Chaim G. Steinmetz
<cgsteinmetz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 18:56:33 -0800
Subject: Scarf, tsitsit, and narrow silk tallit (was: Towels and tsitsit)
> From: Mike Gerver <Mike.Gerver@...>
> In v33n74, Barry Bank asks
> > What is the status of a scarf vis-a-vis tsitsit? It *is* 4-cornered and
> > *is* worn as an item of clothing.
> I believe a scarf doesn't require tsitsit, because it is worn around the
> neck, not on the torso. I always find it annoying when I see people
> wearing those narrow, silk-like tallitot around their necks. They often
> seem to be worn by non-Orthodox Jews who are davening at an Orthodox
> shul for a bar mitzvah, etc. I want to tell them to pull it down around
> their shoulders, since they might have made a bracha bitala if they are
> wearing it only around their neck, and in any case they are not
> fulfilling the positive mitzvah of wearing a tallit. But I have never
> had the chutzpah to tell them.
It is probably better that you do not say anything. The real Mitzvah of
Tzitzit is, if you wear something that is obligated in Tzitztit you
should wear Tzitzit.
There is a strong possibility that the Tzitzit on those shawls are not
halachically acceptable. It is thus better that the person violates
only the bracha levatala and not also violate the positive commandment
of Tzitzit by creating a garment that is subject to Tzitzit.
Harry Weiss
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ahron <awolf@...>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:05:17 -0500
Subject: Science in the Talmud
The Rambam say clearly many times that when it comes to matters
which are of Emunos V'Deios such as what will happen when mashiach comes
etc. we can never paskin according to one opinion against the
next. Rather each one is free to believe what he sees as correct. (see
the rambam in his letter on Tchias HaMeisim for one). This must
necessarily be so, since just because we have reason to Paskin like one
opinion (be it because of acceptance by the people or majority opinion)
does not mean that the other opinion is wrong. In halacha we MUST act
according to one opinion since we cannot do two opposite actions and so
it is necessary to determine a Psak. This does not mean the opinion we
do not Paskin like is incorrect. Rather we must follow one opinion and
so Psak tells us which opinion to follow. However when it comes to
beliefs and theoretical opinions what matters is not what one must DO
but rather what is really TRUE. Psak cannot establish the truth or
falsehood of an opinion. When Rav S.Z. Aurbach Paskins like the Rosh
this cannot mean that the Rambam and many other Rishonim are
wrong. Rather it can only mean that when it comes to halacha we must
follow the opinion of the Rosh to determine the Halacha. On a
theoretical level we cannot say that the Rambam, Rav Saadia Gaon and
many others were wrong. It follows therefore that in actuality one may
believe that the science in the Talmud is incorrect. (and I think
nowadays this opinion is clearly the truthful one).
Ahron
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 19:31:12 +0000
Subject: Re: Upsherin
Moish Gluck <moish@...> asked:
>Is there a custom that one should refrain from cutting a girls hair till
>age 3 as the custom is by boys? Why are girls different that the custom
>is not practiced as much as by boys?
The essence of the 'ceremony' of cutting a boy's hair at 3 is not such
much what you cut but what you leave.
The idea is to deliberately cut the hair and leave the pyos, thereby
inducting the child into that mitsvo.
This does not apply to girls, who are permitted to shave their earlocks,
if they so choose.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Mateh <chaim-m@...>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 22:29:49 +0200
Subject: Re: Wearing Tefilin all day
In vol 33 #75, Russell Hendel <rhendel@...> wrote:
<<So by Chaims own citation we have an INTERNAL QUESTION from the MB on the
MB: For on the one hand the MB says the reason we do not wear tefillin is
because we might pass intestinal gas---on the other hand righteous people
are accustomed to learn after prayer with
tefillin.>>
Note that the MB said that righteous people wear Tefilin after davening
to learn. Not the whole day.
<<As Chaim rightly pointed out these people who wear tefillin longer do
not have special stomachs. Consequently they are wearing tefillin
despite the fact they are passing gas.>>
I didn't say that, nor imply that, nor do I think the MB means that.
What the MB means IMO is that since we generally can't control our
bodily things, the time for Tefilin was restricted to a very small time
period. IOW, the general public wore/wears Tefilin only for davening
which is a small enough amount of time one can be careful with his body.
The righteous continue to be careful for the time period after davening
when they learn. IMHO, I think it's not unnatural to be able to control
one's body for a few hours. (I should point out that it's against
Hallacha to hold onesself back, even when passing gas. I was referring
to having a body that can be naturally "clean" (i.e., no gas) for a few
hours, which would include davening and learning after davening.
The MB discusses again having a clean body for Tefilin and/or for Krias
Shema (not necessarily necessary) and/or Shmona Esrei (more necessary).
See 80:1, MB notes 3-4.
<< Thus we have an internal contradiction.>>
Doesn't appear so to me.
<<It follows that people who do spiritual things all day MAY wear
tefillin even though they TEMPORARILY eat or TEMPORARILY PASS GAS.>>
Were this the case, the MB would have said that. Instead, he said that
righteous people (who presumably do spiritual things all day) wear
Tefilin longer than regualr people, i.e., the righteous wear Tefilin
even for learning after davening. The MB could have easily said that
the righteous wear Tefilin all day. He didn't say this. He said
exaclty what he meant.
<< By contrast people who eg work all day cannot wear tefillin because
they are not involved in spriritual things.>>
This is because they will have hesech hadaas (mental distractions),
which a second requirement when wearing Tefilin.
<< Similarly a person who has a stomach illness does not wear tefillin
because he is thinking about his illness.>>
The MB in 80:1 note 4 discusses such a person. The MB doesn't refer to
him as being mesiach daas (thinking of his illness), but rather as a
person without a clean body.
<<Thus in all cases the determinant of whether you wear tefillin is WHAT
YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT MOST OF THE TIME (Hope this clarifies this)>>
WADR this isn't consistant with what the MB says.
Kol Tuv,
Chaim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 33 Issue 78
