Volume 37 Number 19
Produced: Wed Sep 25 7:00:40 US/Eastern 2002
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Genderized Eiruv
[Yisrael and Batya Medad]
HaYom: Art Scroll versus Birnbaum
[ben katz]
Interesting Sefarim
[Shmuel Himelstein]
"Seating for men only" sign
[Chaim Mateh]
two pieces of information regarding pregnant women
[Harry Zelcer]
Whiskey Question
[Bill Bernstein]
Zichron Teruah
[Baruch J. Schwartz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael and Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:28:36 +0200
Subject: Genderized Eiruv
<chaim-m@...> (Chaim) wrote:
Yes, Hilchoss Eiruvin apply to women just like they do to men.
However, there are families (that I know personally) wherein the
Eiruv is Hallachically OK, but the men of the family are machmir
on themselves and don't use it.
While Chaim is undoubtedly correct in that there are families like that,
I think that what he meant to say, in describing that reality, and this
should not be construed as applicable to Chaim himself, was that there
are certain men who will not deign themselves to do certain physical
labors like pushing baby carriages or carrying pots of hot food from one
apartment to another and so on that are better left to women to do. Or
am I being too machmir?
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ben katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:46:16 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: HaYom: Art Scroll versus Birnbaum
>From: Sam Saal <ssaal@...>
>Does anyone know why Art Scroll has a different order than Birnbaum for
>the lines in this song and why Art Scroll skips one of the lines?
Birnbaum straightens out the alphabetic acrostic (note that the
second letter after the "tav" is in alphabetical order).
There are many versions of the prayer, some with many extra lines
and variant lines. I belive some have a complete acrostic. See
Goldschmidt's RH mahzor.
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
e-mail: <bkatz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <shmuelh@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:45:05 +0200
Subject: Interesting Sefarim
I recently came across 4 volumes of a work still in progress entitled
Piskei Teshuvot, by a R. Rabinowitz (whose address is in Ramat Shlomo,
Jerusalem).
Each volume uses the Mishnah Brurah as a base and then goes on to bring
all types of modern-day questions and Teshuvot. So far, there are
volumes on Vol. 2, 3 (possibly only partial), 5, and 6.
I find this an excellent source.
Another relatively new Sefer is entitled Ishei Yisrael, which, as the
author - whose name I forget - state clearly, is modeled on Shemirat
Shabbat Kehilchato in style, but deals with Hilchot Tefillah.
I bought all of these at Or Hatzafon in Meah Shearim (15 Meah Shearim
Street).
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Mateh <chaim-m@...>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:45:49 +0200
Subject: Re: "Seating for men only" sign
In vol 37 #15, Shayna Kravetz <skravetz@...> wrote:
<<While I applaud Chaim's effort to be melamed zchus >>
Thank you.
<< I don't understand his reasoning. Is he saying that the social
interaction between women at a meal is something that should be
prevented?>>
No.
<<Or is it that he feels that the women socializing creates a problem if
it occurs within view and ear-shot of men?>>
That was the direction of my limud zchus.
<<If so, perhaps the solution for Chaim >>
Since I was being melamed zchus but not necessarily agreeing with the
necessity for the sign, I do not need a solution, thank you.
However, to add a bit to what I wrote: if we agree that the concept of
zniut is to stand out or attract attention as little as possible, and
the purpose of the sign (from the perspective of the store owner) was to
keep the store as "tzanua" as possible, then it could be argued that a
group of women sitting at a table socializing would indeed stand out and
attract attention of others. If those "others" are men, then there
would indeed be an issue of tzniut here.
I will point out again that I eat at pizzerias that do not have any
signs and where families sit together, so my comments remain what they
were intented to be: a limud zchus and perhaps explanations of the
motives for the placing of the sign.
In the same issue, Andrew Klafter <KLAFTEAB@...> wrote:
<< It is embarrassing that an Orthodox Jewish establishment would
completely exclude women.>>
It may indeed be embarrassing to someone who has never lived in an
environment where separation is stricter than in his community. To the
secular Jew, the entire issue of separation, including in Shul etc, is
embarrassing. Does that mean that separation is wrong? We aren't
supposed to be embarrassed to follow our beliefs, especially if they are
following their Rabbanim.
<<This means that a man cannot take his family out to eat there.>>
Correct. It seems that the majority of the patrons of that store, who
come from that community, want it that way.
<< It means that a mother and daughter who wish to eat a meal together
or two female friends who wish to spend some time together are not
welcome in such an establishment.>>
They are welcome to buy but not to sit and eat. You got it right. As I
wrote above, that's the norm in that neighborhood. Should they
compromise their religious principles because some people don't agree
with them?
<<Your logic would also justify excluding women from the use of public
transportation, excluding women from opening back accounts "lest the
inevitable chatter and laughter which occurs while waiting on line at
the back occur in view an earshot of men," etc.>>
Since taking any concept to the absurd does not prove anything, I won't
respond to the above.
<<The ritual requirements of the beis hakenneses should not be
misapplied to pizzerias and buses.>>
You may feel that it is misapplied. They feel that it is applied
correctly. I respect their beliefs and actions and will therefore act
as they wish when in their neighborhood and stores. If I would feel
strongly enough against their beliefs and actions, I would simply not
patronize their store.
<< I think your "limud z'chus" is out of place.>>
Actually, I (obviously) think that it is entirely in place.
<< I am not apolagetic or ashamed of the fact that our holy Torah and
halacha separate the sexes.>>
And the people in the neighborhood of that store are also not apologetic
or ashamed of their beliefs and strictness regarding separation.
<<Exclusion, which is NOT required by the halakha, is totally different
than separation.>>
On the one hand, I don't see it as exclusion since women can buy in the
store too. OTOH, they are excluded from sitting in the store. If we
tried hard enough, we could come up with other instances of "exclusion"
within Hallacha. And whether the type of exclusion that is practiced in
that store is required by Hallacha or not, I presume that they would
have their Poskim who require them to do what they do.
Kol Tuv,
Chaim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Zelcer <reliablehealth@...>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:38:59 -0400
Subject: two pieces of information regarding pregnant women
I would like to share with you two pieces of information that recently
came to my attention - both of which are of great importance to pregnant
women:
1) My brother-in-law who is a rav and lives in Yerushalayim told me the
following:
There was a religious doctor in a hospital in Yerushalayim who noticed
that a certain percentage of pregnant woman who were fasting on Yom
Kippur had premature labor and miscarried their child. So he went to a
big rav in Yerushalayim and told him, I am not a rav and I cannot tell
you whether pregnant woman should fast on Yom Kippur, but I can tell you
that a significant percentage of women are miscarrying on Yom Kippur.
The rabbonim in Yerushalayim investigate the matter and decreed that
pregnant women should not fast on Yom Kippur. They ruled that women who
are in their 4th through their 8th month (inclusively) of their
pregnancy should NOT fast - even if they feel ok. They should drink less
than a shiur of water (i.e., approximately the amount of water that
fills a whiskey cup and drink this amount repeatedly throughout Yom
Kippur (even at night) - approximately every nine minutes. If they do
not feel well they should drink as much as they desire. This is now the
accepted practice in Yerushalayim for the chareidi community.
Many rabbonim in our country are familiar with this ruling but that have
not yet accepted it for application in the United States (perhaps our
climate is cooler and our homes and shules are air conditioned and
therefore perhaps women in our country do not dehydrate as quickly) but
they are aware of what was declared for Yerushalayim. (Due to my own
ignorance of the above, I was naively running around on Yom Kippur
trying to find a heter for my daughter to rinse out her mouth after
throwing up repeatedly.)
I would advise to keep this information in mind and consult a rav when
applicable. I wish I could have shared this information with you before
Yom Kippur, but I did not find out about this until yesterday.
2) Many doctors are now appraising their pregnant patients that they
have the option of storing the blood of their baby's umbilical
cord. This blood contains cells that are equivalent to stem cells and
can be used to treat many diseases that the baby (or its genetically
close relatives) may develop. For example, this blood can be used in
cases where a bone marrow transplant is required, and to treat certain
cancers. In addition, new research is likely to develop additional
applications for this blood.
I discussed this with a rav, who told me that he had already heard of
this and he assured me that there is no halachik consideration that
should prevent anyone from storing this blood. The only possible
consideration is the cost to capture and store this blood which is
currently approximately $1,300 initially and $100 each year thereafter.
If applicable please discuss this with your doctor.
Thank you.
Heshey Zelcer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Bernstein <bbernst@...>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:20:34 -0500
Subject: Whiskey Question
One of the (many) advantages of living here is the easy availability of
interesting and inexpensive trips. Last week just before Sukkos we made
one such to the annual Bourbon Festival in Bardstown KY. During that we
had the opportunity to tour distillaries, among them Heaven Hill. The
distillary states that it was founded by the "5 Shapira Brothers" in the
1930s and continues today owned by the Shapira and Homel families.
"Distillary" here is a misnomer--the distillary burned in an awesome
fire in 1996. The company instead ages and bottles liquor, not just
bourbon. Among their products are Scotches ("Isle of Jura"), Canadian
Whiskey, Tequila, as well as Heaven Hill (an "economy" brand), Evan
Williams (mid-range) and Elijah Craig (a premium). The whiskeys are
aged from 3 to 18 years. In total they have hundreds of products and
labels they bottle and sell. Of course the question: assuming that the
owning family is Jewish and assuming they do not "sell" their products
for Pesach, then should all of them be forbidden as "chametz sh'avar
alav haPesach" (chometz in Jewish possession for the holiday)? Do the
factual questions I mentioned make a difference?
Chag Someach,
Bill Bernstein
Nashville TN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Baruch J. Schwartz <schwrtz@...>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:56:52 +0200
Subject: Zichron Teruah
Shimon Lebovitz asks about yom teruah and zichron teruah. Kol hakavod to
his rabbi, who advised the congregation to omit the word "yom" on
Shabbat. And as a matter of fact, this is not an omission at all. Saying
"yom" is an error, so not saying it is not an "omission".
The Torah speaks about Rosh Hashanah in two places: in Emor it calls it
zichron teruah, and in Pinhas it says yom teruah. The peshat is fairly
clear: yom teruah means "a day of noise-making", that is, a day of
crying out to God (as understood by the tradition: sounding the shofar),
whereas zichron teruah means "remembrance by means of noise-making",
that is, a day on which we call out to God (again: traditionally
understood to mean sounding the shofar), hoping to move Him to
"remember", i.e. to pay attention and take notice of us. This use of
zikaron (or zichron in the construct) is found throughout the
Torah. According to the peshat, therefore, the two expressions explain
and complement each other.
The sages, however, characteristically playing on another, later meaning
of zikaron, "reminder", ask: do the two passages not contradict each
other? How can the same day be both a day of shofar-blowing and a
"reminder of" shofar-blowing? The resolution: when RH comes on a
weekday, it is yom teruah; when it comes on Shabbat, it is "zichron
teruah"--now reinterpreted to mean that since you don't actually blow
the shofar you are at least reminded of it. As many are aware, this is
adduced as a proof that the shofar is not sounded on Shabbat (see
Yerushalmi Rosh Hashana IV:1; Bavli Rosh Hashana 29b; Peskita 167b).
The nusah of the tefilla is based on this. Masechet Soferim 19:8 says
explicitly: "When RH comes on Shabbat, one does not say yom teruah but
rather zichron teruah", and this is a much more precise formulation than
the one brought in Orah Hayyim 583:7 (which means the same thing,
however. For the halachic sources see Ishei Yisrael 45:37 and notes 106
and 107).
The practice apparently developed gradually. As the apparatus in the
Goldschmidt mahzor shows, in some older mahzorim the distinction was not
known and zichron teruah was said on shabbat and weekdays. The aharonim
mentioned by the Mishnah Berura (583:19), who say that if one says
zichron teruah on a weekday that's fine too, may be simply reflecting
this older practice.
In any case, "yom zichron teruah" was never said and is just an
error. It is easy to see how the error came into being. Printers of
mahzorim printed: YOM TERUAH and in between the two words they added, in
parentheses "(beshabbat: zichron)". Since, elsewhere in the davening,
words in parentheses are simply added on Shabbat, many people are
unaware that in this case the word zichron is not to be inserted after,
but rather said in place of, the word that precedes it. Some mahzorim
explain clearly what is meant: see Avodat Yisrael p. 387, also
Goldschmidt (and check the old reliable Tukchinsky luach!). Others leave
you to figure it out, and many people therefore err.
This will come again next year; be prepared.
Baruch J. Schwartz
Efrat
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 37 Issue 19