Volume 37 Number 80
Produced: Wed Dec 4 4:57:43 US/Eastern 2002
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Administrivia
[Avi Feldblum]
Alcoholic Milk (was Re: Hamar Medina)
[Sam Saal]
Chag Habanot
[Lisa Halpern]
Confiscation of items by a Teacher
[Carl Singer]
Delay after Brocho
[Bernard Raab]
A Different "Take" ON Confiscating
[c.halevi]
HEneitz? HOneitz!
[Michael Frankel]
Henetz HaChama (2)
[Shmuel Ross, Barak Greenfield, MD]
Henetz HaChama [sic]
[Ira L. Jacobson]
Henetz (really Hanetz) HaChama
[Chaim Tatel]
Kriat Shmah Before Retiring
[Yehonatan and Randy Chipman]
Naitz
[Seinfeld]
Nefilat Apayim
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Pagum wine
[Danny Skaist]
Rock Throwing
[Raphi Cohen]
Rocking Throwing
[Ezriel Krumbein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 04:25:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Administrivia
Hello All,
Just a quick message to apologize to all for falling off the communication
screen for longer than I thought. It looks like it is about three weeks
since I have been able to get on-line and get back to mail-jewish. Sorry
about that and I will be responding to anumber of your private emails as
well over the next few days. For now, I will be trying to catch up on
where we were when we left off.
I will probably alternate between issues with more recently suibmitted
postings and the older submitted postings over the next two days and see
where I am on the backlog
Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator
<mljewish@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sam Saal <ssaal@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 06:25:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Alcoholic Milk (was Re: Hamar Medina)
David Ziants <dziants@...> wrote:
>If the gemara concludes by permitting milk, then unless one follows the
>Rambam who only allows alcoholic drinks (and the milk in the g'mara
>had an alcoholic nature), anything which is stated by rishonim and
>achronim concerning milk and hamar medina ought to be appertaining to
>time and place.
Does anyone have a recipe for this ancient alcoholic milk? I wouldn't be
surprised if it required unpasturized milk, but I'd be interested to
know what it is, anyway.
Sam Saal <ssaal@...>
Vayiphtach HaShem et Pea haAtone
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lisa Halpern <halpern@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:51:02 -0500
Subject: Chag Habanot
I am seeking information about Chag haBanot, a celebration that I have
read occured (occurs?) in some communities on the 7th night of Chanukah.
Any knowledge about this celebration anyone is able to share with me
would be welcomed.
Thank you,
Lisa Halpern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <CARLSINGER@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:16:00 EST
Subject: Re: Confiscation of items by a Teacher
I remember that in certain classes of mine in high school, on the
first day of class, the teacher informed us that part of the
condition for being part of the class was not bringing food, and
any food that would be brought to class would be confiscated, and
this would not be considered stealing in any way because the
teacher had stated this as a condition for being in class, and
coming to class thus indicated an agreement to this deal.
I'm not quite sure that I understand how the acceptance of a
precondition impacts the halacha. I say to you, to my class you must
give up certain property rights. You come to the class and I confiscate
your property -- have I not still confiscated your property. Was the
agreement legal. Also, if you are a minor do you have the standing to
enter into this agreement.
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:56:09 -0500
Subject: Delay after Brocho
Several correspondents have noted the desirability of avoiding delay
between the brocho for a mitzvah and its actual fulfillment. Considering
that this is a general requirement, what's up with havdalah? We make a
brocho for the wine (or whatever chamar ha'medina we are using) but not
only do we not immediately drink the stuff, we first go on to make
brochos over spices and fire, fulfill these mitzvos, then go on to
recite the whole havdalah before finally drinking the wine. Talk about a
hefsek! Nor does this follow the format of a "brocho aruchah", an
extended brocho. What is up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: c.halevi <c.halevi@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:17:34 -0600
Subject: A Different "Take" ON Confiscating
Shalom, All:
Back when I used to teach, I too would occasionally confiscate
things that students played with instead of paying attention. The items
would be returned to them on a sliding scale of time, based upon how
well they performed from that moment on.
When a student said, "That's mine -- you're stealing it" I just
replied, "Yup, it's yours. Would you like to earn it back, or would you
prefer I sent it to your parents to return to you, along with a note
explaining why I confiscated it?"
Charles Chi (Yeshaya) Halevi
<c.halevi@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Frankel <michaeljfrankel@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:13:31 -0500
Subject: HEneitz? HOneitz!
<<From: <Haim.Snyder@...> (Haim Snyder)
In this volume and in previous volumes, there is a reference to
"Naitz HaChama" which is a term frequently, and improperly used. The
first word is HEnetz with the three letter root hey nun tzadi. The
first hey is part of the root and not a prefix for "the".
The proper term is "Henetz HaChama".>>
nah. Radak (s. hashshoroshim) suggests instead that its' shoresh is nun,
vov, tsadi - (nutz?) and is the same word (the stub staying on fruit
when the leaf falls off) as in B'midbor 17:23 (vayotze ferach vayotzetz
tzitz). So does the Oruch for that matter (heneitzu ho'rimonim - same
n,u,tz root) R. Beinish in Haz'zimanin b'halochoh suggests the
alternative nun, tzadi, tzadi - notzatz, as in Y'chezqel 1:7 or Y'shaya
1:7. would then have something to do with the "rays" of the sun while
the hey, nun, tzadi would represent the hif'il form one associates with
double letter roots (e.g. ho'seiv for sin, bais, bais) and thus should
be read HOneitz with a qomotz not a segol.
Mechy Frankel H: (301) 593-3949
<michael.frankel@...> W: (703) 845-2357
<mfrankel@...>; michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Ross <shmuel@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 04:49:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Henetz HaChama
> In this volume and in previous volumes, there is a reference to "Naitz
> HaChama" which is a term frequently, and improperly used. The first
> word is HEnetz with the three letter root hey nun tzadi.
You're likely right about the *Hebrew* term, but in contemporary
Yeshivish (and presumably in related dialects) the term is definitely
Naitz or Netz. Language inevitably changes with use, however much one
might like to hold back the tide...
Shmuel Ross
<shmuel@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barak Greenfield, MD <DocBJG@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:23:32 -0500
Subject: RE: Henetz HaChama
The term given in the Even-Shoshan dictionary is hanetz hachamah. He
agrees that the letter heh is part of the verb (shining) and not the
definite article.
Barak
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:15:13 +0200
Subject: Re: Henetz HaChama [sic]
The error has been identified, but the correction is not as accurate as
one might have wished.
The root is either nun tzade tzade or nun vav tzade.
The he is part of the hif`il construction, and the vowel under it is a
qamatz.
Hence hanetz hahama.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Tatel <chaimyt@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 06:13:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Henetz (really Hanetz) HaChama
Actually, Haim, the proper word is "HAnetz" with a kamatz under the
'heh." Aside from that, you're right.
Chaim Tatel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yehonatan and Randy Chipman <yonarand@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:18:35 +0200
Subject: Re: Kriat Shmah Before Retiring
David Waxman <yitz99@...> wrote (MJ v37n73):
<< The reason behind the practice of saying kria'th shm'a al haMeitah
(KSaM) is the subject of a dispute between Rashi and Tosaphoth on
Tractate Brachos, 2/a. Rashi says that we need to say KSaM because
people daven ma'ariv in the daylight, which is too early to fulfill
one's obligation of saying the KS of the evening. Therefore, we are
obligated to say KS after it gets dark. Furthermore, KSaM, with the
first paragraph only, is sufficient <SNIP> >>
This is precisely the point of confusion. The subject of the
Tosafot mentioned (the first in all of Shas!) is NOT "the reason behind
the practice of saying kria'th shm'a al haMeitah", but whether the
practice of davening Ma'ariv before nightfall is valid, and what happens
to the de-oraita mitzvah of Keriat Shema in such a case.
KSaM is referred to in its own right a few pages later, in Berakhot
4a. It's seen partly as a kind of protective ritual against dangers of
the night (be these demonic or the person's own yetser hara), partly as
a pious custom of reaffirming Malkhut Shamayim at the last conscious
moment of the day, etc. It's halakhic status is at most derabanan,
perhaps pious custom, whatever. Some Kabbalistic, Hasidic and Musar
traditions see it as an important avodah, including a daily heshbon
hanefesh, Confession of sin, etc. The Shulhan Arukh, OH 239, seems to
view it as obligatory, without any real connection to the deoraita of
Keriat Shema. The exact pslams and verses said vary enormously. I
would advise saying at least the first parsha of Shema, Hamapil, and one
verse of mercy, such as "beyadkah afkid ruhi..." even if one is very
tired.
Yehonatan Chipman, Yerushalayim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Seinfeld <aseinfeld@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 01:46:53 -0800
Subject: Re: Naitz
> As far as I remember, this answer is correct. However, circumstances
> might warrant a response from the local Rav. When I was in yeshiva,
> some of us would learn before the 7:00 AM minyan. In the winter, this
> coincided with sunrise. Thus, we asked if we should daven neitz without
> the minyan. The Rosh Yeshiva responded that it was preferable to daven
> with the minyan. My assumption is that he didn't want weaken the main
> minyan.
Poskim tend to be makmir (strict) that one may only davven vasikin
instead of a minyan if one makes (or is attempting to make) vasikin a
daily practice; however, if one ordinarily davvens with the minyan, the
periodic desire would not be reason alone to davven vasikin alone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <shmuelh@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:06:54 +0200
Subject: Nefilat Apayim
R. Tukechinski, in (I believe) Sefer Eretz Yisrael writes that the
Minhag in Yerushalayim is to always have Nefilat Apayim during Tachanun,
even if no Sefer is present, as all of Yerushalayim has Kedushah.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Danny Skaist <danny@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:26:42 +0200
Subject: Pagum wine
<<-Eitan
The bottom line - one can "make make kiddush then distribute" in a way
that is both halachic and hygienic (no pagum wine created or
distributed), in a way that is halachic but less hygienic (pagum wine
created but rectified before distribution), or in a way that is both
unhalachic and less hygienic (pagum wine created and distributed). >>
I do not understand all this negative talk of "pagum" wine. There is
nothing wrong or "pagum" with the wine except that you can't use it for
kiddush.
Halacha REQUIRES you to drink the "pagum" wine, since it is pagum after
the first sip and you are required to drink kiddush in 2 sips. The
second sip comes from the "pagum" wine.
danny
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Raphi Cohen <raphi@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 02:01:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Rock Throwing
BS"D
Edward Ehrlich <eehrlich@...> wrote:
> It seems to me that rock throwing and related violence involves a
> violation of Halakha. Such activities first of all violate civil law
> and since "dina d'malchuta dina" this is also a violation of halakha.
I do not wish to join the debate whether it is good or bad to throw
rocks. I just want to respectfully point out that "dina demalchuta
dina" does not imply that violation of ANY civil law means an AUTHOMATIC
violation of Halacha. The above sentence seems to imply this.
Actually, I remember a quote from Rav Adin Steinsaltz (whom you quote in
your post) indicating that "dina demalchuta dina" applies ONLY to Dinei
Mamonot (with 2 additional restrictions: must be a malchut which
collects money equally from all citizens; and it uses the collected
moneys for the welfare of the whole nation). I cannot remember what Rav
Adin's source was, but if you want I can look for it.
Raphi Cohen
<raphi@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezriel Krumbein <ezsurf@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:41:57 -0800
Subject: Rocking Throwing
There are a few people I know of, who as part of their Purim activities,
make up fake kol koreahs and post them around Yerushalayim. I regret
that at the start of the first intefadah, I did not suggest to them that
they put up a kol koreah against rock throwing because it was now chukas
hagoyim.
Kol Tov
Ezriel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 37 Issue 80
