Volume 38 Number 18
Produced: Sat Jan 4 21:12:13 US/Eastern 2003
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Cooking for Shabbat
[Sidney Gottesman]
Haskamos
[Y. Askotzky]
Haskamot
[Harry Weiss]
L'Maan Achai V'Rayai
[D. Goldsmith]
Lunar-Solar calendar
[Shmuel Himelstein]
The Making of a Gadol
[H Braude]
Naming babies
[Jonathan Katz]
Signs and unilateral statements
[Reuven Miller]
Standing for Bride and Groom (2)
[Rose Landowne, Elazar M Teitz]
Transliterations
[Caela Kaplowitz]
Two questions about Musaf
[Yehonatan and Randy Chipman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sidney Gottesman <sidneyg@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 13:44:23 -0500
Subject: RE: Cooking for Shabbat
In the course of a response to Russell Hendel, Anonymous writes, "a pot
can be put up right before Shabbos, to cook on Shabbos, if it is
completely raw".
Expressing no opinion on the underlying discussion re: Nolad, unless I
have misunderstood the coment, I find it at odds with Shimirat Shabbat
Chilchata Chapter 1 Paragraph 63.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Y. Askotzky <sofer@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 22:53:47 +0200
Subject: Haskamos
>> haskamot on a sefer do NOT mean that the rabbi who gave the haskama
>> read the work or in any way approves what was written. The haskama
>> usually says that the author is a nice guy
> What was interesting was that the Poseik actually trashed the psika in
> the book, and showed how wrong it was, giving specific examples. Yet
> the rabbi published his book, without corrections -- and with the
> Posek's letter. I gather he assumed that most people would look at the
> signature and take the book seriously, and that they wouldn't bother
> reading the actual Haskama.
I think you got the wrong impression about that sefer that the posek had
"trashed". (chalilah!)
Many authors, who themselves are responsible halachic authorites,
publish letters of haskamah they receive, which today can better be
called letters of brachah, that include differences of opinion. I am
certain that most rabbonim would not give a haskamah (not to be confused
with brachah) to a sefer that included iresponsible psak halachah. He
respects the author yet disagrees with his psak- We know that there is
much disagreement in halachah but that doesn't mean that one is
wrong. If the author has studied the halachah in depth and is capable of
psak and especially if he has backing of other poskim then the opinion
of the posek who disagreed is important and honest to be included (as
the author did) but doesn't require the author to change his opinion if
he still holds by them. (Who says the author doesn't have good answers
to each of the posek's questions?) I recall a sefer that Rav Moshe gave
a letter to (hilchos bar mitzvah) and within his letter clearly
disagreed with the author on a number of points.
Most rabbonim today glance at a manuscript or part's thereof and write
clearly in their letter that due to their communal responsibilites they
do not have time to review the book fully and cannot give their support
to the psak as they didn't study it fully or in depth but they know the
author or the author has been highly praised by rabbanim that he
knows..... I will be publishing soon and this is the style of all the
letters I received whether it was from a posek or rav.
To claim that the author mentioned hoped no one would read the haskama
is unfair, in my opinion, wrong and degrading. He could have simply left
it out altogether w/o taking the risk or could have used quotes rather
than printing the complete letter. Dan lekaf zechus and certainly a
talmid chacham!!
kol tuv,
Rabbi Yerachmiel Askotzky, certified sofer & examiner
<sofer@...> www.stam.net 1-888-404-STAM(7826)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 14:39:33 -0800
Subject: Re: Haskamot
I remember seeing a sefer from one Rabbi (whose authority is not
accepted in most of his community) with a Haskama from a major Gadol (I
think it was Reb Moshe zt"l) saying the piskei halacha in the sefer are
not in accordance with generally accepted practices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <HHgoldsmith@...> (D. Goldsmith)
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 15:59:03 EST
Subject: L'Maan Achai V'Rayai
As part of a project in Elizabeth, NJ, called L'Ma-an Achai V'Rayai, ***
we are encouraging the saying of Tehillim Perakim 20 and 130 whenever
Jews gather together for an event. L'Maan Eretz Yisrael, the Israeli
soldiers, the missing soldiers, the terrorist victims, the bereaved
orphans, the cholim in your community and elsewhere, we hope you will
consider this idea, as we are told that Tehillim recited in large groups
is very powerful in Shamayim. (Your feedback would be welcome.)
***Here in Elizabeth, we gather together every Sunday evening for a
shiur on Tehillim, followed by a personal story from Eretz Yisrael
and/or news from the family that we "adopted" in Eretz Yisrael, and then
the recitation of Tehillim on behalf of those mentioned above. The
program goes for about 45 minutes and we have a different Maggid Shiur
from the community each week.
D. Goldsmith
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 05:03:43 +0200
Subject: Lunar-Solar calendar
I recently learned that ours is not the only lunar-solar calendar, and
that the Chinese calendar is also one, with the new year in January or
February. They add a leap month every three years (as opposed to our 7
times in 19 years). I assume that there was no communication between the
two groups who adopted these.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <hbraude@...> (H Braude)
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 17:40:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: The Making of a Gadol
>From: Eitan Fiorino <tony.fiorino@...>
>We are a generation with tremendous learning and probably the highest
>level of Ortho-praxis in history, yet we are plagued by an utter void in
>rabbinic leadership (in all segments of Orthodoxy, in my opinion).
>While I too worry about what often appears to me to be Orthodoxy's
>current self-destructive path, I am comforted knowing that this kind of
>...
>I do wonder what hakadosh baruch hu "thinks" of the mess we have made,
>and of our inability to have a serious communal cheshbon hanefesh about
>it.
For me, Eitan has hit the nail on the head on numerous levels.
Despite all the educational resources at our disposal (in written form
as well as embodied by living examples), we have a deep sense that we
don't know how to do the things we've learned we should do (the "what"
is always easier to describe than the "how".) Considering the
conflicting messages from various ideologies within Judaism, perhaps we
don't even know that much.
But is it really any wonder? We're over two thousand years into Galus
Edom and 'hester panim'. To me, it's the fulfillment of the words of
Amos (8, 11): a hunger for the the words of Hashem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonathan Katz <jkatz@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 16:57:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Naming babies
I would appreciate any information, sources, or perspective on "baby
naming"; in particular on the custom of naming babies after other
people. Some specific questions I have in mind include: When naming a
baby after another person, what exactly is the purpose? Does the purpose
apply even if one (or both) of the parents have never met the person for
whom the baby is being named? Is there a "precedence list" for choosing
whom to name the baby after?
Any guidance will be appreciated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Reuven Miller <millerr@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:20:04 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Re: Signs and unilateral statements
> > It has become very common that shuls and yeshivot and mikvaot will put up
> > a sigh saying that anyone leaving personal items for more that 30 days is
> > agreeing to "mafkir" it and these items can be taken or sold or dispossed
> > of in any way seen fit!
> > Reuven
>
> Signs can be informative and possibly may direct or change our perception and
> behavior --Their halachik status may be questionable -- Just like the
> Rebbe's unilateral announcement to his class that he has the right to
> confiscate whatever he considers to be contraband.Perhaps someone would
> like to tackle this?>
> Kol Tov
> Carl Singer
I think it is a lot simpler in the shul/yeshiva/mikvah.
It is a precondition that you accept when you come it. It you don't
agree you are not obligated to enter. Your coming in is your agreement
that you "mafkir" what ever you leave there.
reuven
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <ROSELANDOW@...> (Rose Landowne)
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 16:49:08 EST
Subject: Re: Standing for Bride and Groom
A few years ago, people would stand as the bride and groom passed by
their row. It was kind of like a wave. Lately, it seems that the whole
crowd stands up as soon as they walk into the room. Has anyone else
noticed this?
Rose Landowne
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 22:56:47 -0500
Subject: re: Standing for Bride and Groom
The custom of standing for the bride and groom is of very recent
vintage, approximately twenty years. In Europe, as in Israel today, the
chupah was outdoors, and people stood; chairs were an American
innovation.
The reasons given for standing were ex post facto. As has been pointed
out, the choson is not a king until after the chupah. As for the reason
of going to do a mitzvah, does anyone stand up when people come into
shul? After all, they are going to put on tallis and t'fillin. In point
of fact, we never stand up for people who are en route to perform a
mitzvah. The theory about standing at Vayvarech David because of the
mitzvah of tz'dakah is a clever, but apparently incorrect, explanation.
The Rm"a mentions standing as an accepted custom, while the giving of
charity at that time was first introduced by his contemporary, the
Ariza"l. Obviously, if giving charity at that point had just begun and
was the reason for standing, the custom of standing could not be an
already accepted one. (Incidentally, the Ariza"l said that charity was
to be given not, as mentioned, at "v'haosher v'hakavod milfanecha"
[wealth and honor come from You], but at "v'atah mosheil bakol" [You
rule over all].)
If there is cause to stand during the chupah, it is not for the entrance
of the couple, but for the seven b'rachos which are recited as the
second half of the ceremony. They require the presence of a minyan, and
have the status of davar shebik'dushah (a sacred utterance). If we
stand when kaddish is said, even though Jewish law does not require it
except for the one saying it (unless one was already standing, such as
after Aleinu, in which case he should not sit until after kaddish), it
is because of its status as a davar shebik'dushah, and by the same token
it would seem appropriate to stand for the b'rochos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Caela Kaplowitz <caelak@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 08:12:04 -0500
Subject: Transliterations
"... although using "q" for qof may look strange, its pronunciation
cannot be mistaken."
Using the letter Q for a kuf (19th letter of alef-bet, but not a kaf,
11th letter of the alef-bet) should not look too strange. Both letters
derive from the same letter in the ancient semitic alphabet (Phoenician
alphabet) which looked like a circle with a vertical line going through
it. The line extended below the circle which is why the kaf goes below
the line and the Q has a tail hanging off of it. The ancient semitic
form for kaf (11th letter) was a backwards K.
Caela Kaplowitz
Baltimore, MD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yehonatan and Randy Chipman <yonarand@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 17:10:00 +0200
Subject: Two questions about Musaf
Two questions I've been contemplating about Musaf :
1) Is one permitted to daven Musaf before sunrise, as one may do with
Shaharit if one is in a hurry to get to work, set out on a journey, etc?
This question is of practical application to the many so-called "Terah
minyanim," which start at dawn and daven fast, on Rosh Hodesh in
mid-winter. Do we say that the proper time for Musaf is "just after
Shaharit," as Rambam puts it, in practice; or do we say that the heter
to daven Shaharit before "heinetz" (bediaved) applies to Shaharit alone,
being grounded in a sugya in the Talmud and brought in poskim, but that
the time for Musaf, which is of course commemorative of the korban, is
only after the time for Shaharit lekhathila?
In practice, there are probably dozens of minyanim in Jeruslaem, and
doubtless in many other places, which daven Musaf before sunrise. Are
they behaving improperly, or can one learn zekhut for them?
2) A second question, that actually happened to me a while ago: If
one arrives in shul late on a Rosh Hodesh (say, just in time for
Hallel), should one daven Musaf with a minyan and Shaharit be-yehidut
thereafter, or daven both be-yehidut, but according to the proper order?
In other words, is the order of the two more important, or tefillah
betzibbur?
Incidentally, the same question can occur on Shabbat, of one gets
to shul extraordinarily late or if, as happened to me two or three
times, one is unexpectedly drafted to read the Torah at an earlier
minyan which discovered at the last minute that they had no baal
keri'ah; finish there only in time to lain at my own minyan, and then
face the prospect of starting Shaharit when the others were at Yekum
Purkan.
There is an explicit discussion of Mussaf vs. Minha in the gemara
and rishonim, but I haven't seen anything on this question.
Any ideas and, especially, does anyone know of any shutim or other
authoritative rulings on these questions?
Yehonatan Chipman, Yerushalayim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 38 Issue 18