Volume 38 Number 66
Produced: Mon Feb 17 15:45:11 US/Eastern 2003
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Administrivia - Kiddush Club
[Avi Feldblum]
Checking Rice (2)
[Rose Landowne, Risa Tzohar]
Checking Rice [was stones and bugs]
[Roger & Naomi Kingsley]
Kashrut Question
[Frank Silbermann]
Kriat Shma Al HaMita
[David and Toby Curwin]
Origin of phrase "Shabbat Shalom"
[Ira L. Jacobson]
Pasuk for Name
[<soferim@...>]
Shabbat Shalom (3)
[Mark Steiner, Jack Gross, Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Tuxedos
[Dov Teichman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:32:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Administrivia - Kiddush Club
Just a short comment to clarify what the subject refers to for those lucky
enough not to have the issue in their community.
The "Kiddush Club" is a group of people who leave the shul following the
completion of the reading of the Torah (some places during the reading
of the Haftorah, other places during the Rabbi's sermon / drasha) in
order to make kiddush and have a drink of wiskey. Often, the group will
have a good bottle of single malt scotch (the "cult of the single malt"
mentioned by one poster) and may include respected members of the
shul. I have seen this occur in almost every shul I have spent time in,
and it is not an easy situation for a Rabbi to deal with. The current
crisis relating to teenagers from religious families that are increasing
running into problems with alchohol (as well as other issues) has served
to highlight the potential dangers of this activity and thus there is
more popular demand for shuls to deal with the issue of "Kiddush clubs".
Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator
<mljewish@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <ROSELANDOW@...> (Rose Landowne)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:12:08 EST
Subject: Re: Checking Rice
In Israel, I've heard the practice is to check rice three times before
cooking it.
Rose Landowne
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Risa Tzohar <rtzohar@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:26:52 +0000
Subject: Checking Rice
Here in Israel all rice is checked before cooking, as are all grains and
beans. Some are easier to check than others. Several pamphlets have
been written as well as many wall posters warning of the dangers of not
checking.
I believe that the processed rice we grew up with in the US did not need
to be checked because the process kills any eggs which might have grown
up to be bugs but it just may be that it was one of those things that
people didn't pay attention to and now do.
Risa Tzohar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roger & Naomi Kingsley <rogerk@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:26:18 +0200
Subject: Checking Rice [was stones and bugs]
I personally do check rice - I don't want to eat either the stones or
the bugs ...
I expect even when cooking in large quantities, the rice would be rinsed
first [anyone who can tell us whether this is the case?] even if not
inspected, then any bugs should float off.
Naomi Kingsley
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 07:37:12 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Kashrut Question
Yitzchak Moran asks, in v38n63
> When folks were pioneering during the westward expansion of the US
> (and in other earlier times in history, presumably), and there isn't
> a kosher butcher along, what was done to ensure kosher meat? Did the
> pioneers bring along their own kosher animals which they then
> slaughtered themselves? Does anyone have any info?
I recall reading that 19th century Indians referred to Jewish peddlers
passing through as the "egg eaters." Apparently, when the first German
Jewish peddlers passed through Indian territory and were offered food
for goods, they only wanted hard boiled eggs.
Frank Silbermann
New Orleans, Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David and Toby Curwin <tobyndave@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:08:26 +0200
Subject: Kriat Shma Al HaMita
> From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
> >From: <Aronio@...>
> >I have always been perplexed by what happens when you say Shema with
> >Hamapil and then you cannot fall asleep. So you just give up and go
> >read your email on mail.jewish, or read pr learn, or watch t.v. - ok.
> >
> >But, can you call a chavrusa several timezones away who is still awake
> >to learn? You are not supposed to talk, right? How long does this
> >prohibition last? If you cannot sleep the entire night when can you
> >start talking?
>
> This seems that it should be more of a common sense than a halachic
> issue. If your intent was to fall asleep but could not (just as if your
> intent was to eat something after a beracha but somehow the food is
> inedible or taken away) you do the best you can. You wait a reasonable
> period of time (most people fall asleep when after they are tired and
> lie down in 7-20 min.) and then get on with your life.
After my original posting, I decided to look into this issue a little
more, and found some very interesting points in the Aruch HaShulchan
(239).
While we tend to put Birchat HaMapil and the saying of Shma together, it
would seem that they are actually separate issues placed
together. Following the custom of the Rambam based on the Yerushalmi,
followed later by the Vilna Gaon and others, where Shma is said after
HaMapil, it is clear that HaMapil isn't being said as a bracha
immediately connected with sleep. The Rambam in the beginning of Chapter
7 of Hilchot Brachot mentions that Chazal instituted additional brachot
after the brachot of the Amida. The first one he mentions is HaMapil. In
a very parallel way, he says that when you wake you say "Elokai Neshama"
- both are brachot praising God for the different parts of the daily
cycle of human life. The Aruch HaShulchan says that HaMapil is obviously
not like brachot before eating, because otherwise you couldn't say
anything - kriat shma or other verses - before falling asleep. In fact,
the Aruch HaShulchan quotes the Rosh saying that the reason we don't say
a bracha on sleeping in the sukkah is that sleep is something we don't
really have control over. And that is why the Rambam recommends we try
to say Shma until we fall asleep, and if we are so tired that we can't
say the first paragraph, it is enough to just say the first verse (an
answer to my original question about kavanah.)
I think this description of HaMapil and Shma puts the entire issue in a
different light. HaMapil can (and should) be said standing, while Shma
can be said lying down, even with one's wife in the same bed. One can
say verses after HaMapil but should fall asleep immediately after Shma.
What this leads me to believe, although I haven't seen it anywhere, is
that perhaps the reason for saying Shma before sleep is for the same
reason one should say Shma before death. Either because sleep is
associated with death (the gemara says sleep is 1/60th of death) or
because of the possibility of death in sleep (as mentioned in
HaMapil). Maybe this association isn't mentioned because of the rather
depressing nature of saying a daily prayer because of the possibility of
death. This also leads me to believe that the association of Kriat Shma
al HaMita in the gemara in Brachot with "u'v'shachb'cha" (when you lie
down) is mostly an asmachta (a textual mnemonic, but not the
source). Because had the actual intent of the Torah been when you lie
down, then why shouldn't Shma also be said immediately after one wakes
up? (u'v'kumecha)
I'd be curious to hear if the association with death is mentioned in any
of the commentaries.
David Curwin
Efrat, Israel
<tobyndave@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:07:42 +0200
Subject: Re: Origin of phrase "Shabbat Shalom"
Mark Steiner had stated and then claimed that he had erred:
(2) I'm quoting from memory (always dangerous), but I believe that
"shabbas sholoym" appears in the famous little poem by Bialik (who
wrote in the Ashkenazic pronunciation) about shabbes, that starts
"Hachamoh meroysh ho-ilonoys nistalkoh...". I believe that he
even wrote "shabbas sholoym umvoyrokh,"
My fallible memory thought that despite the retraction, Mark was almost
right.
And so I checked and found that indeed, Bialik's poem Shabbat Hanmalka
states "shabbat shalom uverakha, shabbat shalom umenuha." Perfect
Hebrew, with shabbat written patah shin patah bet tav, in the nismakh
form.
which has been accepted in Israeli Hebrew, though
nobody really knows why the masculine gender is used.
Since Bialik used the noun berakha rather than the adjective mevorakh,
there is actually nothing to do with gender in any way. Bialik did not
make up "shabbat shalom," although the addition of menuha was probably
his contribution.
OTOH, the Mishna Berura, unconsciously translating from Yiddish,
suggests that the proper greeting is Shabbat tava.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <soferim@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:27:43 +0200
Subject: Re: Pasuk for Name
> From: Saul Mashbaum <smash52@...>
>Disturbingly, some combinations (samech-aleph, for example) do
> not have a pasuk; hopefully, there are no names for such combinations.
Unfortunately, there are people who cannot say a passuk for their names
because of this--my daughter's name is samech-aleph-shin-aleph and we
have yet to find any passuk for her to say. The Nachalat Shiva and the
Ezer L'Yitchak list an additional 7 female name groups, all samech-aleph
names, but no male samech-aleph names.
--A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:45:58 +0200
Subject: Re: Shabbat Shalom
Actually, the meaning of "shabbat shalom" has halakhic implications.
R. Akiva Eger holds that "gut shabbes", said on shabbes, is said in
praise of the Sabbath Day, and qualifies, according to Maimonides'
definition, as a kind of "kiddush". (Maimonides hilkhot shabbat 29:1
ff. seems to hold that anything said in praise of Sabbath, on Friday
night, fulfils the Biblical requirement of "making kiddush"--the use of
wine, and the recitation of a certain benediction from the siddur, is
only of Rabbinic origin. Thus anybody who says "gut shabbes" is only
required to recite kiddush as a Rabbinic--mederabbanan-matter. Of
course the recitation of maariv would qualify as a kiddush, a fortiori,
cf. Magen Avraham to OH 271, who so understands the Rambam.)
If Shabbat Shalom is a simple greeting or wish that one's
interlocutor should spend a peaceful shabbes, then it would not qualify
as a kiddush. If, however, it is uttered in praise of the Sabbath then
it, too, like "gut shabbes," would qualify. In Israel, it is customary
to say "shabbat shalom" even on thursday, to someone who we won't see on
Shabbat. This seems to indicate that Shabbat Shalom refers to the
gavra, not the heftza (rem) of the Sabbath.
Interestingly enough, Yiddish has TWO blessings for the Sabbath:
"gut shabbes" and "a gutn shabbes." The last, said on parting, seems to
be a blessing or prayer that the GAVRA (person) should have a good
Sabbath, though that would require further checking. If I'm right, it
would NOT qualify, even according to R. Akiva Eger as a kiddush.
I have been told that R. Soloveitchik, of blessed memory, "went
ballistic" when he heard the expression "gut khaneke", as Hannukah has
no intristic kedusha--this idea would fit in to the above reasoning of
R. Akiva Eger.
Mark Steiner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 07:51:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Shabbat Shalom
> when one enters his home he should say in a loud voice and with
> great joy 'Shabbat Shalom' since he is like a groom receiving the bride
> in great joy and with a cheerful face. ...
That places an entirely different slant on the grammatical use of both
"Shabbat" and "Shalom". The citation places Shabbat in the vocative, and
uses Shalom as a noun:
"O Sabbath, Peace [to thee]"
So "Shabbat Shalom U'mvorach" still needs some other precedent, for use
of Shalom as an adjective to modify Shabbat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:03:07 EST
Subject: Shabbat Shalom
Ari Trachtenberg (v38n65) questions the logic of my suggestion that
"Shalom" became the standard form of greetings, those who wanted to
acknowledge the Shabbat in their greetings just appended the modifier
"Shabbat," without regard for the lack of grammar.
<<This is a very nice explanation, but then how do you explain the
similarly common term "shabbat shalom umevurach"? It would seem that
Shabbat simply can take on male adjectives?>>
Shabbat is a bi-gender word in Hebrew (but mostly female is used), and as
such this poses no problem. See:
Shomer Shabbat mechaleLO (Is. 56:2,6) and likewise
every Shabbat we say "v'yanuchu VO" in Shacharit and in
Mussaf.
A more interesting issue is: why the reply is longer with an added
element to blessing? I'll propose a solution to this question below.
Alan Cooper brings the quote from the Shel"ah Ha-Kadosh were Shabbat
Shalom is used (with an indication that he received this tradition from
others), and so does Yael Levine Katz in the name of the Ar"i Ha-Kadosh
(1534-1572). We do not know if the Ar"i wrote the book brought by Dr.
Levine Katz, as it was put together by his disciple Hayim Vital
(1542-1620) a contemporary of the Shel"ah (1565?-1630) in Safed. So we
see that Shabbat Shalom, was a common greeting in Safed. Was is coined
by the Lurianic school or was it a common expression before their time?
I can speculate that the reply to the greeting "Shabbat Shalom," that
is, "Shabbat Shalom umevorach" was a common local tradition. In Arabic
the reply to the greeting Marhaba is Marhabtein (that is, double
marhaba) so Shabbat Shalom "umevorach" is likewise adding an element to
the greetings.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <DTnLA@...> (Dov Teichman)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:41:59 EST
Subject: Re: Tuxedos
You are correct that Hassidic garb did not begin as distinctly Jewish
(although I'm sure Hassidim must have some sort of defense that I am not
aware of.) What I meant was that in present times there is a clear
separation in dress between Hassidim and Gentiles (dont give me an Amish
argument :-) ), whereas amongst "Modern Orthodox" and even Yeshivish
circles the distinction is not clear. So why would there be opposition
to Tuxedos in those circles on grounds of being "Goyish"?
Dov Teichman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 38 Issue 66
