Volume 43 Number 53
Produced: Mon Jul 19 6:47:54 EDT 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Ben Hecht's "Perfidy" (2)
[Nathan Lamm, Yisrael Medad]
Candle lighting time when husband accepts shabbat early (2)
[Jonathan Sperling, David Ziants]
Dates
[Yakir]
Kastner case
[Shalom Carmy]
Origin of Aufruf
[Leah Aharoni]
Origin of the Shtreimel
[Leah Aharoni]
Partial pesukim
[<chips@...>]
Partial Pesukim
[Nathan Lamm]
Some obscure Minchat Shais and Mesorahs for the SHTAYIM (Na-Nax) issue
[Russell Jay Hendel]
Tales of the Tzaddikim - credibility issues
[Frank Silbermann]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Ben Hecht's "Perfidy"
I've read Mr. Himelstein's sources (I had to go hunting on microfilm in
the New York Public Library to find the third) and have yet to be
convinced. Different strokes, I guess. But some more general points:
1- It's ironic that for many years, the only edition of the book in
print was issued by those attacking it. There is a new edition out now,
however, along with Hecht's "Guide to the Bedevilled", on German
anti-semitism.
2- One essay is entitled "Ben Hecht's Kampf." I forget its name, but I
know there's a rule, usually applied to Internet discussion, that when
someone gets called a "Nazi," the discussion is over- not only because
there's no way to respond, but more importantly, because it's clear that
the person making the accusation has no productive arguments. Calling
Hecht a Nazi...well, it was done plenty of times when Hecht was alive,
but it's still ridiculous. (Nothing against Mr. Himelstein, of course,
just the author of the essay.)
3- That said, this is not a book for someone who doesn't have a strong
attachment to Israel already. As someone I know put it about reading the
book, "You have to love Israel before you can hate it." And even then,
as another friend of mine once said after reading it, "It's hard to
suddenly face up to certain facts about people you were raised to admire
without qualification."
Nachum Lamm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:03:55 +0200
Subject: Ben Hecht's "Perfidy"
Shmuel Himelstein wrote:<himels@...>
Two other sources, which claim to refute Ben Hecht's "Perfidy"
(and which, editorially, I believe do a quite thorough job of
doing it),
since this list is discussion of Halachic issues and although we reached
"Perfidy" via a roundabout way of Holocaust and Rabbinic responsibility,
if I can recall properly, let me just limit my response and be brief and
non-judgmental although my sympathies are clear.
a) whatever Kastner did or did not do during 1943-44 is one issue.
what he did for Nazis after the war is another, totally.
b) whatever Kastner did or did not do vis a vis Chana Senesch is one
thing, his behavior afterwards was another.
c) for that matter, anyone who reads Mendel Piekarz's article on the
address made by the Belze Rebbe's brother to their flock just before
they managed to use up Zionist immigration certificates to flee Hungary
will understand much of that period and the people, including Kastner,
to his/her amazement and is especially relevant to what Shmuel writes
about the defacing of his book.
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonathan Sperling <jsperling@...>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:51:56 -0400
Subject: Candle lighting time when husband accepts shabbat early
Joshua Hosseinof (MJ vol. 43 #49) inquires about the need for a wife to
light candles at or before the time that her husband accepts shabbat in
shul. I addressed this in (I hope) reasonable detail in MJ v. 39 #70.
The post can be read at
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v39/mj_v39i70.html#CVT.
R' Moshe's opinion is not widely accepted on this matter. Most shuls
instead follow the view of the Mishna Berura, which explains the
synagogue practice about which Joshua is inquiring. As always, of
course, CYLOR.
Jonathan M. Sperling
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:25:05 +0300
Subject: Re: Candle lighting time when husband accepts shabbat early
On a "summer" leaflet I read, it is made very clear that the wife must
light before the early minyan congregation bring in Shabbat for
themselves, which is when they say "Mizmor Shir LeYom HaShabbat...".
The leaflet brings R' Moshe Feinstein in parenthesis who allows the wife
to light candles, even after the husband has declared Shabbat, but
indicates that this is a chiddush (= new derivation), whose source is
not clear, therefore we should not rely on this at all.
The line of thinking of the (ashkenzai) halachic rulings of the leaflet,
tends to be of R' S Z Aurbuch, so it is understandable there are
sometimes contradictions between poskim. This might be the same line of
thinking of Joshua Hosseinof shul.
The concept makes sense when we understand that people in a household
are bound to the head of the house, and the head of the house is in turn
bound, as far as the time Shabbat is brought in, to the congregation he
chooses to be part of that Friday evening.
Concerning the paragraphs in Shulchan Aruch Joshua Hosseinof mentions:
OC 263:10 talks about the possibility of the wife doing work after she
has lit the candles, but before the husband declared Shabbat in shul. It
is very clear that the husbands saying of "Barchu" (or "Mizmor...",
declares Shabbat for his household. OC 263:17 allows you to ask your
fellow (not your family), who has not brought in Shabbat yet, to do work
for you. Obviously, he would be allowed to light the candles if the wife
forgot, or they blew out.
The question I have then, is on what does R' Moshe Feinstein base
himself, to allow the wife to do malacha when the husband and his
congregation has declared that it is Shabbat?
David Ziants
Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yakir <yakirhd@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:00:53 +0200
Subject: Dates
>The Rebbe of Sudilkov recorded the contents of some of his dreams in his
>sefer Degel Machaneh Ephraim. These dreams occurred on
> ....
>Is it possible to determine the date on the Hebrew calendar that these
>took place? (i.e. Shabbos Parshas Balak 5541 = ? Tammuz 5541)
[We had three responses, none of which agreed 100% with the two
others. Only the differences are noted below in []'s. Mod.]
Yom Aleph (Sunday) - Parshas Re'eh - 5540 = 19/Av = 20/Aug/1780
Shabbos (Saturday) - Parshas Balak - 5541 = 14/Tammuz = 7/Jul/1781
Yom Beis (Monday) - Parshas Pinchas - 5541 = 16/Tammuz = 9/July/1781
Yom Dalet (Wednesday) - Parshas Ekev - 5545 = 20/Av = 27/July/1785
[Perets Mett: 21 Av]
Yom Heh (Thursday) - Parshas VaYeshev - 5545 = 21/Kislev = 4/Dec/1784
[Perets Mett: 19 Kislev
[Shimon Lebowitz: 19 Kislev = Dec 2, 1784
with note: (Are you sure of this one? The others were all in
chronological order.)]
Courtesy of "Tamar luach for Palm devices"
-- Yakir
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 17:33:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Kastner case
The standard scholarly work is by R. Veitz (Vav-Yod-Tsade): Ha-Ish
she-Nirtsah Paamayim.
I found it a balanced account, concentrating on the aftershocks in the
1950s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah Aharoni <leah25@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 21:49:41 +0200
Subject: Origin of Aufruf
In Israel aufruf is called shabbat chatan. The Ashkenazim hold it on the
last shabbat before the wedding and Sephardim on the first shabbat after
the wedding. The minhagim (aliyah and candy-throwing) are the same for
both :).
Leah
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah Aharoni <leah25@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 21:00:32 +0200
Subject: re: Origin of the Shtreimel
Anyone who has ever visited Russia in the winter would be able to tell
you that shtreimel-like fur hats are extremely popular among local
men. The hats worn today are higher and narrow than the Hassidic
shtereimel, but fashions must have changed a bit over the last couple of
hundred years.
The origin of the shtreimel is obvious: when its -20 to -30 degrees
outside, a nice fur hat is an excellent way to keep your ears from
freezing off. Since fur hats were (and are) expensive they were mainly
worn on special occasions (shabbatot and yomim tovim).
Leah Aharoni
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <chips@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 12:11:17 -0700
Subject: Re: Partial pesukim
> It is the "standard" of the Gemara to quote (almost all the time)
> partial pesukim, sometime with "vegomer" and sometimes without it.
Was it the standard of the Gemora redactors or of the Vilna Commitee?
And my 2cents about the general subject: After a Rabbi gave a small
shiur in which he mentioned that partial pesukim where not used in
davening, a bunch of people came over to him with various examples. He
later amended his statement to that when the davening says "sheh ne
emar" what follows is always the complete pasuk.
-rp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Partial Pesukim
"Lo al halechem levado" is used for exactly its opposite meaning- "Man
does not live on bread alone" implies that man needs more to live,
whereas the original pasuk means that if Hashem wants, we don't even
need bread to live.
Another example is Beit Ya'akov L'chu V'Nelcha B'Or Hashem: The early
Zionist group "Bilu" made an acronym from this pasuk while omitting,
whether purposely or not, the last two words. I know that there's a
religious Zionist group in New York that remedies this by calling itself
"Bilubi."
Nachum Lamm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Jay Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:54:13 GMT
Subject: Some obscure Minchat Shais and Mesorahs for the SHTAYIM (Na-Nax) issue
I believe the following succinct but detailed summary will shed
considerable light on the Shva NA-NAX issue. I believe using English
will help clarify the issue.
FIRST: Some rigorous definitions: Take the (made up word)
BREAKFASTING. We notice that B,R,K,F,S,T,N,G are consonants while EA,A,I
are vowels. Now notice that B,K,F,S,T,N,G do not have (an English) vowel
after them. Hence we define these as having NULL (non existing) vowels.
NEXT: But There are two types of NULL vowels. If the syllable containing
the consonant that has a null syllable has (English) vowels after it
then the NULL syllable is MOVING (NA) towards a VOWEL. Thus the B,F are
MOVING NULL VOWELS. If however there is no further (English) vowel after
the consonant with the NULL vowel then the NULL vowel is RESTING. Hence
the K,S,T,N,G are RESTING NULLS. (Notice that e.g. we pronounce
Break-Fast-Ing vs Break-Fa-Sting ...that is: The ST "belongs" with the
"FAST" syllable but not with the "ing" syllable).
FINALLY: How about the pronunciation BE-REAK-FAST-ING: We can now use
our knowledge of Hebrew to show why this pronunciation is overkill and
wrong: The I in DIM vs the EE in KEEP correspond to SHORT CHIRIK vs LONG
CHIRIK. Similarly the U in NUT vs the U in DUKE correspond to SHORT
SHURUK vs KIBUTZ. But the short SHURUK is NOT a null vowel--hence it
shouldnt be used.
We conclude THAT USING THE CRITERIA OF PRONUNCIATION: The word
Shin-Tauv-Yud-Mem should be pronounced SHTa-YiM -- using our definitions
we see that the SH is MOVING NULL, the M is RESTING NULL.
Since the major purpose of calling objects NULL vs REST is pronunciation
we conclude that this is the proper or best way to classify.
Why then is there a dagesh in the Tauv. The following obscure sources
might help: See the Minchat Shai on Ez 41:24 or the Breuer Chumash
Nu33:09. Notice how the word SHTAYIM is cantillated with a YETIV (not a
PASHTHAH) and a MUNAX GAYRSHAYIM (Not a KADMAH VEAZLAH). But the rules
on cantillations require a YETIV or MUNAX only when the accent of the
word occurs on the first letter.
I advance the following novelty: The SH null vowel is different than say
the BR null vowel in that BR is VOICED while SH is only ASPIRATED but
not VOICED. Hence it is conceivable that the BAALAY MESORAH considered
the initial SH with a NULL VOWEL as non existent: and therefore the word
SHTAYIM really begins on the TAUV (Because the SHIN is both NULL and
ASPIRATED WITHOUT VOICE).
I believe the above theory gives a complete explanation which fully
addresses all the issues brought so far
Respectfully
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:37:02 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Tales of the Tzaddikim - credibility issues
> << From: Brandon Raff <Brandon@...>
> It is not whether the story is true or not, the fact is they do not tell
> stories like that about me!"
We could probably say the same thing about victims of LaShon HaRa
(slander): "What they say about him may not be all true, but they don't
say such things about me!" But this might not be a good analogy, as it
is permitted (as far as I know) to spread false stories about a person
that are complimentary.
There is a rule about not praising a person in a way that is likely to
elicit LaShon HaRa in response. That might imply a halachic obligation
to consider the audience's likely receptivity to miracle stories (unless
there's a lenient opinion permitting the telling of miracle stories
irregardless).
Frank Silbermann, New Orleans, Louisiana, <fs@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 43 Issue 53
