Volume 44 Number 18
Produced: Fri Aug 13 6:01:51 EDT 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Administrivia
[Avi Feldblum of Shammash.Org]
Child Carrying Tallit
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Dairy Cakes (2)
[Yisrael & Batya Medad, Avi Feldblum]
Opposition to Hassidism not based on Misconception
[Mordechai]
Rabbinic violations for pre-barmitzva
[Dov Bloom]
Roshei vs Rashei (and Rashi)
[Jack Gross]
so called Rabbinical honor
[.cp.]
Who were these rabbis? (2 points)
[Yisrael & Batya Medad]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum of Shammash.Org <feldblum@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:52:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Administrivia
I have had a few questions about issue 11 not having appeared. I have
tried to send it twice now, but it appears that it is not getting through.
My best guess is that it is being rejected by the anti-spam software at
Shamash. I am in touch with the Shamash team to try and understand what is
triggering the rejection (similar issue to what caused an earlier issue to
be labeled as [BULK], but there we had the message and headers so that we
could see why, here it just disappears) and then I can edit that portion
and hopefully get it through the system.
Avi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:42:26 +0300
Subject: Child Carrying Tallit
Going back close to a century ago, my father z"l, as a child would carry
his father's tallit to Shul on Shabbat - and his father was a Rosh
Yeshivah. This was in Warsaw. I understand, though, that the area had
an Eiruv, and his father nevertheless preferred to have a minor carry
his tallit for him. Thus, we find another reason why a child might be
asked to carry a tallit rather than to have an adult do so.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael & Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 12:05:46 +0200
Subject: Dairy Cakes
Andrew Marks <machmir@...> wrote:
>There is no such prohibition for cakes. Specifically, anything that is
>either in a special form (like most pastries) or is not eaten at the
>main part of the meal (such as desserts) are extempt from this
>requirement. See siman 97 of Yoreh Deah for a full treatment of this
>halacha.
this thread based on "cake isn't eaten with meat" is a bit astounding to
me, a non-Semiched Jew, 80% of the people I know have cake & tea
immediately after their meat meal. Except for Shavu'ot when cheese cake
is expected to be served, there's a real problem. After another check
at my grocery store, easily 40% of the cakes on the shelves look like
parveh cakes, are in wrapping exactly similar to parveh cakes and are
Dairy by ingredient and so marked, albeit it in little letters on the
underside. Maybe the Halacha should be overhauled to be in tune with
Reality?
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:29:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Dairy Cakes
Having cake and tea immediately after a meat meal is not what creates
the Rabbinic prohibition. It was limited to a case of having meat
actually together with dairy, thus limited as mentioned above to
something that is used in the main part of the meal and lacking an
indicator that would remind one that it should not be used with the meat
(i.e. the siman in the bread). The fact that we have an extended
rabbinic prohibition beyond the rabbinic prohibition of eating meat and
milk together of waiting a specific period of time between them, does
not generate the fence of forbidding dairy desserts without special
signs on them. That remains part of the job of the Kosher consumer, to
make sure that one knows what is dairy, what is pareve, what is meat. I
strongly agree with the various posters that there is no existing
Rabbinic decree against dairy cake, nor should there be.
Avi Feldblum
<feldblum@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Phyllostac@...> (Mordechai)
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 03:56:27 EDT
Subject: Opposition to Hassidism not based on Misconception
<< From: <SShap23859@...> (Susan Shapiro)
> ..........there is "inbuilt" animosity, as you so well
> explained in your post.
>
> It should also be added that the Ba'al Shem Tov arrived "on the scene"
> very soon after SHabtay Tzvi, the Messianic imposter, and that, too,
> caused fear and apprehension amongst all. The bigger challenge came when
> those who did not believe in Chassidism would not discuss it with the
> Chassidim, [it seems that their followers did not present the case to
> the leaders well] and therefore, that created "we must not accept
> Chabad" in the world at that time, and even now.........>>
It seem that the poster believes that Misnagdim (past and present)
oppose/d Hassidism for no legitimate reasons, but rather solely because
they misunderstood/stand what Hassidism is.
For the record, I would like to point out that that is incorrect. The
differences between Hassidism and Misnagdim are due to differences of
opinion about Torah issues, like other disagreements in Torah, which
fill the pages of the gemara, shulchan oruch, responsa literature, and
so on, and we should not pretend otherwise. If we want to address the
situation, we need honesty, not wishful thinking that doesn't fit the
facts.
Boruch Hashem (thank G-d), in recent years a number of works have
appeared which explain the viewpoint(s) of the Misnagdim vis a vis the
Hassidim, so people can better understand this issue. A few of them that
come to mind are, in English, 'The Hassidic Movement and the Gaon of
Vilna' by Elijah Schochet (Aronson), ' The Faith of the Mithnagdim -
Rabbinic Responses to Hassidic Rapture' by Allan Nadler (Johns Hopkins
University Press), and, in Hebrew, 'HaGaon' by Rav Dov Eliach ((Mochon
Moreshes Hayeshivos, Jerusalem - volume three contains two chapters,
twenty eight and twenty nine, which are devoted to the matter), and
'Chassidim uMisnagdim' by Mordechai Wilensky (Mossad Bialik, Jerusalem).
I recommend that those interested in understanding the position of the
Misnagdim look at those works, especially the first and third of them.
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dov Bloom <dovb@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 00:53:20 -0400
Subject: Rabbinic violations for pre-barmitzva
A number of posters have refered to the practice of a pre- bar/bat
mitzva child in Europe carrying food on Shabbat in communities without
an eiruv. My great grand father R. Yoseph Selig Glick, a musmach and
shochet from Lita, studied in Yeshivot in Shavel and other places in the
1860-1870s. He described in his autobiography " Me-Odi ad hayom HaZeh"
the practice in a number of communities where he lived of pre-bar mitzva
boys (or pre-bat-mitzva girls, or even pre-marriage girls ) carrying
food on Shabbat in places without an Eiruv. He is clear that this was
the prevelant practice, and I don't remember if he mentions the Carmelit
issue. He may have written that it was not a d'oraita because of
"shishim ribo", I have to look it up. He implies that no adult/
baal-ha-bayit or married woman would carry and that it was looked upon
as OK for children who weren't barei chiyuv yet, and even mentioned that
un married girls were told that when they married - and fasted the day
before their wedding - their aveirot would be forgivven , so it was OK
to carry now. ( Some what like in Hebrew now people say - "ad hachatuna
ze yaavor".
It is clear to me from his writings that this was common practice in
Lita 1860-70s.
You can't pasken for them retroactively by the Mishna Berura, who hadn't
published yet.
My great grandfather refers at least once in his writings to the MB, who
was not known at this time as a posek. On a certain Halachik issue he
was told that he could rely on a common position of a number of poskim ,
including R Y.M. HaKohen, who was known and respected as the author of
the "Chofetz Chaim". I understood from the way he wrote this that the MB
was not written or not widespread but the Chofetz Chaim was.
This whole thing seems strange to us now but it is clear to me that the
practice was common then.
Anyone know references to this practice (below bar mitzva food carrying
on Shabbat ) in pre- 1880 Tshuvot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Gross <ibijbgross@...>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:55:50 -0400
Subject: Roshei vs Rashei (and Rashi)
> From: <BoJoM@...> (Boruch Merzel)
> ...the last Rashi on page 7 side 2 in mesechet Makos where it is pointed
> out that an unvoweled Aleph following a kametz serves to stress and
> elongate the open sound of the kametz rather than shorten it.
The question on the floor is whether an Aleph nacha in tanakh is, or is
not, an indicator (in the unvoweled text) that the preceding vowel is
long.
I maintain that Rashi does not address that question at all.
Rashi is grappling with a very difficult statement in the Gemarah.
The Mishna (q.v.) presents two opinions, Rebbi and Chakhamin as to what
case of accidental manslaughter results in Galut.
The gemarah says they base their differing opinions on the same verse
(Deut XIX 5, coming up in Shoftim). Rebbi interprets "v'nashal habarzel
min haetz..." as "if [as he chops the tree] the iron [axe-head] shall
cause [part] of the tree to fly off and kill the victim", while
Chakhamim read "if the iron [axe-head] flies loose from the wood
[handle] and kills the victim".
The Gemara offers posits an underlying disagreement that leads to this
difference in interpreting the verse:
The first opinion in the mishna, construing Nashal as transitive
("cause [the direct object] to fly off"), holds "Yesh Em LaMasoret" (the
reading indicated by the written form, disregarding the vowels that Mikra
provides, has primacy), and that leads to a reading of v'NiShShel - a
piel ("kaved") form, with causative sense: The axe caused a chip to fly
off the tree being chopped.
The second opinion holds "Yesh Em LaMikra" (the traditional reading
has primacy), and the received reading is v'NaShaL - a paal ("kal") form
that lends itself (more) to an intransitive sense: the head flew off the
axe.
The problem is that both forms-- nashal and nishshel -- like all similar
words of regular root in paal and piel, past tense, 3rd person singular
-- are invariably written as just the three root consonants, so there
seems no basis for saying that Masora differs at all from Mikra.
Rashi's solution:
Yesh Em LaMasoret means: treat the text as if spelled phonetically --
like Yiddish. In phonetic spelling we would insert a silent letter --
silent aleph or silent heh -- whenever a kamatz appears, to indicate
[depending on how Rashi pronounced the vowels] either that it is longer
than its short-vowel counterpart (as knowledgeable Syrians pronounce
kamatz), or that it's a diphthong (as Temanim, some Persians, and most
Ashkenazim pronounce a kamatz) -- much as we often insert a Yod or Vav to
indicate other long vowels.
According to that opinion, the lack of such an insertion between the
first two letters "proves" that a short vowel -- which is perforce the
short chirik of piel -- falls between them. Hence the meaning is as if we
read it v'Nishshel.
Yesh Em LaMikra means: Follow the meaning assigned by the
traditional reading: v'nashal. (How does that prove it's intransitive?
Perhaps it only has intransitive meaning in paal; or perhaps it bears
either sense, but the choice of v'nashal -- rather than v'nishshal that
can only have the causative meaning -- indicates that the intransitive
meaning is intended.)
To add to the confusion, our Gemara text, in recording the oral
arguments, spells that word v'nishshal phonetically -- with a Yod to
indicate a chirik as apposed to a patach or kamatz; but the point is that
the Yod would never be written in biblical texts to represent a short
chirik.
Nowhere in the above does Rashi say, according to either opinion, that in
practice a non-root aleph or heh is inserted in midword to indicate a
long vowel; nor the converse, that such a construction, when present,
influences the value of the preceding vowel. The addition of an
indicator for a kamatz is entirely theoretical -- a straw man that Yesh
Em LaMasoret constructs, representing how Tanakh would have been written
in an alternate universe that relied on phonetic spelling.
Rashi does not say that an aleph nacha, where it occurs in _this_
universe, has that function.
So, I maintain, a root aleph, when deprived by the Mikra of vowel point,
is entirely silent and nonfunctional in the reading of the word.
Examples (* indicating an inactive aleph or heh)
R*uveni: There is no preceding vowel for the aleph to
influence. It's there because that's how Reuven is spelled, even though
it is inactive in the pronunciation of this adjectival form
Ma* (what or not): silent ("non-consonantal") final Heh, but the
mem still has a patah. Note that the following word gets a dagesh
(chazak).
Likra*t: patach followed by aleph nacha followed by closing
consonant.
In short: The aleph of Resh Aleph Shin is part of a three-letter "root",
and is always present. But the pronunciation renders it inactive -- the
various forms are pronounced as if only the resh and Shin were present.
[No, I was awake last week: When the aleph is omitted, as in Ekev's
me-reshit, it cries for a drasha].
So my original assertion stands: If the kamatz of rashim were short, the
pronunciation would be RoSh.Shim -- akin to Dub.bim as the plural of
Dov. But the shin has no dagesh; so we can infer the kamatz is long.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: .cp. <chips@...>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 21:37:30 -0700
Subject: Re: so called Rabbinical honor
>Yossi Ginzburg writes:
>"It is in fact our adherence to this ruling that prevents simply
>annulling R. Gershoms dicta, thus easing things for agunot..."
This is just incorrect on so many levels .
Let's just start with that it is no longer Rabbeinu Gershom's dicta.
Most Ashkinazik poskem held that it got subsumed into Halacha, and for
those who didn't , the old 'Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom' has been declared
by other Gedolym since the one by Rabbeinu Gershom [if in fact he was
the one who ever did it] expired.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael & Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:44:03 +0200
Subject: Who were these rabbis? (2 points)
Rabbi Ed Goldstein wrote:
>R. Naftali Ropshitz ztl/hyd (I think this is correct) was the father in
>law of the current Bostoner Rebbe shlita
Don't think so.
He died in Lanzut, Galicia (now Poland), 1827. Almost 180 years ago.
Maybe another Naftali Tzvi?
and for those still grappling with my query as to why his surname is
"Horowitz" whereas his father was a "Rubin", I checked and discovered
that "his mother Bayla, famous for her brilliant mind, was the daughter
of the gaon R' Yitzchak Horowitz of Hamburg." (p.s. I recoomend the
Nehora web site for info on "Tzaddikim").
So, the query gets murkier. And it is still "why?". Why does a famous
Rabbi adopt his mother's maiden name out of respect for Torah learning,
thus overriding his father's family name?
Yisrael Medad
[If you look through the geneological history of the Rabbinic families,
you will find this occuring quite a number of times, there the person
takes on the mothers family name if it is a promonent Rabbinic family
name. Makes some of the charts very confusing. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 44 Issue 18
