Volume 45 Number 09
Produced: Mon Oct 4 6:37:03 EDT 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Aleinu after Mincha and on Yom Kippur
[Edward Black]
Bathrooms
[Nathan Lamm]
A Beautiful Theory Of Biblical Chapter Divisions
[Russell J Hendel]
Bible Verses
[Nathan Lamm]
Eruv Tavshilin
[Steven Oppenheimer]
Female Rabbi (3)
[Ari Trachtenberg, Nathan Lamm, Avi Feldblum]
Hallel on Yomin Noraim
[<chips@...>]
Odd Questions
[Joseph Ginzberg]
Separate Seating at Weddings (Reprise)
[Gil Student]
Third Person
[Saul Mashbaum]
Unfair competition?
[Carl Singer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Edward Black <edwardblack@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:22:43 +0100
Subject: Aleinu after Mincha and on Yom Kippur
> From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
> In my shul which does not have a break on Yom Kippur we do not say
> aleinu at all until after Ma'ariv on Motsa'ei YK. Is this also the case
> in other English shuls?
In several shuls where I have davened over the years and which do have a
break Aleinu is not said in Mussaf, Minchah or Nei'lah on Yom Kippur. I
believe this is the normative practice / halakha. Two questions then:
(1) Is this the halakha/practice in all nuscha'ot tefillah or just
nusach Ashkenaz? (2) can anyone offer an explanation?
Is it related to the fact that we recite Aleinu during the Mussaf
chazarat hashatz? Unlikely because we also recite Aleinu during the
Mussaf chazarat hashatz on Rosh Hashanah and we still say it at the end
of Mussaf
Kol tuv
Edward Black
London
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Bathrooms
The discussion of the "Shabbat paper" brings an important point that I
was once taught to mind: When discussing what can and can't be done in
bathrooms, we should remember that the halakhot as formulated were
referring to the types of facilities- e.g., outhouses- where waste (not
to mention odor) remained in place. Modern day bathrooms are, at almost
all times, quite clean of what halakha is trying to avoid. I don't mean
to say that one can, say, wear tefillin in a bathroom, but merely that
we should reevaluate our attitudes toward them.
Nachum Lamm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 23:20:09 -0400
Subject: A Beautiful Theory Of Biblical Chapter Divisions
Jonathan and Tzvi discuss the issue of Chapter Divisions (v45n4). As
long as we are on the topic I thought I might as well explain the JEWISH
(MOSAIC) division of Chapters.
The Actual Torah Scrolls have various CHAPTER divisions---they are
indicated either by a TAB-INDENT MIDLINE or by the equivalant of a
CARRIAGE RETURN (Starting on next line). There are 293 such chapters in
the Bible.
A beautiful explanation of "why" is cited in the name of Professor Saul
Kosobovsky, in the introduction to some editions of the Korain
Bible. The theory is that God in effect created a DailyBible (similar
tothe Daily Gemarah). The computation is rather simple:
There are 365 days in the (solar) year. Assuming that Jews did not learn
new material (just reviewed) on Sabbath and holidays we must deduct 52
Shabbos+7 days Passover+1 Day Shavuoth+ 8 days Succoth+2 days Rosh
Hashana+1 Day Yom Kippur. Finally deduct one day for Tisha Beav when we
dont learn. The result is 293.
Concludes, Professor Kosobovsky, God intended that we learn one Chapter
of Bible each day where Chapter is defined as Sinaitic chapters.
Russell Jay Hendel;http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Bible Verses
A few notes on Yehonatan Chipman's points:
"Standard Hebrew Bibles count the headings of the various Tehilim (when
they have more than two or three words) as separate verses..."
And if they have only two or three words (or even one), they're included
with the next verse. Christian Bibles treat headings, no matter their
size, as independent.
"They count each of the Ten Commandments, including the second group of
five, as one or more verse, whereas we count dibrot 6-9 as one long
verse..."
The differences exist even in Hebrew Bibles, as the ta'am ha'elyon and
ta'am hatachton have different verse endings.
"I believe that there are some Christian Bibles that have 149 psalms,
and not 150, but don't rely on my memory."
Some Orthodox Bibles have 151 Psalms, and Syriac ones go to 155 or so
(these can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well). No one has 149-
even the old Jewish divisions split a later Psalm to "accomodate" the
combination of 1 and 2.
"[T]here are significant differences between Protestant and Roman
Catholic Bibles..."
The Protestants consciously went back to the Jewish canon, names, and so
on. (Although, as is pointed out, they still have "39" books in a
different order.)
Nachum Lamm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steven Oppenheimer <oppy49@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:41:17 -0400
Subject: Eruv Tavshilin
I would like to offer a further clarification regarding Eruv Tavshilin.
While the normative halacha is that one may not cook on Yom Tov Rishon
(1st day Thursday) for Shabbat (there is, however, a Rishon who
disagrees and permits cooking on Yom Tov Rishon for Shabbat - see
Responsa Maharam Chalava, siman 28) and certainly not for the second day
of Yom Tov, there is an acceptable way to cook on Yom Tov Rishon for
Shabbat.
If one has not finished eating his first day Yom Tov meal, he may cook
up a large quantity of food on the first day of Yom Tov and have left
over for Shabbat. This is permitted as long as he eats some of the food
that he has cooked during the seudah (meal) of the first day of Yom Tov
( see Rivash, siman 16, also Ramo, siman 503:1 and Mishna Berura 503:7,
who writes that the custom is to be lenient). Futhermore, if one forgot
to eat some of the prepared food during the first day Yom Tov meal or if
one was too full, there are poskim who still permit using the prepared
food for Shabbat (Taz and Shulchan Aruch HaRav). One should not say I
am cooking this food for Shabbat.
This ha'aramah (loophole) may even be used if one forgot to make an Eruv
Tavshilin and there is no one else on whom to rely for the Eruv. [For a
more detailed discussion of this issue, see Eruv Tavshilin Ha'Aruch,
Vol. 2, chap. 21 & 25).
Regarding setting the table on Yom Tov Rishon (1st day) for Yom Tov
Sheini (2nd day) [or for that matter on Shabbat for next day Yom Tov,
e.g. for a Saturdat night Seder], this is not considered a Melacha, but
is a Tircha. It is permitted to have a non-Jewish housekeeper do this
for you (see Pri Megadim, Eishel Avrohom, 503; Da'as Torah, siman 444;
Ma'adanei Shmuel, siman 115:6; Chok Le'Yisrael, se'if 53).
May our study of Hilchot Yom Tov enhance our Simchat Yom Tov. I wish
all the MJ readers a healthy and happy New Year.
Steven Oppenheimer, DDS
<oppy49@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:43:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Female Rabbi
Dear Leah,
> Going back to the gender issue: if there are those on m.j who believe
> that it would be beyond the pale ever to have a female Orthodox Rabbi,
> would you please cite solid sources.
Since we've lost the rabbinic chain from Moshe, it seems to me that it's
hard to argue with "solid" sources against having a female poseket
(moreover, there is the well-known case of Devorah with which to
contend). Nevertheless, I think it would be grammatically incorrect to
have a female rabbi, given than "rabbi" is, to the best of my knowledge,
a male term. I would think that a new term would be needed.
Best,
Ari Trachtenberg, Boston University
http://people.bu.edu/trachten mailto:<trachten@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Female Rabbi
Leah S. Gordon wonders about sources opposed to the idea of female
rabbis.
To a great extent, this depends on what "rabbi" means. In the classical
sense, a rabbi was someone who knew enough halakha in certain areas to
be ordained as qualified to answer these questions. This is still what
Orthodox semikha is today (at least officially). Nothing prevents a
woman from learning these halakhot and having someone with semikha
certify that she is knowledgeable about them.
Today, however, a "rabbi" is someone who leads a shul and performs
various duties- unrelated to semikha- in that capacity. It's here that
issues arise in terms of being a witness, as a Rav often is, davening
for the amud or layning, speaking to a shul, issues of tzinut, and so
on.
Nachum Lamm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 06:27:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Female Rabbi
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Nathan Lamm wrote:
> Today, however, a "rabbi" is someone who leads a shul
> and performs various duties- unrelated to semikha- in
> that capacity.
I think a more correct formulation is that today "some" Rabbis are those
who lead a shul etc. There are many members of the Rabbinate today who
have "semicha" and who have never been and have no intention to be a shul
Rabbi.
Avi Feldblum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <chips@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:12:15 -0700
Subject: Re: Re: Hallel on Yomin Noraim
> From: W. Baker <wbaker@...>
> Although Rosh Hashana observes the birthday of the world, it and Yom
> Kippur are most concerned with us, today and our relationship to others
> and to Hashem. It is our tshuvah, both privately and collectively, that
> is the concern of these days. somehow, the happy Hallel doesn't seem to
> fit. Although we may have happy family meals and get togethers for Rosh
> Hashana, that is not the main import of the days.
That is pretty close to what the Aruch Laner and the Kappos Temarim
write in their comments to the Gemora in R.H.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:09:47 -0400
Subject: Odd Questions
Having received so many explanations last time I tried this, I am trying
a new "poser" here:
1) I recently saw an imported Chanuka menorah from Morocco. In the
pressed metal backboard, under a representation of Jerusalem, are
engraved in Hebrew letters "Vanri Malbiach Batray" (Vav Nun resh yud,
mem lamed bet yud chet, bet tav resh yud hei). Can anyone tell me what
this means?
2) About 30 tears ago I purchased an Ethiopian amulet, written on
parchment, supposedly of Jewish origin, and written in Gez. It recently
occurred to me that the reliability of the seller might not be good
enough to be sure that it is in fact Jewish, since it does contain some
odd pictorial images. Does anyone on list know Gez, or of where I might
find someone with knowledge of Ethiopian Judaica?
Good Yom Tov to all.
Yossi Ginzberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gil Student <gil_student@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:04:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Separate Seating at Weddings (Reprise)
Carl Singer wrote:
>If we look at the current and recent past leadership of Agudah
>(and perhaps other substantial Orthodox organizations) would
>we find that the senior leadership -- Roshei Yeshiva, etc.,
>(probably, 'til 120, in their 70's and 80's) had family seating at
>their own weddings and separate seating at their children's
>weddings.
R' Yehuda Herzl Henkin (Bnei Banim 1:35), who is certainly not a Haredi
ideologue, writes that his grandfather and all the gedolim of that
generation made weddings with *separate* seating, men-only tables and
women-only tables, albeit without a mechitzah. He writes that this is
the ideal and then investigates why it is not the current practice (he
is referring to totally mixed seating, which is quite common in certain
frum circles). He concludes that there is room to allow married couples
to sit together but it is preferable that single men and women be seated
at separate tables.
A summary of his rulings can be found online at
http://www.mail-jewish.org/New_Articles.htm#Piskei_Bnei_Banim
Gil Student
http://www.YasharBooks.com
mailto:<Gil@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Saul Mashbaum <smash52@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:12:57 +0200
Subject: Re: Third Person
Ben Z. Katz <bkatz@...> wrote
>In Biblical grammar, there are switches from 2nd to 3rd person all the
>time.
It is interesting to observe that some halachic portions of the Torah
are expressed in the second person ("you should/should not do
something") and some in the third person ("one should/should not do
something"; often "if such and such happens to a person, then he should
do such and such").
This is illustrated strikingly in parshat Ki Tetze (Dvarim 21:10 ff).
The first parsha (y'fat toar) is in the second person; the next one is
in the third (b'chor l'nachala); the next (ben sorer umoreh), third
person; the next (taluy), second person; the next (hasahvat aveida),
second person; the next(teina uprika), second person; the next (simlat
isha), third person. And so on through the parsha.
I wonder if this has been noted. I am particularly interested in finding
a commentary which explains the key to this pattern: why are some
commandments expressed in the second person, and some in the third?
Saul Mashbaum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:41:24 -0400
Subject: Unfair competition?
I have an arovos bush in my backyard and I invite several of my friends
to come and cut what they need (for free, of course.) From an halachic
perspective am I undermining a neighbor who chooses to "sell" arovos?
Ditto a local succah merchant.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 45 Issue 9
