Volume 46 Number 72
Produced: Mon Jan 24 20:26:21 EST 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Administrivia
[Avi Feldblum]
The ban on Rabbi Slifkin's Books
[Harry Zelcer]
Beauty in Marriage
[<Rabbihg1@...>]
Calendar question
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Elef-Aluf-Alef [was Re: Population Explosion in Egypt]
[Stan Tenen]
Kallah's family hosts the wedding
[Akiva Miller]
Leining group on Yahoo
[Chaim Tatel]
Population Explosion in Egypt (2)
[Michael Mirsky, Akiva Miller]
Population of Am Yisroel
[Perets Mett]
Shidduch rules (3)
[Shoshana L. Boublil, David Charlap, Perets Mett]
Wedding Costs
[David Charlap]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:11:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Administrivia
Hello All,
Just a quick note to those who alerted me to the Web version of the
archives having been broken / not being updated. The problem has been
fixed and the Web version of the archives is up to date.
Avi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Zelcer <reliablehealth@...>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:00:29 -0500
Subject: The ban on Rabbi Slifkin's Books
Rabbi Nosson (Natan) Slifkin, a.k.a. the Zoo Rabbi, is a lecturer at
yeshivos and seminaries in Jerusalem, the author of numerous books, and
has taught Zoo Torah to thousands of people worldwide. His recent book,
Mysterious Creatures, has been reviewed in the Orthodox Union's Jewish
Action, Winter 2004.
A recent report in the Forward begins as follows:
"Dozens of prominent ultra-Orthodox rabbis are backing an international
effort to ban a fellow rabbi's books, arguing that the works are
heretical because they suggest the earth is much older than a literal
reading of Genesis would suggest.
The target of the campaign is Rabbi Nosson Slifkin, an ultra-Orthodox
author known as the "Zoo Rabbi," best known for his books and tours
relating to his research on animals in the Bible. He also has written on
wider questions regarding science and the Torah. In particular,
Slifkin's critics object to his assertions that "the Sages were mistaken
in certain scientific matters" and "that the world is millions of years
old." According to a literal reading of the Bible, Slifkin's critics
argue, the world was created in six days and is only 5,765 years old.
"The push to blacklist Slifkin's books is the broadest and most
coordinated example of what have been the increasingly frequent efforts
by ultra-Orthodox rabbis to ban books that they find objectionable.
"Slifkin's articles have been pulled from the Web site of Aish HaTorah,
a Jerusalem-based ultra-Orthodox outreach organization with dozens of
branches across the globe."
Rabbi Slifkin's web site
http://zootorah.com/controversy/controversy.html contains all the
details. What do you think?
Heshey Zelcer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Rabbihg1@...>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:41:46 EST
Subject: Re: Beauty in Marriage
>> Every aspect of Yaakov Avinu's family relationships was motivated only
>> for the sake
>> of Heaven, and not for any personal gain, benefit or pleasure....Do not
>> assume that the
>> Avos thought about marriage, family and life in the same manner as we
>> do.
> OK, but why, then, does the Torah bother to mention physical beauty when
> describing Rachel?
The Torah is describing the essence of things, not merely relating an
interesting narrative. The Avos are also referred to as 'Merkavah' -
their lives reflect G-dly traits, and each of the Avos are
manifestations of Divinity in this world. Yes, their physical selves
were also real, but they were merely the external husk of a much deeper
reality, and to understand the Torah on the physical level only is to
translate the Torah into Greek.
Perhaps we can explain it this way: while to most of us, the physical
world is our reality, and the spiritual ideas that we believe in have to
be studied, contemplated, and accepted intellectually, to the Avos,
indeed to the entire generation, the reality was the spiritual world,
and it was the physical world that needed to be explained and 'believed'
in.
So, to translate 'Yefeh To'ar' as 'shapely' - and to say that Yaakov
Avinu was attracted to her physically, is a conversation more suited for
People magazine than a serious Torah discussion. Undoubtedly, she was
beutiful physically, but this is because the Torah describes people
through and through, and the physical appearance was a perfect mirror
image of the essential self that was beautiful in the eye of G-d.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:45:04 +0200
Subject: Calendar question
I see that this coming Rosh Hashanah will occur on October 4, later than
I ever remember it falling. Does anyone know how often Rosh Hashanah can
fall that late, and what factors need to be in effect for the date to be
so late?
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:12:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Elef-Aluf-Alef [was Re: Population Explosion in Egypt]
A letter analysis of the hebrew words "ELEF/ALUF" - Aleph Lamad Phe - by
Stan Tenen is being sent to the list mj-tech. For more information, contact
Stan at <meru1@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <kennethgmiller@...> (Akiva Miller)
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:06:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Kallah's family hosts the wedding
Someone asked <<< What is the halachic source of this minhag? >>>, ie.,
the minhag that the kallah's family shoulders most of the wedding costs.
The sefer Taamei haMinhagim uMakorei haDinim says in paragraph 980 on
page 413 (my translation): << The reason why the kallah's father makes
the wedding meal, rather than the chasan's father, is because it says in
the gemara Brachos 6b, "Whoever enjoys the chasan's meal, and doesn't
give him simcha, violates five voices." Therefore, the kallah's father
makes the meal, and it is no longer called "the chasan's meal", and
people will not be able to violate that prohibition..." >>
(The "five voices" referred to here are listed in Yirmiyah/Jeremiah
33:11, and are almost the same as the ones listed in the last of the
Sheva Brachos.)
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Tatel <chaimyt@...>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:44:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Leining group on Yahoo
> Subject: Flatbush shiurim: History of Krias HaTorah; History of Tefillah
> <<I would appreciate it if someone attending could take notes and post
> them in the web (perhaps on the leining group at Yahoo).>>
>
> If I'm wrong, I'm sure Chaim will let us know what group he was refering
> to. Mod.]
Sorry if I wasn;t specific enough. The group is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Leining/
Chaim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Mirsky <mirskym@...>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:41:10 -0500
Subject: Population Explosion in Egypt
Ira Bauman said:
>The instructor, whose name escapes me, asked how is it is that several
>million Jews could leave the continent of Africa whose total
>population then only equaled 11 million without some comment by
>independent observers at the time?
Who says there were only 11 million in Africa? Sounds awfully low to me.
Michael Mirsky
<mirskym@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <kennethgmiller@...> (Akiva Miller)
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:06:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Population Explosion in Egypt
Ummm.... I'd suggest that our "several million" figure is no less
problematic than his "11 million" figure.
I'm not saying he's wrong, only that there are plenty of questions to go
around.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:17:16 +0000
Subject: Population of Am Yisroel
Ira wrote:
> When I was a mere lad in Yeshiva University, I took a course in Ancient
> Near East history. The instructor, whose name escapes me, asked how is
> it that several million Jews could leave the continent of Africa whose
> total population then only equaled 11 million without some comment by
> independent observers at the time?
Which independent observers did he have in mind?
CBS?
CNN?
Does he think that recorded history is an impartial exercise by unbiased
observers?
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shoshana L. Boublil <toramada@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:02:41 +0200
Subject: Re: Shidduch rules
> From: Perry Zamek <perryza@...>
> Anonymous wrote:
> >One of my son's Rosh Yeshiva's has established "shiddach" rules -- So my
> >son goes on shiddach dates wearing his Shabbos best -- even to play
> >miniature golf! He's not to spend any money -- but then he went out
> >with a girl who suggested a venu that had a cover charge .... it's all
> >narishkite.
>
> [del]
> The girl, who gets the wrong
> impression - that the guy is a cheapskate (when he's really being a good
> frum boy and doing what his Rosh Yeshiva says)?
> [del]
> A good suggestion for Anonymous's son: When dating, follow the
> requirements of the fifth volume in Shulchan Aruch. In other words, use
> common sense.
I have to comment here. Years ago, when the issue of shidduchim came
up, the question was how to tell the quality of the guy when you spend
only a short time with the guy. How can you tell whether you want to
see him again? While external attraction can give a partial answer (no
attraction at all - no point in going out again), it's not enough. Both
the girl and guy are on their best behavior!
My mother sent me to Chazal: Adam Nikkar BeKoso, Kisso Ve'Ka'aso (a
person is known from his cup, his pocket and his anger). As she put it,
if he is drunk on the shidduch (and it isn't Purim) -- the answer is
obvious...
If he is angry at me during the shidduch - see how he manages his anger.
Sometimes a guy can become angry b/c of someone else during the date,
again you have a chance to see how he reacts when he's angry.
But the "pocket/wallet" was the easiest. At the time, it was possible
to purchase a cup of "Gazoz" (seltzer water with a sweet syrup) at every
local kiosk for about a dime. The program was to go near the kiosk as
we walk around town, and state that "I am thirsty" and see what happens.
A guy who can't dig into his pocket for a dime -- is usually a
cheapskate.
Now, we have to find out who the rabbi is and set up a new test <g>.
(For those wondering -- my husband offered to take me to a nearby hotel
lounge for cake and coffee.... <g>. )
Shoshana L. Boublil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Charlap <shamino@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:35:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Shidduch rules
Perry Zamek wrote:
> I think the last three words says it all - but who's the fool here?
> The boy, who dresses up to go on a date, but won't fork out a few
> dollars for fear of "breaking the rules"? The girl, who gets the
> wrong impression - that the guy is a cheapskate (when he's really
> being a good frum boy and doing what his Rosh Yeshiva says)?
Of course, you could also conclude that a girl who doesn't respect this
rule shouldn't be marrying into a family that is going to choose yeshiva
rules over what you and I consider common sense.
And a boy who chooses these rules over what you and I consider common
sense should not expect to ever have a second date with someone that
doesn't know about these rules in advance.
> If these "rules" are any indication, they serve neither side's
> interests - the only interest they serve, perhaps, is that the
> Yeshiva has the "right" kind of image.
Unless it's the interests of the yeshiva (and presumably the parents)
that the kids only marry into families from the same yeshiva/
neighborhood. I would disagree with this policy, but I also won't tell
them that they're wrong.
> A good suggestion for Anonymous's son: When dating, follow the
> requirements of the fifth volume in Shulchan Aruch. In other words,
> use common sense.
Unfortunately, common sense is rarely common. This hold equally true in
all communities of all religions.
-- David
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:36:27 +0000
Subject: Shidduch rules
Perry wrote:
> I think the last three words says it all - but who's the fool here?
> The boy, who dresses up to go on a date, but won't fork out a few
> dollars for fear of "breaking the rules"? The girl, who gets the wrong
> impression - that the guy is a cheapskate (when he's really being a
> good frum boy and doing what his Rosh Yeshiva says)?
The real fool is the shadkhen, who should explain the parameters to the
two parties concerned.
The truth is that are numerous sets of shidukh rules among different
segments of the community. The shadkhen needs to ensure that each side
understands the 'rules' that the other side is working with.
Perets Mett
whose married children have been through shidukhim with a variety of
'rules'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Charlap <shamino@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:30:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Wedding Costs
Leah S. Gordon wrote:
> Let me add that I think it is shameful for a family to "limit to 50
> guests" the invitation list of another family based on who contributed
> what to the wedding. If there are (and there always are) financial
> constraints, then the whole tenor of the party must be altered. It is
> simply inappropriate to start cutting out family members instead. Many
> could have unlimited guests if they had them to a light dessert/lemonade
> reception in a public park...plan "up" from there.
True, but let's turn the discussion around.
Suppose only one family can afford to pay. They say "we can afford to
pay for 50 guests, so you pick 25 and I'll pick 25". That would be
considered fair by most people.
Suppose now, that the non-paying family asks "Can I add five more if I
pay for them?" The paying family would (correctly?) sound mean and
stingy if they responded "no, we're inviting equal numbers, so if you
want to pay for five more guests, you have to pay for me to have five
more as well."
Is this much different from your scenario, where both are paying, and
the one who pays more is told that he can't restrict the other party's
list?
No opinions here, just questions.
-- David
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 46 Issue 72
