Volume 47 Number 34
Produced: Tue Mar 22 22:00:13 EST 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Grape Juice Change
[.cp.]
Kashrus of Yankee Stadium
[Chaim Tabasky]
lEHashem Haaretz U'Meloah
[Joseph Ginzberg]
Line of Chabad Rebbes
[Yisrael Medad]
Lubavitch and Chabad (3)
[Alex Heppenheimer, Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, Shaul Bacher]
Lubavitch and the Malokhim
[Michael Frankel]
Lubavitch dynasty
[Joseph Ginzberg]
Measuring time vs. keeping track of time (2)
[Gershon Dubin, Jack Gross]
Sh'lo assany Nachri
[Carl Singer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: .cp. <chips@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:39:28 -0800
Subject: Grape Juice Change
Anyone know when the large glass Kedem Grape Juice bottles became
Non-Mevushal ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Tabasky <tabafkc@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:30:09 +0200
Subject: Re: Kashrus of Yankee Stadium
In MJ v47n20, Dov Teichman wrote:
<<Regarding Sporting events and theaters and the like, I know many
Orthodox Jews go, yet all I have seen who write on the matter forbid it
<SNIP> R. Moshe in Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 4:11 says anyone attending
theaters and sporting events is transgresses the prohibitions of Moshav
Letzim and Bitul Torah. Are there any poskim who allow going to
Baseball games? or any other sporting event or theaters for that
matter?>>
My father in law recalls that Reb Moshe ztza"l visited Hartford, Ct. for
a short vacation in summers during the 60s. On one occasion my father in
law drove Reb Moshe and the Rebbetzen back to Brooklyn, and in the back
of the station wagon took his son and some friends to go to a ball game
(Mets, of course). It was a cloudy day, threatening to rain, but when
leaving the group Reb Moshe assured them (or blessed them, as you like)
that it would be a fine day and the game would not be rained out (an it
was not rained out).
b'yedidut,
Chaim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:53:00 -0500
Subject: lEHashem Haaretz U'Meloah
>What is the origin of the custom of writing "LaHashem Haaertz Umelo'ah"
>when writing one's name in a book to signify ownership? Why books and
>not other articles you might lend out (chairs come to mind)?
I always understood that since certain Poskim ( IIRC, the K'sav Sofer
among others) hold that nowadays the mitzva of writing a sefer Torah is
accomplished by purchasing printed seforim, one must make them available
to the public to some extent, as one does with a Torah scroll. To keep
track of them, the name need be there but the mitzva (spreading the word
) is remembered by the phrase showing that Hashem is who ultimately made
this sefer available.
Obviously, this wouldn't apply to other objects.
How the Poskim would feel nowadays that printed seforim are so cheap and
available, I wonder...
Yossi Ginzberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:45:27 +0200
Subject: Line of Chabad Rebbes
Nahum Klafter wrote:
"Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak's son, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Shneerson, who was
the 7th and apparently final Lubavitcher Rebbe"
son-in-law
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:19:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Lubavitch and Chabad
In MJ 47:30, Rav E.M. Teitz wrote concerning the mid-1980s dispute
between Mr. Gourary and Chabad concerning the ownership of the Chabad
library:
>I have always been bothered by this matter. Rabbi Gourary's son was
>pressing for a din Torah to resolve the dispute. By what right did
>Chabad take the case into civil court, in direct violation of a Torah
>prohibition that Jews may not settle disputes with other Jews, other
>than in a Beth Din?
WADR to Rav Teitz, I believe - though I would have to check with people
who were active in community affairs at the time - that it was exactly
the other way around: it was the representatives of Chabad who wanted to
take the matter to a din Torah. (Mr. Gourary passed away recently, so
in the spirit of "acharei mos kedoshim emor," I'll leave the rest
unsaid.)
BTW, to follow up on some recent postings concerning the M'lochim
chassidim, where some posters wondered where they got this name: as I
understand it, they are so named after their founder (and only Rebbe),
R' Avraham HaKohen "the Malach (angel)," a former chassid of R' Shalom
Dovber, the fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe. (He is mentioned as such by R'
Yosef Yitzchak, the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe, in some entries from his
diaries of the year 5662 (1901-02) that were published as the
introduction to R' Shalom Dovber's Kuntres Etz Chaim.)
Kol tuv,
Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nachman Yaakov Ziskind <awacs@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:16:42 -0500
Subject: Lubavitch and Chabad
> From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
[See above]
I will tell my esteemed teacher that Agu'ch (the plaintiffs in this
case) went to the Beis Din of Crown Heights, who issued summonses (on
three different occasions) to Mr. Gourary. When they were ignored, they
got permission from the Beis Din to sue in District Court. Incidentally,
I heard that the Rebbe told the attorneys for Agu'ch to bring
(translated) the page from the Shulchan Aruch allowing the lawsuit in
this case.
Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, FSPA, LLM <awacs@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shaul Bacher <sbacher@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:42:47 +0200
Subject: RE: Lubavitch and Chabad
Barry Gourary a"h did not want to go Beis Din either -
Rabbonim who were looked up as Morei Halachoh including HaRav M
Feinstein Ztz"L were matir to go to court. If you look in Nat Lewin's
(the attorney for Chabad) remarks concerning the case he comments and
says it was the first time ever that a client came to him with all the
halachik requirements - pages from shulchan oruch along with letters
from Rabbonim as mentioned above allowing them to go to court.
Barry Gourary passed away last week and is in oilam Haemes perhaps we
should refrain from discussing the matter further here at the moment.
Yehofchu yomim eileh lesoson ulesimchah
Shaul Bacher
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Frankel <michaeljfrankel@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:28:58 -0500
Subject: Lubavitch and the Malokhim
Re the Malokhim and Lubavitch. The Malokhim are an almost entirely
homegrown american religion with origins - if you can credit this - in a
(then) very modern orthodox institution - Torah V'Daas. The story goes
something like this. R. Feivel Mendlowitz - founder of TV (which, as
its name indicates, was a modern O institution in the 1930s preparing
its students for college and assimilation into the professional
classes. R. Mendlowitz was a firm follower of R. Simshon Rafael Hirsch
and Torah Im Derech Eretz as R. Hirsch understood it - not Torah
U'Farnosoh as today's revisionists portray it) had a personal weakness
for chassidus (taught a class in tanya at TV) and wanted to expose his
young new york born talmidim to "old style" authentic judaism. To that
end he organized regular field trips to bring some talmidim to meet with
a recent emigrant to the Bronx - an "old style' talmid chokhom named
R. Chaim Levin. This R. Chaim was not only a talmid chokhom with a very
interesting history and saintly character (hence his nickname - the
Malokh) but charismatic as well, and he gradually influenced a group of
talmidim from TV who began spending more time visiting him, listening to
his advice, dressing and acting differently and generally displaying
what we would in today's terms call very charedi perspectives on
education, social issues, modernity etc. all quite anti-thetical to TV
hashqofos. By the time R. Mendlowitz and the TV administration figured
out what was happening it was far too late. Somewhere in the early
1930s the TV talmidim who had coalesced into a group around R. Chaim the
Malokh were expelled from TV. When the Malokh passed away towards the
end of the 30's the followers of the Malokh, i.e. the Malokhim,
maintained their group identity as they do till this day. Their
weltenshaung is often rather Satmar-like and Mintz (Hasidic Peoples,
Harvard U. Press) even claims that some of the early Satmar-Lubavitch
fisticuffs were actually catalyzed by malokhim behaving badly but who
were mistaken for one of the mainline groups.
As for Lubavitch. Turns out this R. Chaim was originally quite close to
the 5th Lubavitcher rebbe, R.Sholom DovBear, who selected him to tutor
for his young son Joseph - the future 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe. R. Chaim
however became disillusioned with his young charge - the story is that
he caught him reading some haskoloh literature and then wouldn't admit
it to his father when R. Chaim ratted him out. Disgusted, R. Chaim
resigned his tutor position. Needless to say, Lubavitch sources have
their own version of this story which has R. Chaim "libeling" the future
Rebbe which caused him difficulty with his father until the "falsehood"
was exposed. take your pick. In any event, R. Chaim subsequently
emigrated to america and the Bronx, but still kind of considered himself
a Lubavitcher, a self-identity of which he only slowly and maybe never
completely weaned himself, maintaining some sense of connectivity and at
least a grudging degree of respect for the 5th rebbe. he died shortly
before the 6th rebbe, R. Joseph, for whom he had no use, emigrated
himself to the US. There were also sporadic attempts by Lubavitcher
askonim in the 50s and perhaps later to m'qareiv the malokhim and
perhaps return them to the mother fold. In any event they persist to
this day and while they've had rabbonim-leaders, I don't think they've
ever appointed a successor "rebbe".
Mechy Frankel H: (301) 593-3949
<michael.frankel@...> W: (703) 416-3252
<michaeljfrankel@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:08:55 -0500
Subject: Lubavitch dynasty
Per the Encyclopedia Judaica:
The 3rd Rebbe, AKA The Zemach Zedek, had four sons,
1) Judah Leib, of Kopys
2) Hayim Shneur Zalman of Liady
3) Israel Nioah of Nezhin and
4) Samuel of Lubavitch
Apparently all 4 established chassidic courts of their own on the death
of their father.
The last Rebbe was the son-in-law of the 6th, who was the
grandson-in-law of Israel Noah, #3.
Yossi Ginzberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:22:10 -0500
Subject: Measuring time vs. keeping track of time
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
<<So where does the universally accepted requirement of 18 minutes come
from.>>
Interesting that the amount of time that it took dough to become chametz
was apparently well known, even if not exactly 18 minutes or even
quantified to near that extent. The pasuk in Hoshea 7:4 uses this shiur
as though it were a well known quantity.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:02:18 -0500
Subject: Measuring time vs. keeping track of time
Among the Shiurim involving elapsed time:
- K'dey T'vilah V'sippug in the first chapter of Zavim.
- Mahalach mil: R' Nehemiah in the beraita in Shabbat 34, and statements
there in the name of Shmuel, quantify the duration of Bein Hash'mashot
utilizing "mahalach mil" as a unit of elapsed time ("K'dey she-y'hallech
... hatzi mil"; "sh'ney helkey mil", "sh'lohsa helkey mil")
Although the examples characterize the length of a period of time, the
"K'dey" formula indicates the unit referred to was a means of measuring
elapsed time from an arbitrary reference point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:46:45 -0500
Subject: Sh'lo assany Nachri
I never miss an opportunity to assert my ignorance -- here's another
example.
This morning at a shiva minyan (at a private home, not the regular shul
minyan but all daveners present were from our shul) -- the ba'al tefilah
(choosen because he had completed putting on his tallis & tephillin and
"volunteered") said "sh'lo assany nachri" instead of the "sh'o assany
goy"
Three questions --
1 - Is this substitution valid -- nachri is "Christian" goy is "(any
other) nation" -- so isn't this construct incorrect as it's more
limiting.
2 - Does minhag ha-makom extend to the shiva minyan attended only by
members of a single congregation
3 - What would be the proper response if this had taken place in a shul
where the minhag was to say .... "goy"
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 47 Issue 34
