Volume 47 Number 56
Produced: Sun Apr 10 8:38:39 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Checking Labels (4)
[Akiva Miller, Gershon Dubin, <LennyLevy@...>, Risa Tzohar]
God's Bookkeepers
[Nachman Yaakov Ziskind]
The Great Divide is finally upon the National Religious
[Akiva Miller]
Kedoshah/Kedushah
[Michael Poppers]
Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchita
[Stephen Phillips]
Tircha d'Tzibbur (4)
[Martin Stern, Yisrael Medad, Yisrael Medad, Jeffrey Kaufman]
Women as gabbais
[Ari Trachtenberg]
Zerachya
[Yisrael Medad]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:32:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Checking Labels
Harold Greenberg wrote <<< However, on a can of green pitted manzanillo
olives I found 2 hashgahot- a) on the left side - OU P - kosher LePesach
mihadrin; b) on the right side - HaBaDaTZ Haedah Haharedit Yerushalyim -
only for days of the year and not Pesach. Can anyone suggest into which
pile to put the manzanillo olives? >>>
I have seen such olives myself, and similar situations on other products
as well. Ideally, one could inquire to the agencies directly to get some
clarity on the disagreement, but sometimes that's not practical. So
here's my take on it:
One possibility is that the two agencies disagree about the Pesach
status of one of the ingredients. In the above example, there might be
an ingredient which the OU considers as perfectly fine, but the Edah
considers it to be chometz or kitniyos, or at least *possibly* chometz
or kitniyos.
This could be for a zillion reasons. One might be that the ingredient is
derived from kitniyos, and the OU considers it so far removed that it is
okay, but the Edah says it is still problematic. Or it might be related
to the chometz equipment which the olives (or one ingredient of the
olives) was manufactured on: The OU might accept this kashering
procedure for Pesach, while the Edah feels that the equipment is still
chometzdik.
Another possibility is that the different hechsherim have nothing at all
to do with kashrus, but it might be a simple business decision: It could
be that for whatever reason, the manufacturer of the olives was willing
to pay the OU an extra fee for the Pesach hechsher, but was not willing
to pay it to the Edah. This does not necessarily mean that the Edah's
hechsher is more expensive. It could be that the manufacturer's budget
allowed for one Pesach hechsher but not two, and they figure that for
their customers, the OU would be adequate.
The bottom line is that unless you can do all this investigating, it all
boils down to: Are you (or your rav) willing to rely on the OU, or are
you (or your rav) concerned about the lack of an Edah hechsher for
Pesach?
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 21:05:30 -0400
Subject: Checking Labels
Do you trust the OU? The Badatz is reluctant to give hashgachos for
Pesach; I believe it's a general reluctance to "mish" i.e. to eat in a
house not one's own. Regardless of the reason, it is not a statement
that the product is NOT kosher for Pesach, only that their hashgacha
does not extend to its appropriateness for Pesach.
So if the OU on its own is OK, the lack of Badatz kosher lePesach is NOT
a "negative hechsher".
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <LennyLevy@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:32:38 EDT
Subject: Checking Labels
I called the OU Kashrus Division in NYC and they confirm that they stand
by the OUP on the label of this product and they are Kosher for Pesach
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Risa Tzohar <risa.tzohar@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:15:47 +0200
Subject: Checking Labels
Yes, the mashgiach in our supermarket explained that the badatz does not
give hashgacha for Pesach period. He said ignore them and use it on
Pesach if someone else says Pesach.
'Chag samekh v'kasher'
Risa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nachman Yaakov Ziskind <awacs@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:54:55 -0400
Subject: Re: God's Bookkeepers
> From: <DTnLA@...> (Dov Teichman)
> (And I have heard that R. Shach took a similar approach to the Satmarer
> Rebbe regarding more recent tragedies that occurred in Israel.
> Although, the Lubavitcher Rebbe I believe was very opposed to both of
> them on this issue.)
Yes. I believe the Lubavitcher Rabbi stated that even if one added up
all the sins committed by all the Jews since the beginning of time, one
would not find enough sins to justify the Holocaust. Ergo, no sin can be
used as the 'basis' for the Holocaust. (If I had to pick a cause, I
would have picked assimilation over Zionism. But I don't, so I won't.)
While on the same subject, I'll note that the Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe
stated in this context that when a child misbehaves, the father slaps
the face - even though it's not the face that misbehaves. Clearly, no
matter which reason (or lack of reason) one picks, there were many in
the camps that were innocent of sin.
Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, FSPA, LLM <awacs@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:05:44 GMT
Subject: Re: The Great Divide is finally upon the National Religious
Shmuel Himelstein wrote <<< ... Rabbi Shmuel Tal ... has called on his
students and followers not to recite Hallel on Yom
Ha'atzma'ut. According to a student of his, Rabbi Tal said that due to
the State's change in attitude toward settlers, there is no longer the
need to recite Hallel in its honor. On the other hand, ... Rabbi Yigal
Kaminetzky, has ruled that it should still be said and the day should
still be celebrated.>>>
I am trying to understand this machlokes. My best guess is that when
Rabbi Tal used to say Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut, he did it in honor of the
state. And now that the situation has changed, and he does not see such
honor due to the state, Hallel can be suspended.
I always thought that the reason for this Hallel was to praise HaShem
for the creation of the State. According to this logic, the status of
Yom Haatzmaut was established almost 60 years ago, and is independent of
the current government or its policies. This might be Rabbi Kaminetzky's
logic.
Does this make any sense? Would these rabbis agree that this is their
reasoning, or is some other logic at work?
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <MPoppers@...> (Michael Poppers)
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:00:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Kedoshah/Kedushah
In M-J V47#51, JGross wrote:
> Another Rishon apparently in the K'dosha camp: the Ritv"a, on the subject
> of saying kedusha d'Yotzer absent a minyan, suggests one say "...onim
> v'om'rim b'yirah Kadosh. v'ha-ofanim ...". As the footnotes indicate
> there, that parses well with K'dosha, but not with K'dushsha.
WADR to the "footnotes," it's true that "'Kdushah,' kulam k'echad, onim
v'om'rim..." _may_ sound more awkward to some than "uvin'imah k'doshah,
kulam k'echad, onim v'om'rim...," but WADR to Mr. Gross, that doesn't
demonstrate what RYTVA would have found more preferable.
All the best from
-- Michael Poppers via RIM pager
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Phillips <admin@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:13:34 +0100
Subject: Re: Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchita
> From: Jacob Sasson <jacobsasson@...> A while back someone
> posted a piece documenting a trend in the later editions of shemirat
> Shabbat kehilchita (Rav Neuwirth) lechumrah on may issues that were
> pasened lekula in the first and second editions. I thought it
> pertained to shoveling snow on shabbat. Anyone have an sources for
> such a contention?
No, but I recall seeing a kullah (leniency) in the second edition. This
related to changing time clocks for (say) lights on Yom Tov. I believe
in the first edition Rav Neuwirth said that they could only be changed
on Yom Tov so as to maintain the status quo for longer (either keeping
them on or off for longer) or to bring on the lights earlier but that
they couldn't be changed so as to switch off the lights earlier. In the
second edition in (I believe) a footnote he quotes a psak (ruling) of
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach z'tzl that they may be changed so as to
switch off the lights earlier.
Stephen Phillips
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:34:37 +0100
Subject: Tircha d'Tzibbur
on 7/4/05 11:33 am, Yisrael & Batya Medad <ybmedad@...> wrote:
> on 6/4/05 11:56 am, Anonymous wrote:
>> Our shule has a morning weekday minyan that always ends at 7:00 A.M.
>> Recently a congregant became an avel and is now chiyuv to daven for the
>> amud. Unfortunately, he davens somewhat slowly
>> The minyan is now ending about 7:10 or 7:15 -- which is a problem for
>> the "regulars" who have carpools, and busses to catch to get to work on
>> time.
> a) depends on who is bolder, the Rav or the Gabbai
Why should they be in dispute?
> b) explain to him that the chiyuv is Kaddish not the davening which is
> a custom.
This is manifestly incorrect. The main chiyuv is to be sheliach tsibbur
and kaddish was introduced where the aveil was under bar mitsvah, and
therefore could not be shats, as is obvious from the source in the
Midrash Tanchuma Noach. This is absolutely clear to those who uphold the
ancient Ashkenaz minhag of only one person saying kaddish at a time
since the rules of precedence give such a minor the right in preference
to an adult (Kitsur Shulchan Arukh).
> c) have someone else do P'sukei d"zimrah
This will not work since he will still be davenning the greater part of
shacharit 'too slowly'
> or, have him do only Pd'Z and pick up after Chazarat HaShatz.
He may 'drag out' pesukei dezimra which forces whoever takes over to
speed up of shema and shemonei esrei, something surely equally to be
deplored. The only real solution, if he insists on being shats for at
least part of the time, is for him to take over for Ashrei and Uva
letzion, as several other posters have suggested, and those who have to
go early will be able to do so without losing out on tefillah
betsibbur. If he is so slow that he ends up without a minyan for the
kaddeishim at the end, he may realise that he is not really suitable to
be shats.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:10:18 +0200
Subject: Tircha d'Tzibbur
Of course, if he really does insist on davening and thus delaying the
minyan and causing people problems, remind him that since he gets one
Kaddish in at the beginning of Psukei d'Zimra (this is an Ashkenazi
minyan I presume), not to mention the Kaddish d'Rabanan at the end of
Korbanot if you do so, he shouldn't expect a minyan of 10 to remain for
the last Kaddishim as most people will be walking out.
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:51:33 +0200
Subject: Tircha d'Tzibbur
Stephen Phillips wrote that he's not sure that the Kaddish is the chiyuv
and the Davening the custom and suggets looking at
> a quite long Rama on Yoreh De'ah Siman 376 Seif 4 you will see that he
> refers to Kaddish as a Minhag [custom]. He also says that davening from
> the Amud during the week is better than saying Kaddish, because Kaddish
> was only instituted for children to say
truthfully, I'm not sure either. but the Pnei Barcuh refers to that
Rama, noting that the source is probably the Midrash on Rabbi Akiba and
the coalmaker in the cemetery (Tanchuma Noach). see page 350, 34:1, note
1
the PB however does note that saying Kaddish is in Tractate Sofrim
(5:19) and that the Rama at OH 132:62 confirms the saying of Kaddish as
brought down by the early Ge'onim.
And as for children saying Kaddish "only",
a) if non-children say it, i.e. parents and siblings, then obviously the
saying of Kaddish has altered its status and maybe now is a Halacha
rather than a custom
b) and in the case of one's parents, who else but children would say it
primarily?
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <D26JJ@...> (Jeffrey Kaufman)
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:42:09 EDT
Subject: Re: Tircha d'Tzibbur
This email is very timely for me as I just got up from Shiva. I say some
things a little slower such as Vehu Rachum on Mon and Thurs, Uvah
LeTzion, Alenu and the Shir Shel Yom. (I don't know why these specific
Tefillos - that's just the way it is). My Rav told me that I should skip
parts of Vehu Rachum to end Tachanun together with the Tzibbur. He also
said that with time I will naturally speed up my davening. (He did not
say if this is a good thing or not!) Bottom line is that the Tzibbur
comes before the yachid. (We will assume that the Tzibbur IS davening at
a fair pace to begin with).
In your particular case I have my own suggestion. Perhaps someone else
should daven Pesukei DeZimrah, and the avel could take over for Borchu.
That could save a good 5 minutes.
Jeffrey Kaufman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 09:42:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Women as gabbais
> Simon Wanderer wrote, in part, re. women's megillah readings:
>>above. One more pragmatic issue which nobody has raised is the fact
>>that many (most?) women attending a reading for women alone will not be
>>comfortable correcting the reader. At most readings I have heard, be
I have found that this problem happens often for male gabbaim as well.
In one minyan, I even had a situation where the ba'al koreh *refused* to
accept the gabbai's corrections (and the gabbai was clearly right) - at
which point the gabbai quit his job.
Best,
Ari Trachtenberg, Boston University
http://people.bu.edu/trachten mailto:<trachten@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:11:57 +0200
Subject: Zerachya
I finally bumped into the family near me for whom I suggested they
Hebraize their name. Their original German name was Himmelschein. So,
I figured Zerach-ya would approximate.
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 47 Issue 56
