Volume 49 Number 68
Produced: Tue Aug 23 7:23:05 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Forceps Vaginal Delivery and PHB
[Martin Stern]
Hats
[Nathan Lamm]
Hats for Tefila
[Mark Steiner]
Hats for T'filah
[Elazar M. Teitz]
Is this meat? Is this kosher?
[Immanuel Burton]
Jackets
[Joel Rich]
Jackets (and Hats) for Tefilah
[Shayna Kravetz]
J/J Campaign
[David Prins]
Josephus vs. Sefer Yosefon
[Aryeh Gielchinsky]
Mezuzah question
[Stephen Colman]
Surname Cohen
[Stephen Colman]
Two head coverings
[Nathan Lamm]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:38:33 +0100
Subject: Re: Forceps Vaginal Delivery and PHB
on 23/8/05 10:03 am, Leah S. Gordon <leah@...> wrote:
> I think he must be referring to the use of "high forceps" which to my
> understanding does not exist in modern US obstetrics any longer. Babies
> who formerly were delivered using high forceps are now invariably
> C-sectioned. (Please correct, OB's on list, if I am wrong on this
> point.)
On a point of information, some members of mail-jewish do not live in
the USA but Leah is probably correct that "high forceps" deliveries are
extremely rare nowadays everywhere. However the point I was making was
that there might be a halachic difference between them and those using
forceps later in the delivery.
> What we learned in all birthing classes (1997-98 and 2001-2002) was
> that forceps are used rarely now, but when they are, it's like the
> vacuum extraction tool, i.e. when the baby is already on the way out.
> (Martin Stern did not mention the vacuum extraction tool...?)
AFAIK the main halachic problem with forceps is that they may be
considered to be a chatsitsah (interposition) between the baby and the
mother and this might be deemed to interfere with the process of being
"peter rechem". Since the vacuum extraction tool is attached to that
part of the baby's head not in contact with the mother this problem
would not usually arise with it.
> Also, why would an episiotomy have "no halachic significance" if the
> point was the baby coming out "on his own"? (BTW no baby comes out
> "on his own" at full term; the mom *has* to push!)
As I wrote above the problem with forceps is chatsitsah which does not
arise with an episiotomy. It has nothing to do with "the baby coming out
on its own".
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 05:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Hats
It is difficult, if not pointless, to attempt to draw lessons of what
constitutes "respectful" dress from former times- for example, in the
days (before the 1960's) when hats were typically worn in the Western
world, one showed respect by *removing* one's hat. To see this in action
today, see what is done by people in uniform (military, police), who
still cover their heads: Upon entering a building, their headgear comes
off. If covering their heads, American civilians are supposed to remove
their hats when the National Anthem is played.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:24:54 -0400
Subject: RE: Hats for Tefila
I have heard that R. Soloveitchik, zatzal, added a further aspect to
wearing a hat for tefila. This is the law that one who prays should
enwrap his head (`ituf). When wearing a talis, this means to cover
one's head with the talis; otherwise, to wear whatever hat in that
society enwraps the entire head--in Western countries, the ordinary hat.
I assume this is a practice that expresses humility before the Almighty.
I mention this because the discussion to now has focused on clothing as
expressing respect for the Almighty, a different thing.
Mark Steiner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:57:54 GMT
Subject: re: Hats for T'filah
> My brother-in-law once asked a Rov if times have changed and
> things have gotten more casual, why must we still wear hats and
> jackets for prayer? He replied basically that there is a certain
> objective level of respect that is portrayed by wearing an additional
> head covering (hat/turban) over ones yarmulka and by wearing a garment
> over ones basic clothing (jacket/cloak).
Athough the rov may have been correct about an "objective level of
respect," he is guilty of historical revisionism if he contends that an
additional head covering was worn over one's yarmulka.
The custom of keeping one's yarmulke on when donning a hat is, in
yeshivishe circles, less than 50 years old. Indeed, many rabbonim in
Europe wore cylindrical yarmulkes with a flat top. (Rav Moshe Feinstein
did so all his life.) They *had* to be removed when a hat was worn --
the hat wouldn't fit over it.
The latest fad -- not only wearing the yarmulka under the hat, but
making sure that it is visible in the back -- is an even later
affectation.
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:33:18 +0100
Subject: RE: Is this meat? Is this kosher?
Regarding meat grown in a laboratory, presumably a tissue sample has to
be taken from an animal, and this sample is then encouraged to grow in
the laboratory.
If the tissue sample is taken from a living animal, wouldn't it be aiver
min ha'chai - flesh from a living animal? If so, then not only is it
forbidden as food to Jews it is also forbidden for non-Jews under the
Seven Noahide Laws.
Do any of the sources discuss the continued growth of flesh that has
been taken from a living animal?
If a sample is taken from lab-grown meat, does that sample count as
aiver min ha'chai? If so, then does the original stigma of aiver min
ha'chai ever disappear? Or does it persist until even the tenth
generation of meat and beyond?
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <joelirich@...> (Joel Rich)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:25:27 +0000
Subject: Jackets
> My brother-in-law once asked a Rov if times have changed and things
> have gotten more casual, why must we still wear hats and jackets for
> prayer? He replied basically that there is a certain objective level
> of respect that is portrayed by wearing an additional head covering
> (hat/turban) over ones yarmulka and by wearing a garment over ones
> basic clothing (jacket/cloak).
> Dov Teichman
WADR then why didn't the halacha bring down this "objective" level and
what is its source?
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shayna Kravetz <skravetz@...>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:50:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Jackets (and Hats) for Tefilah
Dov Teichman <DTnLA@...> writes:
>If you look into halacha much of the dress code for prayer is based on
>"the hat one would wear in the street" or standing before a respectable
>person. My brother-in-law once asked a Rov if times have changed and
>things have gotten more casual, why must we still wear hats and jackets
>for prayer? He replied basically that there is a certain objective level
>of respect that is portrayed by wearing an additional head covering
>(hat/turban) over ones yarmulka and by wearing a garment over ones basic
>clothing (jacket/cloak). This had been the definition of formal dress
>until the 60s. (President Kennedy was the first president who almost
>never wore a hat.) The fact that American culture has slowly done away
>with hats is merely a function of lessening of formality and respect
>that ought to be there.
This is historically inaccurate. While it is true that Western
convention required a respectable person, male or female, to wear a hat
/outdoors/, it has long been regarded as rude or ignorant behaviour in
Western culture for a man to wear a hat /indoors/ or when speaking to a
lady. A gentleman removed his hat in a private home or when speaking to
a woman. (This was eventually elided into simply tipping the hat -- a
token momentary removal.) This preceded JFK by centuries.
The connection between hats and respect is a purely arbitrary and
culturally variable social sign, like many others. For example, even
something as intuitive in Western culture as shaking one's head up and
down to show assent is not universal; in the Indian subcontinent, assent
is shown by shaking one's head left to right.
It is, however, true, that /superfluous/ garments are generally seen as
a sign of wealth and therefore respectability. That is, it assumed that
everyone is going to have a shirt because one's nakedness must be
covered, even in the poorest of circumstances, but only a gentleperson
can afford the indulgence of a jacket or cloak. This may be the basis
of your brother-in-law's rav's inference. However, since a hat is
itself already superfluous, an additional hat is merely ornamental and
not specifically a sign of respectability in all cultures.
Kol tuv from
hatless Shayna in Toronto
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Prins <davprins@...>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:16:57 +1000
Subject: J/J Campaign
I am a subscriber to a Yahoo Group for a shul email list. Yahoo puts
ads on emails that go out to members of the list. Recently "Messianic
groups" have started to sponsor those ads, and the list members are of
course not happy with this. The moderator has initiated communication
with Yahoo to see if these ads can be prevented from appearing on this
shul's email list. Have any readers experienced similar problems and
how have they been solved?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aryeh Gielchinsky <agielchinsky@...>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:36:45 -0400
Subject: Josephus vs. Sefer Yosefon
I was reading a copy of Josephus in a base medresh on Tisha Ba'av (which
i thought was permitted based on the Misnah Brurah) when the shul Rabbi
came over and told me i was not allowed to read it in a base medresh and
the Mishna Brurah was actually referring to a different work known as
Sefer Yosefon (which I had) then he opened up both and pointed out that
they in fact had different authors. Are they really two different books
or was there some kind of confusion? Also why does Artscroll quote
Josephus and not Sefer Yosefon?
Aryeh Gielchinsky
President of the Yeshiva University Physics and Engineering Club, retired
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <StephenColman2@...> (Stephen Colman)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 06:15:38 EDT
Subject: Mezuzah question
My understanding (confirmed by my son-in-law when he asked a shailah
before moving recently) was that a) there doesn't appear to be any
reason why you shouldn't charge for the mezuzah's you leave behind and
b) if your mezuzah's are particularly special (larger size/written for
you personally/specially expensive etc) there is no reason why you
shouldn't replace them with cheap (but kosher) mezuzah's before you
leave.
There is also a difference if you are renting a property and simply
leaving that rental (no reason to leave your mezuzah's behind) or if you
are selling the property, when these halochos do apply
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <StephenColman2@...> (Stephen Colman)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 06:06:32 EDT
Subject: Re: Surname Cohen
> I take it this is a joke but it seems to assume everyone with the
> surname Cohen must be a kohen which is simply untrue.
Definately untrue - Many readers in London will know of Rabbi Yisroel
Cohen - Halevi...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 06:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Two head coverings
Just a note: I've known a number of people who remove their yarmulke
when putting on their hats. I guess they consider the hat to be more a
matter of kavod than of any halakha of two headcoverings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 49 Issue 68
