Volume 57 Number 46 
      Produced: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:22:44 EST


Subjects Discussed In This Issue:

Middle Names 
    [S. Wise]
Chulent / Beer 
    [<Aronio@...>]
Chulent pots from baker (3)
    [Jeremy Conway  David Ziants  Jeremy Conway]
Is there a halachic concept of "take one for the team"?  
    [Russell J Hendel]
New Israeli Educational Stamps Posted Online 
    [Jacob Richman]
Standing at the side of the bima when saying the Haphtarah 
    [David Ziants]
visiting graves 
    [david guttmann]



----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: S. Wise <Smwise3@...>
Date: Sat, Nov 21,2009 at 08:01 PM
Subject:  Middle Names

What is the source of referring to people by their middle names? I haven't  
been able to detect a specific pattern but from my observations it seem 
Jews  from Galicia in particular often refer to male especially by their middle 
Hebrew  name, rather than their first, or both names.
 
Any thoughts why such a custom would arise?
 
S. Wise

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: <Aronio@...>
Date: Fri, Nov 20,2009 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Chulent / Beer

The story about chulent reminds me of the story my grandfather  (AH) used 
to tell about motzei pesach in his small town in Bohemia where  the entire 
kehilla went home from shul via the local pub and each person took  home a 
pint of beer on which to make havdala. 
 
Today it is a different world.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeremy Conway <jeremy.conway@...>
Date: Fri, Nov 20,2009 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Chulent pots from baker

In MJ 57#44, David Ziants asks about children under the age of Bar or Bat
Mitzvah carrying cholent pots on Shabbat.
If this is not permitted but was sanctioned by a rabbi, those people who allowed
and encouraged their children to carry cholent pots on Shabbat are considered to
have been acting b'shogeig (i.e. in accidental violation of Shabbat) - see for
example Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi's Code of Jewish
Law) Orach Chaim at the beginning of Chapter 318.
 
It would also seem inadvisable from an educational point of view to allow
chidren to carry on Shabbat because they might become accustomed to carrying on
Shabbat.  I think that in Chapter 343 of Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Rabbi Schneur
Zalman objects to wine being given to children on a regular basis at Kiddush in
Shul on Friday night because children might become accustomed to this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Sat, Nov 21,2009 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Chulent pots from baker

Thank you for your response. See in-line my remarks.

Jeremy Conway wrote: 
> If this is not permitted but was
> sanctioned by a rabbi, those people who > allowed and encouraged
> their children to carry cholent pots on Shabbat are considered to
> have been acting b'shogeig (i.e. in accidental violation of
> Shabbat) - see for example Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Rabbi Schneur
> Zalman of Liadi's Code of Jewish Law) Orach Chaim at the
> beginning of Chapter 318.

Does every authority see it this way? Maybe there are some
authorities who would see it more important to follow the
instruction of the Rabbi even if he says your "right" is your
"left", etc.

> It would also seem inadvisable from an educational point of
> view to allow chidren to carry on Shabbat because they might
> become accustomed to carrying on Shabbat.  I think that in
> Chapter 343 of Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Rabbi Schneur Zalman objects
> to wine being given to children on a regular basis at Kiddush in
> Shul on Friday night because children might become accustomed to
> this.

Do you mean "not to allow children to carry..."? Otherwise it
does not make sense.


David Ziants, Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel


----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeremy Conway <jeremy.conway@...>
Date: Mon, Nov 23,2009 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Chulent pots from baker

In response to David's comments:
1.  A person is obliged to follow the directions of his/her Rabbi, but if those
directions are erroneous, the person following them is considered to have been
transgressing inadvertently.
2.  I wrote "inadvisable", not "advisable", so my comments do make sense.
 
Yechiel Conway. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Sun, Nov 22,2009 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Is there a halachic concept of "take one for the team"? 

There were three responses to my posting that under some circumstances certain
types of sin are allowed to prevent other people from sinning. I find these
responses mostly agreeing with my BASIC thesis (as I will show below) Also at
least one other person echoed my concern that Rabbis should be talking about
these issues and I hope the thread continues.

First: On the light side: One person demurred to the etymology I learned on the
el-al flight (Bagel=food from Abagel). I dont know how to look up etymologies so
if anyone else on the list has comments on this it would be appreciated.

Second: If you read my posting clearly I never accused anyone of being
simplistic. Rather I accused them of being simplistic in the PRECISE SENSE that
they did not write postings the way Rav Moshe wrote responsum (To say you are
not like Rav Moshe is not an insult) However there have been several postings
with alot of discussion and I hope this continues.

Now let us get down to the issue of whether Abigail sinned to save David from
sinning (I will discuss my other source about saving lives at the end). The
Talmud (and in passing this is NOT in the Bible, at least not explicitly) says
that in addition to bringing David much food Abigail "exposed her thigh" - he
requested to sin with her...and she pointed out that he should be patient. The
implication is that she sinned (Showed her thigh) in order to prevent him from
killing

Before continuing the Hebrew word SHOK is sometimes mentioned in a verse with
YARACH (e.g. SHOK ON YARECH) suggesting a DISTINCTION. This leads to the
suggestion that YARECH is THIGH while SHOK is lower leg. Radack in his book on
roots cites examples. But Radack cites other opinions. My own opinion is that
YARACH is THIGH region (upper or lower) while SHOK is QUADRICEPS (Which
corresponds to the upper thigh). I infer this from the other meanings of the
root (galloping horses, bustling marketplace). The distinction QUADRICEPS/upper
thigh, vs THIGH region would fulfill the obligation to make a distinction in
meaning in the Biblical verses. HOWEVER THIS IS IRRELEVANT. THE TALMUD SAYS "SHE
SHOWED HIM HER SHOK----HE JUMPED THREE MILES--- AND REQUESTED TO SIN....THE
IMPLICATION IS THAT SHE SHOWED HIM SOMETHING NORMALLY NOT SHOWN....IT IS
IRRELEVANT TO ME WHICH OF MANY ITEMS WAS NOT NORMALLY SHOWN THEN).

Now let us look at some dissents to my interpretation that "she showed him her
thigh." One person suggested "David saw her thigh at a distance" OK. This is not
as loud as doing it right in front of him. But this is the same idea as a low
lit night club...the purpose of the low lighting is that anything exposed should
not be seen clearly. It is still exposure. So according to this interpretation
she did SIN - she showed her thigh AT A DISTANCE (Which is not normally done).
The Talmud is simply not being simplistic (She didn't just go up to him and
expose her thigh...in fact that sounds sort of ridiculous...it would be
provocative).

Let us look at another dissent. "She was riding in such a way that her thigh got
exposed." This is the idea of slit skirts. A slit skirt (discussed in previous
issues of mail jewish) is what I would call an "intended accident" The person
wears the slit skirt in order that occasionally certain parts of her leg should
be accidentally exposed. This is superior to blatantly exposing them purposely
which would be confrontational. If slit skirts are not permissible then the
implication of this interpretation is that a married woman can wear slit skirts
to prevent a man (different from her husband or even her husband) from sinning.
This is a novelty.

Let me explore this novelty - that people can wear slit skirts to calm men down.
Normally when slit skirts are mentioned the approach is based on "authority and
source" Certain "very religious??" sects don't wear them while "modern sects" do
wear them; there are sources both ways. So we invoke "These and these are words
of the living God...." and end the discussion.

But the Abigail story may suggest a different dichotomy: Slit skirts should
never be worn in ordinary circumstances; but they may be worn if the intent is
to have a calming effect on men in difficult circumstances even if these men are
not their husbands. Such an approach is not lenient; for it does  not allow
blanket wearing of slit skirts. It also does not change the "very religious
sect" position that much since they don't believe in having jobs  and
consequently the men are not exposed to workplace stresses.

In passing the idea of slit skirts as intended novelty is echoed in Jewish law.
Yard neighbors/partners cannot prevent women from doing laundry out in the yards
(even if no permission was given). The Talmud states "To prevent Jewish women
from being abused (through accidental exposure) at a river"

I have gone into detail here to show that even though there are 3
interpretations to the Talmudic passage (in addition to which some interpret
"thigh" as "lower leg") ALL interpretations say the same thing: Abigail exposed
something in some way and this is normally not done.

One person said "But she exposed her thigh to SAVE A LIFE" Not so simple! You
call 911 to save a life. It is not clear that "exposing a thigh" would calm king
david down. In fact one person said "She exposed her thigh; he asked her to sin;
and she said no....Where is the logic" I think the logic is something like this:
She in effect said to David "You wouldn't just sin with me from exposing my
thigh...you would do things properly and over time....so too with your
anger...you cant just go and kill him....be patient and wait for proper judicial
process you are NOT yet King" Here too the Talmud indicates a subjective
judgment that killing him COULD be stopped by some act of exposure.

Finally I deal with my second proof: Suppose someone is sick (e.g chest pains
etc....). He certainly needs to call 911. Suppose he doesn't. Then he is
violating "Don't stand by your friends life" (Here the person is his own
friend). Is it permissible (yea, obligatory) for me to call 911 seeing that he
hasn't. Yes. That is I must commit the sin of calling (on Shabbath) even though
he could call and thinks the whole thing silly. Thus we indeed have an example
here where **I** sin (call on Shabbath) to prevent **him** from not calling and
violating "don't stand by idly on your friends (your own) life" (True: I am
sinning to save his life...but that is my point...there are sometimes
circumstances when this is permissible).

One person said that situations where men have workplaces stresses is an issue
that should be discussed on mail jewish in order to ascertain what approaches
are permissible. I would encourage continuing this thread.

Russell Jay Hendel; Ph.d. A.S.A.; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jacob Richman <jrichman@...>
Date: Wed, Nov 25,2009 at 05:01 PM
Subject: New Israeli Educational Stamps Posted Online

Hi Everyone! 

I scanned and posted on my website the new Israeli stamps 
that were issued in November 2009. 
I included the stamp itself, the first day cover, 
and an English and a Hebrew flyer about the stamp. 

- Maritime Archeology in Israel 

- Lighthouses in Israel 

- The Yiddish Theatre in Lasi, Romania (1876) 

The new stamps are located at: 
http://www.jr.co.il/pictures/stamps/index-2009.html 

The top of the web page should display the date November 25, 2009. 
If the page has an older date, hold the control key and press 
the F5 key to refresh your browser with the updated page. 

Enjoy! 

Have a good day, 
Jacob

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Sun, Nov 22,2009 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Standing at the side of the bima when saying the Haphtarah

I have for many years sometimes seen the person who says the Haphtarah 
[portion of the prophets read after the reading of the Torah] on Shabbat 
standing at the side of the bima, rather than at the front. Not everyone 
seems to do it this way, but it does seem to be common practice by many. 
(Standing this way is not something I have really done myself in the 
past  and in any case I am not a big Haphtarah sayer.)

Does anyone know any sources for this, and if the sources attribute any 
level of importance of standing this way. I tried looking up the issue 
in the book "Ishai Yisrael", but could not find mention of this practice.

One reason I was told that one does not want to stand with ones back to 
the Sepher Torah which is typically being held by someone sitting on the 
bench at the back of bima. Are there any other reasons?


David Ziants

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: david guttmann <david.guttman@...>
Date: Thu, Nov 19,2009 at 03:01 AM
Subject: visiting graves

Rambam in Hilchot Tanyot 4:18 writes that during droughts they go out to the
cemeteries as if to say we consider ourselves as dead. It is noted that this
is the opinion in the Gemara that one goes even to non-Jewish cemeteries.
Meiri in his Chibur Hateshuvah agrees with Rambam. IOW the idea is that the
visit to a cemetery reminds us of the frailty of life and induces repentance
which is the purpose of this type of prayer. By repentance I mean
contemplation which action(s) resulted in this calamity and an undertaking
not to repeat the same mistake and ameliorate our ways. Meiri clearly states
that these dead souls do not pray for us. In Hilchot Evel 4:4 he writes that
one should not make time to visit graves. The context is in the Halacha that
for Tzadikkim one should not build a "Nefesh" [commemorative room on top of
a grave see Pirush Hamishna Ohalot chapter 7] as their words are memory
enough. It is their graves that should NOT be visited, as apparently it
would be a waste of precious time. [ Rambam uses "Al Yefaneh]. 

David Guttmann
 
If you agree that Believing is Knowing, join me in the search for Knowledge
at http://yediah.blogspot.com/ 

----------------------------------------------------------------------


End of Volume 57 Issue 46