Volume 60 Number 01
Produced: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:39:06 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Administravia
[Ari Trachtenberg]
A conversion criterion (3)
[Chana Luntz Stuart Pilichowski Meir Shinnar]
Bameh Madlikin
[Martin Stern]
Breast beating (2)
[David Ziants Yisrael Medad]
Haftarah for Parshat Zachor query (10)
[Gilad J. Gevaryahu Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz Abe Brot Lisa Liel Orrin Tilevitz Shimon Lebowitz Jack Gross Art Werschulz Larry Israel Avraham Walfish]
Magazines
[Gershon Dubin]
Mishloah manot
[Menashe Elyashiv]
Purim message (3)
[Lisa Liel Ira L. Jacobson Shimon Lebowitz]
Shlach Manot in These Times
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
The Katzav case (4)
[Martin Stern Lisa Liel Shmuel Himelstein Yisrael Medad]
Walking home from shul after davening (2)
[Martin Stern Michael Poppers]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Thu, Mar 24,2011 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Administravia
With the change in volume number, we would like to remind the readership
of _some_ of the mail-jewish ground rules described at:
http://mj.bu.edu/MjGroundRules.html
* Halakha
1. Submissions to the mailing list may not advocate actions which are
clearly in violation of Halakha.
2. Discussions about whether it is appropriate in these modern times
to follow Halakha is not a valid topic for discussion on this list.
* Halakhic Authority
The mailing list is not a halakhic authority, and no discussions held on the
mailing list should be relied upon in a situation where a specific halakhic
decision is called for.
* Hebrew
All transliterations of Hebrew words, except those that are "very common",
should be translated. The members of the mailing list span a wide range of
knowledge and background, and we would like things to be understood by all.
* Responsibility
Items published on the list are not necessarily reflections of the
moderators' opinions or approval. We only moderate submissions to make sure
that they meet the list guidelines, as we understand them.
* Editing
The moderators reserve the right to make edits to your submissions.
* Advertisements
In general, we do not allow advertisements on the list. We will allow
promotional submissions if they are:
Clearly and personally directed at the list
Relevant to recent discussions
Not designed to make money for anyone
... and last, but not least,
* Be nice
* We are moderating this list in our own free time as volunteers,
taking away time from normal duties: work, family, sleep ...
* We do this because the mail-jewish readership is important to us, and
we personally get value from our involvement.
* We all make mistakes. It is the price of living. Please treat us as
you would like us to treat you.
Whenever you submit a post, you should get a receipt from the server within two
hours (see http://mj.bu.edu/MjSubmissions.html) or else we have probably not
received your post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <Chana@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 12:01 PM
Subject: A conversion criterion
In MJ 59#99 Martin Stern writes:
> With the current controversy over the minimal requirement regarding
> acceptance of halachah by prospective converts, I came across a rather
> interesting drush (homiletic interpretation),
>
> In Psalm 146, which we say in psukei dezimra every day, most of the
> categories of people mentioned as receiving Divine assistance (the oppressed,
> the hungry, the prisoners, the blind, those bowed down, the righteous
> (vv. 7-8)) are denominated without the (usually untranslated) direct object
> marker 'et' and only the word 'gerim' carries it - 'et-gerim' (v. 9). Since
> 'gerim' is often understood as meaning 'proselytes', it was suggested that
> this addition was meant to indicate only those gerim who accept the Torah
> from alef to tav (the two letters of which the word 'et' consists), i.e. in
> its totality, are guarded by HKBH, but, as the verse concludes, 'the ways of
> the wicked He makes crooked'.
> This would provide an asmachta (biblical support) for the halachah that the
> conversion of someone who accepts all the mitzvot except one is invalid ab
> initio (Bechorot 30b and Rambam Hil. Issurei Biah 14.8).
> Any comments?
Or it could provide support for the opposite! i.e. while only those gerim who
accept the Torah from aleph to taf are included in this guarding by HKBH,
there exist other gerim who do not fit into this category and can still be
considered gerim. That is, if you follow the view that only gerim who
accept the Torah from aleph to taf can be accepted as gerim, then you do not
need the "et", anybody called a ger by definition fits into this category,
otherwise they are in fact not Jewish. So its existence provides homiletic
support for the opposite view.
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Pilichowski <stupillow@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 12:01 PM
Subject: A conversion criterion
I believe the conversion crisis in Israel is much too serious an issue, and
offering drashot in place of strict and creative psak belittles the magnitude of
the issue. Thus it's also highly insensitive to those in the midst of the
struggle.
Stuart Pilichowski
Mevaseret Zion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meir Shinnar <chidekel@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 02:01 PM
Subject: A conversion criterion
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 59#99):
> This would provide an asmachta (biblical support) for the halachah that the
> conversion of someone who accepts all the mitzvot except one is invalid ab
> initio (Bechorot 30b and Rambam Hil. Issurei Biah 14.8).
Actually, this is a strong proof in the other direction. There are many
texts that we shouldn't accept gerim who do not accept all the mitzvot
- and drashot that such gerim are a problem for clal yisrael. The
question, however, is not whether we should accept them - but, if
accepted, they are considered to have converted. This text follows
the line that we shouldn't accept them - the gerim that Hashem guards
are the ET gerim - not the others - but the other gerim are still
considered gerim, even though they are not ET gerim ......
BTW, the meaning of the Rambam is something that is not clear and the
subject of much dispute - as one standard reading of the Rambam is
that we do not accept such gerim, but once accepted, even if found to
have been fraudulent - they are gerim (the wives of King Solomon and
Samson, known for their meticulous mitzva observance :-), are his
example) - although others strongly disagree.
Meir Shinnar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Bameh Madlikin
Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...> wrote (MJ 59 #99):
> Martin Stern wrote (MJ 59#98):
>
>> The original minhag was to say BM at the end so that latecomers
>> would not have to go home from shul on their own. This was at a
>> time when shuls were outside the town and this could be dangerous.
>
> I've heard this many times, but I've never understood it. I've never actually
> timed how long it takes my shul to say BM, but I'd bet that it is somewhere
> around three minutes. It takes longer than that from when the first person
> leaves shul until the last person leaves. Stretching out the service by such a
> short bit cannot make it all that much easier for the latecomers to catch up
> so that they could leave together.
Perhaps in those days, it was unheard of for people to come to shul more
than a couple of minutes late!
> It is possible that BM was not simply recited, but that there was a lengthy
> lecture given on the topic?
There is no evidence for this to the best of my knowledge.
> Furthermore, if the goal was indeed to lengthen the service to make it easier
> for latecomers to catch up, why would it matter which part of the service got
> this extra addition?
On the contrary it would make sense to make the addition at the very end of
davenning when it would be obvious who had not yet finished. Akiva seems to
have forgotten that Aleinu was only added at the end of every tefillah some
900 years ago, long after the Talmudic period when the saying of Bameh
Madlikin was introduced.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Thu, Mar 24,2011 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Breast beating
With reference to the query by Martin Stern <md.stern@...> (MJ 59#99)
concerning beating one's breast when saying 'selach lanu' and 'mechal
lanu' in the 6th brachah of shemoneh esrei:-
My only experience of learning that beating on the breast might not be
acceptable on no tachnun days, was a few decades ago at a work minyan
(mixed ashkenazi and sephardi).
It was Rosh Chodesh, and I did the confession the way I normally do it
and an old sephardi man came and started pushing me around during my
sh'moneh esray!!!
Was this accepted behaviour according to anyone's norm?
David Ziants
Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Thu, Mar 24,2011 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Breast beating
Martin Stern (MJ 59#99) wrote:
> Recently I heard a heated discussion concerning beating one's breast when
> saying 'selach lanu' and 'mechal lanu' in the 6th brachah of shemoneh esrei
> on days when tachanun is omitted. One claimed that this was completely
> incorrect, the other that the custom was to do so. Can anyone supply sources
> for either or both opinions?
Chabad instructs not to breastbeat on days when tachanun is not said, like Chol
Hamoed, etc.
Yisrael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gilad J. Gevaryahu <gevaryahu@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Haftarah for Parshat Zachor query
Martin Stern (MJ 59#99) asks:
> Someone asked why in I Shmuel 15,14 (Haftarah for Parshat Zachor) the word
> 'meh' is used instead of the more usual 'mah'. Can anyone explain?
I always understood this usage of "meh" instead of "mah" to emulate the sound
of sheep, thus it is a literary device, an onomatopoeic use.
In context: "And Shmuel said: and what is the sheep sound which I hear...."
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Haftarah for Parshat Zachor query
Martin Stern <md.stern@...> wrote (MJ 59#99):
> Someone asked why in I Shmuel 15,14 (Haftarah for Parshat Zachor) the word
> 'meh' is used instead of the more usual 'mah'. Can anyone explain?
A dvar Torah that I heard a number of years ago pointed out that with
the trop [cantillation], the word sounds like the bleating of the
flocks. This is to emphasize the point that Shmuel Hanavi was making. I
believe it may have been Nechama Leibowitz (or maybe not) who pointed
out that Shmuel knew what he was hearing but that he was giving Shaul
a chance to do T'shuva (like Adam in the Garden after having eaten the
fruit).
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Abe Brot <abe.brot@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Haftarah for Parshat Zachor query
Martin Stern asked in MJ 59#99 why "meh" said instead of "mah" in the
Haftarah of Parshat Zachor.
Since Shmuel asked Shaul why he hears the bleating of the sheep belonging to
Amalek, which should have been killed, he used "meh" to mimic the sound that
the sheep makes, to emphasize his displeasure.
This was said to me by Rav Elyakim Ellinson Z"L many years ago.
Best regards,
Avraham Brot
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lisa Liel <lisa@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Haftarah for Parshat Zachor query
Martin Stern <md.stern@...> wrote (MJ 59#99):
>Someone asked why in I Shmuel 15,14 (Haftarah for Parshat Zachor) the word
>'meh' is used instead of the more usual 'mah'. Can anyone explain?
One explanation I heard was that it was a rather pointed jab at Shaul
about the sheep, since it sounds like them.
Lisa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Haftarah for Parshat Zachor query
Martin Stern (MJ 59#99) relays a question about why in I Shmuel 15,14 (Haftarah
for Parshat Zachor) the word 'meh' is used instead of the more usual 'mah'.
It is in the phrase "meh kol hatzon". I have supposed that the word,
particularly coupled with the tevir under it, is a deliberate pun.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Haftarah for Parshat Zachor query
> Someone asked why in I Shmuel 15,14 (Haftarah for Parshat Zachor) the word
> 'meh' is used instead of the more usual 'mah'. Can anyone explain?
Wow! I thought EVERYONE knew that!
Shmuel haNavi says ironically to Shaul" "And what, meeeehhhhhhhhhh.... is
that sound of sheep?" :-)
Shimon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Gross <jacobbgross@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Haftarah for Parshat Zachor query
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 59#99):
> Someone asked why in I Shmuel 15,14 (Haftarah for Parshat Zachor) the word
> 'meh' is used instead of the more usual 'mah'. Can anyone explain?
Anyone who remembers "Chanan V'Aliza" knows the answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Art Werschulz <agw@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Haftarah for Parshat Zachor query
Martin Stern writes (MJ 59#99):
> Someone asked why in I Shmuel 15,14 (Haftarah for Parshat Zachor) the word
> 'meh' is used instead of the more usual 'mah'. Can anyone explain?
I can't give a grammatical/halachic/midrashic explanation. However, given that
its ta'am is t'vir, it certainly comes out sounding like the bleating of sheep!
Art Werschulz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Israel <larry.israel@...>
Date: Thu, Mar 24,2011 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Haftarah for Parshat Zachor query
It is obvious. Since 'meh' has a 'tvir' cantillation underneath, the reader
can stretch it out to 'meeeh' and sound like a sheep. After all, it should
say "'meeeh' is the sound of the sheep".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avraham Walfish <rawalfish@...>
Date: Fri, Mar 25,2011 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Haftarah for Parshat Zachor query
I have always understood the unusual use of "meh" by Shmuel as an ironical
use of onomatopeia - imitating the sound of sheep.
Avie Walfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Fri, Mar 25,2011 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Magazines
If anyone in the NYC area is interested in a box of journals, including Am
Hatorah, Tradition, Torah Umadda, and Jewish Life going back {some} as far as 35
years, let me know soon before I toss them. I have many others as well, but
these got in the way of the Pesach cleaning tornado.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Thu, Mar 24,2011 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Mishloah manot
Wendy wrote (MJ 59#99):
> I probably should have thought to bring this up a month or so ago, but I
> forget each year until the packages come in. As I see money being spent
> on Shalach Manot for cute packages and dishes, bowl, baskets, etc that
> most of us don't need and on quantities of candies, cookies, etc. that many
> of us don't need, or shouldn't eat I wonder if there could be a movement to
> send only simple gifts, with more emphasis on fruits, or vegetables (little
> tomatoes some to mind),etc. Not only is there considerable cost in competing
> for more and more "original" packaging, etc, but an enormous amount of food
> gets wasted. I can understand some candy for kids, but most of us with grown
> children don't need tons of tooth-pulling toffee
I agree, my children show me what was on sale in the supermarket before
Purim. I do prefer receiving edible food, we received a bottle of milk,
tehina & salad, rolls, chickpeas, and some other useful foods. We sent
small home made cakes or cupcakes. But that can be done only if we trust
each other on Kashrut.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lisa Liel <lisa@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Purim message
Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...> wrote (MJ 59#99):
> Martin Stern wrote (MJ 59#98):
>> Having received many mishloach manot packages with cards wishing "Purim
>> sameiach", it occurred to me that this may not be grammatically correct.
>
> One could ask a similar question about "shabbat shalom", where "shabbat"
> is empirically female.
Although that's probably smichut (conjunctive), meaning Shabbat *of*
peace, so it's a little different. But I got the feeling from R'
Martin's email that he meant the question less than 100%
seriously. It was Purim, people.
Lisa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Purim message
Ari Trachtenberg stated in mail-Jewish Vol.59 #99:
> One could ask a similar question about "shabbat shalom", where "shabbat" is
> empirically female.
The gender of Shabbat is not relevant here, since it is vocalized
patah patah and is in the nismakh (Shabbat shalom therefore meaning
Sabbath of peace). Anyway, "Shabbat" can be of either gender.
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Purim message
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 59#99):
> Having received many mishloach manot packages with cards wishing "Purim
> sameiach", it occurred to me that this may not be grammatically correct.
> Since Purim is plural, which the qualifying adjective should also be, i.e.
> "Purim smeichim". The same might apply to "Channukah sameiach" which
> grammatically should be "Channukah sameichah". Any explanations?
My kids have been wishing me "Purim Smeichim!" for years
(especially when they arrive in Yerushalayim at the beginning
of Purim, after a whole day of celebrating "everyone else's Purim")!
Shimon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Shlach Manot in These Times
Wendy Baker <wbaker@...> wrote (MJ 59#99):
> I know this is not a Halachic issue, nor is it the most serious on the
> world's plate, but waste and harming others are issues. We should be
> providing joy,without harm or waste, in our packages.
According to the Rambam [Maimonides], the shalach manos should be food
that is used for the Purim seudah [meal]. He also said that one should
give the minimum and should increase matanos la'evyonim [gifts to the
poor]. Many people buy cards that say "We have given to this charity
instead of sending you shaloch manos." This enables a person to see
that they have not been forgotten and for them to feel a part of the
mitzvah of tzedakah.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 11:01 AM
Subject: The Katzav case
Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...> wrote (MJ 59#99):
> Can any explain (and I certainly cannot!) how it is that a number of very
> prominent rabbis of the Religious Zionist stream have come out in favor of
> Israel's past president, Moshe Katzav, including stating point-black that
> Mr. Katzav is DEFINITELY innocent. On what basis can they make such a
> pronouncement? They obviously were not in the courtroom and did not hear the
> evidence.
This [last sentence --Mod.] is undoubtedly true and, obviously, I also have not
examined the evidence in detail. Unfortunately, I can't help wondering whether,
if Katzav had been of East European Ashkenazi origin and non-religious, this
whole matter may not have been pursued in such a public manner. The fact that he
had had the chutzpah to defeat that paragon of the establishment, Shimon Peres,
in the presidential elections must have been seen by it as the last straw.
Though the crimes involved were different, Ezer Weitzman's were more or less
hushed up. Protektzia in action?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lisa Liel <lisa@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 11:01 AM
Subject: The Katzav case
Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...> wrote (MJ 59#99):
> Can any explain (and I certainly cannot!) how it is that a number of very
> prominent rabbis of the Religious Zionist stream have come out in favor of
> Israel's past president, Moshe Katzav, including stating point-black that
> Mr. Katzav is DEFINITELY innocent. On what basis can they make such a
> pronouncement? They obviously were not in the courtroom and did not hear the
> evidence.
Well... speaking only for myself, from everything I've heard, the
case was based entirely on he-said, she-said. Without any evidence
whatsoever being brought either way. The concept of innocent until
proven guilty is a good one, I think. Katzav was essentially tried
in the press, and I don't think anyone deserves that. Hevei dan et
kol ha-adam l'chaf zechut [Give other people the benefit of the doubt]. Yes, we
do assume that a person is DEFINITELY innocent in the absence of proof to the
contrary.
Lisa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 02:01 PM
Subject: The Katzav case
As someone asked me to corroborate that rabbis had indeed declared Katzav is
innocent, you may check the following URL regarding Rav Aviner:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4007539,00.html
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Thu, Mar 24,2011 at 06:01 PM
Subject: The Katzav case
Shmuel Himelstein (MJ 59#99) asks:
> Can any explain (and I certainly cannot!) how it is that a number of very
> prominent rabbis of the Religious Zionist stream have come out in favor of
> Israel's past president, Moshe Katzav, including stating point-black that
> Mr. Katzav is DEFINITELY innocent. On what basis can they make such a
> pronouncement? They obviously were not in the courtroom and did not hear the
> evidence.
Well, to turn the tables, since you didn't ask them, I am guessing, then you are
like them in not being in the courtroom so your opinion is not based on anything.
But the only thing I have heard is that they were convinced that they way the
women continued to work for him, asking for considerations, and one attempt at
blackmail all indicated to them that there was no rape and that the women's
testimonies could not be believed.
Yisrael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Walking home from shul after davening
Carl Singer <carl.singer@...> wrote (MJ 59#99):
> In his post on Bameh Madlikin (MJ 59#98) Martin Stern notes:
>
>> The original minhag was to say BM at the end so that latecomers would not
>> have to go home from shul on their own. This was at a time when shuls were
>> outside the town and this could be dangerous.
>
> A related minhag that I learned from my father, ztl, and have passed along
> to my sons is that of walking a stranger (that is an out-of-towner) to his
> destination after davening.
We should thank Carl for this submission that emphasises menchlichkeit (human
decency) as a part of a Torah lifestyle. The source is the saying "derech
eretz kadma laTorah - good manners are a prerequisite for Torah".
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Poppers <MPoppers@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 23,2011 at 09:01 PM
Subject: Walking home from shul after davening
In MJ 59#99, Carl Singer wrote:
> A related minhag that I learned from my father, ztl, and have passed along
> to my sons is that of walking a stranger (that is an out-of-towner) to his
> destination after davening. I don't quite know the origins of this practice.
> On those few occasions when a stranger appears in shul on Friday night without
> their host, I've tended to this.
Perhaps the source is the b'raisa noted in BT Sota 46b re D'varim 21:6 (and see
RaShY on the subsequent pasuq, d'h' "yadeinu lo shafchuh") -- we learn a mandate
to accompany a stranger from our domain.
All the best from
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 60 Issue 1
