Volume 60 Number 50
Produced: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:58:09 EST
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Availability of Jewish Books in eReader Format
[Scott Spiegler]
Bar Elahin (3)
[Ben Katz Joseph I. Lauer Yisrael Medad]
Not telling someone about a rainbow
[Josh Backon]
Nut shells' muktzeh status (2)
[Carl Singer Chaim Casper]
Secular courts serving ecclesiastical courts (3)
[Martin Stern Martin Stern Perets Mett]
The solution to a conundrum
[Ben Katz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Scott Spiegler <scottspiegler@...>
Date: Tue, Nov 29,2011 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Availability of Jewish Books in eReader Format
Hi,
I was wondering what folks out there who use eReaders are doing vis-a-vis
Jewish texts? Is there any availability from the major publishers of
eReader formats? Is the Jewish book publishing industry working on this, or
is this just not a priority?
Thanks, Scott
--
Scott D. Spiegler, M.A.
Conflict Resolution
Principal- The Computer Therapist
Brookline, MA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <BKatz@...>
Date: Tue, Nov 29,2011 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Bar Elahin
Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...> wrote (MJ 60#49):
> Brich Shmey, customarily recited before the Torah is taken out, contains the
> well-known passage "la al enash rachitzna vela al bar elahin samichna ela
> be-elaha dibishmaya"--I do not trust in a human being or rely on 'bar elahin'
> but instead on God who is in heaven."
>
> Because translating "bar elahin" literally "son of God" is theologically
> problematic, English translations, at least those I've seen (Art Scroll and
> Koren), translate the phrase as "angels" which, apparently, it means in the
> Book of Daniel. (Others don't say brich shmay at all for this reason.
> Interestingly enough, siddur Rinat Yisrael translates it as "bnai elohim.")
> But that presents another theological problem: if, as I thought we were
> supposed to believe, "angels" are simply agents of God, what is the matter
> with trusting them? Abraham did. Samson did. God himself, as opposed to an
> angel, redeemed the Israelites from Egypt not because an angel could not have
> done the same thing but to put on a show, to manifest the Divine Presence.
>
>
> The same phrase in Hebrew, bnei ha-elohim, appears at the end of parashat
> Breishit, in the context that "bnei elohim" saw that "bnot adam" were
> beautiful and married them. In part to avoid the same theological problem,
> the classical commentators translate the phrase as "sarim" (princes) or
> "kedoshim" (holy people). The idea, as S.R. Hirsch seems to explain, is that
> humankind had fragmented into races and the higher race tried to unify people
> by marrying down. Why shouldn't it mean the same thing in Brich Shmey? "I
> don't trust ordinary people; I don't even rely on princes or rebbes. Instead,
> I rely only on God."
While bar elahin does literally mean son of god, it is used for angels, as Mr
Tilevitz points out, based on Daniel.
However, what is going on in Brich Shmay may be more subtle. The author may be
saying he doesn't put faith in enosh = Mohammed and bar elahin = Jesus. BTW,
this then has implications for when and where the prayer was authored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph I. Lauer <josephlauer@...>
Date: Tue, Nov 29,2011 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Bar Elahin
In reply to Orrin Tilevitz (MJ 60#49):
I was told long ago by a rav who was also a professor of history that
the "enash" and the "bar elahin" in Berich Shmey refer, respectively, to
Muhammed and Yeshu as an explicit rejection (at least explicit to the
composer).
I was also told that the original version (or draft) of the De Sola Pool
Ashkenazi siddur (which I have not seen) stated this but that a more
traditional (not "theologically problematic") translation was in the
published version (which I have seen).
Perhaps others can confirm or rebut this information.
Of course, a reference to Muhammed in Berich Shmey would affect claims
to its Tannaitic origin, but that's another matter.
Joseph I. Lauer
Brooklyn, New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Tue, Nov 29,2011 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Bar Elahin
On Bar Elahin, the Phillip Birnbaum siddur, as I recall, has a very good note on
this.
Yisrael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Josh Backon <backon@...>
Date: Tue, Nov 29,2011 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Not telling someone about a rainbow
David Ziants asked (MJ 60#49) what is the source for the following halacha:
> Not sure whether the above was mainstream thinking, I looked the law up
> in the Shulchan Aruch (Orech Chaim 229:1) and it says there that one
> should not look at the rainbow too much.
This is based on a gemara in Chagiga 16a ("ba'keshet, u'b'nasi, u'ba'cohanim").
Josh Backon
<backon@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Tue, Nov 29,2011 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Nut shells' muktzeh status
Yisrael Medad wrote (MJ 60#49):
> As the Rambam makes clear (for example, Hilchot Shvitat Yom Tov 2:12),
> shells of nuts are muktzeh on Shabbat as well as Yom Tov.
> Checking the Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata, 22:36, it is suggested that
> they can be removed from the table by pushing them with a knife or other
> implement such as a dry napkin or shake out the table cloth altogether.
> Or consider them as despicable and then even hands can be used.
> However, as many know, at a Shalom Zachor, for example, sitting around
> the table (at least in Israel) one finds many eating nuts and the shells
> are placed into an empty cup or bowl.
> Questions:
> (a) is one allowed to purposefully create a muktzeh situation?
> (b) what does one do with a cup like that rather than simple shells on
> the tablecloth?
Thinking aloud -- we are not, I presume, speaking of a pile of nutshells
left as residue from some industrial process such as extracting walnut oil
-- is one purposely creating a muktzeh situation (per the question as
stated), or rather is one eating, therefore might one consider this to fall
under the category of derech achilah -- just as one removes the orange pulp
from the rind (good from bad), or the seeds from a pomegranate. One's
purpose is to take the good nut meat from the (bad :)) shell which, again,
is part of the process of eating nuts.
If one's tidiness gene has one placing the spent shells into a container,
then we are, as noted, left with the question of what to do with the
container. If, say, it's during / after Shalosh Seudot then one might
wait until havdalah. However, say this was at a Shalom Zachor Friday after
dinner and now one wishes to set the table for Shabbos lunch -- then are we
not in a situation where something that is muktzeh is in our way and has
the potential of spoiling our Shabbos meal, therefore, can it not be moved?
--
Carl A. Singer, Ph.D.
Colonel, U.S. Army (Retired)
http://www.ProcessMakesPerfect.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Casper <surfflorist@...>
Date: Tue, Nov 29,2011 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Nut shells' muktzeh status
Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...> asked (MJ 60#49):
> As the Rambam makes clear (for example, Hilchot Shvitat Yom Tov 2:12), shells
> of nuts are muktzeh on Shabbat as well as Yom Tov.
>
> Checking the Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata, 22:36, it is suggested that
> they can be removed from the table by pushing them with a knife or other
> implement such as a dry napkin or shake out the table cloth altogether.
> Or consider them as despicable and then even hands can be used.
>
> However, as many know, at a Shalom Zachor, for example, sitting around
> the table (at least in Israel) one finds many eating nuts and the shells
> are placed into an empty cup or bowl.
>
> Questions:
>
> (a) is one allowed to purposefully create a muktzeh
> situation?
>
> (b) what does one do with a cup like that rather than simple
> shells on the tablecloth?
The definition of mukzeh is anything one cannot use on Shabbat and Yom
Tov. Thus, zorekh makom zorekh gufo would be the antithesis of mukzeh or
something that is unusable on Shabbat and Yom Tov. We can't use
nutshells on Shabbat but we may need the space underneath it. And so if
you need that table space for tomorrow's meal or if you need the cup
itself, one would be allowed to spill out the contents into a rubbish
container.
In addition, Rabbi Riskin once said to me that rubbish because of its
"yucky" nature is mukzeh. But there is a special din for rubbish that we
are allowed to throw it out on Shabbat and Yom Tov precisely because we
feel uncomfortable with it around.
B'birkat Torah,
Chaim Casper
North Miami Beach, FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Nov 29,2011 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Secular courts serving ecclesiastical courts
Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...> wrote (MJ 60#49):
> The High Court in London is being asked to enforce the decision of the
> Beth Din, the court which decides civil or religious issues among
> Orthodox Jews. The Beth Din awarded Gateshead businessman Jerry Fried
> more than 1 million in December 2009, when it ordered company director
> David Zadok Baumgarten to pay Mr Fried 920,550.43. Mr Fried is also
> seeking interest of 109,558.11.
>
> Mr Fried says he lent 920,550.454 to Mr Baumgarten but that a dispute
> arose between the two men over the payment of dividends amounting to
> 330,490.21. They agreed to take their dispute to arbitration, and
> agreed to abide by the Beth Din's decision, a High Court claim says. But
> Mr Fried accuses Mr Baumgarten of failing to pay the money ordered by
> the Beth Din, and in an unusual move, has turned to the High Court,
> where he is seeking to enforce its decision.
>
> Any thoughts?
This is the normal practice in England where the Beit Din acts as Court of
Arbitration under English law. Before the case is heard, the two litigants
will sign a Deed of Arbitration - Shtar Birurim - under which they both
agree to abide by the BD's ruling. This is enforceable in English law under
the Arbitration Act.
> A proper move? Correct decision by the Beth Din?
In view of my previous comment, a perfectly correct procedure. Whether the BD
decided correctly is not within our competence to judge without knowing all
the details of the case but I doubt if that is what Yisrael means. If he
means was it correct for the BD to hand enforcement over to the High Court,
this was entirely proper and, in this case where one party refused to accept
its ruling, the only real way to have it enforced. Since both agreed to be
bound by the BD's decision, it became an agent of the civil law system as far
as English law was concerned.
> Will this have ramifications in other areas - divorce, conversion?
Such cases will not come under the scope of the Arbitration Act which only
applies to disputes between people and specifically excludes matrimonial
matters.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Nov 30,2011 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Secular courts serving ecclesiastical courts
Further to the submission from Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...> (MJ
60#49), I have traced the report to which he refers and found that there was
some further material which may be relevant:
"The Beth Din awarded Mr Fried payment of the sum he claimed, and said the
money should be paid by January 31 2010. But Mr Baumgarten argued that he
could not pay, as he had no means, and he was ordered to pay a monthly sum
of £1,063.33. Despite repeated assurances, he refused to co-operate, and
failed to disclose his assets, or give permission for his professional
advisors to be contacted by the Beth Din, the claim states.
"Rabbi M Lawrence of the Beth Din gave Mr Fried permission to enforce the
court's decision in the High Court, and gave him the right to put a charge
on two properties owned by Mr Baumgarten in north west London.
"The claim was issued by Aryeh Kramer of solicitors Waller Pollins."
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett00@...>
Date: Wed, Nov 30,2011 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Secular courts serving ecclesiastical courts
In reply to the posting from Yisrael Medad (MJ 60#49):
The report does not say that the Beth Din did anything.
But it is certainly within the power of Beth Din to allow a party access to the
civil courts if the other party refuses to abide by the Beth Din's decision.
> Will this have ramifications in other areas - divorce, conversion?
Absolutely not.
When two parties in England have a case involving financial litigation heard by
a Beth Din they are first required to sign an arbitration agreement.
Such an agreement is enforceable in English Law.
There is no such corresponding legislation for conversion.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <BKatz@...>
Date: Tue, Nov 29,2011 at 03:01 PM
Subject: The solution to a conundrum
Bernard Raab <beraab@...> wrote (MJ 60#49):
> Martin Stern wrote (MJ 60#48):
>
>> I wrote (MJ 60#46):
>
>>> Here is another conundrum:
>>>
>>> What activity is prohibited on Chol Hamoed but permitted on Shabbat and Yom
>>> Tov?
>>
>> Since I have had several offline queries, this is the solution:
>>
>> Work done by a non-Jewish contractor (not an employee paid for his time)
>> doing building work on one's property when it is chuts letchum and no Jew
>> can get there on Shabbat or Yom Tov, i.e. no marit ayin is possible. On Chol
>> Hamoed there is no restriction on travel so marit ayin is a problem.
>
> Of course, a non-observant Jew could very well see the work being done on your
> property on Shabbat and cynically conclude that you are the typical religious
> hypocrite that he already suspects you are.
>
> I have found marit ayin to be a highly subjective phenomenon. My best
> illustration of this was the time that my wife was given a prescription by her
> doctor on Friday afternoon with instruction to begin taking the medication
> immediately. Since it was already candle-lighting time, and our pharmacy was
> directly opposite our shul, I took the prescription with me on my way to shul.
> The medication would be ready for pick up on my way home from shul. Of course,
> this meant that I would be seen going into the pharmacy on Shabbat just as
> everyone was leaving the shul, so my concern was with marit ayin. I consulted
> our LOR, a highly respected posek ha'ir. His response: "What are you worried
> about? Everybody knows you -- nobody will think you are being mechalel
> Shabbos."
> Would that it were so!
I believe for marit ayin to apply someone needs to see the entire act. Someone
seeing you walk in and out of a drug store and pick up an item without paying
should realize you made some other arrangement; thus this act should not qualify
as marit ayin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 60 Issue 50