Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 436

Tuesday, March 14 2000

• Re: Avodah V4 #434
• Re: Nissan
• Re: Proper Jewish Fashion
• Avos Marrying Sisters
• Re: Proper Jewish Fashion
• Yisachar-Zevulin
• Re: Yisachar-Zevulin
• Re: Avodah V4 #434
• haig
• Malbusham
• Re: "Laws of Tz'niyus..."
• purim Torah
• Mishenichnas Adar
• cartoon characters and tznius
• [none]
• Re: birkhat ha-gomeil

On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 12:09:18PM -0500, UncBarryum@aol.com wrote:
: << Subject: Re: RW, was re: Avodah V4 #431
:  That was street hockey. My record in ice hockey was not as stellar. So I
:  went into learning instead. >>

: So, now it's a P'shot, and, a goal? Whoops, sorry for the humor.

Okay, I'm confused on two points.

First, is that "p'shot" with a kamatz katan or a cholam?
Second, I thought we determined that the Rambam required a beis din for use of
a "shot".

(BTW, a "shot" is a switch, not a whip. Parents and teachers in Mark Twain's
books often used birch switches, since birch is a springy wood.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  7-Mar-00: Shelishi, Pekudei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 5b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

In a message dated 3/14/00 5:37:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Joelirich@aol.com writes:

> We've discussed this one before but you raise an interesting point - when 
did 
>  it become a loshon hamrugal?  
>  
The idea itself in other form is found in Medrosh, the particular Loshon was 
found also in a Medrosh.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 3/14/00 1:36:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes:

> The Rema paskens (sort of) like the Maharik that we are allowed to dress 
like 
> 
>  goyim in most circumstances.  Regarding the midrash, the Ritva in his 
> peirush on
>  the haggadah says it is referring to wearing tzitzis.
>  

Se

> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:53:03 +0200
> From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> Subject: Avos Marrying Sisters (was Re: Aliya and Moshiach)

<< I was thinking about this today also. Can a Ben Noach marry a sister?
Especially one from a different mother?>>

	Not especially;  only.  If they have different mothers,  the father
doesn't count (afkerei Rachmana lezar'ei)

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 3/14/00 1:36:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes:

> The Rema paskens (sort of) like the Maharik that we are allowed to dress 
like 
> 
>  goyim in most circumstances.  Regarding the midrash, the Ritva in his 
> peirush on
>  the haggadah says it is referring to wearing tzitzis.
>  

See the Darkei Tshuva Al Asar Y"D 178 Ois 4, he brings from Shut Tuv Tam 
Vodas (Kamo 188) that Jews are obligated to be unique in their clothing, he 
also brings from Shut Imrei Eish (Y"D 55) that in the polish Jewry clothing 
style there is "Mishum Yehudis" etc. etc. bottom line w/o going into the 
actual Halacha there is "heiligeit" (holiness) in keeping the style of garb.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

> : Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 09:26:59AM -0500, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
> : 	And how about someone who appreciates the value of learning but is
> : not financially capable of being a Zevulun? Would you say that his schar
> is
> : less than a Zevulun even though they learn with the same hislahavus?
> 
> No. But we aren't talking about non-Zevuluns, even Zevulun wannabes. The
> point
> was only that a Zevulun, one that desires to do it and does it, will
> thereby
> become a talmud chacham.
> 
Let me rephrase my question. Gershon Dubin mentioned that Rabbi Y. Reisman
cited sources that one does become a
: talmid chochom from being a Zvulun. You made the claim that the reason
that this is so is due to the fact that he appreciates what learning is
about and therefore will learn with greater intensity. My point is that I
don't see how this appreciation is intrinsically tied to being a Zevulun.
You could be a pauper and still have a high appreciation for learning. I
don't think that it is connected to whether you are a Zevulun or not.
Furthermore, how about the Zevulun who doesn't learn? How does he become a
Talmid Chacham.

Incidentally, waht is seguli and gemuli?

On 14 Mar 00, at 14:25, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:

> > : Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 09:26:59AM -0500, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
> > : 	And how about someone who appreciates the value of learning but is
> > : not financially capable of being a Zevulun? Would you say that his schar
> > is
> > : less than a Zevulun even though they learn with the same hislahavus?
> > 
> > No. But we aren't talking about non-Zevuluns, even Zevulun wannabes. The
> > point
> > was only that a Zevulun, one that desires to do it and does it, will
> > thereby
> > become a talmud chacham.
> > 
> Let me rephrase my question. Gershon Dubin mentioned that Rabbi Y. Reisman
> cited sources that one does become a
> : talmid chochom from being a Zvulun. You made the claim that the reason
> that this is so is due to the fact that he appreciates what learning is
> about and therefore will learn with greater intensity. My point is that I
> don't see how this appreciation is intrinsically tied to being a Zevulun.
> You could be a pauper and still have a high appreciation for learning. 

Yes, but not in the same way as one who puts out his own hard-
earned cash to support someone learning, thereby gaining an 
appreciation for the material struggles that someone who is a 
Yissochor must face.

I
> don't think that it is connected to whether you are a Zevulun or not.

If you're not a Zevulun it's more abstract.

> Furthermore, how about the Zevulun who doesn't learn? How does he become a
> Talmid Chacham.

I think the idea is that by seeing how much the Yissochor 
struggles to be able to learn, the Zevulun will be inspired to want to 
learn also, at least to the extent of having a seder kavua.

> Incidentally, waht is seguli and gemuli?
> 

Sguli comes from sgula and is a spiritual uplifting (i.e. olam haba); 
gmuli comes from gmul as in schar and refers to more material 
rewards (i.e. olam hazeh).

Further question - does being in a Y/Z relationship require that the 
Z support a specific talmid chacham, or can it be attained by 
supporting Yeshivos generally? From what has been written over 
the last day or so, I suspect the former, in which case it is 
surprising that most Yeshivos do not attempt to formalize the 
relationship.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

On 14 Mar 00, at 12:41, Micha Berger wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 12:09:18PM -0500, UncBarryum@aol.com wrote:
> : << Subject: Re: RW, was re: Avodah V4 #431
> :  That was street hockey. My record in ice hockey was not as stellar. So I
> :  went into learning instead. >>
> 
> : So, now it's a P'shot, and, a goal? Whoops, sorry for the humor.
> 
> Okay, I'm confused on two points.
> 
> First, is that "p'shot" with a kamatz katan or a cholam?

Depends where you come from. If you're from Chicago, it's with a 
patach :-) 

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

<<<<<<<<<<<
I'd vote For Ronald Reagan, and a big part of myt cheshbon was George
Shultz,
who was one of the most level-headed, fair-minded, Secretaries of State wrt
Middle East; he both respected Israel and had solidt credentials with the
Arabs
(as in Bechtel) >>

You forget Alexander M. Haig, Jr. Reagan's first Sec. of State, (Schultz'
mentor)>>>>>>>>>




Alexander Haig was also instrumental in convincing Nixon to airlift aid to 
Israel during the Yom Kippur War (was it 2.2 billion?).

Moshe
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

>But I can not figure out what is so heilig (holy) about the
>  way people dressed in the 19th century.
>


Shloi Shinu Es Lvushom, (see Michlol for Mokor, but nonetheless it is a
Loshon Hamrgual).>>>>>>>>>>>>




R' Kaplan in "The Handbook of Jewish Thought" Vol. I 4:35 footnote 95 writes 
"They did not change their names or language and avoided sexual immorality 
and slander"

Mekhilta on Exodus 12:16
Shemoth Rabbah 1:33
VaYikra Rabbah 32:5
BaMidbar Rabbah 20:21
Shir HaShirim Rabbah4:24 etc. etc.

"The common expression that the Israelites did not change their "names, 
language and clothing" is not found in any Midrashic source."

Moshe





______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

In Avodah 4#425, EClark wrote:
> These influences seek to infiltrate our
holy encampment through our eyes (immodest
images), ears (foul music), nose (seductive
perfumes) and throat (Mexican food). <
We remember the enchiladas we ate at Moshe Peking (*)
in its waning years...
> and Chazal teach us, -Shomer chinom nisba al ha-kol- <
...but they weren't "chinam" (in any sense of the word,
viz. Bamidbar 11:5)!

> beautiful and me+is (conventional looking) <
Ironically, "mi'us" and all derivatives/derivations/dervishes is
etymologically related to "m'as," as in "she looks like a
hundred bucks!"  Over time, and perhaps due to
inflation/Paul Volcker, this phrase was transmuted into
"she looks like Ben Franklin," and we all know what
a wrinklebag he was.

> Reading books can lead to critical thinking! <
Purim Torah can lead to laughter.  That's why I say,
"Easy on the wine, heavy on the sod-a."

> For a complete list, with m+koros, see my
Almost as Bad as Lashon Hora: The
263 Issurim Relating to Tz+niyus. <
263 is big'matria "C-L-A-R-K"...almost.  ("Source, please?")

> Preferably, you should never permit
your hair to be visible, not in public
or private, not by Yid or Goy, not even
by your manicurist.  We learn this absolute
rule from the actions of Kimchis and
the example of Yul Brynner. <
V'yaish o'm'rim, from the NFL.
> This is proven from Dovid haMelech+s statement,
-Ayleh ba+rechev v+ayleh ba+susim- -- Goyim live
like horses, with their hair uncovered, but for us,
-b+shem H-shem E-lokenu nazkir,- our existence
as Yidden depends on how often we say -boruch H-shem.- <
Or, as the sign in my house says, "b'zos ha'sha'ar al yavo sai'ar."

> A skirt is like a sukkoh. <
Quite so.  If it's longer than 20 amos, the wearer is ovair on many
of the 263 issurim listed above.  However, there is a da'as
yochid that the analogy doesn't extend to wedding-dress trains.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ
-----
(*) sorry for the NYC Metro. Area ref. :-)

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<We all know that Avraham Avinu sent Eliezer to Charan 
to find a
wife for Yitzchak because there were no girls available that were
befitting him in Cna'an. And yet, one deah in the Medrash on
"vaHashem beirach es Avraham ba'kol" is that Avraham Avinu had
a daughter whose name was "ba'kol." So why didn't Yitzchak
marry her? Very simple - Yitzchak wanted to marry a girl and not a
Medrash :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I heard it like this:


Yitzchak Ratzah Isha Mamash,
ViLo Isha Al Yidey Drash
!


P.S. Any good websites with Purim Torah? :-(  (Vinahafoch)

ehsoM
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Just waltzing through some nostalgia...

R' Dovid Lifshitz zt"l used to commission some CS major each year to post
the following banner. Picture a long sheet of continuous feed paper (with
the holes on each side) wrapping around the YU Beis Medrash that read:
    Mishenichnas Adar Marbim Bisimchah.
    Ein Simchah Elah Torah.
    Vichol Hamarbeh, Harei Zeh Mishubach.

Three obviously disjoint quotes, combined to make a shmooz.

Although, given Purim and "kiymu vikiblu", the first two may not be all that
unrelated.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Mar-00: Shelishi, Vayikra
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 9a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

except poskim only accept cartoon characters on clothing if they
represent kosher animals -- which limits one to Donald Duck, Daffy Duck,
and Tweety. 

Sorry for the clutter. This is the first half of an article presently on 
CNN. I think that it tells us a little about "de goldene medina".





Former accused Nazi deported from U.S. arrives in Austria
March 14, 2000
Web posted at: 6:59 AM EST (1159 GMT)


VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- An accused Nazi, who lived in the United States for 
nearly 45 years before being deported, arrived in Austria a free man 
Tuesday, police said.

Ferdinand Hammer, 78, arrived at Vienna airport without incident, Col. 
Alfred Rupf of the airport police said.

The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service picked up Hammer early 
Monday at his home in Sterling Heights, Michigan, and deported him, attorney 
William Bufalino II said.

In Austria, Hammer faces no charges, the Austria Press Agency said. Neither 
Simon Wiesenthal's Jewish Documentation Center nor the Austrian Justice 
Ministry has any record on punishable offenses committed by Hammer.

He became a naturalized American citizen in 1963, but was stripped of 
citizenship in May 1996 for concealing his membership in Nazi Germany's 
Waffen-SS "Death's Head Battalion" during World War II. He emigrated to the 
United States in 1955.

According to APA news agency, Hammer's deportation is based on a 1954 
agreement requiring Vienna to take back any Austrian emigre who gained U.S. 
citizenship under false pretenses.

Hammer was recently diagnosed with dementia, possibly Alzheimer's, and his 
grandson accompanied him to Austria to help him get settled, Bufalino said.

But the family took the deportation hard, he said.

"They're very upset. It was even sad driving down the street. There were 
neighbors outside crying," Bufalino said Monday. "He went through most of 
his goodbyes Sunday. He had over 200 visitors yesterday saying good-bye to 
him."

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

I wrote:

<<<
Excuse me, but if you're going 60 miles per hour on I-95 and your car 
disappeared, which I take it is the relevant thought experiment, your chances of
survival would be essentially zero.
>>>

Richard Wolpoe replied:

<<<
And how about if an elevator were to collapse in a sky-scraper?   
>>>

Ein hakhi nami.  I think that is the reductio ad absurdum of the 
svara you cited

<<<
As far as I can tell the velocity is not the issue; the modality is.
>>>

The point is you are positing a circumstance (flying in an airplane)
or sailing on a ship and then hypothesizing about what would 
happen if the vehicle in which you are being transported were to
disappear.  There are circumstances in which you get the same
result whether you are in a car or an airplane or an elevator
when you work through the thought experiment.  But the 
practice of reciting the birkhat ha-gomeil doesn't seem to 
follow the results of the thought experiment.

<<<
R. Moshe was reflecting or deriving from criteria of the gemoro.
>>>

But his svara doesn't get you either to what the gemara said or
to what the general hanhaga is, so why should his svara on this
point be considered (to use a favorite piece of legal jargon of 
mine) a controlling legal authority?

I wrote:

<<<
My point is that bi-z'maneinu, flying across the ocean is a routine
activity that is not dangerous in any objective sense.  
>>>

Carl Scherer replied:

<<<
Actually, no. And that's exactly the point. Even if a plane flight 
seems calm and uneventful, you nevertheless have to bentch 
gomel. At least when it crosses the ocean. 
>>>

You assert that as an objective halakhic fact.  You may be
right.  I am struggling to understand the underlying reasoning 
that supports the assertion, and, sorry, I am simply not getting it.

<<<
Yes, but the Biur Halacha was not written "at the time of Chazal;" 
it was written in the early 20th century, when things were not quite 
the way they were in the Middle Ages, and people did know where 
they were when they crossed the ocean. At least the crews of their 
ships knew. And while the Chafetz Chaim preceded trans-Atlantic 
air travel with the Mishna Brura by about 50 years, I don't think he 
was writing in what you refer to as "the times of Chazal."
>>>

You are right.  The Chafetz Chaim definitely was writing after the
time of Chazal.  On the other hand, and I am trying to put this 
delicately, it is not entirely clear to me how au courant the 
Chafetz Chaim was in scientific matters.  See for example, his
discussion of which sorts of spontaneously generated lice one
is permitted to kill on the Sabbath (sorry, I don't remember the
siman number off the top of my head.)  The discovery of 
longitude was subsequent to the realization that spontaneous
generation does not occur in nature.  So, it is not clear to me
that the Chafetz Chaim understood that there had been a 
qualitative change in the risk of transoceanic boat voyages
since the time of Chazal.  Moreover, even in the early part of
this century, a transoceanic voyage was a rare event in the
lives of most people.  It takes a while for a new "metzius"
to be accommodated in the minds of most people, and 
halakhic practice, especially in the absence of a 
Sanhedrin will certainly not change immediately to reflect
the new "metzius."

<<<
As I understand the Aruch HaShulchan, he is not disagreeing. If 
anything, he is requiring a different bracha for things that are nissim 
gluyim, but as I understand him in 219:4-5, he also would require 
bentching gomel for crossing an ocean or a desert, even if that 
seems to be "b'derech hateva." Why do you think he would not 
require a bracha?
>>>

I'm sorry, but I don't think that you are reading him in context.  He
speaks about a continuum from routine daily life, which he writes
is also, in some metaphysical sense, miraculous, ("v'al nisekha
she-b'khol yom imanu v'al v'niphl'otekha v'tovotekha she-b'khol
eit, erev va'boker v'tzohoraim")  For the routine events of daily
life, one does not make a special brakha, despite their miraculous
nature, just the general all-inclusive one.  The birkhat
ha-gomeil is said in recognition of events in which one is subject
to more than the routine daily danger to which one is routinely 
exposed even though one survived the danger with no departure
from derekh ha-teva.  A departure from derekh ha-teva 
would require a brakha of al ha-nissim.  The Aruch ha-Shulhan
seems to be open to the possibility that where we place 
events along this continuum may change depending on the
frequency with which they occur and other surrounding 
circumstances that indicate the level of danger to which one
was exposed.  V'ayein sham.

I wrote:

>>>
Again, R. Moshe says what he says, but, as I pointed out, the olam is
 not noheig according to his opinion.  
<<<

Carl Scherer replied:

<<<
That is true. But the olam IS noheig to bentch gomel when they 
cross the ocean. (In fact, there was a day last year when I went to 
shul in New Jersey and there were six people bentching gomel, 
only three of whom were related, and except for those three we all 
arrived on different flights). You would hold that to be a bracha 
le'vatala too if I understand you correctly.
>>>

Yes, and I am questioning the basis for the hanhaga.  R. Moshe's
svara, apart from the defects that, b'mihilat k'vod torato, I find in it 
as a svara, does nothing to help us understand the basis for the
hanhaga.  If I said that it is a brakha l'vatala to recite the 
birkhat ha-gomeil after a trans-oceanic voyage, I apolgoize 
profusely.  I don't believe I did, but it would certainly be wrong to 
say so.  What I wanted to say, and what I think I did say, is that
there are strong grounds on which to conclude that there is a
real safek whether the brakha should be said, and if there indeed
are such grounds, the principle of safek b'rakhot l'kula would dictate
that the brakha not be said.  That doesn't mean that saying it is
a b'rakha l'vatala.  It means that one should be nizhar because
of the possibility that is.

<<<
When was the last time someone survived an ocean landing R"L on 
a commercial airliner? On land at least you have a chance for an 
emergency landing. Maybe that's why although the velt does not 
seem to have accepted Rav Moshe's svara with respect to airplane 
travel in general, it continues to bentch gomel to cross the ocean. 
Of course, that leaves b'tzarich iyun RSK's point about the shuttle. 
But maybe we can be mechalek there that although the plane goes 
over the ocean, it never goes more than a few minutes' flight from 
dry land.
>>>

You are talking about difference in probabilities that is so minute
that it is difficult even to comprehend.  Have you ever heard of
someone who was willing to fly over land, but not over water?
The most dangerous parts of the flight are takeoff and landing
not crusing altitude.

<<<
Would you then argue that a woman in childbirth should no longer 
bentch gomel since it is rare that R"L a woman dies in childbirth 
today (which was quite common in the time of Chazal). (We 
actually know someone who started hemorraghing and almost died 
in childbirth so it's not unheard of even today, but it is rare). 
>>>

A fair question, which I don't have an immediate answer to.  But I 
suspect that chilbirth is still considerably more dangerous than
flying in an airplane.

<<<
Would 
you go even further and argue that she should no longer have the 
status of cholah she'yesh ba sakana?
>>>

This doesn't follow at all from anything I said.  The status of holeh
she'yesh bo sakana is determined before medical intervention,
not after.

I wrote:

<<<
At any rate, it seems to me that there is a legitimate safek here, and
safek brakhot l'kula, and shev v'al ta'asseh should be the controlling
principles. 
>>>

Carl Scherer replied
<<<
Are there any mainstream poskim who hold this way?
>>>

You mean aside from Rabbi Mazon?  Based on the
response I have received on and off line, I suspect 
that I may be a da'at yahid.  Unfortunately, I can't rely 
on my usual ace in the hole on this one.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]