Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 038

Friday, May 24 2002

• Re: birth control
• RE: birth control
• RE: birth control
• birth control
• Re: kilalei ba'alei 'hayim
• Re: kilaei ba'alei 'hayim
• Email file (TANACH.)
• Re: Posai'ach es yodecho u'masbi'a l'chol chai ratzon
• Re: Waiting to daven maariv on Shavuos
• Re: Waiting to daven maariv on Shavuos
• shavu'ot min haTorah
• Re:Re: Leftovers from Shavuos
• Problem in scientific *metziut* re: an Issur melacha on Shabbat
• Re: z"l vs a"h
• Re: z"l vs a"h
• Second Printing
• Problem in scientific *metziut* re: an Issur melacha on Shabbat
• Re: Problem in scientific *metziut* re: an Issur melacha on Shabbat
• Re: birth control
• Re: birth control
• RY Emden - Woman being Oyleh Letorah

On 22 May 2002 at 12:32, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il] on Areivim
>> As far as I know, money is (generally) not a heter to use birth 
>> control. 

> Once a person has fulfilled pru urvu, shouldn't his ability (financially and
> emotionally) to support a large family be relevant to whether he may use
> (kosher forms of) birth control?  I have gotten the impression that some
> rabbanim use this as a factor in their decision to permit birth control.

I'm fairly sure emotionally is used as a factor. But financially?
Parnassa is all mazal - decreed on Rosh HaShanna. Yes, you have to make a
hishtadlus, but you're going to get whatever it's decreed that you get -
whether or not that means it's "enough." And as I wrote to someone off
list, im kein ain la'davar sof. What's "enough?"

To borrow from another mitzva, it's like having "enough" money to make
aliya....

-- Carl

From: Carl and Adina Sherer [mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il]
> On 22 May 2002 at 12:32, Feldman, Mark wrote:
>> Once a person has fulfilled pru urvu, shouldn't his ability (financially and
>> emotionally) to support a large family be relevant to whether he may use
>> (kosher forms of) birth control?  

> I'm fairly sure emotionally is used as a factor. But financially? 
> Parnassa is all mazal - decreed on Rosh HaShanna. Yes, you have to 
> make a hishtadlus, but you're going to get whatever it's decreed that 
> you get - whether or not that means it's "enough." 

What about the idea of ein somchin al hanes? If you live in a country
which doesn't give handouts to large families and has ended "welfare as we
know it," raising numerous children can be expensive (esp. when you have
to pay for yeshiva education). If you have a salaried job in a low-paying
field (and you do not expect your profession nor its low-paying aspect to
change), wouldn't it make sense to do an accounting to see whether you
can afford another child? If Hashem chooses to miraculously raise your
salary (or have you win the lottery), you can always stop birth control.

While parnassa is mazal, and determined on Rosh Hashana, aren't there
gemaras which say that much of this mazal is decreed from the time
the person is born? (I believe I recall such citations--in statements
made by Rava-- from Dr. Elman's article in the Suffering book edited by
Rabbi Carmy.)

> And as I wrote to 
> someone off list, im kein ain la'davar sof. What's "enough?" 

No doubt some people incorrectly are unwilling to compromise on their
standard of living in order to have more children. I'm talking about
people who are not living at high standard of living.

> To borrow from another mitzva, it's like having "enough" money to 
> make aliya.... 

Interestingly, in that discussion, many thought that if one "can't make
it" at a minimal level in EY, one need not make Aliyah. They also
thought that it would be a bad idea to make Aliyah w/o looking into
financial issues with the idea that "Hashem yaazor."

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On 22 May 2002 at 18:54, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> From: Carl and Adina Sherer [mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il]
>> On 22 May 2002 at 12:32, Feldman, Mark wrote:
>>> Once a person has fulfilled pru urvu, shouldn't his ability (financially and
>>> emotionally) to support a large family be relevant to whether he may use
>>> (kosher forms of) birth control?  

>> I'm fairly sure emotionally is used as a factor. But financially? 
>> Parnassa is all mazal - decreed on Rosh HaShanna. Yes, you have to 
>> make a hishtadlus, but you're going to get whatever it's decreed that 
>> you get - whether or not that means it's "enough." 

> What about the idea of ein somchin al hanes?  

If you're doing hishtadlus to earn a living, how are you being somech 
al ha'neis? It's not like you're sitting at home all day long and 
waiting for someone from Publisher's Clearing House to show up on 
your doorstep. 

If you live in a country which
> doesn't give handouts to large families and has ended "welfare as we know
> it," raising numerous children can be expensive (esp. when you have to pay
> for yeshiva education).  

What does "affording it" mean? If you have to find ways to save 
money, there are lots of way to save money. If you're going to do an 
accounting as to how many children you can "afford" it will almost 
inevitably be equal to the number you have. But there are lots of 
places you can cut back if you have to cut back. But what if having 
more children means that each child has to share their room? What if 
it means you spend your summer vacation taking day trips in New 
Jersey instead of going to Europe? What if it means that you only 
have meat for Yom Tov instead of every Shabbos? What if it means you 
don't send your children to Ivy League schools unless they get 
scholarships. There are lots of ways you can find to cut back, so I 
question whether any kind of financial accounting can be done in many 
cases.   

If you have a salaried job in a low-paying field
> (and you do not expect your profession nor its low-paying aspect to change),
> wouldn't it make sense to do an accounting to see whether you can afford
> another child?  

If that's the case, why not say that you have to make that accounting 
l'chatchila and not take a job in a low paying field? By your logic, 
what justification is there for someone taking a job as a teacher or 
a social worker? No. Jews aren't expected to do accountings like 
that. Parnassa is fixed from Rosh HaShanna to Rosh HaShanna (except 
what you spend on Shabbos and Yom Tov). The reason we say Parshas 
HaMan every day after davening is to acknowledge Hashem's control 
over the world and His ability to give us parnassa regardless of our 
hishtadlus. Hishtadlus itself (AIUI) is so that you're not being 
somech al ha'neis. 

> If Hashem chooses to miraculously raise your salary (or have
> you win the lottery), you can always stop birth control.

Women have this thing called a biological clock. Once they get past 30-35,
their chances of becoming pregnant any given time that they have relations
decline dramatically. And once they get past 43-45, the chances of R"L
having a child with birth defects rise dramatically (if you want to talk
about a potential heter for birth control, that's one).

But more than that - the pasuk says "ba'erev al tanach yadecha." We
aren't supposed to just decide, "I've had enough children; I can't
afford to bring more children into the world." The Gemara in Yevamos says
that Mashiach doesn't come until all of the Neshamos have come down to
this world. Every time you have a child you're bringing Mashiach a bit
closer. Again, as I wrote to someone else privately, I don't interpret
this as meaning that you necessarily have to stop your wife from nursing
and start trying to get pregnant again three months after each child. But
that also doesn't mean you have the halachic right to wait until you can
"afford" to have another child.

> While parnassa is mazal, and determined on Rosh Hashana, aren't there
> gemaras which say that much of this mazal is decreed from the time the
> person is born?  (I believe I recall such citations--in statements made by
> Rava-- from Dr. Elman's article in the Suffering book edited by Rabbi
> Carmy.)

I think those relate to general mazal (and whom you marry) and not to 
parnassa from year to year. 

>> And as I wrote to 
>> someone off list, im kein ain la'davar sof. What's "enough?" 

> No doubt some people incorrectly are unwilling to compromise on their
> standard of living in order to have more children.  I'm talking about people
> who are not living at high standard of living.

But how do you determine that? In the chiloni world - and in much of 
the religious world in chu"l for that matter - each child having 
their own room is considered a necessity. Here you'd be laughed at. I 
don't know any fruhm families here where on principle each child has 
their own room. I had lunch yesterday with my (very) chiloni former 
office mate who at the age of 37 and after eight years of "living 
together" is considering that maybe it's time to marry his 
"girlfriend." When we were office mates I had five children and he 
used to tell me that I could not possibly be giving each of my 
children enough individual attention. Yesterday, he asked how we 
could possibly be coping with "so many" kids (bli ayin hara). I told 
him that you reach a point where your older children become surrogate 
parents for the younger ones (a point we unfortunately reached too 
early out of necessity when Baruch Yosef got sick). In the old 
country (Europe, not the US), all of this was taken for granted. I 
would bet that nearly every person on this list has (or had) at least 
one parent or great grandparent who was one of ten or more siblings. 
Today, with a drop in infant mortality B"H, we're suddenly worried 
about whether we can afford to have more children. 

>> To borrow from another mitzva, it's like having "enough" money to 
>> make aliya.... 

> Interestingly, in that discussion, many thought that if one "can't make it"
> at a minimal level in EY, one need not make Aliyah.  They also thought that
> it would be a bad idea to make Aliyah w/o looking into financial issues with
> the idea that "Hashem yaazor."

And many of us felt that people are too quick to set that "minimal level"
at a level that is high enough to almost ensure that they will never
make aliya.

But there are a couple of major differences there. Making aliya is
(according to most poskim) a mitzva kiyumis and not a chiyuv. Pru u'rvu is
a chiyuv. And while you're mekayem the mitzva with a son and a daughter
or with two sons, there's still an issur of hotzoas zera l'batala, which
is the reason (AIUI) why you have to get a heter for birth control in the
first place. Not to mention "ba'erev al tanach yadecha" as noted above.

-- Carl

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

From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il] on Areivim
> As far as I know, money is (generally) not a heter to use birth 
> control. 

From: Feldman, Mark
> Once a person has fulfilled pru urvu, shouldn't his ability (financially
> and emotionally) to support a large family be relevant to whether he may
> use (kosher forms of) birth control? I have gotten the impression that
> some rabbanim use this as a factor in their decision to permit birth
> control. Are there any tshuvos on the matter?

Warning: I'm not a halachic authority, by any stretch of imagination. It's
also from memory, and it's been a while. It's one of my sporadic
"hobbies" - checking out this section of tshuvos.

So far I can report that there is no _written_ heter for any birth control
of any kind for any reason short of pikuach nefesh. Even then the Igros
Moshe seems to take the approach of "don't second guess Hashem - take
a chance".

However:
- Getting a verbal heter for a 1 - 2 year break between pregnancies
seems to be easy, if you ask your LOR nicely. :-) (Based on "research"
(aka shmoozing) my wife has done). Since this is usually asked after a
"few" kids, I cannot tell you if it's a blanket heter.

- The SA - IIRC in EH seems to say that (after pru urvu) there is no
way to prevent a woman from using birth control.

I have yet to see the above 2 issues hinted at, in written tshuvos. Why?

Financial concerns are only mentioned in the context of: The more kids
the more brocho. So financial concerns are cited as a reason to have
MORE kids.

It really bothers my wife when she speaks to Israeli neighbors (in our
Ultra Chareidi neighborhood - same one as RCS) and they wish there were
a method known to man to prevent yearly conception. It's total news to
them that a chat with a LOR would be beneficial.

Reminder: I'm not a halachic authority, by any stretch of imagination. I'm
tempted to actually post this to Areivim, not Avoda.

- Danny

This is discussed in the Minchat Chinuch 244. The Aruch haShulchan YD 297
(bet) #3 indicates that the issur d'oraita is on;y if the act is done
"k'machkol b'shfoferet" (as per the lashon in the gemara). Since this
new stock of chicken was created by gene therapy rather than by having
2 chickens copulate, I can't see any issur here. In any case, even if
there was an issur, the progeny of this chicken would be mutar b'hana'a.

What R. Zirkind mentioned about featherless chickens (YD 59:2), the
Rema there explicit that if this is due to too much fat, the chicken' is
kosher. The Aruch haShulchan 59 # 8 curiously mentions that the Isthenis
shouldn't eat the chicken ! [BTW if you saw the photo of the nude chicken
you'd also lose your appetite :-)] His reason is Baal teshaktzu.

Josh

>> Halakhikally, I wonder about the following:
>> * is there a prohibition on kilaim for fowl? I only recall mamals
>> (  everywere), trees (ditto) and plants (in Israel only).
>> * assuming we figure out what method was used for creating them, does that
>>   method qualify as kilaim, or not.

> I assume that there is no problem of kilayim here as the breeding was
> done only with chickens, not other fowl.

How does one determine a min halachically?

Domestic chickens derived from at least four different wild Asian chicken
races from India to Indonesia - zoological machlokes if they are species
or subspecies.

Do we say if they can interbreed and all offspring are fertile then we
are actually dealing with the same min?

Interestingly such a case in aviculture- two birds on opposite sides of
the Atlantic freely interbreed- European Canary and Venezuelan siskin-
producing a terracotta coloured bird. Any orange/reddish canary you
see in the petshops is actually bred from these 'hybrids'.

However, they may not actually be hybrids, they may be considered the
same min halachically since readily breed & offspring fertile though
zoologically not same species.

A Rav ruled that a bird breeding friend of mine could not breed these
birds with one another nor with thoroughbred canaries even though no
direct handling is employed.

(Canaries themselves are very fussy and frequently reject 'shiduchim'
outside their breed, so it's interesting that they ever accepted the V.
siskins.)

Conversely, I understand Shulchan Aruch says that domestic geese and
their wild ancestors (Grey Lag Geese) are considered two different
minim now- thousands of years of cultivation have changed them enough-
even though they could probably interbreed. What about a Saint Bernard
and a chihuahua?

So how do we determine a min halachically? Do we look at chromosomes or
cultivation or both?

The halachic requirements for studying start with:
Hebrew grammar (see: Chavot Yair 124, R. Yaakov Emden in Migdal Oz
16d-17a, Introduction of the GRA on Shulchan Aruch ORACH CHAIM), followed
by all of Tanach (Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim) (see: Rosh Hagiv'a 11a,
R. Chaim of Volozhin in Keter Rosh 58, and the Netziv in the beginning
of his Ha'emek Davar 5). Only after one masters Hebrew and Tanach does
one start with Mishna and Gemara.

Those who stress thorough mastery of all of Tanach include: ROSH on Bava
Metzia 2 toward the end; R. Yaakov Lipman Heller in his Introduction to
the Maadaney Yom Tov to Bava Kama; the Maharal in Gur Aryeh to Devarim
6:7 and in his Tiferet Yisrael 56; the SHELAH at the beginning of Shavuot;
Vavey Ha'Amudim, Amud Hatorah 5; the Meharsha on the gemara in Sanhedrin
24a; Yosif Ometz 270, 284; the Amudey Shesh 24; the Bach on TUR Yoreh
Deah 245 d"h haya minhag; R. Yaakov Emden in his Siddur Beit Yaakov in
Hilchot Talmud Torah; the Pri Megadim at the beginning of Orach Chaim;
the Even Sheleima 8:2; Toldot Adam 3; Shulchan Aruch HaRav Hilchot
Talmud Torah 1:1; SHU'T Zera Emet Yoreh Deah 107; the Netivot Hamishpat;
R. Shimshon Refael Hirsh in Chorev 551.

Josh  ("Volunteered" Executive Secretary of the JEWISH BIBLE ASSOCIATION,
       www.jewishbible.org)

"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:
> Let me get this straight then: We praise Hashem for giving us full measures
> of desire for material nourishment?!

Ratzon means (when used retrospectively) satisfaction or pleasure.

David Riceman

I wrote:
<<< BTW, I think that there is a din of tosefes yom tov, so that a person
should be mekabel Shavuos before shkiyah. >>>

RAM replied:
> If one does so, is he not m'vatel the temimos which we accomplish by
> delaying maariv?

Don't know.  Maybe the point is to delay kiddush, not maariv (see my first
post).  In any case, as many poskim hold that tosefes yom tov is deoraisa
(see MB 261:19), I would think that that is more important than temimos (we
pasken sefirah is drabanan, and the requirement of temimos is dubious
according to some).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Arie Folger wrote:
>However, just as in dinei mamonot a rabbinic qinyan can bring about a 
>biblically sanctioned ownership, so too, once 'Hazal enacted QK, its 
>effects became valid mideOraita.

This is also the standard peshat in nichum aveilim, bikkur cholim, etc.
being a chiyuv derabanan but a kiyum de'oraisa of ve'ahavta lerei'acha
kamocha. See Rambam, Hilchos Aveil 14:1 and nosei keilim.

I'm not sure why, but I don't feel comfortable using this approach
in regard to sefiras ha'omer. I don't know if it is relevant to our
discussion, but RHS has a wonderfully written shtikel Torah (from RYBS)
on the yachid/rabim omer/yovel sefirah issue in Eretz HaTzvi. It's one
of the early chapters.

Gil Student

>RAM asked about the source for a shavu'ot min haTorah, considering that
>sefirah is miderabanan.

RMMS explains that mispar (number) "creates" shavuos, not sefirah
(counting). i.e. we consider shavuos AS IF there would have been a
mitzvah to count. The 50th day from this hypothetical count is shavuos.
Otherwise, converts (or women) wouldn't celebrate shavous. Likewise,
ketanim wouldn't have shavuos even bi'zman habayis, because they're only
chayav min hatorah.

>A wild thought, for which I elicit your comments: The Torah uses the same 
>language for counting 50 days and for counting 50 years (up to Yovel), yet, 
>the first is an individual mitzvah, while the second is a mitzvah on beit 
>din. Why?

The sifri asks this (or similiar) question: "yachol b'beis
din? talmud lomar u'sfartem lachem, she'tehay sefirah lechol echad
ve'echad". Basically, it's a limmud from a passuk. See s.a. horav 489:1.

Bechavod U'bivracha
Rabbi Yosef Braun
Yeshiva Boys High School
Sydney, Australia

Just realized I didn't answer part of this.... 

On 22 May 2002 at 13:35, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il> writes:
>: As far as I can tell, the only nafka mina would be that if it's a 
>: meat "snack" you would not eat bread/challah with it. Agreed?

> Agreed. Which saves you washing, bentching, making sure you have
> lechem mishneh (is that true for the third Y"T meal?), 

AIUI the Rema, you would not need lechem mishna for what you refer to 
the as the third Yom Tov meal. The Rema learns that you have two 
challos for the milchig meal, one of which is for the milchigs (he 
mentions the possibility of making it with butter, although I don't 
understand him as saying you have to do that) and the other for the 
fleischigs. 

-- Carl

>THE PROBLEM: as soon as we saw the SEMAG, TUR and Mechaber we said,
>"Wait ! The Chinese use urine as a fertilizer !" It took us a few days
>but we just found a dozen websites on the Internet that claim that human
>urne is the best fertilizer available with experts in agriculture claiming
>its the best thing to happen in 20 years !

Is that _treated_ urine? I.e., isn't regular urine so acidic as to
kill grass? (On a "compost" site, I read that urine should be mixed to
be 1 part urine and 2 parts water).

-- Sholom

RJR wrote:
> Is this distinction the actual practice in most communities? 

Yes (I don't know about most, but in 'Hareidi communities, it seems standard) 

> If so, does anyone know the source?

Not me.

Arie Folger

Joel Rich wrote:
>I was recently told by 2 Rabbis that z"l is traditionally used for men and 
>a"h for women.

What about the popular phrases David HaMelech alav hashalom (DHA"H) and  
Moshe Rabbeinu alav hashalom (MRA"H)?

Gil Student

Feldheim Publishers is B"H planning to reprint "The Contemporary Eruv". 
They offered me some time to make addenda etc. IF you have any he'oros or 
matters you think should be addressed in a BRIEF (my emphasis - I do not 
have the inclination to make extensive renovations just now) appendix or 
addditional section, please let me know ASAP.

Thanks!

Kol Tuv,
YGB

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Josh writes:
THE PROBLEM: as soon as we saw the SEMAG, TUR and Mechaber we said,
"Wait ! The Chinese use urine as a fertilizer !" It took us a few days
but we just found a dozen websites on the Internet that claim that human
urine is the best fertilizer available with experts in agriculture claiming
its the best thing to happen in 20 years !

Don't get so excited! This problem is already addressed in Minchas SHabbos
chapter 80 where he quotes Seforim that say that it good for planting and
basically answers we must say Nishtanu Hoeetem.
kol tuv
yosef stern

On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 03:11:00AM +0200, BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
: THE PROBLEM: as soon as we saw the SEMAG, TUR and Mechaber we said,
: "Wait ! The Chinese use urine as a fertilizer !" It took us a few days
: but we just found a dozen websites on the Internet that claim that human
: urne is the best fertilizer available with experts in agriculture claiming
: its the best thing to happen in 20 years !

Whether or not this assessment of the metzi'us is true (and any dog owner
would question it), RGS already pointed us to a survey of opinions on the
subject that has enough examples to get a jist as to how to handle this
one.

1- Keep the halachah

1a. Skeptical approach

Science said one thing about urine as a fertilizer one day, a different
thing the next. Why should we change halachah if it could say something
else tomorrow?

1b. Fixed Halachah

The CI tells us that when the 2,000 years of Torah ended, so did
the authority to change halachah.

1c. Closed Talmud

The Maharetz Chayes tells us that the gemara's consensus has the din of
Sanhedrin, and we lack another Sanhedrin capable of overturning its
rulings.

2- Change the halachah

2a. Incorrect Knowledge

Chazal erred in the metzi'us, so the pesaq is faulty.

2b. Nature changed

Chazal's description of the metzi'us is obsolete, so the pesaq is
too. Urine used to be detrimental to plants. Now that it's beneficiary,
we have to be machmir.

In both of these, I would have made a clearer difference than the
article does between those who would say this only lehachmir and those
who would be meikil. (See #3.)

3. Case-By-Case Response

We would need to determine if they had a mesorah about watering a field
with urine, and then post-facto tried to use science to justify it,
or if chazal created a new pesaq based on the science.

If the former, then you don't change the halachah, since the halachah
wasn't motivated by the scientific principle.

If the latter, then you either fall into the ideas of 2a or 2b, and
since this is lehachmir, you should change the halachah by all versions
of #2.

Those who would only apply the "change the halachah" rule lehachmir,
eg RAYK, do so because they hold like the Gra -- that most dinim have
unpublished reasons in addition to the printed one. So that even
if they based the pesaq on faulty science, you only knocked out one
reason and there are almost certainly others.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

True, I have noticed the lack of written teshuvos permitting birth
control.

HOWEVER, it is a davar yadua in the Orthodox world, to any woman or man
in Amreica who has asked a shaila, that Rabbanim (and I don't mean MO,
I mean the poskim of the Moetzes variety) REGULARLY allow various methods
of Birth Control, including the pill, the diaphragm and spermicidal jelly
for a variety of reasons that fall short of the pikuach nefesh standard.

I have been told by one Chareidi rov in the States that Israeli Chareidi
Poskim see the issue very differently, hence the statement that "it's
total news" to many Israelis that there are numberous heteirim.

On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 10:40:03PM -0400, RaphaelIsaacs@aol.com wrote:
: True, I have noticed the lack of written teshuvos permitting birth
: control.

I thought it was because the general issues are yadu'ah, and the
case-by-case answers vary widely.

-mi

Some time ago, in a post I mentioned the Mechaber 282:3 (which is really
the gemoro Megilla) saying that women may be oyleh letorah on Shabbos -
'...avol omru chachomim" that she shouldn't - 'mipnei k'vod hatzibur'.

I then asked what is the purpose of this whole statement - if ultimately
she cannot be oleh letorah - for whatever reason? I offered our Rov's
answer 'bederech efshar' that in a situation where there is no k'vod
hatzibur concerns - maybe she could be oleh. (Eg - a mother at a minyan
with her 10 sons...)

Why am I mentioning this again?

Because I recently found (in my seforim shrank - where there are many
seforim (including my late shverr's, 3 sons bar mitzvah presents, as
well as my own collection) which I haven't noticed in years - the sefer
Migdal Oz by Rav Yaakov Emden z'l.

In the section where he writes about minhogim and halochos re name-giving
for a girl, he says that in a case where there is a minyan metzumtam in
the home of the yoledes and her husband is not around, we should stick
with the 'din' ['yesh lehaamid hadovor al hadin'] that the mother is
oleh letorah!

He explains: '...Harei befeirush omru she'oyloh, v'im lo achshov eimosai?
Ubevadai lo yipol shum dovor midivreihem artzo shelo yehei lo mokom.....'

(I thought - this was a similar situation to what my Rov had suggested.)

Some other interesting points I noted in the Migdal Oz:

One should should take care when naming a girl to call her by a clear
name - from the Torah and not "b'shem dekatnus" eg Rechleh or Reichleh
- but rather Rochel. (We have been debating the meaning of 'katnus' -
is it the non-Torah name or is it the '..leh' at the end?

He continues that it is also important with boys names - but more so
with girls - whose names have become 'twisted'.

The Shabbos that the name is given to a girl there is a 'ktzas simcha'
and children come to her home where they are handed some 'nasherai'
[kloyos v'egozim] and they say psukei brocho over the cot. He adds that
this is not a usual minhag for Ashkenazim - so brings psukim from the
Sfardi nusach for Zeved Habas.

The Misheberach when giving the name is different to ours - adding to
Soroh, Rivka, Rochel and Leah - 'Miriam Haneviyoh, Avigayil and Ester
Hamalkoh bas Avichayil...es hayaldoh hane'eemoh hazos...veyizkeh le'oviho
ule'imo liros besimchosoh ubechuposo b'vonim zechorim oisher vechovod...."

SBA

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


[ 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         ]