Volume 35 Number 58
Produced: Tue Oct 16 7:02:57 US/Eastern 2001
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Assisted fertilization
[Daniel Cohn]
Birkat cohanim during neilah in Israel
[Eli Lansey]
cause for celebration?
[Shalom Carmy]
Compiling WTC stories
[Akiva Miller]
Compiling WTC stories; seudat hodaya
[Freda B Birnbaum]
Electric Shavers
[Stuart Wise]
Hashem's body?
[Chaim Mateh]
Rosh Hashana Simanim
[Stuart Wise]
Slichos at Night
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
WTC urban legends (2)
[Bernard Raab, Avi Feldblum]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Cohn <dcohn@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 01:02:35 -0300
Subject: Assisted fertilization
A local Rabbi here in Uruguay has been asked to prepare a brief on
Judaism's position on assisted fertilization, that will be eventually be
presented to an official comission on bioethics.
Can anyone provide me with a summary of halachical conclussions on this
broad issue?
Thanks,
Daniel Cohn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eli Lansey <elansey@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 07:59:01 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Birkat cohanim during neilah in Israel
In Gush the aron is not closed during birkat cohanim.
Eli.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@...>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:17:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: cause for celebration?
> I had a similar feeling when I heard talk about those being saved having
> a seudat hodaya (meal of thanksgiving). But with respect to that we
> have, unfortunately, precedence. Does anyone know what those who were
> saved from terrorist bombings in israel (EG, those in Sbarro's who
> escaped uninjured) do, if anything, about a seudat hodaya?
It is quite right for an individual to perceive the hand of G-d in the
events that befall him or her. Whatever happens to us is part of our
relationship to the Ribbono shel Olam. It is possible that people
perceive this more clearly when the external circumstances of the event
are "interesting" and piquant and make an entertaining story. It is also
possible that attaching oneself to the external circumstances makes it
harder to discern G-d's presence, because the story becomes more
important than the reality.
This problem inevitably arises when people publicize details of their
intimate relationships. Since the relationship with G-d is infinitely
more intimate than our relationships with people, the danger is greater.
It is, of course, true that under the shock of an occurrence one feels a
great psychological pressure to speak to others. This is perfectly
normal. It is also true that individuals may wish to speak about their
relationship to G-d in public as a mode of praise or as an inspiration
to others. But as is the case with human relations, there is an innate
sense of tsniut that governs one's expression.
In this case, there is certainly the danger of implying that the person
saved has a "better" relationship with G-d than the many who were
not. it would be like talking glibly about one's wedded bliss in the
presence of someone undergoing an ugly divorce. There are people who can
carry this off with sensitivity part of the time, or even most of the
time. But it requires great spiritual depth. To do it in print also
requires great intellectual and artistic skill.
(Did the people who escaped the hurban with their lives celebrate? As
individuals; as a community? If they did there's no record of it in
Tanakh. See Ezekiel 14 and 24, inter alia. Did the survivors of gezerot
ta"h ve-ta"t? Halakha provides for a situation where one simultaneously
recites Barukh Dayyan ha-Emet [one's father died] and haTov ve-haMetiv
[one has inherited his fortune]. But a celebration?)
All of us, miraculously alive today--and let me remind you that most of
us are alive as a consequence of a decision to emigrate from Eastern
Europe that was taken long before we were born--are obligated to respond
to G-d's grace in giving us life. If I were asked for advice by a
survivor of the attack, I would say that the most obvious response would
be to rededicate oneself to the service of G-d. Undertake some
significant advance in limmud Torah, in hesed, in one's interpersonal
life or tefilla life. Let that commitment be the goal of striving and
eventual joy. Let the mingling of sorrow and achievement become the
foundation of a new spiritual edifice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <kennethgmiller@...> (Akiva Miller)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 20:28:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Compiling WTC stories
Joseph C. Kaplan wrote <<< I had a similar feeling when I heard talk
about those being saved having a seudat hodaya (meal of thanksgiving).
But with respect to that we have, unfortunately, precedence. Does anyone
know what those who were saved from terrorist bombings in israel (EG,
those in Sbarro's who escaped uninjured) do, if anything, about a seudat
hodaya? >>>
Here's my feeling: Those who suffered losses in an event have both the
right and responsibility to mourn those losses. To the same degree,
those who were rescued from a danger have the right to rejoice in their
survival, and the responsibility to thank HaShem for it.
But that is for people who we affected by the event directly. The rest
of us need to ask what lessons we can learn from the event.
That's why I see a real problem with the proposed story compilations. I
think it is both foolish and dangerous for *outsiders* to look only at
the stories of HaShem's hand in the many people who might have died but
escaped, while giving a blind eye to the stories of those who might have
escaped but died. There are lessons to be learned from both, and if one
side or the other is ignored, the wrong lessons will be learned.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Freda B Birnbaum <fbb6@...>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 09:47:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Compiling WTC stories; seudat hodaya
Joseph Kaplan writes:
> Over Shimini Atzeret and Simchat Torah I gave a lot of thought to the
> post about publishing a book about those who were saved from death or
> damage in the WTC horror. [...] I think this type of book will bring
> consolation to none, and will only add to the anguish of those
> mourning over lost loved ones.
I heartily agree.
> I had a similar feeling when I heard talk about those being saved
> having a seudat hodaya (meal of thanksgiving). But with respect to
> that we have, unfortunately, precedence. Does anyone know what those
> who were saved from terrorist bombings in israel (EG, those in
> Sbarro's who escaped uninjured) do, if anything, about a seudat
> hodaya?
I don't know about a seudat hodaya, but there might be some precedent or
model in a shaila that was asked during the Holocaust, by someone who
had been the only one to survive a group of people who were
machine-gunned. He asked whether he was allowed to bensch gomel, and
the answer was yes, he was allowed to. (I'm not sure about the question
whether he HAD to.)
I think that it's not inappropriate for an individual who feels grateful
to God that he narrowly escaped the WTC to show this in some way, but I
agree that a whole book full of stories about people who miraculously
escaped is very problematic vis-a-vis the ones who didn't get such
escapes and their mourners.
Freda Birnbaum, <fbb6@...>
"Call on God, but row away from the rocks"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Wise <swise@...>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:11:41 -0400
Subject: RE: Electric Shavers
Philishave is the same as Norelco and here in the states, those "lift
and cut" models are OK to use ONLY if certain blades are removed. Some
stores in Brooklyn will remove them; maybe there are electronics stores
in Israel that will do the same
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Mateh <chaim-m@...>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:06:46 +0200
Subject: Re: Hashem's body?
In vol 35 #54, Ben Katz <bkatz@...> replied to the following:
<<"There were many Medieval period rabbis who believed that HaShem had a
physical body"
Really? Who for example?>>
by saying that
<<The real question should be who didn't, and one prominent figure on the
very short list is rambam. rambam spent the first book of the guide,
essentially, arguing that all of the anthropomorphic expressions in the
torah are not meant to be taken literally. obviously people did.>>
I find it hard to believe that no other Rishonim talk about this, but
even if only the Rambam does, that means that one Rishon does. This
does not prove in any way that other Rishonim held otherwise. Until
someone gives a direct reference to a Rishon who holds that Hashem has a
body, the fact remains that there aren't any such Rishonim.
<<We are used to the idea of God not having a body, but if one thinks about
it, there are 1000 references in the Bible to God's hand, feet, nostrils,
etc. If we believe the bible to be true, why shouldn't we believe He has a
body?>>
The Torah also says "an eye for an eye" and we all know that Jewish Law
does not prescribe poking out the attacker's eye.
<<This is the notion rambam had to combat.>>
Does the Rambam say that he is combating or arguing _against_ some
notion of Hashem having a body?
OTOH, Eli Turkel <turkel@...> mentions the only Rishon (liche'ora)
that I have ever seen who mentions something about Hashem's "body":
<<When Rambam lists believing that G-d has a body as making one into an
apikorus the Raavad disagrees and states that greater people than Rambam
believed that. It is not clear what the Raavad himself believed. However,
it is clear that he knew of Torah scholars who believed in G-d's body and
did not consider it to be heretical.>>
The Raavad is found on the Rambam, Hilchoss Tshuva 3:7. However, no
less than the Kesef Mishna (aka Mechaber) says that the Raavad could not
have written something like that, and that the nusach of the Raavad was
as the Sefer Ha'ikrim (another Rishon AFAIK) quoted the very same
Raavad, as follows: "Amar Avraham (Raavad): even though the main belief
(ikar ha'emunah) is like that (as the Rambam writes), he who believes
that He has a body from his understanding of the language of the verses
and medrashim in their simple meaning, is not worthy of being called a
min." The Kesef Mishna continues and says that even the nusach of the
Raavad that we have, this is what is meant.
So we're back to the original question of who are these "many Medieval
period rabbis who believed that HaShem had a physical body"?
Kol Tuv,
Chaim
Visit Beit Chatam's website at:
http://personal.zahav.net.il/personalsite/ch/chaim-m/chatam.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Wise <swise@...>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:13:21 -0400
Subject: RE: Rosh Hashana Simanim
Leeks are also considered an actual siman, at least according to some of
those "free" simanim cards some institutions send
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahem@...>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 11:32:31 -0400
Subject: RE: Slichos at Night
>From: Michael Appel <mjappel@...>
>> From: <Harry459@...> (Harry Schick)
>> When did people begin saying Slichos at night and was there any
>> discussion about the potential problem of changing the time. I add this
>> in light of the fact that according to Kabbalah it is not an opportune
>> time to be doing this since Din is strong. In the morning Hesed is
>> strong.
>
>I have seen some places say slichot at night ~10PM, and I would share
>your question about that practice. But with regard to the common custom
>of saying the first slichot service at night, I am familiar with shuls
>waiting until after halachic mid-night to say them. This is presumably
>because the aspect of din is stronger in the first part of the night. Of
>course that still doesn't answer the question of why not say even the
>first slichot closer to dawn or during the day.
>G'mar Chatimah Tovah,
I have been told in various shiurim that it is in order to show zerizus.
That is, we are so eager to do t'shuva, that we start the s'lichos at
the earliest possible zman. There are shuls were the first s'lichos are
said before shacharis in cases were the people cannot come at 1 AM
(daylight time).
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz - <sabbahem@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:55:59 -0400
Subject: Re: WTC urban legends
>From: Leah S. Gordon
>Mr. Neal Jannol refers to several tragic stories about the WTC and frum
>Jews, as retold by Rabbi Aron Tendler.
>
>With all due respect to Mr. Jannol and R. Tendler, a retelling, even as
>a dvar Torah before Neilah, does not make it so. These stories, as
>Ms. Jeanette Friedman said, are urban legends. They are stories about
>what *could* have happened, or what *should* have happened. Not about
>what *did* happen.
>
>Therefore, it does not matter that they are almost certainly false.
>They can still teach us "how to die" halakhically if that is the
>message.
It goes not matter?? Excuse me but I am deeply offended by such stories.
They diminish the currency by which most people attempt to live
meaningful and torah-observant lives. Each such story diminishes the
true stories of chesed and mesiras nefesh which occur every day without
public notice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 06:53:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: WTC urban legends
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Bernard Raab wrote:
> >Therefore, it does not matter that they are almost certainly false.
> >They can still teach us "how to die" halakhically if that is the
> >message.
>
> It goes not matter?? Excuse me but I am deeply offended by such stories.
> They diminish the currency by which most people attempt to live
> meaningful and torah-observant lives. Each such story diminishes the true
> stories of chesed and mesiras nefesh which occur every day without
> public notice.
I disagree with Bernard here. The true stories of chesed and mesiras
nefesh which occur every day without public notice are part of the
individuals interaction with HaShem. There is no need for a public telling
of the deeds with respect to that person. The reason for a public telling
is to teach something to others. In which case, the compelling item is not
the exact truth/accuracy of the story, but the impact it can make on
others.
Avi Feldblum
<avi@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 35 Issue 58
