Volume 38 Number 88
Produced: Tue Mar 25 4:50:54 US/Eastern 2003
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Deciding Indigenous Minhog based on Opinions of non-Natives
[Mordechai]
Rambam's Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Rotzeach U'Shmiras Nefesh 12:12
[Akiva Miller]
Tircha d'Tsibura (3)
[Joel Rich, Avi Feldblum, <chips@...>]
Waiting for the Rabbi
[Danny Skaist]
Women Learning Gemara (2)
[Joel Rich, Shayna Kravetz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Phyllostac@...> (Mordechai)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:59:13 EST
Subject: Deciding Indigenous Minhog based on Opinions of non-Natives
<< From: David E Cohen <ddcohen@...>
Are you suggesting that practice in Israel today should be based on the
Minhag Eretz Yisrael of old?! Should Israeli congregations be
"reclaiming their true minhag" by instituting a 3-year Torah reading
cycle? This sounds like a pretty radical suggestion, considering that
Minhag Eretz Yisrael pretty much died out around the time of the
Crusades (at least in terms of liturgy), and pretty much all of the Jews
now living in Israel now are descended from communities that considered
the Talmud Bavli to be authoritative.>>
I think that you answered the question there. Where a minhag has (in
some cases long ago) basically died out, like the triennial reading
cycle (despite attempts of some non-orthodox temples to adopt it in
recent years), perhaps we can have a DNR (do not resuscitate / revive)
policy. However, is suppressing a minhag yoshon vichoshuv that is alive
among masses of Jews today (such as wearing tefillin on chol haMoed) in
that same category?
<< As historical precedent for indigenous minhag being decided on the
basis of the opinions of non-natives, I believe that some of the customs
of middle Eastern Jewish communities were influenced by the great
numbers of refugees who came from Spain after the expulsion in 1492.
This is so much so that today, all Jews from these countries are
commonly called "sefaradim." I have heard, for example, that the
original custom in Syria was to follow Minhag Bavel -- that the berakhot
of malkhuyot, zikhronot and shofarot were recited only in the chazarat
hashatz, but not in the Musaf prayer of Rosh haShanah recited by
individuals. This changed once the Spanish Jews came in such great
numbers that they took over the Syrian communities and imported their
own minhag. >>
Who says that was right ? I believe there is a body of Rabbinic
literature that deals with the clashes of customs after the expulsion
from Spain between Sephardic and indigenous custom in places like
Turkey, Morocco, etc. There was opposition of non-Sepharadic Rabbis in
such places to the acceptance of the ways of the newly arrived
Sepharadim. Although, in the long run, most of those places adopted
Sepharadic custom, that did not occur immediately - rather only after
passage of much time, when the communities intermarried and merged,
etc., I believe. Also, I don't think the changeover was total and
universal. The general rule is for people to maintain their ancestral
customs.
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <kennethgmiller@...> (Akiva Miller)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:55:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Rambam's Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Rotzeach U'Shmiras Nefesh 12:12
In MJ 38:83, Frank Silbermann wrote <<< It might be forbidden for a Jew
to sell a weapon to a "gun buyback" program run by gentiles -- because a
destroyed weapon would not be used for defense, and because one violates
the prohibition against destroying a useful object. >>>
I can see that point of view, but I can also see where the gun is viewed
not so much as "a useful object" but more as "a dangerous object",
should it happen to fall in the wrong hands, which *would* justfiy its
destruction. As always, CYLOR.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Joelirich@...> (Joel Rich)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:21:18 EST
Subject: Re: Tircha d'Tsibura
<< I am definitely one who is sensitive to the issue of Tirche De'Tsibura,
and as such do not agree with the custom to make long 'Mi Sheberach's'
following one's Aliyah on Shabbat. However, I have to disagree with Meir
on the two points above. Maybe it is related the Rabbi's in the shuls we
each have been at, but as I see it, it is the Rabbi's job to set the pace
of davening, in particular Shema and Shemona Esrah. Thus I do not see it
as a 'Tirche' that the Tsibur needs to wait for them, but rather a lesson
for the Tsibur what pace they should allow their davening to take.
Avi Feldblum >>
True, but if he sees his pace has no effect other than to encourage idle
chatter....?
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 04:32:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Tircha d'Tsibura
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 <Joelirich@...> wrote:
> True, but if he sees his pace has no effect other than to encourage idle
> chatter....?
Then in truth, I feel very sorry for that Rabbi. I remember when I was
living in Highland Park, one of the Rabbis was not having much success in
various sermons and other actions to get people to stop talking during
davening. At one point, one of the congregants told the Rabbi's wife: it's
not that we don't understand what your husband is saying to us, but that
we don't care. That is a very unfortunate place for a Rabbi to be.
Having said that, what you see and what he sees may be different, as well
as the choices one picks. You may see only the idle chatter, he may see a
few people who do take their time in tefila and therefore do not feel
rushed. They often are not the ones who make waves, so what they are
getting out of it is often overlooked. I see both people new to tefilah,
for whom the pace some of us might consider very slow as allowing them to
finish at a pace that they can handle as well as some who can maintain the
kavanah needed to focus on each word. I find that just for Shema, to
carefully sound out each word would put you on a pace that would likely
have you finish after the Rabbi. In the meantime, if you are in a place
where there is too much idle chatter, and the Rabbi finishes long after
you do, try to have a sefer along to do some learning while you wait.
Avi Feldblum
<mljewish@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <chips@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 21:18:49 -0800
Subject: Re: Tircha d'Tsibura
> This past Shabbos being Parashas Shekolim, an additional Sefer Torah was
> used for Maftir, this despite the fact that, this year at least, the
> Parashah from which Maftir is taken, Parashas Ki Siso, is only one
> Parashah away from the weekly Parasha, Vayakhel. However, because of
> Tircha d'Tsibura, i.e. so as not to inconvenience the congregation by
> having to wait for the first Sefer Torah to be rolled back, the second
> Sefer is used. Indeed, we find other examples of measures taken to
> avoid inconveniencing the congregation.
1) it takes much shorter to roll back the 7 or so columns then to do
a Hagba and then taking up the 2nd Sefer.
2) A better point to ask the question from is that many poskim held
that when saying the brocha after the aliya one should not roll the
Sefer closed first.
3) Going too fast can be just as much of a Tircha d'Tsibura and
may even cause for there to be no Tzibur.
-p
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Danny Skaist <danny@...>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:10:53 +0200
Subject: Waiting for the Rabbi
<< how, then, can the Rabbis of many, if not all Shuls, justify haviing
the Tsibur wait for them to finish Shema and the Amidah, which at least
on days when Musaf is davenned can take perhaps five to ten minutes in
all? Meir >>
You are right. In his shulchan orach, the Rav (Alter Rebbi) paskens
that the ONLY person you have to wait for is the Av Bet Din of the city.
But it's gonna take someone with a lot more guts than me to actually
follow this hallacha.
danny
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Joelirich@...> (Joel Rich)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:23:09 EST
Subject: Re: Women Learning Gemara
> 2)from the time of the gemmara till now all halachik literature forbade it
> including r' moshe fienstien. there is a mazniam l'torah which permits it
> but he is vastly in the minority.
and prior to the establishment of the bet yaakov movement who permitted
women's learning of that nature?
> 3)as for it being out of the pale of orthodoxy, when something violates the
> shulchan aruch then it is out of the pale, which this does.
so there is no example in any facet of an "orthodox" person's life where the
clear words of the shulchan aruch are not how we are noheg (act) today?
> 4)as for modern orthodoxy in general, i will write my opinion which is
> middle of the road in the chareidi world it depends. one who still holds the
> shulchan aruch as binding is orthodox, if he chooses to be more makil then
> if he has rabbinic support he is ok, unfortunately many in the modern
> orthodox world have left this. this includes rabbis in the movement, for
> them they are beyond the pale of orthodoxy and all modern orthodox who still
> have fealty to H' and his torah as set down in the shulchan aruch should
> distance them.
I'd suggest your comment is a sociological one, not a halachik one. BTW how
did chassidut become "mainstream orthodoxy" based on your criteria?
> 5)women learning gemmara is one out of more then 30,000 sifim in shulchan
> aruch, why then is it shuch an issue? the answer is as r' moshe writes in
> his teshuvos the feminists are rebelling against H' and His Torah. R'
> herschel shacter brings this in his sefer b'ikvai tzon telech.
Is your comment based on extensive study of women who learn? Could it be
interpreted as lashon hara by those who do out of a true sense of yirat
shamayim?
We won't settle this debate but should try to be clear as to the nature of
our disagreements.
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shayna Kravetz <skravetz@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:30:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Women Learning Gemara
Moshe Pessin <mypessin@...> responded:
>1)r' solevetchik gave the opening gemmara class in stern, of his stature he
>was a da'as yachid.
Others have already posted the names of the numerous rabbis -- many of
whom would have to be acknowledged as g'dolim by anyone who looks at
their stature in Yiddishkeit -- who have approved in theory and practice
of women learning halachah. The question that arises for me, faced by
Moshe's assertion that R. Soleveitchik stood alone on this issue, is:
has Moshe not heard of any others, does he not consider any of them as
g'dolim, or does he think that on this one issue they are all operating
outside the pale of normative Orthodoxy?
>it does matter if the gedolim disapprove eventhough second tier rabbi's
>approve, see the whole issue with r' rienman and his book.
Indeed, the two issues are analogous, because both turn on the question
of truth, history, change, and halachah. I stand aghast at those who say
it is better to falsify history than to allow "unsettling" ideas to be
considered by Jewish minds. Likewise, I worry about those who beg the
question of women's learning by treating everyone who supported it as,
ipso facto, not a gadol and then argue that there are no g'dolim
supporting it.
> 2)from the time of the gemmara till now all halachik literature forbade it
> including r' moshe fienstien. there is a mazniam l'torah which permits it
> but he is vastly in the minority.
There are many voices that began as the minority but became the
majority. Every time someone first expresses an opinion, he/she is a
miniority of one. Certainly, one can say that there are many respectable
rabbonim who have adopted R. Sorotzkin's view or found their own reasons
to agree with him in the result and support women's learning at an
advanced level. (And see my response to your point 5, below.)
> 3)as for it being out of the pale of orthodoxy, when something
> violates the shulchan aruch then it is out of the pale, which this
> does.
Can you please provide an authority for this? Certainly divergence from
the shulkhan aruch requires careful consideration and support from other
authoritative halachic voices but such divergence does occur.
> 4)as for modern orthodoxy in general, i will write my opinion which is
> middle of the road in the chareidi world it depends. one who still holds the
> shulchan aruch as binding is orthodox, if he chooses to be more makil then
> if he has rabbinic support he is ok, unfortunately many in the modern
> orthodox world have left this. this includes rabbis in the movement, for
> them they are beyond the pale of orthodoxy and all modern orthodox who still
> have fealty to H' and his torah as set down in the shulchan aruch should
> distance them.
Gevalt! Please, please, please, can't we stop subdividing ourselves?
Surely the only issues are adherence to the halachic process and shmirat
mitzvot. Meiqil vs. makhmir or the primacy and authority of the
Shulkhan Aruch are subsidiary (though important!) issues, in my very
humble opinion. There are already plenty of houses where I can't go for
shabbos lunch because they are not shomer mitzvot; I am not about to
start excluding more Jews because I disagree with their or their Rav's
approach to a particular halachic question.
> 5)women learning gemmara is one out of more then 30,000 sifim in
> shulchan aruch, why then is it shuch an issue? the answer is as r'
> moshe writes in his teshuvos the feminists are rebelling against H'
> and His Torah. R' herschel shacter brings this in his sefer b'ikvai
> tzon telech.
LOL! If it's these here modern feminists that are causing all the
trouble, then we'd better give a lot of our rishonim and acharonim
credit for prescience. How is it that everyone from the Rambam to the
Sha'agat Aryeh had serious things to say about this question? It's not
just the outburst of feminism over the last 50 years in the secular
world that is driving this question -- although it would be naive to
pretend that there are no women who are driven not by love of Torah but
rather by envy of men or an ideological commitment to equality above
halachah. But are there no men who learn Torah for the "wrong" reasons
-- ga'avah, social pressure, family pressure? Let's approach everyone
who wants to learn with the idea of "she-lo-lishmah, yavo li-shmah" and
not start by assuming that someone who seeks to learn is motivated by
negative considerations.
I love the Sha'agat Aryeh's responsum on the question of the mitzvah of
writing a sefer torah, in the course of which he discusses the issue of
women's obligation for talmud torah. Of course, I could never have read
it, were it not for all the wonderful teachers -- all of whom were
Orthodox -- who believed that advanced learning for women was
appropriate.
Kol Tuv.
Shayna, the farbrente feminist'ke
Toronto
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 38 Issue 88
