Volume 41 Number 81
Produced: Fri Jan 16 5:41:39 US/Eastern 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Being Denied Entry To A Shul.
[Ari Trachtenberg]
Bekorot-8B
[Bob Werman]
Hebrew grammar Article
[Paul Shaviv]
Kashruth in the Israeli Army
[Edward Ehrlich]
Learning Aggadah from Halachah
[<nzion@...>]
Sha-atah
[Eitan Fiorino]
Shul Dress Code for a Shaliach Tsibbur
[David Prins]
Torah and other sources of Knowledge
[Michael Kahn]
Who Carries the Torah Through on the Women's Section (4)
[Warren Burstein, Alan Friedenberg, Issie Scarowsky, The
Rogovin Family]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:39:56 -0500
Subject: Being Denied Entry To A Shul.
>The security guard seemed to be saying that we weren't allowed in with
>cameras, and that if we wanted to come in to daven we would have to
>abandon all our photographic equipment in the street.
Judging from the tone of your post, it sounds like you weren't treated
well at all ... which is inappropriate regardless of the validity of
denying your entrance.
I can, however, think of one good reason to deny cameras in the shul:
security. One of the first things that terrorists do is detailed
reconnaissance, including photographs, of their intended target. In
this case, fear for the life of those in the synagogue would be a
legitimate reason for denying your access IMHO.
Best,
-Ari Trachtenberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <RWERMAN@...> (Bob Werman)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:02 +0200
Subject: Bekorot-8B
Can anyone help me with the real meaning of the rather strange debate
between R. Yehoshu'a and the elders of the Athenian academy on Bechorot
8b?
Thanks.
__Bob Werman
Jerusalem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Shaviv <shaviv@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:14:24 -0500
Subject: Hebrew grammar Article
Many of the issues raised by Mr. Bazarov in regard to the Masorah, and
grammatical differences in the Masoretic text (ie in the Sefer Torah)
etc are dealt with in B.Barry Levy's book "Fixing God's Torah" (Oxford
University Press, 2001). This is a detailed survey of halakhic
discussions regarding (the minor) differences in the traditions of the
way that the text of the Humash is written in Sifrei torah.
Paul Shaviv, Toronto
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Edward Ehrlich <eehrlich@...>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:59:13 +0200
Subject: Kashruth in the Israeli Army
Tzvi Stein wrote:
>Add to that the obtuse Israeli Army regulations that would force him to
>join the army (an intensely non-charedi atmosphere where even getting
>kosher food is difficult) the moment he would leave kollel. I think
it's a >culture that is at work here, much more than personal choices.
Tzvi's remarks give a distorted picture of Kashruth in the I.D.F.
(Israeli Defense Forces). All I.D.F. kitchens observe the rules of
Kashruth by command. There are two problems which CAN make getting
kosher food difficult in certain cases. In some small bases or
outposts, especially where soldiers do their own cooking, the
enforcement of Kashruth regulations can be lax. But in every such case
that I encountered, the soldiers who did not observe Kashruth made sure
there was food set aside for any soldier who did observe Kashruth. The
second problem is that the meat in an army kitchen is not necessarily
Glatt. I did my basic training with several Haradeim (whose army service
was delayed because of Yeshiva study) and who received battle rations
which were Glatt Kosher. Their diet was a bit monotonous, but they
didn't have any particular difficulty observing Kashruth.
Of course, the more Shomeir Mitzvot Jews who serve in the I.D.F. the
easier it will be for those who are there.
Ed Ehrlich <eehrlich@...>
Jerusalem, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <nzion@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:11:54 +0200
Subject: Re: Learning Aggadah from Halachah
> From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
> But there are the exceptions and I wish someone would explain them. My
> favorite is the Aggadtah in beracoth: "The angels asked God about the
> contradiction (a) God does not show favoritism (b) May God show
> favoritisim to you (Priestly blessing). God responded: Should I not show
> favoritisim to the Jews--I commanded them to bless me after eating and
> begin satisfied and they bench after eating only an olive size!"
>
> From this we learn the law that there is a Biblical obligation to bench
> after eating an olive size of bread.
I'm really not sure where the last sentence "From this we learn the law
that there is a Biblical obligation to bench after eating an olive size
of bread" came from. A) There is no biblical obligation to bentch unless
one is satiated, bentching after eating an olive size is a rabbinical
obligation. B) The halacha is not based on the story. The story teaches
us Hashem's special treatment of the Jewish people because they accepted
upon themselves extra requirements. This is not the source for the extra
requirement. In other words in this case the aggdah is reflecting upon
an already existing custom and not vice versa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eitan Fiorino <Fiorino@...>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:14:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Sha-atah
> From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
> > I am puzzled
> > at the inconsistency in some non-Ashkenazi prayerbooks between 'anaxnu at
> > the beginning of the paragraph and 'anu at the end. I understand that
> > Modim D'Rabbanan is a compilation of phrases from many sources, but it is
> > an ancient compilation, and I would have expected the original editors to
> > have imposed some consistency on its language.
> Its 'literary source' is all from Sota 40A, although the phrases are
> quotes from several different people. Interestingly, *all* of them used
> "anu", so what excuse is there to change this to 'anachnu' (or 'anaxnu')?
I'd think it was changed to anachnu to parallel the usage in the brachah
of Modim.
-Eitan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Prins <prins@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:12:08 +1100
Subject: Shul Dress Code for a Shaliach Tsibbur
David Waysman wrote (v41i69) regarding a kehilla that is currently
between LORs where he was invited to be the Shaliach Tsibbur, only to
have the invitation withdrawn when a shule official noticed that he was
wearing sandals, but no socks. He also referred to the informality of
some Israeli shuls where socks are not mandatory.
Perry Zamek's response (v41i75) included the following:
1. "The problem arises when there is no formal statement of
requirements, and then incidents such as that described by David Waysman
might occur - the gabbai or someone else decides that a certain form of
dress is inappropriate, even though nothing has been said about it
previously. Of course, if the previous LOR had ruled accordingly, then
there is no point of argument."
2. "Where the congregation has a standard of dress that it imposes on
the shaliach tzibbur, it is reasonable to assume that it is based on
k'vod hatzibur (the honour/respect due to the congregation). Thus, for
example, I understand that many shules in the US require someone getting
an aliyah to the Torah to wear a jacket, even if they are wearing a
talit."
In a kehilla that is between rabbis in which I sometimes daven, a
requirement for wearing of a jacket has also been raised as an issue,
and each of these points is relevant:
1. The immediately previous Rav ruled that this requirement for a jacket
was not necessary, but a gabbai says that this dress code applies and
bases this on a ruling that he says was made by an earlier Rav (z"l). I
think there is some question here as to whether and in what circumstance
a Rav can change the ruling of a previous Rav in a kehilla, and after a
Rav has left whether one can or should revert back to following the
rulings of an earlier Rav.
2. The gabbai has been known to apply the requirement for a jacket to
the shaliach tzibbur and to the person who leins (reads from the Torah)
or reads a haftarah, but never to people getting an aliyah, or hagbah,
or gelilah, or opening of the ark. Is there any reason for applying a
higher standard of dress to he who reads from the Torah as against he
who receives an aliyah?
Incidentally, this particular kehilla aspires towards religious Zionism
(to the extent that is possible outside Israel) and would most readily
be identified with kehillot in Israel where no requirement for a jacket
[or perhaps socks] would exist. Indeed visitors to the kehilla from
Israel are often bemused and sometimes find themselves having to borrow
a jacket from someone else (as I also do as necessary on hot days).
Also, if as Perry suggests, a requirement for a jacket stems from k'vod
hatzibur, is the Shul dress code something that should evolve as fashion
evolves (within halacha and laws of tzniut)? For example, it was
reported yesterday that the Premier of New South Wales in Australia had
requested that suit jackets should not be worn during the [Southern
Hemisphere] summer. Obviously I am not advocating following "fashion"
which goes contrary to halacha. But within halacha should the fashion
of formal attire influence what we wear in order to respect the
congregation? Is following secular fashion an issue in its own right
(chukat ha-goy), and if so is it more chukat ha-goy to wear a jacket or
not to wear a jacket?
David Prins
Australia (where it is now mid-summer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kahn <mi_kahn@...>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:40:38 -0500
Subject: RE: Torah and other sources of Knowledge
>Also, we study medicine and other sciences, for example, because it
>would be silly to attempt to cure someone without such external (to
>Torah) knowledge, relying exclusively on Torah (codes?).
There is a tremendous difference. One, medicine deals with physical
ailments unlike the Torah is not a medical book. (I am not enamored with
codes because they are not part of our age-old mesorah, except perhaps
if you consider the Gorel Hagra as a form of codes, but that's another
discussion.) Secondly, the Tora tells us Varapo Yirapa, which the Talmud
tells us is the source that we may consult doctors. (In fact, the
Talmud's wording is - from here is the source that the Torah GIVES
PERMISSION for the doctor to heal. The implication is that even
consulting doctors required a special dispensation from the Torah, a
dispensation not given for Zen, unless you can show me a source.)
>Likewise, we may have what to learn from psychology, sociology,
>philosophy, literature, etc. and maybe even Zen (but not Avoda Zara).
I feel psychology is a form of medicine. (Years back I heard a Rov
consider comparing psychology to Refua Segulis, or a form of medicine
which is permitted because it clearly works despite the fact that we
don't fully understand why it works.)
Torah and philosophy is an old disagreement among the rishonim. It is
pretty much moot in today's postmodern society which no longer values
philosophy like it used to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Warren Burstein <warren@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:30:02 +0200
Subject: RE: Who Carries the Torah Through on the Women's Section
> From: Aaronson, Jeffrey B. <JAaronson@...>
> When we return the Torah, it is carried through the women's section. At
> other shul's where this is done, who carries the Torah - a man or a
> woman?
At Kehilat Yedidya, a woman (or more than one, if there are multiple
Torahs), carries it through the women's section to the ark, where a
second woman places it in the ark and closes it. The Torah passes
through both sections of the shul (which are side by side and on the
same level) both when it is taken out of the ark and when it is
returned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Friedenberg <elshpen@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:11:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Who Carries the Torah Through on the Women's Section
I occasionally daven at a shule in Pittsburgh that does this. The chazan
(male) carries the Torah. I also remember davening Musaph for the amud
at a shule many years ago while attending an ufruff. I was quite shocked
to have the rabbi tell me to carry the Torah through the women's section.
Alan Friedenberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Issie Scarowsky <issie.scarowsky@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:52:20 -0500
Subject: Who Carries the Torah Through on the Women's Section
I daven with an orthodox minyan in a Jewish long term care facility.
When the Torah is taken out, the chazan - usually the Rabbi - carries
the Torah through the woman's section and when the Torah is returned,
the chazan takes it through the men's section.
I asked the Rabbi about the practice and he explained that it is done to
appease some of the women residents (and their families) who had
previously participated in conservative services.
Issie Scarowsky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: The Rogovin Family <rogovin@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:11:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Who Carries the Torah Through on the Women's Section
At Lincoln Square Synagogue, the minhag is for the chazan (and for
multi-sefer days the other male honorees) to carry the sefer in the
women's section (the mechitza actually has a built-in door expressly for
this purpose. At the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale (Rav Avi Weiss), the
Torah is taken out of the aron by a man, carried around the men's side
and then handed off to a woman to carry it so that men and women remain
on their respective sides of the mechitza (the bimah actually straddles
the mechitza, or more accurately, the mechitza splits and does around
the bimah on both sides and then goes up to the aron). The latter is
also the custom of the Drisha minyan for high holidays. Rabbi Rosenblatt
of the Riverdale Jewish Center suggested implementing the same procedure
after the renovation of the main shul would have permitted such, but the
congregation rejected it. The HIR/Drisha procedure seems to make more
sense to me as well as being symbolically important, but the LSS
procedure may have more going for it historically, since in the beit
hamikdash, the women's section was really mixed, women's section meaning
that that was a far as women could go. Yet, if women desire to carry the
Torah, there may be precedent (allowing smicha in korbanot to satisfy
women's desire to participate, for example, and the routine objections
about niddah appear to have little merit).
Michael Rogovin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 41 Issue 81
