Volume 44 Number 79
Produced: Tue Sep 14 5:31:55 EDT 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Ain't gonna work on Saturday
[Martin Stern]
Bishul Akum for Sefardim
[<chips@...>]
Following the minhag of the husband
[Ari Trachtenberg]
Following the minhagim of the husband (3)
[Chana Luntz, Chana Luntz, Perets Mett]
New Synagogue - Old Synagogue Connections
[David Curwin]
Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin
[Mark Steiner]
Unetane Tokef
[Pinchas Roth]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 08:58:43 +0100
Subject: Re: Ain't gonna work on Saturday
on 12/9/04 4:22 am, <Shalomoz@...> (Shalom Ozarowski) wrote:
> Question for y'all to ponder: If a baal koreh who is paid by a shul
> prepares to read a parsha and then, for whatever reason, cannot come
> to actually lein in shul on Shabbos, should the shul pay him? If they
> don't, what does that say about the reaity of this halakha?
It seems many, like Shalom, have not grasped the explanation that others
have given, it obviously requires repeating in greater detail. Basically
the baal koreh etc. in shul, or the caterer at a kiddush or other
function, do not do any melachah, halachically defined work, on shabbat
so it is not a question of some professions being allowed to work while
others are not as Daniel Lowinger puts it.
The only problem is the rabbinic ban on being paid for any service
rendered on shabbat which is circumvented by including it with other
payment for things done on a weekday such as preparation (havla'ah -
literally swallowing up of the former in the latter). Thus payment is
for the whole 'job' which has a shabbat component. If the baal koreh
prepares to read a parsha and does not actually lein, he has not
completed his agreed 'job' and cannot expect to be paid.
Daniel's example of a financial adviser whose client wished to meet him
on shabbat to discuss investments is in no way similar to the ones under
discussion since it would involve, at the very least, the rabbinic
prohibition of discussing business affairs on shabbat even if it did not
lead to the Torah melachah of writing.
A common problem is paying a baby sitter who only comes on shabbat. If
she does no babysitting (or other work) on a weekday then it is
difficult to see how she can be paid at all.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <chips@...>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:18:52 -0700
Subject: Re: Bishul Akum for Sefardim
> Incidentally this raises the question of how Sephardim can eat at
> functions catered under Ashkenazi supervision since, from my
> experience as a mashgiach, most employ non-Jewish cooks and the only
> Jewish participation is to light the fires.
When i did catering hashgacha work at Sefardic places I made sure to
stir or shake *everything* that got placed on the stove or in the
oven. I also made sure to tell the "head" person that I did so.
-rp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:34:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Following the minhag of the husband
>From: Leah Aharoni <leah25@...>
>... "a husband cannot impose his humrot on his wife in what is her
>din. Since she acts according to halakha, in accordance with the
>ruling of most poskim, ... he cannot force her to be mahmir".
>
>The question is what did Rav Moshe mean by "her din". Does this tshuva
>apply only to "women's halakhot" such as tzniut and tahara, or to all
>dinim practiced by the wife?
Though I don't have any special insight into Rav Moshe, my reading of
this would be a pragmatic one. I, for one, cannot "impose" anything on
my wife that she does not wish to accept (what exctly does it mean to
"impose" observance upon someone anyway?). As such, my wife's decisions
are based on the halachic authority that she respects (with my input
when appropriate) ... I would argue that this is "her din" as long as
it is consistent with established halacha.
Best,
-Ari
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <chana@...>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:40:18 +0100
Subject: Following the minhagim of the husband
Bernard Raab asked:
> * When a married woman and her husband return to her father's house
> for Shabbat, does she follow the minhagim she grew up with (e.g.;
> washing hands before or after kiddush, standing or sitting for
> kiddush; covering her hair for kiddush, etc., or that of her husband,
> who will also be making kiddush?
> * Does it matter if her father insists that she follow his minhagim?
> * Does the situation change when the parents visit the daughter for
> Shabbat? And the father continues to insist that his daughter observe
> his minhagim, even in her "husband's" home? Would it be a violation of
> "kibud Av" to ignore his request?
>
>These are not academic questions in some households.
No, they are not academic questions in some households, which is why it
is not surprising that in general a tension between the husband and the
wife's parents is dealt with explicitly in the Shulchan Aruch. And you
should know that, if the woman is being pushed to make a choice between
her husband and her father, her obligation is to her husband and the new
family unit, and she is therefore exempt from the obligation of kibud av
v'aim (See Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah siman 240, si'if 17).
However, you should also know that if the husband is not makpid
[particular about the matter] then she is chayav [obligated] in kibud av
v'aim (see the Shach there si'if katan 19).
And also that a man has an obligation of honouring his father-in law
(Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah siman 240, si'if 24).
But a further point to keep in mind - let me quote a Rosh on Pesachim
51. After setting out the various gemoras that deal with people going
from one place to a different place and changing or not changing their
minhagim and setting out the halacha that if one changes places without
the intention to return to one's original place, one does like both the
chumras and kulas [stringencies and leniencies] of the place in which
one is now settling, but if one intends to return to one's original
place, one does according to the chumras of one's original place. The
Rosh adds, this is only in private, but not in public, and it is not
just that one does like the chumras of the place one has come to to
avoid machlokus [dispute] but even if he goes from a place which is
strict to a place which is lenient and even if his intention is to
return he should go according to the leniencies of the place he has come
to and should not go according to the stringencies of the place he has
come from because of machlokus in the matter if it is known that he has
changed the minhag.
and he goes on to say .." because greater is the peace [hashalom] and it
is upon him to violate the minhag of his place since there is not in it
an issur d'orisa [torah prohibition] but rather they took upon
themselves an issur to be machmir upon themselves."
So, I guess I would say that first of all, the father should probably
not be demanding or putting pressure on the woman to follow his
minhagim, and if faced with two immovable people, the woman needs to
side with her husband. However, it might well be that the couple is
able to look beyond this and possibly should look beyond this, and say
that while it might be technically more correct to insist on the woman
doing what the husband is doing, in the interests of sholom, they will
go along with what is being asked of them. I think though, that if this
is a real case, the couple need to talk to their LOR. Firstly, you need
to be sure that the "minhagim" under discussion are really minhagim of
the nature referred to above by the Rosh, and there are no issurei
dorisa caught up in all of this. Secondly, there needs to be some
discussion about whether this is "really" all about minhagim, or is it
about an attempt to control the couple, or perhaps about a father
failing to come to terms with the "loss" of his daughter - and whether
giving in to the minhagim request will in fact achieve shalom, or will
just shift the battle somewhere else and maybe to something perhaps more
serious. There is clearly a lot going on here, and while what we
discuss on this list is what one might call "pure halacha" of the nature
you can quote from a source, "applied halacha" needs somebody who both
knows the pure halacha and can apply it to the specific circumstances
and peculiarities of the particular case.
Shavua tov
Chana Luntz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <heather_luntz@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:19:54 +0100
Subject: Re: Following the minhagim of the husband
Just to emphasise to you that while some hold that there is no necessary
requirement for a woman to change her nusach others hold differently, I
received the following from Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@...> (For
those who are not aware R' Daniel Eidensohn is the author of the Yad
Moshe, the widely used index to Iggeros Moshe, the collection of Rav
Moshe Feinstein's teshuvas):
>To reinforce this comment, my mechutan told me that Rav Moshe Feinstein
>told him that a women who insisted on keeping her nusach - which is
>different than her husband's - her prayers are not accepted. On the
>other hand I was also told by a close talmid of R' Eliyashiv that R'
>Eliyahsiv see nothing wrong with women retaining their original nusach.
>Daniel Eidensohn
Kind Regards
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 01:19:05 +0100
Subject: Following the minhagim of the husband
For a married woman, the wishes of her husband take precedence over
kibud av (YD 240:17, Shakh s"k 19)
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Curwin <tobyndave@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 08:48:57 +0200
Subject: New Synagogue - Old Synagogue Connections
We're in the process of starting a new synagogue in Israel. I'd like to
find out about how to start partnerships with older synagogues in Israel
or abroad.
Here's some of the ideas:
a) When older synagogues get new furniture, they must do something with
their old furniture. Perhaps it could be donated to us or sold at a
discount.
b) There are many examples of synagogues that are no longer active and
would like their memorial boards transferred to active ones.
c) Perhaps a synagogue with many sifrei torah would like to donate or
loan one to a new synagogue.
These are just a few examples, and I'm sure they happen all the time. We
just don't know how to make the connections. If anyone has any ideas -
either specific or general, in Israel or anywhere else, please contact
me.
Thanks,
David Curwin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:58:19 +0300
Subject: Re: Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin
> In fact, there were even sectrarian tefillin with 5 parshiyot as I am
> sure many MJ-ers are aware (the 5th parasha being the 10 commandments.
> Some such tefillin were found with the Dead Sea Scrolls, as were round
> tefillin. [Some have argued that the reason these tefillin were
> "nonstandard" is because the Dead Seac Sect, whoever they were, were
> not mainstream Jews, but this is a tendentious argument. Had the
> tefillion been the same people would have argued how our traditions
> have been constant for 2 millenia.]
Let's assume that Ben has insight into what people WOULD HAVE ARGUED. I
still have a lot of problems with this thesis.
First--I don't understand the logical point.. The "same
people," whoever they are supposed to be, argue that Ben's evidence does
not undermine the tradition, because the Dead Sea Jews were not part of
the tradiition but were "minim." On the other hand, were the tefillin
of (even) these sectarians the same as ours, this would confirm our
tradition. We have, then, either a confirmation of the tradition, or a
failure to confirm or disconfirm the tradition--there is no
inconsistency here at all, nor tendentiousness--this is no different
from the type of medical test Ben must be familiar with, which a
"positive" result confirms the existence of a disease, while a
"negative" result neither confirms nor disconfirms the presence of the
disease.
But there is a much deeper point to make here: not only does
Ben's evidence not undermine our tradition, it actually confirms it!
Ben here mentions three deviations from halakha: round tefillin, five
parshiot, and putting the 10 commandments in the tefillin. He argues
that these deviations, found, for example, in the Qumran caves, show
that nobody cared during that period about the details of tefillin. (By
extension, he then argues the same for the order of the parshiot,
whether Rashi or R. Tam)
Ironically, these very examples prove the oppposite. Ben leaves
out the crucial fact that Hazal knew all about such tefillin, mention
them, and condemn them as sectarian. Rectifying the omission gives us
an argument which proves the opposite and from these very examples:
Hazal cared greatly about these details:
(a) Round tefillin are roundly condemned by Hazal as not kosher and
"dangerous." )Mishnah, Megillah 4:8; the context is warning against
sectarians)
(b) The addition of the 10 commandments to the kriyat shema was
abolished by Hazal (cf. the Baraita in BTalmud, Berakhot 12a) because of
the danger of the sectarians. Ibn Ezra to Va-Ethanan states that the
sectarians (including his own contemporaneous Karaites) inserted the 10
commandments in tefillin and mezuzot because of their nontraditional
interpretation of the expression "bam" ("vedibarta
bam.,..ukeshartam...ukhetavtam"), the antecedent of which
refers--according to the minim--not to the parsha of shema (reflexively)
but to the 10 commandments (which occur in parashat Va-ethanan right
before the parasha of shema). And although Ibn Ezra is writing in the
Middle Ages, he hit the nail right on the head--the sectarian tefillin
in the Shrine of the Book here in Jerusalem, as far as I remember, have
a long parsha FROM the 10 commandmente to the parsha of kri'at shema.
(c) The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 11:3) tells us that a member of the Sanhedrin
who rules that tefillin require five parshiyot is executed! (Hardly a
lackadaisical attitude.) He's called a "zaken mamre."
Mark Steiner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pinchas Roth <pinchas2@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:44:44 +0800
Subject: Unetane Tokef
Avraham Frankel wrote an article about the story of R Amnon of Mainz. I
don't have it in front of me, but the import was that the piyut itself
is much older (which was the point Yahalom made in his article in
Haaretz). The story of R Amnon reflects the transition of the Ashkenazi
tradition from Italy to Germany (Amnon is an Italian name), and Unetane
Tokef was a piyut that was popular in Italy but unknown in Germany and
France, until someone introduced it and the story came to explain
that. (BTW, Frankel is the grandson of Daniel Goldsmith, who edited the
critical edition of the Ashkenaz machzor).
The reference is: Avraham Frankel, "Demuto HaHistorit shel R Amnon
miMagence veGilgulav shel hapiyut Unetane Tokef beItalia Germania
veZarfat", Zion 67, 2 (2002), pp. 125-138.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 44 Issue 79
