Volume 47 Number 90
Produced: Fri May 13 5:12:46 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Av Harachamim
[Ed Goldstein]
Eliyahu goes the distance
[c.halevi]
Insurance Query (Car Damage)
[Ari Trachtenberg]
Kaddish (6)
[Edward Ehrlich, Andrea Penkower Rosen, Janice Gelb, Yisrael
Medad, Ben Katz, Martin Stern]
More Divorces on Sunday (2)
[Doctor Klafter, Ari Trachtenberg]
Ov horachamim
[Lipman Phillip Minden]
Taharat HaMet
[Yisrael Medad]
Windows in Schule
[<engineered@...>]
Yes, there is a "great divide" in Religious Zionism
[Ben Katz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <bernieavi@...> (Ed Goldstein)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 08:00:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Av Harachamim
The minhag is normally to say it even on shabbat mevarchimj, but not
shabbat rosh hodesh. Ezras Torah and the Artscroll (sfard) are
unequivocal :"Follow minhag hamakom". Doh...
Rabbi Ed Goldstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: c.halevi <c.halevi@...>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:27:16 -0500
Subject: Eliyahu goes the distance
Shalom, All:
Some m-j readers have raised the question of Eliyahu HaNavi (Elijah the
Prophet) not coming on Shabbat because of T'khum (violating the law that
limits one's travel on foot during Shabbat). I think Eliyahu should get
a pass on this issue.
Pragmatically, when Eliyahu does come he will be saving the lives of
countless Jews. One is not just permitted to violate the Shabbat to save
one life - we are **commanded** to do so. Certainly Eliyahu, who will
save many lives, should be exempt from worries of the distance he may
travel to do this.
On a more mystical note, there is the concept of "qvitzat ha'derech,"
where a road is "jumped" or "shortened" to enable a holy person to
traverse great distances in a short time. Surely Eliyahu HaNavi would
have this power at this command.
Kol tuv,
Charles Chi (Yeshaya) Halevi
<halevi@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:12:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Insurance Query (Car Damage)
> From a Jewish halachic point of view, is not the key thing that
> Reuven and the Insurance Company have entered into a contract, under
> the local law, and pursuant to dina d'malchusa dina, Reuven is then
> required to keep his obligations under that contract?
I think that there actually is a more complicated dimension to the
problem. My understanding is that many insurance contracts do require
you report all damage to the car, however most people do not. As such,
people who do report all damage are penalized (for example, I have heard
of a case of a woman who did in fact report all damage, and after three
such minor reports [under the deductible], the insurance cancelled her
policy).
Best,
-Ari
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Edward Ehrlich <eehrlich@...>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:36:27 +0300
Subject: Re: Kaddish
Janice wrote:
>I did not suggest that it was an obligation. My response was to your
>statement that "it is virtually unheard of for women to do this." Also,
>thanks for the compliment but I am sure I am not the only woman who has
>taken on this obligation due to the absence or disinterest of male
>relatives.
I remember many years ago reading that when someone offered to say
Kaddish on behalf of Hadassah founder Henrietta Szold whose father had
died, she politely refused and said that she wanted to perform the
mitzvah herself.
I suppose that a woman reciting Kaddish is sort of a humrah and I would
hope that her synagogue and its members would make a great effort to
allow her to fulfill the mitzvah.
Ed Ehrlich <eehrlich@...>
Jerusalem, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrea Penkower Rosen <apr@...>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 00:16:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Kaddish
With regard to the exchange between Martin Stern and Janice Gelb, I do
not wish to negate Martin's statement that Janice is an exceptional
woman but I do wish to state that it is no longer virtually unheard of
for women to voluntarily assume the saying of kaddish daily for 11
months. Both my sister and I did so twice, in memory of our mother and
of our father, and this had nothing to do with the absence of males, as
both our brothers did so. At this moment, I can remember four women who
said kaddish daily for 11 months for one or both parents and there have
been several discussion on the WTN (Women's Tefillah Network) list about
the trials and tribulations of women (due to inhospitable minyans) who
were saying kaddish daily.
While I would not hazard a guess about the motivations of others, I
found comfort in beginning the day with communal prayer and in,
effectively, carving out uninterrupted time to remember my parents. I
felt I was honoring my parents with a commitment that would have pleased
them and that followed in each of their devotion to tefillah.
Andrea Penkower Rosen
<apr@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Kaddish
--- Edward Ehrlich <eehrlich@...> wrote:
> I suppose that a woman reciting Kaddish is sort of a humrah and I would
> hope that her synagogue and its members would make a great effort to
> allow her to fulfill the mitzvah.
Um, I don't mean to be facetious here, but how could they stop her?
-- Janice
P.S. I want to clear up a possible earlier misunderstanding: while I did
say kaddish for my mother every day during the 11 months but two, it was
only once a day, not three times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:16:01 +0200
Subject: Kaddish
Re: Janice Gelb writing:
>I am sure I am not the only woman who has taken on this obligation due
>to the absence or disinterest of male relatives.
Here at Shiloh, Miriam Merzbach (nee Picard) undertook the year-long
recital of Kaddish for her father, a founder of a Yeshiva High School in
Paris. She recited it quietly but daily. And she had several brothers,
all who recited it, too.
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 09:48:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Kaddish
I am sure Janice is exceptional, but not unique. It is too bad
Mr. Stern has not met other such women. In the Modern Orthodox community
of Skokie where I am fortunate enough to have lived for the past 13 years,
it is not at all unusual for women to take upon themselves the obligation
to say kadish. There are at least 2 women doing so in our shul right now,
and I can think of several others who have done so.
Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
e-mail: <bkatz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:02:06 +0100
Subject: Re: Kaddish
> I did not suggest that it was an obligation. My response was to your
> statement that "it is virtually unheard of for women to do this [say
> kaddish]." Also, thanks for the compliment but I am sure I am not the
> only woman who has taken on this obligation due to the absence or
> disinterest of male relatives.
As I wrote, I have never met a woman who has made the effort to attend
shul three times a day, or at least once, to say kaddish regularly for
the whole eleven months. Do any other members of mail-jewish know of
any? The only time I have ever seen women in shul on an ordinary weekday
morning is those few of German ancestry (and no small children to care
for) who come when they have yahrzeit.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Doctor Klafter <doctorklafter@...>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 00:22:54 -0400
Subject: More Divorces on Sunday
> Leah Gordon wrote:
> >I strongly suspect that this is not unlike the way we get more mail on
> >Mondays, and even more after a postal holiday. Surely, all the mail
> >[divorce cases] that would have piled up on the holiday, is pushed off
> >to the next business day!
Yisrael & Batya Medad <ybmedad@...> responded
> possibly. but, of course, divorce files in Israel are not opened by
> mail; one must come in personally. if Rav Eliyahu is correct, then
> something must have happened over Shabbat that caused the proverbial
> "camel's back" to break, rather than midweek. the difference is the
> Shabbat and the potentiality for increased family friction.
I was surprised when I read the original posting, which implies that
Shabbos may actually be responsible for divorces, and posits that people
may be on the fence about whether to divorce or not and then suddenly,
because of an argument on Shabbos, will immediately file for divorce the
next day.
With all due respect to Ha-Gaon Hacham Ovadia Yosef, shlit"a, I think
that divorce is much more complex than an argument over the Sabbath.
Sunday is the first business day of the week--this seems like a much
more reasonable explanation. Doesn't everyone realize that couples have
probably been talking about divorce for months or years? Have probably
made arrangements to live separately, or have already begun living
separately, have negotiated how child care and support will be handled,
etc. etc? The day that people choose to file is just one step in a
long, complex, and painful process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:19:44 -0400
Subject: More Divorces on Sunday
I think that Leah's point is merely a statistical ... if one is equally
likely to get divorced on any given day, then if the office is closed on
Saturday, we should expect roughly twice as many divorces on Sunday.
best,
-Ari
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lipman Phillip Minden <phminden@...>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:52:39 +0200
Subject: Ov horachamim
Martin Stern wrote:
>> 1 the Shabbos before Shovuos
>> 2 the Shabbos before Tisho b'Ov
>> 3 after yizkor
>
> This is the West German (Minhag HaRhinus in the Maharil's terminology),
> not the East German or Polish, custom, except that the third occasion
> does not occur since Yizkor is not said at all and is replaced by a
> different custom called Matnat Yad.
> [...]
> Martin Stern
Only a minor addition:
This seems to be not only Minneg Reines, but the general older Minneg
Ashkenez. Yizker wasn't replaced by in the West by Matenes yad, but
Matenes yad was replaced in the East by the innovation of Yizkor.
Some Yekkishe communities, some formerly Yekkishe and some with a mixed
clientele have indeed both, among them R' Breuer's after the Churben. Some
Eastern German kehilles had introduced Yizker even before WW 2, but only
on YK.
Lipman Phillip Minden
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:22:50 +0200
Subject: Taharat HaMet
Re: David Chasman asking
>Is anyone out there aware of any articles tracing the history of this
>ritual ?
All I can contribute is that once, when a very young boy, I poured out a
glass of water or juice for someone sitting next to me by tilting the
bottle away from me, sort of backhandedly.
My step-grandmother (my grandfather, when widowed, went back to Brody in
Poland in 1932 to marry the younger sister of his late wife) got very
excited and ordered me fairly abruptly to stop immediately. I was later
told that that is the way the water is spilled out in the Taharat HaMet
ritual.
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <engineered@...>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 08:33:40 -0400
Subject: Windows in Schule
A local Lubavitch rabbi does not allow the window shades to be raised
during dovening. He claims that it is forbidden by the Schulchan Aruch
as a distraction. I have not been able to find anything like that. In
fact, I have found one reference saying that a person can not build too
close to the windows of a schule so as to block their light. Can
anybody shed any light on this subject?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 09:40:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Yes, there is a "great divide" in Religious Zionism
>From: Bruce Abrams <bruce_abrams@...>
>Ben Katz writes of the "non-observant branches of Judaism." I'd like to
>clarify that there is no such thing as a "non-observant branch of
>Judaism", but rather, that there are non-observant Jews within each
>branch. The fact is that the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform branches
>all define "observance" differently from one another, ie. Shmirat
>Shabbat has a different meaning between the Conservative and Orthodox
>definition, but both define Shabbat observance to their respective
>adherents.
I stand corrected. I meant non-Orthodox. In fact, I dislike
denominational terms such as Orthodox and generally define myself as
observant (I used to say traditional, but now that I live in the midwest
that term too has a denominational meaning, but that is another story),
and I recognize that there are observant Conservative and Reform Jews
(the problem being, as Mr. Abrams points out, that the ratio of
observant/nonobservant decreases as one moves from Orthodox -->
Conservative --> Reform, which is why I choose to associate mainly with
the Orthodox). Unfortunately, my dislike of the denominational term
made me write "non-observant" when in this case I truly meant
"non-Orthodox".
Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
e-mail: <bkatz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 47 Issue 90
