Volume 50 Number 08
Produced: Thu Nov 17 7:31:45 EST 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Brit Milah
[Martin Stern]
Chapel
[Nathan Lamm]
Christian directories (2)
[N Miller, Arnie Kuzmack]
Christian Directories
[Bernard Raab]
Davening in a non-denominational chapel (2)
[Carl A. Singer, Joseph Kaplan]
Jewish directories
[Joseph Ginzberg]
Ketuba
[Joseph Tabory]
Starbucks and the 'Holiday'
[Baruch C. Cohen]
xmas in Starbucks
[Batya Medad]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:59:47 +0000
Subject: Re: Brit Milah
on 16/11/05 10:30 am, Stephen Phillips <admin@...> wrote:
> For all Gerim Brit Milah is performed before Tevillah (Yoreh De'ah
> 268:1). Why, I'm not sure. But it is also brought there in the Rama that
> there is an opinion that if the Tevillah was performed first it is no
> good and, according to the Shach, should be done again after Milah.
Is it possible that the or haorlah is considered as a chatsitsah
(interposition) which disqualifies the tevilah?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 05:30:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Chapel
> Many poskim, including the Rav...write that one cannot even pray in a
> conservative synagogue, as the shul itself has no "sanctity". It is
> reasoned that one, therefore, for sure cannot pray in a church, or
> non-Jewish chapel.
By that logic, one can't pray in a room in one's house, or in a shul
with no women and no mechitzah. The Rav was discussing in those cases
houses of Jewish worship with no mechitzah or mixed seating; I don't
think the example can be extended to a non-denominational chapel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: N Miller <nmiller@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:28:45 -0500
Subject: Christian directories
I've been staring at Shmuel Himelstein's amazing statement, to wit:
> Furthermore, no Jewish directory would or could be used to foster
> "anti-Christianity", while a Christian directory can certainly be used
> to foster anti-Semitism. If you're not on the list, you're part of
> "the other," with all the implications of that status.
for the last 15 minutes and I still can't figure out how he managed that
insight.
Noyekh Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Arnie Kuzmack <Arnie@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 06:23:59 -0500
Subject: Christian directories
Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...> responded
| Wow! I launched an avalanche with this topic! First, I didn't know
| (having lived in Israel for the past 30 years) about the Jewish
| directories. Second, I still think there is a difference. Assuming for
| argument's sake that the Jews represent 3% of the US population, there
| is a quantitative and qualitative difference between a Jewish
| directory, suggesting that the 3% of the population by from its
| members, and the 97% suggesting that they buy from their 97%. [snip]
Actually, the "Christians" (as the term is understood by those using it)
are not the other 97%. These are the "born again" Christians or
Evangelical Protestants, who rightly consider themselves a minority and
are very interested in bringing nominal Christians into their version of
Christianity. Their target groups include Catholics, mainstream
Protestants, and non-observant Christians, as well as, of course, Jews,
Muslims, Hindus, etc.
Further, they are not particularly anti-Jewish. In fact, compared to
the American population as a whole, they are very pro-Israel.
I spent a few minutes googling around some of these publications, and
they were pretty shvakh. Most had only a handful of businesses listed.
They were largely lists of religiously-based institutions, such as
churches, schools, social service providers, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:28:06 -0500
Subject: Christian Directories
>Wow! I launched an avalanche with this topic! First, I didn't know
>(having lived in Israel for the past 30 years) about the Jewish
>directories. Second, I still think there is a difference. Assuming for
>argument's sake that the Jews represent 3% of the US population, there
>is a quantitative and qualitative difference between a Jewish directory,
>suggesting that the 3% of the population by from its members, and the
>97% suggesting that they buy from their 97%. When 3% of the population
>buys in a restricted market, that hardly affects the commerce of the
>97%. When 97% refrain from buying from the 3%, that can be an end of the
>3%'s existence commercially.
But as I pointed out in my original response, this is certainly not the
case in New York, where the Jewish-owned businesses could be a majority
in the particular industry or business being advertised.
>Furthermore, no Jewish directory would or could be used to foster
>"anti-Christianity", while a Christian directory can certainly be used
>to foster anti-Semitism. If you're not on the list, you're part of "the
>other," with all the implications of that status.
I am sorry but I don't get the distinction here at all. If I understand
you correctly, you suggest that if Jews buy from Jews preferentially,
this could not be said to be anti-Christian, whereas when a Christian
makes the same suggestion in reverse, this could be anti-semitism? If
you are arguing that historically, etc. etc. this suggests that Jews
have a free ride to discriminate because we have been the victims of
discrimination. What is the halacha which permits this?
b'shalom--Bernie R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl A. Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 06:16:32 -0500
Subject: Davening in a non-denominational chapel
> There is a popular book, Sanctity of the Synagogue (by Baruch Levin),
> where issues such as praying in a non-orthodox shul, or one that doesn't
> have a mechitza, are dealth with. Many poskim, including the Rav
> (although I forget Reb Moshe's view), write that one cannot even pray in
> a conservative synagogue, as the shul itself has no "sanctity". It is
> reasoned that one, therefore, for sure cannot pray in a church, or
> non-Jewish chapel.
But there's a difference (between non-denominational chapel and ...)
Is the prohibition above against (participating in) the service or
entering the building, or both?
Issues related to davening in a conservative synagogue may center around
davening with a mixed kahilla (clearly without a mechitzah) etc. So it
may be an issue of what service are you participating in and with whom.
Perhaps some would even feel uncomfortable walking into such a place
(why?) even if they're doing so for non-prayer reasons -- to donate
blood, take a CPR course, vote, whatever.
In a church we're speaking of a building (or room) where there are
icons, etc., as well as where non-Jewish prayer takes place.
Let's reverse the question, where should you daven? Here are two
instances:
1 - The (only?) prayer that is d'oraysah (Biblical as opposed to
Rabbinic) is our requirement (yes, requirement!) to pray to the Rebbono
Shel Oylam in time of distress. You're in a hospital where a loved on
is gravely ill. Where do you go to pray? Perhaps you could do so in
the hospital room -- but there may be issues related to the place
(bathroom, odors, etc.) and your prayer may upset the patient. You
could find a stairwell or quiet corner -- but you may get interrupted.
You could go to a non-denominational chapel.
2 - There are many mincha minyans in office buildings. Some are held in
conference rooms, some in out of the way alcoves, etc. What if
management sets aside, or lets you reserve a conference room for a 15
minute period in the afternoon. Does that room need any sanctity --
does it matter if that same room is used by a Christian (group or
individual) for prayer?
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Kaplan <penkap@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:22:26 -0500
Subject: Davening in a non-denominational chapel
I'm not sure what Rabbi Solovietchik would have said about davening in a
non-denominational chapel, but I do not believe it is what Paul Azous
said he said. The Rav, in writing about (and prohibiting) listening to
the Shofer in a Conservative shul on Rosh Hashana, was not basing his
psak on the lack of a mechitza or the fact that it was a Conservative
shul. Rather, the basis was that there was mixed seating, and a shul
where men and women are davening while seated together has no sanctity.
Thus, this psak does not apply to, for example, a Conservative shul
where men and women sit separately although there is no mechitza.
Moreover, given the context, it does not apply to a non-denominational
chapel where only men are davening. Again, I emphasize that I do not
know what the Rav would have said in such cases; I know only that in his
articles in the Baruch Litvin (not Levin) book, he was not talking about
such cases.
On a closely related point, I would also direct Mail Jewish members to
the book put out recently by the Toras Harav Foundation (I don't
remember the exact name; it is something like Community Covenent and
[another C word]). There is a letter in it from him about the building
of a non-denominational chapel in, I think, Cornell. The Rav was very
much against it and details his reasons. But he does not say one can't
daven there; rather he explains why Jews should not participate in the
construction of such a chapel.
Joseph Kaplan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 09:41:09 -0500
Subject: Jewish directories
>is a quantitative and qualitative difference between a Jewish
>directory, suggesting that the 3% of the population by from its
>members, and the 97% suggesting that they buy from their 97%. When 3%
>of the population
Need I point out that in Ireland the Protestants and the Catholics have
been killing each other for generations? To you, the 97% is all the
same- non-Jews. They perceive themselves as very different, though, and
in fact feel often that they are victims of discrimination. Remember the
surprise at the ability of JFK to get elected, despite his charisma,
because he was Catholic? Differences between the Christian sects are
often far more divisive and volatile than those between Jewish
denominations. To me, that's some solace for our own internal troubles!
Yossi Ginzberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Tabory <taborj@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:53:59 +0200
Subject: RE: Ketuba
I would like to point out that chazal stated that the reason for
requiring a kesuba is so that a man may not divorce his wife
freely. Based on this reasoning, the mechaber rules that a man who
married a woman whom he had raped does not have to write a kesuba since
he is forbidden to divorce her anyway. Following this, the Rama states
that in places where a man is not allowed to divorce his wife against
her will, there is no need for a kesuba. He adds that in "these
countries", where herem derabeinu gershom is accepted, one may be
lenient about writing a kesuba but this is not the minhag and one should
not change the minhag.
Joseph Tabory
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Azqbng@...> (Baruch C. Cohen)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 08:38:36 EST
Subject: Re: Starbucks and the 'Holiday'
From: <asapper@...> (Art Sapper)
With all respect, such complaints should not be made, for they
would imply that Hanukah should be celebrated as if it were a
major Jewish holiday, on a par with Xmas for non-Jews. But that
would be false to the message and purpose of Hanukah. Hanukah at
its core celebrates Jewish difference and separateness. Jews
fought and died to keep Judaism and Jews from being Hellenized,
and it is their victory that the holiday celebrates. Asking a
merchant to mark Hanukah alongside Xmas -- turning Hanukah into
chrisnukah -- falsely equates the two and detracts from Hanukah's
core message and purpose. In addition, elevating a minor holiday
in this way implicitly denigrates Judaism's major holidays.
Finally, I question the propriety -- not to mention the wisdom --
of pressuring a perhaps non-Jewish proprietor to celebrate a
Jewish holiday, even a major one, such as Pesach.
I must respectfully disagree with Reb Art Sapper. It's not about pitting
or comparing Chanukah with Xmas, and it's not about the fear of not
wanting to antagonizing gentiles. That's a complete misread of the
situation. It's about a Jewish-owned mega-corporation that strategically
places its stores in the heart of religious Jewish communities (i.e.,
Hancock Park & Beverly Hills in Los Angeles) where 95% of the clientele
of these well-positioned stores are orthodox Jews; and to go all out
with garish Xmas decorations -- is simply disrespectful and
disgraceful. [Imagine, if you will, a Starbucks located in the frummest
section of Meah Shearim in Yerushalayim decorating it's store with
Xmas(?)]. The Jewish-owned corporation does not need to flaunt and 'go
all out' with Christian-based celebrations, especially where it is
out-of-place. Better not to have any decorations at all (the Grande
latte will still taste the same), but if Starbucks is going to decorate,
then it show some balance, consideration and respect for the demographic
community in which it chooses to place its stores. Reb Steve Goldstein
is right: Starbucks should be called to the mat on this one.
Baruch C. Cohen, Esq.
Los Angeles, CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:45:43 +0200
Subject: Re: xmas in Starbucks
The most suitable and effective thing would be for those Jews who care
just to "boycott" or avoid going there while the decorations are up. If
any of the workers or others ask why you're not going in, just say that
you're "not comfortable" with the decorations.
Batya
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/
http://me-ander.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 50 Issue 8
