Volume 50 Number 47
Produced: Wed Dec 7 5:50:05 EST 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Davening Times
[Mordechai]
Horachamon Hu Yokim Lonnu
[Art Werschulz]
Responsibilities of the Host (5)
[Joel Rich, Jeanette Friedman, Arie, Yakir, .cp.]
Tahanun and presence of a Hatan
[Martin Stern]
The Term "homophobia" and Some Questions (2)
[Ari Trachtenberg, Avi Feldblum]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mordechai <mordechai@...>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:38:33 -0500
Subject: Davening Times
> Why did Michael go to an earlier minyan which davenned shemonei esrei
> before haneits hachammah which is certainly permitted, at least in his
> circumstances, and was the norm in Europe in previous generations? We
> regularly do so in the winter in Manchester and only those with no need
> to rush to work wait for sunrise.
To answer your question. I went to the earliest minyan in Boca.
Actually I founded the earliest minyan in Boca Raton.
I understand why people want a longer minyan. I applaud your desire and
your ability to go to the longest minyan possible. I can see an
arguement for an even longer minyan. For me to properly daven with
kavanna and try and utilize some of the ideas I've seen in R Kaplan's
Jewish mediation would probably take a minyan of 1-2 hours. Indeed
gemorrah actrually indicates our sages took quite a long time for
davenning.
My complaint is about those who attack and criticise those who don't
have the time for these ideal long davening times. Most people don't
have the time for these long times. Let's take my shuls 40 minute
Shacharit. It must end at 7 AM to allow the school Rabbeim to get to
work. If we tried to get it started any earlier than 6:20 we wouldn't
suceed. As it is we have many shul members who go to the other shul
down the blocks 6:25 - 7 AM minyan. We also have the problem of people
(including Rabbeim) coming late. No matter how early you start a
minyan, if people want a shorter minyan they will just come later.
Yes its easy to say someone else should get up 10-15 minutes earlier for
a minyan. If someone is up till late for their reasons, which can range
from late night extra work, working on a community fundraiser or just
needing to relax after getting the kids to bed. They may not be
physically able to get up in time for the longer minyan.
There are many types of Jews. We need to respect that just as you need
a longer minyan others will need a shorter one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Art Werschulz <agw@...>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:33:46 -0500
Subject: Horachamon Hu Yokim Lonnu
Immanuel Burton <iburton@...> wrote:
> The Siddur that I generally use states the addition of "horachamon hy
> yokim lonnu es sukas Dovid ha'nofeles" on Succos is made only on Chol
> Ha'Moed, and not on the initial days of Yom Tov. Does anyone know where
> the source for this is?
The only explanation I've ever heard is that a sukkah wouldn't be built
on Yom Tov. But this doesn't explain why the line would be included on
Shabbat Hol HaMoed.
Art Werschulz (8-{)} "Metaphors be with you." -- bumper sticker
GCS/M (GAT): d? -p+ c++ l u+(-) e--- m* s n+ h f g+ w+ t++ r- y?
Internet: agw STRUDEL cs.columbia.edu
ATTnet: Columbia U. (212) 939-7060, Fordham U. (212) 636-6325
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 21:46:43 -0500
Subject: Responsibilities of the Host
> As I understand the origin of the custom, it comes from the behaviour of
> Avraham following the incident of the three individuals / angels visiting
> him. So the question of whether one should accompany ones guest by at
> least a few steps in case where the guest has come to visit him as a
> bikur cholim visit, the origin of the practice is from such a situation.
See sotah 46b and the Maharsha there re minimum (4 amot)
See also Rambam hilchot avel 14:3
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <FriedmanJ@...> (Jeanette Friedman)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 07:36:49 EST
Subject: Re: Responsibilities of the Host
Rather than focus on whether this is a practice or a halachic
requirement, I would like to see more people focus on being
stringent in these type of practices, that I think have a
significant impact on how one interacts with one's fellow Jew,
than on the average "chumrah" being discovered in parts of our
community.
This is what gets Jews into deep deep trouble. It's the reason for the
Chumrah of the month club and the reason people hate each other. After
all, who would want to make a shidduch with low lifes who use colored
tablecloths on Shabbos or whose hat brims aren't wide enough or worn at
the correct angle, and who don't walk people all the way to the door,
even if they are half dead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <aliw@...> (Arie)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 19:08:19 +0200
Subject: Re: Responsibilities of the Host
in MJ 50/44, Avi Feldblum wrote:
>I find the responses to this question disappointing. There appears
>to be a negative response to this, since it sounds like people have
>never heard of this behaviour in the past. If that is true, I think that
>is sad.
If you take a look at parshat egla arufa at the end of shoftim (devarim
21, 1-9) you'll find that rashi asks - why the elders ? would anyone
suspect them of murder ? rather, says rashi, we didn't see the stranger
and let him leave without food and without accompanying him on his
way. the maharal picks up on this point and says that the declaration
required of the elders seems to imply that had the stranger been
accompanied, he may not have been killed. but there is no mitzva to see
the stranger all the way to his destination ?! when a host takes the
trouble to escort a stranger part of the way, explains the maharal, he
shows solidarity with a fellow jew, and when that happens, HKB"H
responds by providing an extra measure of protection.
when someone leaves my office, i get up and escort him/her/them out of
my office and to the front door, based on this parsha.
arie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yakir <yakirhd@...>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:52:42 +0200
Subject: re: Responsibilities of the Host
It was written:
> Certainly ritual is holy and vital, but to such an extent? Is it really
> an "obligation" for the host to walk a few steps accompanying his
> visitor the same way it's an obligation to recite Shema?
I agree !!
Based in part on the precedent of Avraham Avinu it should be obvious to
all that the obligation of "hachnasat orchim" is much higher than
"kabbalt ol shamayim". :-) or not
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: .cp. <chips@...>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 9:01:36 -0800
Subject: Re: Responsibilities of the Host
> Is anyone aware of published discussions on what the requirements
> of the host are when the host is being visited due to the host
> being ill [a choleh] ? For instance, is the host automatically
> free of the requirement to accompany the visitor a few steps when
> the visitor leaves?
>
>Of course. No ill person is expected to climb out of bed or stand up from
>a chair for a minhag that many people don't even know exists. Why would
>someone who is being mevaker cholim even dare to expect such a thing, and
>why would the sick person feel compelled to do so? Why is that even an
>ISSUE?
What exactly is your problem?
#1: accompanying the visitor was, as stated, an example - there are
other requirements of a host.
#2: THE ONE WHO ASKED WAS THE HOST !
#3: If as you claim , accompanying a visitor is unknown, then a host
doing so when it would stick out would be of greater benefit to
spreading the knowledge of such a rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:53:14 +0000
Subject: Re: Tahanun and presence of a Hatan
on 6/12/05 10:27 am, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabba.hillel@...>
wrote:
>> From: Rise Goldstein <rbgoldstein@...>
>> My understanding, which may or may not be correct, is that tahanun *is*
>> said in the presence of a second- (or third-, or higher-order) time
>> hatan, even if the kallah he has just married is a first-time bride.
>>
>> First, is this understanding of halachah lema'aseh (the way things are
>> actually done) correct?
AFAIK tachanun is never said in the presence of a chatan during the week
of sheva berakhot. However there is no such week when both the chatan
and the kallah were previously married so, in that case, the question
does not arise. The omission of tachanun is no reflection on the status
of either party individually since it takes place whenever either is
marrying for the first time.
> The actions of a tzibbur when a chasan is present, reflect the status
> of that chasan. Thus, even if tachanun were to be said in the
> presence of a chasan who has married again, it would not reflect on
> the bride but only on the chasan.
In this case it would imply that the kallah was marrying for the first
time and not depend on the chatan's status at all.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:39:47 -0500
Subject: Re: The Term "homophobia" and Some Questions
My good friend Leah S. R. Gordon writes:
> But anyway, when someone starts saying that there are
> "rational" reasons to disapprove of other people when so little is known
> about those people - then I think there is definitely bigotry/fear going
> on there.
Rationality is always subjective, as it is necessarily based on
irrational axioms. I strongly disapprove of self-avowed, convicted
murderers, even if I know nothing about them other than that they were
convicted of murder (they might think themselves to be freedom fighters)
... and (not to make a direct connection) I disapprove of anyone who
publicly and willfully violates my understanding of the Torah
(e.g. humiliates another Jew in public). It doesn't mean that I'll deny
them a job, avoid talking to them, etc. ... only that I disapprove.
> I'm not so sure that this meanness to gays is about "dispassionate"
> following of the Torah...or else why not save some of that dispassionate
> discrimination for people who violate other commandments?
When the perceived violation was public and unrepetenant, there has
historically been "dispassionate" discrimination according to other
commandments, for instance consider the Orthodox reaction to the Reform
position on kashrut and shabbat.
> 1. Do you have any reason aside from personal prejudice that you would
> focus on gay/lesbian issues as being worth shouting about
Yes ... there is a well-organized and public campaign to legitimize
homosexual behavior not just in the secular world but also
(increasingly) in the Jewish world. The campaign utilizes (what I
consider to be) a deceptive appeal to the humanity and inner turmoil of
gays and lesbians as a basis for invalidating hundreds of years of
halachic guidance. I feel personally threatened and I also feel that my
religion is being threatened, and I rally in defense.
Ari Trachtenberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <avi@...>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:39:47 -0500
Subject: Re: The Term "homophobia" and Some Questions
Ari in his response to Leah has made a number of the points that I fully
agree with.
I did exchange an email with one of my contacts in the Gay/Lesbian (GLB)
community, and confirmed that WITHIN that community, the term is used as
Leah indicates. I leave it to others who may be more usage experts to
determine to what extent it is used that way in the general community,
and where it is used that way, whether it is from an active campaign
within the GLB community to propogate this definition of the term. Even
within the GLB community, there is disagreement on the use of the term,
for exactly the reasons discussed, i.e. the "common" understanding of
the term is related to a fear factor rather than to a discrimination
factor.
In direct response to Leah's question to me as Moderator - I decline to
define what the meaning of the term is as used by individuals on this
list. As an individual contributor to the list, I do not accept Leah's
definition and would limit it to describe a situation of a person who
has a 'fear' / 'aversion' reaction to another individual who is of Gay /
Lesbian orientation.
A second point, which Ari makes as well, is related to the difference in
response by the organized halachic community to the general GLB
community's activities to gain recognition of GLB as a normal and
non-stigmitized choice of lifestyle vs the interactions between
individual halachically committed jews of which some have a GLB
orientation. I have written in the past of inclusive behaviour that I
believe we need to have internally in our community for halachically
committed individuals who are GLB. It is in this sense that I have
argued that we should behave with these individuals in an even more
positive way that with an individual who is a known violator of halacha
e.g. shabbat or kashrut.
However, the situation is different when we are confronting a community
or group that is aggresively campaigning for items that are in
contradiction to our halacha and tradition. That is true with respect to
those who advocate that there is no need to keep Shabbat and Kashrut,
and that is true with respect to those who say there is no problem with
active GLB sexual activity. As a community, we need to actively oppose
both.
This relates to Leah's point 3 in her posting. The objection is not to:
> other people you've never met just want to live their own lives and
> mind their own business with their choice of spouse?
There is a very significant portion of the GLB community who do NOT mind
their own business and just want to live their own lives. They are very
active and in your face in demanding that you acknowledge that their
choice is "just as valid" as your choice. To a large extent, this is
what differentiates this from the group that, for example, does not keep
Shabbat. For the most part, they do just mind their own business and
live their lives and do not much care what other think. That is largely
because within our society they are the majority, and we - those who
keep Shabbat - are the minority. In the case of the GLB community, they
are a minority and they are very active in pushing their case forward. A
similar situation may have been the case in some areas at the very early
stages of the Haskalah / Reform movement, when the Jewish community was
more insular, and those who rejected halacha were a minority and were
very much "in your face". The response of the Jewish community to that
challenge was much more strident than the current response to the GLB
community.
Avi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 50 Issue 47
