Volume 50 Number 89
Produced: Tue Jan 3 6:38:11 EST 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Changing pronounciations / words
[Martin Stern]
Common Law Marriage
[Martin Stern]
Correction: Latecomer's "Hoiche Kedushah"
[.cp.]
Forbidden thoughts
[Elazar M. Teitz]
Frum and ...unconventional
[Andy Levy-Stevenson]
is Avoda Zara immoral?
[Martin Stern]
Latecomer's "Hoiche Kedushah" (3)
[Harry Weiss, Mike Gerver, Tzvi Stein]
Not dressing like goyim
[Martin Stern]
OBSESSION vs FANTASIES
[Russell J Hendel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 10:20:29 +0000
Subject: Changing pronounciations / words
on 3/1/06 9:47 am, Carl A. Singer <casinger@...> wrote:
> Of late I've heard some Ba'al Kore's pronounce the "cheereek" (the
> single dot under a letter) as an "i" (as in "it") rather than an "e"
> (as in "be") when it is not followed by a yud. One Rabbi told me that
> this is a "more authentic" pronunciation. On the other hand another
> Rabbi told me, "my zayde didn't pronounce it like that."
This is a difficult point. It might be difficult for the gentleman to
fit his pronunciation to fit to the shul's. I think a little tolerance
has to be given to this in the short term or on an occasional
basis. However, if he is being employed as ba'al kore he should
endeavour to change to fit in to the local usage.
> Similarly, wording variations -- we had someone during brochas say
> "shelo asahni nachri" rather than "shelo asahni goy" -- also likely a
> more authentic wording -- BUT not the wording in the siddur that our
> shul provides the Ba'al Tefilah.
>
> I don't want to rehash the linguistic issues -- what I want to discuss
> is change. How have other congregations dealt with these issues from
> the change aspect?
>
> Personally, I find the first change to be a bit more dissonant,
> especially when there's extra emphasis on this pronunciation. I find
> the second intolerable as the shul has its minhagim and someone who
> knowingly substitutes their own wording is, to me, out of line.
As someone who uses the nusach "shelo asani nokhri", I might be inclined
to support the change but I do not since we are not permitted to alter
established local customs, not even the tunes (Rema, Hil. Yom Kippur
619.1) something that might lead to terrible tragedy (Maharil, Hil. Yom
Kippur 11).
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 10:30:46 +0000
Subject: Re: Common Law Marriage
on 3/1/06 9:47 am, <Meirhwise@...> (Rabbi Meir Henoch Hakohen Wise) wrote:
> In reply to Marc Dver: On the mishna in kiddushin, the Talmud says "Rav
> mangid" - Rav would flog anyone who affected kiddushin by bi'ah!
Obviously because it would be indecent for a couple to copulate in front
of two witnesses.
> The question remains then as to why this is in the mishna. All this is
> discussed in Rav Ellinson's books which I quoted earlier.
Because if the couple did perform kiddushei biah they would be married,
i.e. it would be effective ex post facto.
> One solution is that the mishna allowed for an emergency situation
> where jus primonoxus (droight du seigneur)
The correct Latin term is jus primae noctis - law of the first night -
and the French is droit du seigneur - right of the (feudal) lord.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: .cp. <chips@...>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 9:34:59 -0800
Subject: Re: Correction: Latecomer's "Hoiche Kedushah"
I never saw this and don't understand how anyone would be *allowed*
to answer. A minyan is not just 10 men, it is also at least 6 who have
*****NOT***** davened yet.
[The other submissions below which have quoted this, have the "not"
added in with brackets. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 10:51:37 GMT
Subject: Re: Forbidden thoughts
> At least as I understand things, halacha generally prohibits action and
> speech. The nature of thought in halacha is more complicated, I
> think. There is definitely a concept of "machshavos assuros"/ "forbidden
> thoughts", although, even given that something is a "forbidden thought",
> the status of someone having that thought is not clear to me. A request
> for sources here sounds reasonable>
The g'mara in B'rachos 12b interprets the verse "v'lo sasuru acharei
l'vavchem v'acharei eineichem" ("that you not explore after your heart
and after your eyes" -- translation is Artscroll's) to refer, inter
alia, to "hirhurei aveira" -- thoughts of sinning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Levy-Stevenson <andy_twrr@...>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 10:06:53 +0200
Subject: RE: Frum and ...unconventional
> From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
> Hopefully, we will get to the point where we can accept and
> show tolerance for alternative lifestyles, even if we cannot
> totally approve.
To finesse this sensitive and thoughtful sentiment just slightly ...
There should be nothing stopping us currently from accepting and showing
tolerance for other *people*.
With regard to other people's *lifestyles*; our approval or otherwise of
those lifestyles shouldn't affect our willingness to treat people
politely and with respect.
Andy Levy-Stevenson
<andy@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 10:57:31 +0000
Subject: Re: is Avoda Zara immoral?
on 3/1/06 9:47 am, David Curwin <tobyndave@...> wrote:
> Avoda Zara is often portrayed as the antithesis of Judaism. But I've
> recently wondered - what exactly is the Torah's problem with it? Is it
> simply nonsense - there's only one God, and therefore to believe in an
> other gods is foolish? In other words, is Avoda Zara equivalent to
> believing the sun revolves around the earth?
>
> On the other hand, it often appears that the practice of Avoda Zara is
> not just nonsense, but immoral. The Torah often discusses the immoral
> practices of the Egyptians and Canaanites, but the Avoda Zara of all
> peoples is forbidden. In fact, it is one of the 7 Noachide laws. But
> while the rest seem to be based around morality, what is inherently
> immoral about Avoda Zara?
As far as we are concerned, the Talmud states (San. 63b) "Amar Rav
Yehudah amar Rav yode'in hayu Yisrael beavodah zarah she'ein bah mamash
velo avdu avodah zarah eile lehattir lahem gilui arayot befarchesia -
Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav that Yisrael were well aware that
Idolatry was meaningless, they only served it in order to permit
themselves sexual licentiousness in public."
Apart from the knowledge of its meaninglessness, the primary motivation
of non-Jews was deemed the same.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 11:46:38 -0800
Subject: Latecomer's "Hoiche Kedushah"
>From: .cp. <chips@...>
>I never saw this and don't understand how anyone would be *allowed*
>to answer. A minyan is not just 10 men, it is also at least 6 who have
>[not] davened yet
I have not seen it done by someone coming late when everyone else
already davened with Kedusha. What I have seem is that when there is no
minyan and the kehilla davens Amidah B'Yechidus, and afterwards a tenth
men comes in, someone who has not yet gotten to the Amidah may be asked
to do a Hoiche Kedusha. The AMidah is still consdired Yechidus, but the
Kdusha is allowed because you have a minyan answering.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <MJGerver@...> (Mike Gerver)
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 17:05:46 EST
Subject: Latecomer's "Hoiche Kedushah"
Regarding someone who comes to shul late and makes his own "heiche
kedushah" after everyone else has finished davening, Stephen Phillips
says, in v50n85,
> This is not Tefilla B'Tzibbur. It's one person trying to make his own
> personal Amidah into a public one. Apart from the Tircha D'Tzibbura
> aspect, everyone else has davened and there is therefore not the
> minimum requirement of "Rov Minyan" [the majority of a minyan, namely
> 6 men who haven't davened].
> I'm not even sure that one should, or even is permitted to, respond to
> his Kedusha.
And <chips@...> says
> I never saw this and don't understand how anyone would be
> *allowed* to answer. A minyan is not just 10 men, it is also at least 6
> who have [not] davened yet.
I'm puzzled. The latecomer is not pretending that he is davening
tefillah be-tzibbur. He is only trying to say a kedushah. It cannot be
the case that you need at least 6 men you have already davened shmoneh
esreh together, in order to say kedushah. If that were the case, then
you could never make a heiche kedushah at all. You don't even need 6 men
who have started saying shmoneh esreh together, in order to make a
heiche kedushah, since according to one minhag (the most Ashkenazic
minhag, I think) only the shliach tzibbur starts shmoneh esreh before
making the heiche kedushah, and the rest of the minyan only starts
shmoneh esreh after the heiche kedushah. And it cannot be the case that
you need at least 6 men who haven't davened shmoneh esreh yet, since a
regular kedushah is said only after at least 6 men have finished the
shmoneh esreh, with at least some time when all 6 were davening
together. I thought the only requirement for heiche kedushah is that
there is a minyan present.
At one shul I sometimes go to when I am in the US, which is very
marginal in terms of getting a minyan on weekday mornings, it often
happens that there is no minyan present when people are saying shmoneh
esreh, but someone comes late, and there is then a minyan. The
latecomer, with the approval of the rabbi, will make a heiche kedushah
when he gets up to shmoneh esreh, allowing everyone to say a kedushah,
even though there was no tefillah be-tzibbur.
I myself made a heiche kedushah recently, when I was davening shacharit
at Ben Gurion airport. In order to make my flight, I had to get up to
barechu and put on my tallis and tefillin at the earliest possible
moment, and daven quickly. There was a minyan there, many of them
chassidim (Satmar?) from Budapest, and they were taking their time
davening, and there was no way I was going to say shmoneh esreh with a
minyan. When I got up to shmoneh esreh, I (non-verbally) asked the man
who was acting as shliach tzibbur (one of the chassidim) if I should
make a heiche kedushah, he encouraged me to do so.
Is making a heiche kedushah improper in one or both of these
circumstances?
Mike Gerver
Raanana, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 06:13:21 -0500
Subject: Latecomer's "Hoiche Kedushah"
> From: Stephen Phillips <admin@...>
> This is not Tefilla B'Tzibbur. It's one person trying to make his own
> personal Amidah into a public one. Apart from the Tircha D'Tzibbura
> aspect, everyone else has davened and there is therefore not the minimum
> requirement of "Rov Minyan" [the majority of a minyan, namely 6 men who
> haven't davened].
>
> I'm not even sure that one should, or even is permitted to, respond to
> his Kedusha.
I think you may be getting 2 different issues confused. The "Rov
Minyan" requirement is for people to fulfill their own Tefilla B'Tzibbur
obligation. There is no "Rov Minyan" requirement simply to answer to
"Dvarim she'b'Kedusha", such as the Kedusha, Borechu or Kaddish prayers.
All that is required to answer to these prayers is a minyan.... it
doesn't matter who has or hasn't davened.
I think I remember from my Israel time (where this practice is a lot
more common), that you are permitted, but not required, to answer. The
question of whether it constitutes Tircha d'Tziburra is controversial.
Look at it this way... the person who is causing the "Tircha" basically
is "in need" of something from the Tzibur (the opportunity to answer to
"Dvarim she'b'Kedusha" which he hasn't done yet). Is his need any more
of a Tircha than someone interrupting every person to collect for
Tzedaka? If you say, "well, that's different... the 'latecomer' could
have avoided his 'need' by coming on time". Well, maybe ... maybe not.
One could also make the same claim about the person collecting ... he
could have avoided his need by being better prepared to make a parnassa,
etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 11:09:52 +0000
Subject: Re: Not dressing like goyim
on 3/1/06 9:47 am, Carl A. Singer <casinger@...> wrote:
> I believe the issue is "not emulating goyim." That is not to CHANGE
> one's derech in order to copy or imitate what other nations wear or do.
This would also apply to changing a community's minhagim in order to be
like other JEWISH communities (where this is the sole motivation for the
change).
> We may, however, find ourselves independently (or because the other
> nations changed) dressing in the same garb or doing the same actions
> (such as giving charity - there are many Christian communities that
> tithe.) -- E.g., if goyim (in violation of etiquette) start wearing
> tuxedos to their Sunday morning worship -- would we have to stop doing
> so?
That has happened on several occasions in the past, the one which
immediately springs to mind is the current objection to placing flowers
on Jewish coffins "because it is a Christian custom" even though it is
mentioned in the Gemara that the custom was to place myrtle twigs on the
deceased at the time of burial, essentially the same idea.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:34:50 -0500
Subject: Re: OBSESSION vs FANTASIES
A quick answer to Lisa and Ari (v50n81). The prohibitions of COVETING
and LUSTING are defined in Rambam, Laws of Thefts And Losses End of
Chapter 1.
The distinction made by Lisa is basically correct. Just to recap: -
there is a prohibition of obsessively thinking how to acquire an object
(LUSTING). However the prohibition only takes effect when at the time of
transaction.
- there is a coveting prohibition which consists of having friends and
other pressure placed on someone to sell them something (even if the
price is fair or excessive). This prohibition is violated at each act of
excessive pressure.
The Rambam also points out that Achab's lusting for Navoth's vineyard
led to pressuring him to sell it and ultimately to his murder (when he
refused).
Getting back to sexual fantasies: It would appear that
- all thoughts which pop into my mind (which I then put out) are not a
violation of anything
- if I continuously think about a person with intention of acquiring
her/him I only violate the lusting prohibition if a transaction
(marriage) actually occurs.
- Needless to say pestering people to marry you even if done at an
exorbitant price with a nice wedding is a violation of covet.
Russell Hendel; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 50 Issue 89
