Volume 51 Number 30
Produced: Tue Feb 21 6:32:51 EST 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Bat Simcha
[Anonymous]
Benching in a hurry
[Carl A. Singer]
clothing at tefillah (3)
[Batya Medad, Aharon Fischman, <ERSherer@...>]
Falling for Tahanun
[Menashe Elyashiv]
Hinduism and Monotheism
[P.V. Viswanath]
Molad
[Ben Katz]
"Raboysay mir veln benshn" (2)
[Arie, Arie]
Tachnun - Ashkenazim
[Carl A. Singer]
Wearing a gartel
[Joseph Ginzberg]
Wearing Jackets to Prayer/Clothing to Tefillah
[Ben Katz]
Who leads / who decides who leads the zimmun ... and when
[Ira L. Jacobson]
Yiddish, Aramaic, and other Vernaculars
[Ben Katz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anonymous
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006
Subject: Bat Simcha
I've been invited to a Simchat Bat from an old friend who has limited
jewish background. It seems that what she has planned is a Simchat Bat
which follows the same format of a Bris without the actual physical
part. She replaces the actual Bris with wrapping the baby in a Talit
(and calls it a "Brit Tallit"). She names the players in the same way as
by a Bris (Kvatter, Sandek etc). The only significant addition is having
a Cohen present pronounce the Birchat Cohanim over the baby.
Some questions:
Do any members of the list have any good reference sources on a more
authentic and halachically preferred ceremony that I can give her and
hopefully change her plans?
What halachic problems might there be with what she is doing? What
issues might there be with an orthodox person taking part in a ceremony
as described above?
Anonymous
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl A. Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 06:19:03 -0500
Subject: Benching in a hurry
> Surely the correct procedure for someone in a hurry is to ask if two
> others will join him to answer the zimmun with the intention of
> continuing to eat. He then benches and goes and they bench later when
> they have finished eating.
If memory serves, the gemorah even notes that when benching a zimmun a
party may answer from across a reshush harabim -- but not when benching
with a minyan as shaym haShem is added.
At all too long wedding meals, people are often seeking 2 more to answer
so they can bench and run (escape?) Which brings up a new question --
if someone asks you to answer their zimmun under such circumstances what
is your "status" -- can you later do the same (answer again) for another
person at the table, or participate in the sheva brochas which will
eventually come.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:20:07 +0200
Subject: Re: clothing at tefillah
> From: <skyesyx@...>
> Is it just me, or does anyone else feel that this topic is not worth the
> attention it is getting?
Me!
I think that you guys have gone in so many circles about it that you'd
think it a dreidel. Honestly, whoever said that only women discuss
clothes should read mail jewish.
Batya
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/, http://me-ander.blogspot.com/
http://samizdatblogfree.blogspot.com/, http://shilohpics.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aharon Fischman <afischman@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:50:10 -0500
Subject: Re: clothing at tefillah
It wouldn't be the first time that Chitzoniyot [superfluous outside
appearances] trumps Pnimiyot [true inner qualities] with regards to
observance. Having been in situations where my lack of a black hat
called into question any aspects of my observance I feel its important
to separate 'custom' from halachic requirements.
I had a friend who wore a Grey hat to daven in. His reasoning - the
makorot [sources] he found seemed to imply that he should wear a hat.
The sources never said a 'black' hat.
Aharon Fischman
<afischman@...>
www.alluregraphics.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <ERSherer@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:03:51 EST
Subject: Re: clothing at tefillah
I concur in your opinion that the topic is not worth the
attention. I just skip right over it. I think everything has been said
that could be. Did anyone keep score?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <elyashm@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:03:18 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Falling for Tahanun
The minhag by most Sefaradim is just to sit for Tahanun. The reason is
Kabbalic, because Psalm 25 is said, one who does not have the proper
kavana while falling, puts himself in danger - Zohar Bamidbar, see Kaf
Hahaim #131:31-33. Although, some North Africans do fall, same for
Minhag Habad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: P.V. Viswanath <pvviswanath@...>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 12:34:10 -0500
Subject: Hinduism and Monotheism
Russell Hendel writes:
> Furthermore in my last posting I explain WHY. WHY should worshipping a
> physical representation of the one God be idolatry--after all you are
> thinking about God! The answer is that once you get physical you get
> physical in other ways....ALL physical representations of God tend
> sooner or later to become associated with sexual rituals. So there is
> a reason for classifying this as idolatry.
Russell often has interesting points of view. But it is clear that in
this instance, he simply has a result that he desires and looks at/for
data that is consistent with his conclusion. He has not been able to
show that rishonim hold that non-Jews are not allowed physical
representations; not only that, he comes up with hypotheses, and uses
them as evidence to show why khazal should have paskened according to
him.
Meylekh Viswanath
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:54:06 -0600
Subject: Re: Molad
>From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
>Several people have pointed the anomaly that the court decision of when
>the month starts determines the new month EVEN if astronomically the
>actual month started at a different time (Actually the court was allowed
>AT MOST a one day difference).
Today, Rosh Chodesh Tishray can be as much as 2 days "off" from
the astronomical New Moon.
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: <aliw@...> (Arie)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:03:13 +0200
Subject: Re: "Raboysay mir veln benshn"
WOW !!!!
in MJ 51/24 Immanuel Burton wrote:
> >As a matter of curiosity, if one is eating with enough people to
> >make a zimmun, and someone there wants to bentch and says, "Should
> >we bentch?", should everyone else present try and decide who should
> >lead the zimmun, or should they respond with "Yehi shem..."?
in MJ 51/25 i wrote:
>i think people should be made aware of the problem and avoid a
>situation where someone suggests bentching in a manner which is in
>itself the opening to zimun. one solution i've seen is that someone
>points out to the "offender" that what he just said is sufficient to
>start zimun so he should take care, and THEN everyone else present
>tried to decide who should lead the zimun.
and in MJ 51/29 Bernie R. wrote:
>So this solution is: First embarrass the "offender" for his ignorance
>and then proceed to ignore him? So much of our religious observance
>(and life in general) is so tied up with such minutia that we tend to
>ignore the very serious issurim connected with adam lechveiro.
i'm being very careful not to say anything about the bein adam
l'chaveiro involved in that somewhat sarcastic answer.
i will say, however, that most people, when the opportunity arises
to discuss some halacha lema'ase (and b"H, both the willingness
to express the knowledge and the willingness to listen and discuss
are on the rise over the last years), such as in the situation
described above, do it with tact, and use it as an opportunity to
discuss and expand horizons, not to put down and/or ignore.
it could be that bernie has been in situations where someone took
"mis-advantage" of the opportunity to spread knowledge in an open
and pleasant way, and used it in an ugly way, to put someone
down; hence his reaction. but NOT raising any points which clarify
halacha (in proper way) to someone who has erred (and who
doesn't ?) which would otherwise open the point to discussion
from which everyone is enriched, raises other points of issurim...
arie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <aliw@...> (Arie)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:06:06 +0200
Subject: Re: "Raboysay mir veln benshn"
On 20 Feb 2006, at 6:00, Avi Feldblum wrote:
>I would like to understand from Arie what the logic of excluding the
>original person from the discussion of who should bentch was.
i was trying to be funny, because my answer included both of the
options offered. i didn't mean that the person who spoke out should
be excluded from the discussion.
arie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl A. Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 06:28:59 -0500
Subject: Tachnun - Ashkenazim
I've also gotten some back-channel (non-list) replies re: laying one
head on one's arm.
It seems the (Ashkenaz) rule according to some is:
1 - when their is a Sefer Torah in the room
2 - when you can see the Aron (... presumably with a Sefer Torah inside.)
These are not equivalent.
This brings up questions such as what if one is davening in the ezras
nashim and cannot see the aron. (I find in one shul that I attend, that
due to crowding men frequently daven there during weekday mincha /
maariv)
Or with one's back to the Aron (as is frequent with shuls that have
tables)
Finally, what if the architecture of the shul is such that it has many
connected rooms (say a shtiebel) and thus the Aron is in another room.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:42:13 -0500
Subject: Wearing a gartel
>Here's one I never heard before -- during an informal discussion of
>wearing a gartel when davening -- one of my colleagues asked another
>why a belt (worn ordinarily) wasn't sufficient.
Back in the late 60's R. Moshe Feinstein ruled that the elastic in one's
underwear was sufficient to fulfill the obligation of separatiing the
upper and lower body for prayer, leading some Satmar chasidim back at
that time to start referring to undergarments as "Reb Moshe's gartel".
As I recall, they were angry at him at that time because he refused to
agree with them and to ban the star of David from appearing in
synagogues.
Yossi Ginzberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:05:50 -0600
Subject: Re: Wearing Jackets to Prayer/Clothing to Tefillah
>From: Carl Singer <csngr@...>
>Here's one I never heard before -- during an informal discussion of
>wearing a gartel when davening -- one of my colleagues asked another why
>a belt (worn ordinarily) wasn't sufficient.
>
>The response was that one is supposed to wear an additional garment when
>davening and that the gartel fulfilled this requirement.
Rashi has a teshuvah where he states that "nowadays" when we wear belts,
a gartel is not necessary - this argues against the assumption that
soemthing extra is required.
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: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:54:05 +0200
Subject: Re: Who leads / who decides who leads the zimmun ... and when
Martin Stern <md.stern@...> stated on Sun, 19 Feb 2006 06:37:03
+0000:
Surely the correct procedure for someone in a hurry is to ask if
two others will join him to answer the zimmun with the intention
of continuing to eat. He then benches and goes and they bench
later when they have finished eating.
My understanding is that if two are in a hurry they may ask a third to
join them (under certain circumstances), but not that one may ask two to
join him.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:40:07 -0600
Subject: Re: Yiddish, Aramaic, and other Vernaculars
>From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
>We could well ask: in what sense is Hebrew itself "holy"? According to
>fascinating lectures of Prof. B. Septimus which I once had the
>privilege of attending, this is a highly disputed matter among the
>rishonim, and there is an entire spectrum of opinion from "right" (the
>kabbalists) to "left," the left wing position occupied by the Rambam,
>who notoriously held (and was castigated by Ramban for holding) that
>Hebrew is holy in that it refers to sexual matters only indirectly and
>has no words for the genitals. Otherwise, the Rambam held that all
>languages are purely conventional.
I thank Dr. Steiner for his kind words above. However, I
believe he is misrepresenting the Rambam's position on lashon hakodesh
ever so slightly. I do not believe Rambam argues that the ONLY reason
Hebrew is lashon hakodesh is because there are no words for genitals,
rather that this was an additional proof that Hebrew is holy.
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 51 Issue 30