Volume 51 Number 41
Produced: Fri Mar 3 5:57:43 EST 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Common mispronunciation
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Credit for Thought without deed (4)
[Joel Rich, Shmuel Himelstein, Gershon Dubin, Ben Katz]
Pru Urvu (2)
[Eitan Fiorino, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Valentine's Day (2)
[R. Meir Wise, Avi Feldblum]
Valentine's Day and New Year's Day
[Mark Symons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 08:18:44 +0200
Subject: Common mispronunciation
I find it very interesting how prevalent the following mispronunciation
is in Tehillim 148:13 (recited every morning in Pesukei D'Zimra and also
when the Sefer Torah is returned - often sung on Shabbat and Yomtov),
where the verse states:
"Hodo al eretz veshamayim" and is often recited/sung as "HodU al eretz
veshamayim."
In addition to this being an incorrect reading, it substantively changes
the meaning of the verse.
I wonder if there is a similar verse to this one which leads to this
mix-up.
And while I mention this, another pet peeve of mine regarding
mispronunciation. Many Shuls recite Tehillim 130 ("Mim'amakim") verse by
verse whenever there is special need for succor (our Shul has been
saying it for years after every davening, because of two very ill
members). The second verse is most often pronounced: "Hashem, she'ma
b'koli," with people not noticing that under the Shin in the second word
there is a Chirik, and the correct word is accordingly "shim'a".
I imagine other forum members have further examples of common
mispronunciations.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 05:17:30 -0500
Subject: Credit for Thought without deed
> Is Martin writing a new halachic principle here, in which a good try is
> deemed to fulfill the mitzvah? I have on more than one occasion sent a
> check to a charity which was never cashed. I never before thought that I
> would get "credit" for fulfilling the mitzvah of tzedakah with those
> checks. Not so long ago I started for shul on Shabbat but had to turn
> back because it was a blinding blizzard out there. I didn't think I would
> be getting "credit" for davening with a minyan that morning. Was I wrong?
>
> b'shalom--Bernie R.
See kiddushin 40a -Machshava tova mitzarpha lmaaseh (good thought
"joins" to action) implies yes if circumstances beyond your control
intervene-clor for details
Kt
Joel rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:24:08 +0200
Subject: Credit for Thought without deed
Bernard Raab writes:
> Is Martin writing a new halachic principle here, in which a good try is
> deemed to fulfill the mitzvah?"
Indeed, that may be exactly the case. Chazal tell us that "Machshava
tova HKB"H metzarefa lema'aseh" - "Hashem 'incorporates' a good thought
into a deed." What this is generally taken to mean (although there are
other interpretations) is that if a person attempts to perform a good
deed and is prevented by circumstances beyond his control, it is
reckoned as if he had nevertheless performed the good deed.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 23:07:53 -0500
Subject: Credit for Thought without deed
Not new at all.
Berachos 6a, "If a person plans to do a mitzva and something happens
preventing that mitzva, he gets credit as though he had done it".
> Not so long ago I started for shul on Shabbat but had to turn back
> because it was a blinding blizzard out there. I didn't think I would be
> getting "credit" for davening with a minyan that morning. Was I wrong?
Yup.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 10:26:40 -0600
Subject: Re: Credit for Thought without deed
I always thought (but have no source) that if one's intention
is to do a mitzvah, and due to circumstances beyond his control that
mitzvah cannot be done, that "credit" is given. God, of course, knows
all true intentions; He can't be fooled into giving "credit" improperly.
The "credit" could be in the Maimonidean sense of bettering oneself by
inculcating proper behaviors. It seems to me this is analogous to the
situation of "haosek bemitzvah patur min hamitzvah" - one who is busy
with one mitzvah is exempt from another mitzvah; even tho that principle
does not state that you get "credit" for the missed mitzvah, you
certainly do not receive a sin for having missed performing the mitzvah.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eitan Fiorino <AFiorino@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 09:08:09 -0500
Subject: RE: Pru Urvu
> From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
> >From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
> >The mitsvah of Pru Urvu is to try to have children, at least one of each
> >sex, not to actually do so, which is in the hands of the Almighty. So
> >long as one continues to have marital relations one cannot be held to be
> >at fault.
> Is Martin writing a new halachic principle here, in which a good try is
> deemed to fulfill the mitzvah? I have on more than one occasion sent a
> check to a charity which was never cashed. I never before thought that I
> would get "credit" for fulfilling the mitzvah of tzedakah with those
> checks. Not so long ago I started for shul on Shabbat but had to turn
> back because it was a blinding blizzard out there. I didn't think I
> would be getting "credit" for davening with a minyan that morning. Was I
> wrong?
The explanation of pru ur'vu offered by Martin (that the mitzvah is in
the trying) is expressed by Rabbi David Bleich in his many writings on
assisted reproduction. If I recall from that literature (which was of
great interest to me many ages ago when I was a practicing physician),
the majority of contemporary poskim do not share this view, but rather
understand the gemara more literally - that indeed to be yotzei the
mitzvah one must father a boy and girl child. I for one happen to find
Rabbi Bleich's view particularly enlightened as it solves a conundrum,
which is that there are many people who will try mightily and yet not
have the opportunity to fulfill this mitzvah. Yes, there are many
mitzvot that people do not fulfill - because do not have the opportunity
(eg, shiluach hakan) - but not so many mitzvot that people try over and
over again to fulfill and are not able to. To anyone but the most
ardent existentialist, endlessly repeating an act destined to result in
failure is not reward enough. Rabbi Bleich's position allows that the
act itself is not (halachically) meaningless and futile, but rather is
indeed the essence and fulfillment of the mitzvah.
-Eitan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabba.hillel@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 05:25:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Pru Urvu
I have seen references to Schar Halicha (for example Sota 22b) in which
someone get "credit" for trying even if you are prevented from
completing it. However, this does not seeem to be the situation with
Pru U'Rvu. That situation seems to to say that it is *permissable* for
someone to divorce after ten years of trying, *NOT* that it is
mandatory. I have heard of a case in which a rav divorced and remarried
in order to have children, but he supported his first wife for the rest
of her life and she was regarded as part of the family.
It appears from many places, that such a divorce is actually due to
other problems in the marriage and not because of infertility.
Also, there is this Rambam (yes I know we use the shulchan aruch and not
the Rambam as a psak)
Resp. Rambam, par. 41.
Regarding the ruling that was given and which you have cited, it
contains an error, namely the idea that until a man have sons it does
not behoove him to marry a woman who will not bear children. This is
not so; rather, a man who has been married to a woman for ten years,
during which time she has not born children, may marry another woman
whom he does not know to have any reason of infertility, and he may
remain married to both of them at once, and under no circumstances needs
be forced to divorce his first wife.
An interesting corrolary to this discussion is the case of couples who
seek fertility treatments even though they already have children. Rabbi
Tendler (of Yeshiva University) spoke of a case in which a woman wanted
fertility treatments because she did not have "enough" children. He
asked her (paraphrase) "How much is enough?". She answered "As much as
Hashem allows". He answered her, "And isn't Hashem telling you that you
have reached enough?"
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore"
<Sabba.Hillel@...> | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Meirhwise@...> (R. Meir Wise)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 04:54:21 EST
Subject: Re: Valentine's Day
What "evidence" does Leah have that St. Valentine's day is not based in
avoda zara. I thought the matter to be self-evident. Not forgetting that
the basis for avoda zara according to the Talmud is in order to permit
of licentious behaviour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <feldblum@...> (Avi Feldblum)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006
Subject: Re: Valentine's Day
The statement that I understood Leah to be responding to was your
statement in issue 34:
> I would add that after forbidding Valentines day as the worst form of
> Avoda Zara
and her statement was:
> The statement "Valentine's Day is the worst kind of avodah zara" sounds
> more like rhetoric than reasoned halakha.
to which you responded:
> I can assure Leah S Gordon that the Gaon Rav Rabinovitch does not speak
> rhetoric when dealing with fundamental issues like those celebrations
> based in avoda zara.
As I see it, there are (at least) three possible pronouncements, one I
would deem as halachic and one I would deem at rhetorical. I think it
might be useful for R. Wise to clarify which statement he is making.
1) It is forbidden to celebrate Valentine's Day, and any such
celebration is an issur of actual Avodah Zarah. (my reading of
R. Wise's statement in v51n34)
2) It is forbidden to celebrate Valentine's Day, because the origin of
the celebration is based on practices that were once associated with
Avodah Zarah. (my reading of R. Wise's statement in v51n38)
3) It is forbidden to celebrate Valentine's Day, because the origins of
the celebration is based on practices, that while not Avodah Zarah,
are associated with non-Jewish religious practice (in this case
Christianity). (my understanding of the majority of those who forbid
celebrating Valentine's Day, and my original understanding of
R. Wise's posting back in v51n28)
4) It is not forbidden to celebrate Valentine's Day, as the observance
today is no longer religious in nature, as well meeting several other
criteria R. Broyde outlines in v51n27. However, since the origins
were religious in nature, it is appropriate for one who is pious to
refrain from explicit observance / participation. (this is clearly
not R. Wise's position, but is I think R. Broyde's position)
Based on the above, in response to R. Wise, I think the "evidence" for
Leah's question is pretty strong. The prepondarance of the opinions of
the Rishonim living in Christian Europe has been that Christianity,
while forbidden to Jews, is not Avodah Zarah. If R. Wise is of the
opinion that it halachically falls under that catagory, there are many
very relevent halachot that would be a consequence of that. The whole
issue of Sunday as yom eidom becomes a major issue.
Even given the position that Catholicism is actual Avodah Zarah, I find
it extremely hard to defend the position that sending a Valentine's card
with a gift of chocolate or flowers is "the worst kind of Avodah
Zarah". I could maybe understand a position that within the current
Western environment that partaking in Catholic Mass is "the worst kind
of Avodah Zarah" one is likely to encounter. But to state that
Valentine's Day observance is "the worst kind of Avodah
Zarah" as a halachic rather than rhetorical statement - I think the
burden of proof is on Rabbi Wise, not Leah.
Finally, in terms of "evidence", we have the posting of R. Broyde who in
my opinion clearly lays out the halachic parameters and is of the
opinion that such observance is not halachically forbidden. Leah has
never stated, and I do not think that anyone would claim, that the
origins of Valentine's day is not in non-Jewish religious practice. The
question is what is the current halachic status on activities on that
day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Symons <msymons@...>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:58:29 +1100
Subject: Valentine's Day and New Year's Day
Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...> wrote:
> ...I have no problem with recognizing the existence of a calendrical
> change; I do not wait until Jan. 2 to change the date on checks. But a
> calendrical event is not what's being celebrated; people normally don't
> throw quadrennial (or tetracentennial) Feb. 29 parties. It's precisely
> the notion that Jan. 1 represents something new, whatever the "level of
> involvement", that I find problematic....
When a new civil year starts, on Jan 1, I, and I would assume that many
others, whether religiously observant or not, do experience a sense of
newness and a new beginning. The change of the year from 2005 to 2006
is, whether I like it or not, very much in my consciousness, and along
with it is a sense of new possibilities, change, etc. So it is natural
to celebrate this, and, I would contend, a denial of the reality of
one's experience not to acknowledge it. It happens to a lesser extent
with new secular months. That is a reality of living in this society,
when you are constantly aware of the secular date, and write it down
yourself several times a day. A similar thing can happen when, for
example, one moves house, or changes jobs, or gets a new car. They can
give a sense of a new beginning. Why not take advantage of any stimulus
to do "t'shuva"? As a previous poster pointed out, Rosh Hashana is the
main time for this, but there, it is not so much the newness of the year
that stimulates it, but the fact that it's Yom HaDin.
Mark Symons
Melbourne Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 51 Issue 41