Volume 51 Number 42
Produced: Fri Mar 3 6:05:32 EST 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Child-Bearing
[Leah S. Gordon]
How to Pasken (Decide) a question
[Andy Goldfinger]
Menopause
[Tzvi Stein]
Rabosay . . . . . mihr velen NIT bentchin
[Mark Symons]
Women's Bodies and Childbearing and Decisions (3)
[Anonymous2, Saul Mashbaum, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 02:44:59 -0800
Subject: Child-Bearing
As a kick-off to my comments about how individual a situation
child-bearing must be for all couples, I paid homage to the idea that
having children is wonderful and significant. Although I figured I
might get M.J objections for not also shouting "it's mandatory Jewishly
too!!" I never thought I would be described thus:
>Given all of these considerations, how are those of us who don't have
>children, for whatever the reasons, supposed to regard our lives, since
>it is incumbent upon us as Torah-committed Jews to believe that the
>Holy One, Blessed be He, put us on this earth for a purpose, and made
>us in
Surely, the full reading of my post precisely seconds this, as my thesis
was that child-bearing should not be forced upon any woman!
>His image? Is His purpose to allow others to denigrate us and to have
>someone expendable to kick around? I find it hard to believe, but the
>abundance of offhanded, insensitive comments, and completely,
>coercively pronatalist and parent-centric sociology of our world, that
>imply this, also make me wonder sometimes.
I think this anonymous poster may be barking up the wrong tree. Of all
the various posts I've read over the years on this topic, she could
really find a better outlet than me for these frustrations. My basic
points, every time I've written on the subject for M.J are:
1. It's crucial to be sensitive to each woman's needs, and
2. Child-bearing should not be legislated by people external to the situation
I find particularly unfair the label "coercively pronatalist," but I
also find it to be a cool linguistic chiddush, so I'm somewhat
mollified.
I also remember that an anonymous poster with much the same
style/content was irritated a while back at being labelled herself, so I
ask for the same consideration as far as her labelling of other people.
Finally, "Anonymous" would do well to be less self-focused. Many of us,
including me, have more than a passing understanding of what it means to
struggle with fertility issues.
--Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Goldfinger <Andy.Goldfinger@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 08:32:51 -0500
Subject: Re: How to Pasken (Decide) a question
Avi Feldblum has written about the complexity of the paskening (legal
decision) process. Not only is great understanding of halachic sources
required, but also the ability to understand the circumstances of the
person asking the shaila (question).
Here, in Baltimore, Rabbi Moshe Heineman is a major posek (decider of
halachic questions). I have been told that he has instituted
"internships" for students who wish to learn how to posken. They help
handle questions with his guidance so they learn the practical side of
psak. Does anyone know if this is being done elsewhere?
-- Andy Goldfinger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <tzvi.stein@...> (Tzvi Stein)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 07:04:30 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Menopause
I'm not sure how many divorces at the time of menopause the writer is
observing, but there could be other explanations beside childbearing.
Sometimes there is an "empty nest" syndrome, where all the kids have
left the house and the couple is forced to confront each other more
intensely, which could lead to conflict (indicating that the marriage
was weak for a long time beforehand, but the weakness did not manifest).
Another explanation is that some women lose their sex drive after
menapause, which could cause a lot of friction and may (especially if
combined with other pre-existing issues) lead to divorce if not
resolved.
Neither of these issues is related to anything that can be blamed on
rabbis or halachic decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Symons <msymons@...>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:36:18 +1100
Subject: Rabosay . . . . . mihr velen NIT bentchin
Bernard Raab <beraab@...> wrote:
> The issue was whether one is *obligated* to respond to anyone who
> unintentionally appears to invite the diners to bentch, perhaps by
> saying something like, "Guys, what say we bentch". It was suggested
> that such a person should be reprimanded. I suggested that if such an
> informal statement does not in itself trigger an obligation to
> respond, a reprimand would be uncalled for and clearly out of
> order. In order to illuminate the issue, I invented the aforementioned
> boor, since I reasoned that if a properly-worded invitation from the
> boor did not induce an obligation to respond, then from the principle
> of "kal vechomer", the informal and unintentional invitation would
> likewise not trigger an obligation to respond.
> Unfortunately, I did not clearly explain my reasoning in asking this
> question, and this might have led some to misunderstand my purpose.
> Thus far, everyone who has taken the trouble to respond to my question
> has agreed that my fictional boor is "inappropriate" and "offensive",
> but nobody has yet answered my question: Does his inappropriate and
> offensive invitation to bentch trigger an obligation in all those
> present to respond?
Why couldn't the others just respond either something like 1. "Yes, good
point, the 3 of us have eaten together, so it's good that you've invited
us to bench, thanks for the invitation, but sorry, we haven't quite
finished eating so we're not ready to bench yet, but we'll be ready in
another 10 minutes or so, so please ask us again then", or, 2. "Yes,
good point, the 3 of us have eaten together, so it's good that you've
invited us to bench: yehi shem hashem m'vorach me'atah v'ad olam"?
Isn't that what zimun is really about anyway, but which we've lost sight
of because it's become so ritualised? Similarly, I would interpret the
person's saying "Guys, what's say we bentch" as actually meaning "Guys,
since the three of us have eaten together, one of us has to formally
invite the others to bentch, so I'm hereby doing just that. If you're
ready to bentch, then you'll respond with the traditional response. If
you're not yet ready, then tell me, maybe you'll even tell me when
you're likely to be ready, so that one of us can invite the others to
bentch then", which would make it quite an appropriate thing to say.
Incidentally, it seems to me that the initial invitation should be
somewhat spontaneous like this, rather than there being an initial
discussion about who should lead, because it is only in the next
statement of the invitor that he formally asks for the other's
permission to continue ("birshut..."). If he has already been de facto
granted permission to start before he says "Rabotai n'varech", what
would be the point of asking for it again?
Mark Symons
Melbourne Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anonymous2
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 06:09:38
Subject: RE: Women's Bodies and Childbearing and Decisions
On Mar 1, 2006, at 4:56 AM, Anonymous wrote:
> Leah S. R. Gordon wrote:
>> Having children is wonderful, and perhaps the most significant thing
>> that a person can do in life.
>
> I respectfully suggest that it may be appropriate to qualify both the
> assertions (a) about "wonderful," and (b) about "the most significant
> thing a person can do in life." Both assertions may hit raw nerves
> with segments of list readership, and the population more generally,
> such that IMHO a bit more sensitivity is called for here.
So how should it be qualified? I suppose you can add on "if it's
possible for you." Or saying it's ONE of the most wonderful and
significant things? That seems reasonable.
> Given all of these considerations, how are those of us who don't have
> children, for whatever the reasons, supposed to regard our lives,
> since it is incumbent upon us as Torah-committed Jews to believe that
> the Holy One, Blessed be He, put us on this earth for a purpose, and
> made us in His image? Is His purpose to allow others to denigrate us
> and to have someone expendable to kick around? I find it hard to
> believe, but the abundance of offhanded, insensitive comments, and
> completely, coercively pronatalist and parent-centric sociology of our
> world, that imply this, also make me wonder sometimes.
I'm a little stunned by this response. I've read numerous divrei Torah
directed towards people who are having trouble having children and how
of course they are still important to the community but should that make
the mitzvah of priu'v'revu less important? Should someone be made to
feel bad because they have a major bracha of being able to have children
easily, and when they _are_ suited to be parents? I don't think
so. Should Jews be welcoming and warm to people who are not having
children for whatever reason? Of course! It is a sad situation that
certain Jews feel on the fringes because they're single or don't have
children. This goes both ways though. Shouldn't you be welcoming for
people who are having children rather than calling it "coercively
pronatalist and parent-centric"? Should I feel bad for wanting to have
children and raising a family? Why then is there a growing organization
called A TIME who are there specifically to support people who want to
have children but are having problems doing this? Should I feel wrong
for having gone through the tsorus of infertility to now have my child
and be happy I have this bracha? Should I feel wrong to want to have
more? I know not all parents are perfect parents. We're not perfect in
general but should I really believe that a large amount of people are
being parents who shouldn't be parents and should that make me not want
to be a parent? I disagree.
I am sorry you were obviously hurt by Leah S. R. Gordon's comment. I
hope I'm not misreading your comment. I definitely have my biases with
this issue. I am a member of ATIME. I have gone through infertility.
B"H, I have been blessed with a child and yes, I do find this an
amazingly significant part of my life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Saul Mashbaum <smash52@...>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:01:46 +0200
Subject: RE: Women's Bodies and Childbearing and Decisions
In Volume 51 Number 40 Anonymous responded to what Leah S. R. Gordon wrote:
> Having children is wonderful, and perhaps the most significant thing
> that a person can do in life.
with long and poignant posting which began
>I respectfully suggest that it may be appropriate to qualify both the
>assertions (a) about "wonderful," and (b) about "the most significant
>thing a person can do in life." Both assertions may hit raw nerves with
>segments of list readership, and the population more generally, such
>that IMHO a bit more sensitivity is called for here.
It is clear that Leah's statements would be more accurate if preceed by
a qulification by "for most people", "as a rule", "in general", etc..
Although these qualifications are implicit in Leah's statement, as they
are in virtually any generalization we make, we indeed should be
sensitive to the feelings of those who for reasons beyond their control
Leah's statement does not apply to.
OTOH, this can be taken to an extreme, and lead us to avoid praising any
worthwhile activity or admirable trait because there are those who are
incapable of engaging in that activity or achieving that trait. We have
all heard innumerable sermons about the tremendous spiritual value of
learning Torah, and the greatness of those who achieve mastery of the
Torah; sadly, these sermons may well cause pain to parents of retarded
children who are utterly incapable of learning Torah at all. A dvar
Torah at a bar mitzva on the greatness of the mitzva of tefillin may
indeed be poignant to someone who because of a physical disability
cannot perform this commandment. Similarly, statements in praise of
marriage or childbirth may well be bittersweet to those who either want
to marry or have children but have not succeeded in doing so, or are for
any reason are uninclined to do so. If no statement which may cause some
pain to someone may ever be said, very little indeed can be said at all,
including a great many things which are of great value to the majority
of people.
So in behooves us both to identify the activities which should represent
proper goals for the majority of people and promote them, and to be
sensitive to the fact that there are people incapable of engaging in
these activties. I can certainly agree with Anonymous that we should not
impugn the essential spiritual worth of such people.
Saul Mashbaum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabba.hillel@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 05:31:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Women's Bodies and Childbearing and Decisions
> From: Anonymous
> Leah S. R. Gordon wrote:
> Apart from these sociological observations, there are famous, or
> infamous, comments like the one by Rashi, in connection with Rachel's
> demand to Yaakov that he give her children "ve'im ayin, meitah anochi"
> (lest [she] die), to the effect that those w/o children are to be
> regarded as if they were dead.
As I understand that Rashi, the comment is to explain Rachel's
viewpoint, not Rashi's or the halacha. He was explaining why she was so
upset and that she considered herself in that state. It is part of the
explanation as to why Yaakov is criticised (by Hashem according to the
Medrash) for his response. The meforshim do state that she had the
wrong attitude for going overboard, but Yaakov should have understood
how she felt and been more sympathetic.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore"
<Sabba.Hillel@...> | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 51 Issue 42