Volume 51 Number 91
Produced: Fri Apr 7 5:49:18 EDT 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Age and Fasting (2)
[Immanuel Burton, Martin Stern]
Common mispronunciations
[Elazar M. Teitz]
Complexity of Rabbinic Decisions
[Stephen Phillips]
Counting for a Minyan
[Shoshana Ziskind]
Counting Mechalel Shabbos for Minyan
[Ari Trachtenberg]
Israeli siddur for Beginners
[Stu Pilichowski]
Layperson selling Chametz
[Harlan Braude]
Neturei Karta (2)
[Jeanette Friedman, SBA]
Neturei Karta / Satmar Rebbe
[Avi Feldblum]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 10:46:12 +0100
Subject: RE: Age and Fasting
In Mail.Jewish v51n88 it was written:
> Speaking as a non-posek it seems to me that since the shul members
> obviously care about him, his rabbi should consult with the older
> gentleman's doctor and - assuming the doctor agrees - tell him he is
> **halachically forbidden** to fast the whole day.
>
> In such a case, I would hope that he would be allowed to duchen and/or
> be called to the Torah for an aliya with nobody thinking any less of
> him.
I don't think that a cohen who is not fasting would be allowed to duchen
at mincha on a fast day. The reason why there is duchening at mincha on
a fast day is not inherent to the fast day as such, i.e. it is not the
fast day that precipitates duchening. Ordinarily there should be
duchening at mincha in general, but since there is eating and drinking
on most days, cohanim don't duchen in case they had drunk any wine. On
a fast day, however, the cohanim would not have eaten or drunk anything,
and so they are permitted to duchen. I would imagine that a cohen who
is not fasting would be in the same category as all cohanim on non-fast
days, and so wouldn't be allowed to duchen at mincha.
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:46:09 +0100
Subject: Age and Fasting
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 11:48:49 -0500 c.halevi <c.halevi@...> wrote:
> Speaking as a non-posek it seems to me that since the shul members
> obviously care about him, his rabbi should consult with the older
> gentleman's doctor and - assuming the doctor agrees - tell him he is
> **halachically forbidden** to fast the whole day.
This would be the most sensible course of action.
> In such a case, I would hope that he would be allowed to duchen and/or
> be called to the Torah for an aliya with nobody thinking any less of
> him.
AFAIK, someone who is not fasting is not allowed to have an aliyah at
minchah and I presume the same would apply to duchanning. This is not
affected by the fact that he is not fasting because of a halachic
prohibition based on health grounds. However one does not have to ask
anyone at shacharit about their intentions regarding the rest of the day
and he can be given an aliyah then even if he will not complete the
fast.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Apr 3, 2006 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: Common mispronunciations
[Note: For some reason this submission disappeared into an email black
hole, which is why it is appearing later than when R. Teitz originally
wrote and sent it. Mod.]
In response to the assertion that one must be careful not to slur
the terminal M-sound of a word with the beginning M-sound of the
following word, Russell Hendel wrote, "Actually the Minchat Shai on
BeChaL LeVaVeChah contradicts this." I believe that Dr. Hendel has
seriously misstated the Minchat Shai's comments.
He starts by stating that "the MS suggests three ways of reading,"
the first of which is total separation. On this, Dr. Hendel comments
that "MS states that METHOD 1 is NOT acceptable because you eliminate
the hyphen or connective cantillation."
This is not what the MS writes. Rather, he says that if the makkaf
(hyphen) is eliminated, the vowel of the word changes; the hyphenated
form calls for a kamatz, while the unhyphenated form requires a cholam,
and when Chazal (the Talmudic sages) said "to leave space between the
d'veikim (those which 'stick' to one another)," they did not say to
change the vowel. This has no bearing on the word-pair "va'avadtem -
m'heirah," in which presence or absence of the hyphen does not affect
vowels. Note that nowhere does the MS talk about cantillation, only
about changing pronunciation.
Dr. Hendel then says that the MS mentions and rejects a second
method, which he calls "total slur." This method is nowhere mentioned in
the MS, even to reject it (although it is undoubtedly true that this
method is unacceptable).
Dr. Hendel then quotes the MS as purportedly recommending a third
method, which he refers to as "SLUR WITH ELONGATION OF JOINING SYLLABLE:
VaAVadTeMMeHayRah (So you read it as one word but elongate the Mem so
that it is the length of two letters)," which he claims "is
preferred since you simultaneously, a) create one hyphenated
connective-pausal unit and b) give the appearance of separating the words
in terms of duration."
Compare this with the MS's actual words: "Rather, even though he
reads them with a hyphen [which, as above, refers to the vowel--EMT], he
should give a space and a distinction _between_ them, in a manner that it
should appear that there are two lameds."
There is no way that sentence can be contorted to mean that one
should elongate a single letter.
In actuality, the MS is elaborating on the words of the Talmud
(B'rochos 15b), which state explicitly "to _leave space_ between the
'd'veikim'." How does extending a consonantal sound, while reading the
words as one, constitute "leaving space"?
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Phillips <admin@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 12:17:25 +0100
Subject: Re: Complexity of Rabbinic Decisions
> From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
> (4) Now to the heart of the matter and to my disagreement with Avi.
> Thoroughout Jewish law AND EVEN IN THE BIBLE we find reinterpretation
> based on contradiction and anomaly. For example the BIble says that
> "When Moses raised his hands the Jews were winning and otherwise they
> were losing" The Talmud literally makes fun of this Biblical verse: "Do
> you win a war by raising hands...(in effect 'how silly') Rather RAISING
> HANDS means PRAYER...when the Jews prayed they won and otherwise not."
> So we see that the Talmud thinks it Kosher to reinterpret based on
> contradiction in performance (Hands dont win a war). The verse then
> becomes obscure...it doesnt mean what it says. In a similar manner I
> think that intrinsic to analyzing the Talmudic statement is it
> possibility of implementation...and if you can't implement it...you
> SHOULD call it obscure and reinterpret it.
The fact is, however, that the Jews WERE winning when Moshe's hands were
up and losing when they were down. To that extent, therefore, the verse
is not "obscure". What is obscure, and required interpretation by
Chazal, is WHY this should be the case.
Stephen Phillips.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shoshana Ziskind <shosh@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 10:04:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Counting for a Minyan
On Apr 5, 2006, at 5:28 AM, Leah S. Gordon
<leah@...>wrote:
> Counting for a minyan is fundamentally different than almost every
> other example I can think of (counting as a Cohen; being able to say
> various brachot; counting as a firstborn; etc.). A person's basic
> dignity is at stake if she doesn't "count" as a person in the
> community. And, Jewishly, the community is officially counted in
> terms of the religious Minyan.
> If you don't end up counting me, but you say you really wish you
> could, that begins to be satisfactory. If you say "it doesn't matter"
> then that is totally unsatisfactory.
Well here I am saying I don't really see the point. Women aren't
obligated to daven in a minyan. Why does it make sense for us to be
counted in this sense? I disagree also that the community is solely
counted in terms of the minyan. There's much more to Jewish life than
the minyan as much as I love seeing my husband go to one. And are you
saying for the last 2000 years Rabbis have been wrong?
I know I'm much more conservative in my outlook than you are and this
obviously is reflected in my response but I think of myself as an
official part of the community even if I don't count for the minyan. I
know many people are not satisfied by this explanation but I'm
completely satisfied knowing that there are things men do and things
women do. One question btw, if being part of the minyan for a woman is
so important should we also be having men light Shabbos licht? They
never do it unless there's no woman to do it for them and it's really a
woman's mitzvah but is that fair?
The only thing personally I would like to change is if I could kush the
Torah more than just in hakafos and if it could be done in a tsnius
way. Otherwise I'm pretty happy davening and not being counted in the
minyhan.
Shoshana Ziskind
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 09:38:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Counting Mechalel Shabbos for Minyan
>From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
>The requirement of ten adult males for a davar shebikdusha is based on
>the eidah of ten spies excluding Calev and Yehoshua. This might
>indicate that we do not require ten exceptionally righteous individuals
>but it is difficult to extrapolate to include people who brazenly
>desecrate Shabbat as an act of rebellion against HKBH.
Quite the contrary ... the testimony of the ten spies was precisely a
brazen act of rebellion against HKBH, who promised us the land.
Best,
Ari Trachtenberg, Boston University
http://people.bu.edu/trachten mailto:<trachten@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stu Pilichowski <cshmuel@...>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:40:53 +0000
Subject: Israeli siddur for Beginners
Can anyone help me find a siddur written for Israelis without a clue as to
the geography of a siddur or a bet haknesset?
Stuart Pilichowski
Mevaseret Zion, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harlan Braude <hbraude@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 08:25:19 -0400
Subject: RE: Layperson selling Chametz
> > I did ask and got permission years ago, to sell my office-based
> > chametz to a nonJewish colleague. I actually gathered up the stuff
> ...
> I hope you took the pot to the mikveh, as is required of
> ...
> within them is sold. (This is a good example of why one
> should not undertake a private sale.)
Another good reason might be making certain that the buyer really isn't
Jewish.
I worked for many years with a Catholic woman of Irish descent who would
take on occasional tasks I was working on that the group needed to be
done on Shabbos. I thought I knew this person fairly well, until one day
we were discussing family and she mentioned her maternal Jewish
grandmother. (Gulp!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <FriedmanJ@...> (Jeanette Friedman)
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 08:08:57 EDT
Subject: Re: Neturei Karta
> And the Satmar Rebbe in the abovementioned sefer CLEARLY writes
> against any idea of handing Israel over to the Arabs CV.
Where can I find that in VaYoel Moshe?
BTW I think Neturei Karta believe that the Satmar Rebbe would
agree with their activities/views.
Really? Is that why Dovid Weiss is essentially in Satmar Cherem?
I called some top notch Satmars, and they are really upset with the NK
and put them in an unofficial cherem. Chassidim have also been asked not
to give them money when they come for handouts.
jeanette
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 23:16:51 +1000
Subject: Re: Neturei Karta
From: (Dov Teichman)
SBA <sba@...> writes:
>> And the Satmar Rebbe in the abovementioned sefer CLEARLY writes
>> against any idea of handing Israel over to the Arabs CV.
>Where can I find that in VaYoel Moshe?
See the Hakdomo [p. 8 column 2 - at the bottom].
>I think Neturei Karta believe that the Satmar Rebbe would agree with
>their activities/views.
The NK couldn't really care WHAT the SR thought. Even in his lifetime
those meshugoim didn't consider him to be up to their 'standards'. They
published a poster in Jm - headed "Rabbeinu sar min haderech' [Our Rabbi
has deviated / turned from the [correct] path. Mod.] !!
It is well known that when a group of Satmar yeshiva talmidim once
staged their own impromptu protest outside the Israeli Consulate, he was
extremely angry.
He explained that before he decided on a demonstartion against one or
another of the Israeli govt's anti-religious gezeiros, he had meetings
and discussions with gedolei harabonim, listening to all aspects of the
matter and only then decided whether to go ahead or not.
He held that irresponsible youngsters [and presumably 'oldsters'] had no
right in undertalking such moves -without the permission of the gedolim.
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 23:16:51 +1000
Subject: Re: Neturei Karta / Satmar Rebbe
A quick note on the comment above about "youngsters [and presumably
'oldsters']" in regard to the Satmar Rebbe.
Around 1955 (maybe some of the people on the list know more about the
details / dates) the / a Satmar Beis Din put the Lubavitcher Rebbe in
cherem. This very much bothered the LR, and he asked my grandfather to
go to the SR to talk to him about the incident. When my grandfather
spoke with the SR, before the SR agreed to take care of the incident,
his response was that (apologies in advance for mangeling the Yiddish) -
dos is kinder shpeilin - this is "youngsters" playing. My understanding
is that the average age of people on this Beis Din well well over 50
years of age, yet based on thier actions (my assumption here) the SR
refered to them as "children / youngsters"
Avi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 51 Issue 91
