Volume 52 Number 20
Produced: Mon Jun 19 5:13:01 EDT 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Battery Farms and Eggs
[Bernard Raab]
Chatzotzort/Chatzotzerot
[Orrin Tilevitz]
Dagesh and Trop
[Orrin Tilevitz]
Kaddish D'rabbanim (2)
[SBA, Martin Stern]
men going to Hashakam minyan
[Tzvi Stein]
Question About Logic and Eternity
[David Ziants]
Role of Women (2)
[Carl A. Singer, Shoshana L. Boublil]
Women and Kaddish
[Rochelle Millen]
Women and Learning
[Tzvi Stein]
Women saying Kaddish - clarification
[Ira L. Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:57:41 -0400
Subject: Battery Farms and Eggs
>From: Mark Goldin :
>The eggs are most certainly not grown artificially! Battery farms
>consist of row upon row of densely packed caged hens. Your eggs come
>from a live animal which lives out its short life pumping out an
>unnatural number of eggs in miserable, painful conditions. The halachic
>question should really be about whether it is desirable to benefit from
>the animal's suffering. Wherever possible, you should try very hard to
>obtain your eggs from a reliably free- range source.
Before I give a new shopping instruction to my beloved wife (which she
would likely ignore), perhaps Mark can illuminate us on the source of
his knowledge regarding the putative suffering of chickens. Are we
compelled to anthropomorphize all animals by some "Disney model" of
animal life, or is there some objective research on the matter? And if
the former, might it not be possible to construct a model wherein the
animals are actually happier being focused on their strictly-confined
roles without having to face the vicissitudes and struggles of the "real
world"? Might this be the poultry equivalent of the kolel life?
lighten up folks--Bernie R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 20:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Chatzotzort/Chatzotzerot
In the Breuer tanach, in Bemidmar 10:8 the word "bachatzotzrot" lacks a
preceding meteg (vertical line), so technically the shva should be
"nach" and not pronounced, and the word should be pronounced
"bachatzotz-rot". In the same word in the same place in the next verse
(and everywhere else I could find the word or its variants in the Breuer
tanach), it has a preceding meteg (or some other accent), and so
technically the shva should be "na" and the word should be pronounced
"bachatzotz-erot". If I'm reading correctly my copy of the Leningrad
Codex, which I thought the Breuer tanach follows (where the Aleppo Codex
is unavailable), no meteg appears there in either of the verses in
Bemidbar.
Can one of the text experts on the list explain this discrepancy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 20:41:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Dagesh and Trop
I am probably not saying this precisely, but in biblical Hebrew, if (1)
two words are joined or part of the same phrase as indicated by the
taamei hamikra (trop) and (2) the second word begins with the letters
beit, gimmel, dalet, kof, pei or tof, these letters are almost always
"soft" and lack a dagesh. That this is directly related to the taamei
hamikra is shown graphically in the asseret hadibrot (Ten Commandments)
where in the "taam hatachton" the phrase is "ve-asita kol melachtecha"
because the trop causes a pause after "ve-asita", but in the "taam
ha-elyon" it's "ve-asita chol melactecha" because there's no pause.
So here's my question: is there inherent sanctity to the dagesh? That
is, if the minhag is to ignore the printed taamim which break a phrase
up, and instead sing a verse in a way as to create a phrase, do these
letters properly lose the dagesh when they're pronounced? The question
arises in parshat Behaalotecha, in the beginning of chamishi, where the
(or a) custom is to read some of the verses with the tune from the
shirat hayam. If you do and pronunciation follows the way you sing it,
for example "matei be-nei yisachar" would become "matei ve-nei
yisachar".
What to do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 19:56:17 +1000
Subject: Re: Kaddish D'rabbanim
From: Jack Gross <>
> From: SBA <sba@...>
>> IIANM, Kaddish Derabonon should be said only after a Dvar Agada - rather
>> than following Halacha or Mishna/gemara.
>
>An Agada that quotes a verse with shem Hashem is always selected. I
>believe it is to provide an explicit referent for "Shemeh" ("His name"),
>and not because teaching of Halacha is insufficient reason for reciting
>the Kaddish.
Interesting. You have a source for this?
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:25:24 +0100
Subject: Re: Kaddish D'rabbanim
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:28:03 -0400, Jack Gross <jbgross@...> wrote:
> Edot hamizrach add verses that speak of G'd's *name* (Yehi
> shem...; Uvaruch shem kevodo) before certain instances of Kaddish.
This was also the minhag of the German ashkenazim but only in kaddish
titkabal (see e.g. Baer, Avodat Yisrael p. 130)
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:11:53 -0400
Subject: Re: men going to Hashakam minyan
> I came across an assertion that men go to the Shabbos hashkama minyan so
> that they may then return home to watch the children thus allowing their
> wives to go to shul.
>
> I imagine there are a variety of reasons for going -- both current and
> historic. I'd be interested if there are any halachik links. (I'm not
> talking about a "sunrise" minyan and those halachas -- just an early
> minyan.)
>
> Carl A. Singer, Ph.D.
I remember hearing a story from the early part of the 20th century,
where a certain rabbi forbade the Shabbos hashkama minyan, since people
were using it as a way to go to shul on Shabbos, then go to work. The
rabbi felt that the presence of the minyan was being interpreted as an
implicit "stamp of approval" for this behavior.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:18:14 +0200
Subject: Re: Question About Logic and Eternity
A great question that has been discussed by the greatest of scholars for
thousands of years.
One aspect of the question in this posting, refers to an assumption
that: "God is logical".
One approach to trying to "reach" the Creator is by logic inference as
is described in the Medrash about how Avraham Avinu (our forefather)
tried to understand there is G-d, by looking at the hierarchy in world
nature and coming to the conclusion that everything is created.
Although this approach might be considered a logical approach, in
absolute terms logic is itself a created entity. Thus G-d would then
have to be above logic as He is above "everything", and it is the fact
that "everything" there is, is created. I put "everything" in quotes as
this includes both physical entities and spiritual entities, all of
which form part of creation. Time is also a created entity, so is human
free-will, and yet G-d works in the world to the minutest of details.
A classic Jewish approach is that the personal experiences of Avraham
Avinu, or any other individual was not deemed enough to turn us into the
nation that follows the Torah. That is why we (the People of Israel) had
to go through the events that led to the revelation at Sinai where as a
collective we had the experience of receiving the Torah that will
accompany us to the end of history. Only from the collective experience,
were we able to receive and pass down through the generations a
well-founded tradition.
Two good classic books that take different approaches to understanding
Jewish thought:
a) Derech Hashem ("The Way of G-d) written by the Ramch"al (Rabbi Moshe
Chaim Luzzato) a few centuries ago. This has been translated from the
Hebrew to English.
b) The Kuzari, written by Rih"al (Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi) approx. 1000
years ago. This has been translated from the original Arabic to Hebrew
(a number of times over the centuries) , and has also been translated to
English. It is based on a fictional conversation between the king of the
Kazars who wants to find the true belief, and the Rabbi. After the King
talks to priests of the two biggest gentile monolithic religions as well
as to a philosopher, and rejects their arguments, he begins a dialogue
with a Rabbi. The king and his subjects eventual convert to being Jews.
David Ziants,
Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl A. Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:31:39 -0400
Subject: Role of Women
> When a rabbi is asked by a woman: "I am used to studying, but now that
> I'm married and a mother I don't have the time and I miss it" and the
> rabbi responds "well, what do you expect, you are now a wife and
> mother". It just makes it clear that the rabbi has no understanding,
> and apparently no interest in understanding the problems facing women
> nowadays.
I'm not sure I buy the above characterization -- certainly there are
those rabbi's who provide the "go away silly girl" reply (as above.)
but there are others who may be a bit more understanding -- or at least
SHOULD be a more understanding and be aware of who they are talking with
- and the wants, needs, etc., of that person.
Consider the following - paraphrase:
When a rabbi is asked by a MAN: "I am used to studying, but now that I'm
married and a FATHER I don't have the time and I miss it" and the rabbi
responds "well, what do you expect, you are now a HUSBAND and BREAD
WINNER ...."
BUT YOU MUST MAKE TIME ....
The difference being the implied obligation for the man to (continue)
learning.
Carl A. Singer,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shoshana L. Boublil <toramada@...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 08:17:02 +0200
Subject: Re: Role of Women
> I'm not sure I buy the above characterization -- certainly there are
> those rabbi's who provide the "go away silly girl" reply (as above.)
The above is a section/paraphrase of a responsa published by a renowned
rabbi in a Parshat HaShavu'a sheet.
> but there are others who may be a bit more understanding -- or at least
> SHOULD be a more understanding and be aware of who they are talking
> with - and the wants, needs, etc., of that person.
True.
> Consider the following - paraphrase:
>
> When a rabbi is asked by a MAN: "I am used to studying, but now that
> I'm married and a FATHER I don't have the time and I miss it" and the
> rabbi responds "well, what do you expect, you are now a HUSBAND and
> BREAD WINNER ...."
> BUT YOU MUST MAKE TIME ....
Well, I expected more than that. From research and discussions I've
been involved with over the past few years, I've discovered that there
are both literature and oral traditions that actually use the time and
activities involved in raising a family and keeping a clean home etc. --
to raise a woman's spiritual level.
For example, Rav Kook, in Orot writes (trx): "All the work that is done,
should be done out of Love. Then it ceases to be boring or difficult or
shameful. Even a glass or a plate can be washed out of Dveikut until
they glow, out of an attempt to achieve perfection."
Another example would be Rav Chaim David HaLevy's writings on Candle
lighting (for example). He gives it a full chapter, with much
information that I never came across while studying in school.
Another example would be the Chalot as a prayer process that I've
published in the past (created by women under the guidance of an
orthodox rabbi).
So, why don't the rabbis know about these sources of information? Why
don't they encourage learning them? Why are we (as women) learning Bava
Metzi'a in school but nothing about these sources?
My mother-in-law has an oral tradition going back thousands of years,
mother to daugther on all kinds of halachot and homelife traditions, but
when I asked her why she didn't teach us, her daughters and
daughters-in-law she says that the impression she got was that "it
wasn't important"!!! (compare this with the lack of tradition in areas
that were devestated by the Holocaust).
So, the rabbis had the opportunity to influence the teachings in women's
schools and seminaries. But apparently, things are missing.
Shoshana L. Boublil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rochelle Millen <rmillen@...>
Date: Jun 18, 2006 7:34 AM
Subject: Women and Kaddish
In following the thread of discussion re: women and kaddish, I thought
to bring to the attention of mail.jewish readers an essay I wrote titled
"The Female Voice of Kaddish." It can be found in Jewish Legal Writings
by Women, ed. Micah D. Halpern and Chana Safrai and was published by
Urim Publications in 1998. The essay reviews the halakhic literature
from the seventeenth century until the present regarding women and
kaddish.
Women certainly may choose to recite kaddish as part of the grieving
process and indeed, as has been pointed out in some posts, may do so as
persons regardless of whether or not a male is also reciting kaddish. I
recited kaddish for each of my parents, a"h, as well as for my sister,
a"h, and know many women who have done the same.
Rochel Millen
Professor of Religion, Wittenberg University
Springfield, Oh 45501
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:15:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Women and Learning
I am reminded of an amusing response by a certain rabbi who was
conducting an "Ask the Rabbi" session. The question was "Why don't
women learn Gemora?", and the rabbi's response was "Why don't men learn
Gemora?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:42:58 +0300
Subject: Re: Women saying Kaddish - clarification
ELPhM stated:
Also, nobody seriously claims that Ashkenazim (Poilishe or
others) go by only one pousek, and entirely by him.
Which was my point. The only poseq (that I know of) who states that
qaddish *must* be recited after `Aleinu leshab`ah--even if there is no
hiyyuv--is the Rema. That certainly makes it a minority opinion (da`at
yahid).
Or, does anyone know of another poseq who holds that way?
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 52 Issue 20
