Volume 53 Number 10
Produced: Sun Nov 19 12:01:21 EST 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Aliya for a wayward kohen (6)
[Gershon Dubin, Lipman Phillip Minden, Hillel (Sabba)
Markowitz, Shimon Lebowitz, Orrin Tilevitz, Hillel (Sabba)
Markowitz]
Early minyan UWS (2)
[Yosi Fishkin, Hanno Mott]
Hashkama
[Andy Goldfinger]
Mashgichot
[Binyomin Segal]
Ring for Kidushin
[Andy Goldfinger]
Text of Ahavat Olam
[Haim Snyder]
Variant or Misprint?
[Shimon Lebowitz]
windup LED flashlights and Rabbi Karelitz
[Ari Trachtenberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:17:45 GMT
Subject: Aliya for a wayward kohen
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
> May a kohen married to a non-Jew receive the first aliya as a kohen,
> and if not, may he be given shlishi? I could not find this issue
> discussed on this list.
A kohen who is married to someone to whom he is not permitted to be
married, e.g. a gerusha, has no privileges of kehuna, including
duchening and the first aliya. Shelishi is not a problem any more than
it is for any other (yisrael) who is an avaryan (habitual sinner).
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lipman Phillip Minden <phminden@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:39:21 +0100
Subject: Re: Aliya for a wayward kohen
This is a question to ask your rav. That being said (and meant):
- Cohen (rishon): is an honour, no good
- Shlishi: is stating he's not a valid cohen, at least difficult
- maftir or acharon (where the latter is common): permissable, because
eliyes aren't honours, they're mitzves and you wouldn't tell him to
stop eating kosher because he violated another law, would you?
Sride Eish and/or R' Pinches Goldschmidt's tshuves might discuss
this. (But maybe that was about an uncircumcised cohen.)
Lipman Phillip Minden
http://lipmans.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <Sabba.Hillel@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:21:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Aliya for a wayward kohen
I would suggest that a kohen "married" to a nonJew should be treated as
no better than one married to a divorcee and is therefore challal and,
as such, would not be a kohen at all.
If a person is known as a kohen, then he should not be called to any
aliyah other than kohen (or acharon or maftir which are not part of the
regular seven) as it implies that his father was not a valid kohen.
As far as whether *any* "intermarried" person should ever get an aliyah,
that is a different matter.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore."
<Sabba.Hillel@...> | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:34:40 +0200
Subject: Re: Aliya for a wayward kohen
I davened in a shul where there was a kohen who, when he got an aliya,
was ONLY given 'acharon'. I was told this was because he had married a
grusha, and so was not given 'kohen', but since he was was a kohen, he
was invalid for any other standard aliya.
Shimon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 08:46:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Aliya for a wayward kohen
In response to my question as to whether a kohen married to a non-Jew may
be called to the Torah for either kohen or shelishi, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> A kohen who is married to someone to whom he is not permitted to be
> married, e.g. a gerusha, has no privileges of kehuna, including duchening
> and the first aliya. Shelishi is not a problem any more than it is for
> any other (yisrael) who is an avaryan (habitual sinner).
Hillel (Saba) Markowitz wrote:
> . . a kohen "married" to a nonJew should be treated as no better than
> one married to a divorcee and is therefore challal and, as such, would
> not be a kohen at all. If a person is known as a kohen, then he should
> not be called to any aliyah other than kohen (or acharon or maftir
> which are not part of the regular seven) as it implies that his father
> was not a valid kohen.
Neither cites sources, so to further the discussion, here is what I
found. Shulchan Aruch, O"Ch 128:40, says that a kohen married to one of
the issurei kehuna, namely a gerusha, zona, or a chalala, forfeits his
rights as a kohen and may not receive the first aliya or duchen. A
responsum in Igrot Moshe, O"CH II:33, says that only these particularly
aveirot disqualify a kohen from the first aliya because they are unique
to a kohen, so that a kohen who commits them is consciously abandoning
his kehuna. The responsum also says (as Gershon does) that since the
person is treated as non-kohen, he is a zar, and therefore could get
shelishi.
Although the responsum does not address the case of the intermarried
kohen, the implication of its logic (contrary to Messrs. Dubin and
Markowitz) is that these particular cases of marriage are sui generis.
"Marrying" a non-Jew is no more forbidden to a kohen than it is to a
yisrael, so by the logic of this responsum, it should not affect the
kohen's ability to get the first aliya. Neither, for that matter, would
the kohen's engaging in other generally forbidden relationships, whether
familial, with a nida, or simply promiscuous.
Note that on principle, a kohen may get any aliya after shelishi; the
practice of giving him only kohen, acharon and maftir is only a minhag
ashkenaz according to the Rema (I forget where). Therefore, the
conclusion that a born kohen could get shelishi, from which he is
normally barred, not merely the other aliyot, would appear to be a big
chidush.
A responsum in Seridei Eish II:6 states that an intermarried Jew (not
only a kohen) has the status of a menude, and therefore may not get an
aliya. Shiurim Metzuyanim Behalacha states that a kohen who has
committed any aveira may not get kohen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabba.hillel@...>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:25:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Aliya for a wayward kohen
I was basing my conclusion on the psak of the mishnah brurah that a
kohen *must* leave the shul before duchening if he is not going to
duchen because anyone who sees him not going to duchen would assume a
'pgam' (flaw) in his lineage. This is also given as a reason that a
different kohen is not called for Levi if there is no Levi present to
take the second aliyah. As a result, I would say that following this
logic would imply that it would follow for more than Levi and Shlishi.
If it were not for the specific mention in the response that you quote,
I would have said that, since he can regain his status as a kohen by
divorcing his wife (unlike their children who are challalim), he would
not be given an aliyah because it would imply that there is a pgam in
his lineage (or he is adopted) so that he is not really a kohen.
I see that the responsum in Sridei Aish points out that while the
"intermarried" (I cannot bring myself to use the term without the quote
marks to show that it is not a marriage) kohen might not be forbidden to
get an aliya for the *same* reason as a kohen married to a divorcee, he
is forbidden to get an aliya. Perhaps I was conflating the two. Another
possibility would be that since he is already forbidden to get *any*
aliya, the responsum does not mention it as far as a kohen married to a
divorcee etc. is concerned.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore"
<Sabba.Hillel@...> | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7637/544/640/SabbaHillel.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yosi Fishkin <Joseph@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:26:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Early minyan UWS
Pre-8:00 AM Shabbos morning minyanim on the Upper West Side:
7:30 AM Ohab Zedek - 118 W. 95th St. (at Columbus)
7:45 AM Lincoln Square Synagogue - Amsterdam & 69th
More detailed information about each location can be found at
www.GoDaven.com. If you come across any others, please let me know.
Yosi Fishkin, MD
www.GoDaven.com - The Worldwide Minyan Database
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hanno Mott <hmott@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 07:02:10 -0500
Subject: Early minyan UWS
Both Lincoln Square synagogue [Amsterdam & 69] and The Jewish Center
[131 W. 86] have Hashkama minyanim at 7:45 AM on Shabbo
Hanno Mott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Goldfinger <Andy.Goldfinger@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:00:49 -0500
Subject: Hashkama
Driving in to work, I passed a Church that had the following sign in
front:
Early Morning Service. 8:30 AM
Sigh!
-- Andy Goldfinger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:13:25 -0600
Subject: Re: Mashgichot
Hi all -
I do not know what the current practice is, but I do know that the cRc
(Chicago Rabbinical Council) willingly hired a mashgicha a number of
years ago (about 10 or so). She was certainly in the minority, but they
did not make it difficult for her. She was my student at the time, and
she went through the same process any other applying mashgiach would
have gone through for the same position.
My impression from her was that she enjoyed the position. And she kept
it for a number of years. (I seem to recall that she gave it up when she
got married.)
Just one more data point.
binyomin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Goldfinger <Andy.Goldfinger@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:00:19 -0500
Subject: Ring for Kidushin
I think Moshiach must be close. Hillel and Shammai now agree.
A number of years ago, I went into a coin shop in Jerusalem and bought a
genuine 2000 year old peruta. It cost $20. Since this coin is now
worth more than a dinar, Shammai would agree that you can accomplish
kiddushin with a peruta! So -- Hillel and Shammai are in total
agreement!
:-)
-- Andy Goldfinger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Haim Snyder <Haim.Snyder@...>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:14:11 +0200
Subject: RE: Text of Ahavat Olam
Art Werschulz wrote:
>My wife picked up a micro-sized minha/maariv booklet. It was published
>in Eretz Yisrael, but has emendations that make it work for chutzniks
>(e.g., baruch hashem l'olam). It's an Ashkenazi siddur.
>She noticed that the bracha "ahavat olam" had the phrasing "v'nismach
>b'divrei *talmud* toratecha". I've never seen that word "talmud" in
>this bracha (my sample consisting of Ashkenazi siddurim for both Eretz
>Yisrael and chutz la'aretz). Is the word "talmud" a variant of some
>kind or another? Or is it a misprint?
The phrasing cited is from nusah Sfard. It is not uncommon for Israeli
publishers to put out the same size siddur in both versions, usually
nusah Sfard first, since Rav Goren made it the nusah of the army and it
is, therefore, the most common in Israel. Sometimes, when "correcting"
it for nusah Ashkenaz, they forget to delete words. That is probably
what happened in this case.
Haim Shalom Snyder (<haim.snyder@...>)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:34:40 +0200
Subject: Re: Variant or Misprint?
> > She noticed that the bracha "ahavat olam" had the phrasing "v'nismach
> > b'divrei *talmud* toratecha". I've never seen that word "talmud" in
> > this bracha (my sample consisting of Ashkenazi siddurim for both Eretz
> > Yisrael and chutz la'aretz). Is the word "talmud" a variant of some
> > kind or another? Or is it a misprint?
>
> Nusach sefard.
Not the nusach sefard siddurim that I checked. However the eidot mizrach
version did have it.
Shimon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:06:37 -0500
Subject: Re: windup LED flashlights and Rabbi Karelitz
Michael Mirsky <mirskym@...> wrote:
> As far as creating and breaking a circuit being boneh and soter, this
> seems to me to be fairly clear. The same applies to turning on and
> off a light switch. You are creating a path for the current to flow
> to deliver power to the bulb, and then you are breaking that circuit
> and stopping the power. This is one of the prime reasons given for
> not turning on electric devices on Shabbat.
I've always had a problem with this logic, because you do the same
thing, for example, by turning on your faucet on Shabbat. You are
creating a path (through air, assisted by gravity) for water to flow
from higher potential to lower potential. For that matter, water can be
used to generate work (e.g. light a lamp) as well!
> Another is "makeh b'patish" (lit. banging with a hammer) which
> applies to putting the final touch on some device to make it
> usable. This is another melacha forbidden on Shabbat.
How could this be an issue in a device that is constantly turning (by
design), taking apart and putting together the circuit on a schedule?
> Another problem (especially with incandescent bulbs) is that the
> filament getting so hot is like fire, so in a sense you're creating
> fire.
This is the only argument that seems halachically supported to me...but
it would not apply to a wide variety of electronic devices.
Best,
Ari Trachtenberg, Boston University
http://people.bu.edu/trachten mailto:<trachten@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 53 Issue 10
