Volume 57 Number 12
Produced: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:35:56 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
A Question in Learning
[Alex Heppenheimer]
A Rule (2)
[David Wachtel Martin Stern]
Intermarriage and Niddah (3)
[Alex Heppenheimer Martin Stern Leah S. R. Gordon]
Intermarriage vs. Niddah
[Russell J Hendel]
Not saying Tachanun
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Rosh HaShanah 2009 & the Rambam
[Richard Fiedler]
Taslich when there are no rivers or streams (2)
[Joseph Mosseri Menashe Elyashiv]
Tevillas Keilim
[Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 27,2009 at 02:01 PM
Subject: A Question in Learning
In MJ 57:11, Eitan Fiorino <afiorino@...> wrote in reply to me:
>> It's a normal part of Torah study to offer one's own
>> explanations (in the spirit of "my ancestors left me an area
>> in which to accomplish something" - Chullin 7a), while at the
>> same time realizing one's inadequacy relative to the greats
>> of previous generations ("If the earlier ones were like
>> angels, we are like humans; if they were like humans, we are
>> like donkeys..." - Shabbos 112b).
>1. Does this concept have any applicability within the field of Biblical
>commentary/hermeneutics? I'm uncertain that it is applied outside of helachic
>realms. Logically, it would seem to make no sense to apply it here - if indeed
>all the good drush and pshat has already been said and our thoughts are
>"inadequa[te] relative to the greats of previous generations" then there would
>seem to have been no reason for Bible commentary since bayit sheni - the
>halachic midrashim would have been the first and last commentaries. By this
>view - how could Rashi or Ibn Ezra or Rashbam disagree with the tannaim about
>the interpretation of a pasuk?
Actually, in the various contexts in which this adage is mentioned, it seems to
be a general statement, not limited to any particular field of Torah study. The
primary sources are (in all of them it's R' Ze(i)ra saying this): Shabbos 112b,
Yerushalmi Shekalim 5:1, and Bereishis Rabbah 60:8.On the other hand, it is true
that he's not saying explicitly that this idea prevents us from disagreeing with
those earlier authorities.
That said, the Ohr Hachayim (in his commentary to Vayikra 11:24) indeed cites
this expression in connection with Biblical commentary, and in criticism of Ibn
Ezra, who offers an explanation of the verse contrary to the Sifra (an early
halachic midrash).
So here we have a perfect example of these two ideas working in tandem.
Obviously the Ohr Hachayim felt that there is a need for further commentary -
that it's not true that "all the good drush and pshat has already been said"
-otherwise he wouldn't have written his own. But at the same time he's saying
that such commentary should be based on our understanding of what the earlier
authorities said, rather than in opposition to them, because they are on an
inconceivably greater level than us.
On the other hand, presumably Ibn Ezra would disagree, and say that at least
where it doesn't impinge on halachah, there's nothing wrong with giving a
contradictory opinion.
Though, of course,even according to this view, there's still a world of
difference between saying "this was their explanation, and with all due respect,
this is mine" (or "this was their explanation, but it seems difficult,on
such-and-such grounds, to accept it; so here's mine")versus saying "their
explanation is wrong" (implying that one's understanding of what they said is
the only valid one).
Kol tuv,
Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Wachtel <dawachtel@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 27,2009 at 02:01 PM
Subject: A Rule
Regarding the crowded conditions at the Kotel, can we agree that the physical
division of space is simply inequitable. Giving what I estimate to be 4/5 (not
sure of this, just what it seems like to my eye) of the space at the Kotel to
the men results in constant overcrowding on the women's side while the men's
side is usually much less sparsely populated. In addition to the wide open plaza
area, hundreds of feet of "inside" kotel space are available to the men. I
recognize that there are a few times that the crush of people at the kotel is
very great on both sides of the mechitzah and that there are times that all the
available space on the men's side is used (birkat kohanim on hagim, for example)
however, usually this is NOT the case. The mechitzah should be able to be moved
to accommodate all Jews when possible, not just those of the male gender.
David Wachtel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 27,2009 at 05:01 PM
Subject: A Rule
On Tue, Aug 25,2009, Arie Weiss <aliw@...> wrote:
> fourthly, you choose your society. the u.s. is far from free of uncouth
> characters who push in line (or shoot you because of road rage).
I live in England where perhaps people do not push to the front of queues as
much, not the USA.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 27,2009 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Intermarriage and Niddah
In MJ 57:11, Leah S. R. Gordon <leah@...> wrote:
>I find it vaguely interesting, in an irritating way, that none of the
>men who have been discussing this issue so far have imagined the point of
>view of the woman being the Jewish partner in the scenario. It seems
>obvious from everything brought thus far, that if a Jewish *woman* is
>being advised between ignoring Niddah with a Jewish husband,
>or marrying a nonJew, that she would be advised to marry the nonJew.
>After all, her children are still Jewish!
Not so, because in that case she would still be subject to lashes (Rambam, Hil.
Issurei Biah 12:1) - and, I would guess, kareis (being spiritually "cut off"
from the Jewish people), same as a Jewish man having relations with a non-Jewish
woman (ibid., halachah 6). Having relations as a niddah is also punishable by
kareis for both partners (ibid. 1:1 and 4:1), and potentially lashes too
(Rambam, Hil. Sanhedrin 19:4, item 162). And after all, in both cases the
children are kosher Jews.
But let's consider this: isn't observance of the niddah laws largely in the
woman's power anyway? So what exactly would be the scenario where there might be
any halachic reason to recommend her to marry a non-Jew rather than observing
these halachos with a Jewish husband?
Aside from that, probably the reason that the discussion so far has focused
on the man is that (a) that's how the original hypothetical was presented (back
in MJ 55:57), and (b) most of the relevant sources deal with the prohibitions
against a Jewish man marrying a non-Jewish woman, most likely because
historically that was the more common case (as far back as Biblical times - see
Malachi ch. 2).
Kol tuv,
Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 27,2009 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Intermarriage and Niddah
On Mon, Aug 24,2009, Leah S. R. Gordon <leah@...> wrote:
> I find it vaguely interesting, in an irritating way, that none of the
> men who have been discussing this issue so far have imagined the point of
> view of the woman being the Jewish partner in the scenario. It seems
> obvious from everything brought thus far, that if a Jewish *woman* is
> being advised between ignoring Niddah with a Jewish husband,
> or marrying a nonJew, that she would be advised to marry the nonJew.
The point at issue in the discussion is whether it is more sinful for a
Jewish man to cohabit with a Jewish woman who is a niddah, that being a
Torah prohibition, than with a non-Jewish woman to whom the laws of tumah
and taharah [ritual purity] do not apply by Torah law and is only niddah by
rabbinic enactment. As far as a Jewish woman is concerned she is
transgressing the Torah law when she cohabits as a niddah with anyone, Jew
or non-Jew, so there is not much to discuss.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. R. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 27,2009 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Intermarriage and Niddah
> Martin Stern
> As far as a Jewish woman is concerned she is
> transgressing the Torah law when she cohabits as a niddah with anyone, Jew
> or non-Jew, so there is not much to discuss.
Martin,
Please provide a source that the requirements/"sin" are the same
for a Jewish woman with a Jewish man vs. a nonJewish man.
--Leah
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 27,2009 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Intermarriage vs. Niddah
Leah states "It seems obvious from everything brought thus far, that if a Jewish
*woman* is
being advised between ignoring Niddah with a Jewish husband, or marrying a
nonJew, that she would be advised to marry the nonJew. After all, her children
are still Jewish"
No. If you carefully examine the arguments I produced the advice to a Jewish
woman would be to marry a Jewish man even thought they don't intend to observe
Niddah (and outreach to the couple to change).
My initial arguments were based on the citations in Rambam Chapter 12 of
Forbidden Intercourses. The emphasis there is marrying a non-jew "cuts you off
from the Jewish people." This advice is based on numerous verses in the Torah
"....they (the non jew) will steer your children from me..." It is true that we
derive "status of children" from this verse...so "children from a Jewish father
and non Jewish mother are non Jewish and hence the verse that they are steered
from Me"
However such a focused literal reading (change of status) ignores several
factors. First of all according to some people the so called "Cut off"
punishment by definition means "cut off from the Jewish people." For this reason
the Bible doesn't have to state that marriage with non jewesses/jews has a
punishment of cut off since by marrying them DEFINITIONALLY you are cut off.
Secondly the fact that Talmud interprets the verse "steer your children from me"
literally in terms of legal status doesn't mean that the verse loses its natural
meaning that the person marrying a non-jew naturally gets steered away from the
jewish community.
In fact I have argued that the Bible uses a REPETITION style to emphasize
(similar to use of UNDERLINED, BOLD and ITALICS (or CAPS my modern authors). So
if the verse "....steer your children from Me" is mentioned twice (Exodus Ki
Thissah and Devarim VaEthChanan end) the traditional way of interpreting the
repeated verse would be "two levels" (1) Intermarriage INTRINSICALLY steers the
partners away from the Jewish community **AND** (2) Intermarriage legally
creates non Jewish statuses (for a non Jewish mother). As I said this method of
interpreting repetition is frequent in the Bible e.g. "dont COOK a child in its
mothers milk" is repeated several times and the talmud prohibits COOKING, and
BENEFIT.
I could also bring in that the Bible makes explicit that King Solomon (Despite
all his wisdom) was "steered aside" by his (many) non Jewish wives.
I also (in my previous postings) brought in the issue that relations with a non
Jew is considered an act of war and justifies a military response (even if the
Jews/Jewesses participated) under certain conditions (As we learn from the 7th
aliyah in Balak - incident with Moabite women).
Let me summarize:
-(1) Marriage to a non Jew has a high danger of steering the partner away from
the Jewish community
- (2) An intermarriage with a non jewish mother changes the status of the offspring
-(3) Relations with non jews is similar to an act of war even if there is consent
-(4) relations with a non-Jews is definitionally a cut-off
-(5) (Rambam Isuray Biah 12) By Rabbinic decree relations with a non-Jew is
raised to a level of violation of Niddah.
We can now reexamine Leah's question. Leah points out that #2 above does not
apply when a Jewish woman marries a non-Jewish man. My response? True - but the
other 4 items remain.
It follows that if a Jewish woman had a choice between marrying a jew or non-jew
without observing Niddah she would be advised to marry the Jew.
Finally I take note of some other postings besides Leah which have appeared on
this issue.
1) One person mentioned that questions frequently involve two sides and are
therefore respectable. My response is "Questions do usually involve two sides
but those who study the halachic process find ways to sometimes answer them. "
In this particular case item #5 above - the FACT that the Rabbis assigned a
Niddah status to relations with a non-Jew is their way of stating that "nothing
is accomplished by marrying a non Jew--the sin level is worse." The other 4
items above (or 3 when the Jew is a woman) decides the question in favor of
staying within the Jewish community.
2) One person gave a url to a posting on whether to be lenient on conversions.
The url lamented the stringent position taken by the Charedi community. NOTE: I
am sympathetic to both sides here. We want to make couples Jewish but we dont
want to dilute ourselves so much as to compromise our standards.
However I seriously doubt that even Rav Elyashiv would disagree with what I
stated above. There are no two sides above! You never send a jew/jewess to a
non-Jew. You always stay within the community.
Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 26,2009 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Not saying Tachanun
>From what I recollect, a certain Chassidic custom is not to say Tachanun on
the Yohrzeit of any great Rav. To facilitate matters, I once saw a yearly
calendar which listed the Yohrzeits of hundreds of great rabbis - at least
one for each day of the Hebrew year. Thus there was never a day upon which
Tachanun should be said.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Fiedler <richardfiedler@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 26,2009 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Rosh HaShanah 2009 & the Rambam
On Aug 25, 2009, at 11:55 PM, David E Cohen wrote:
> 1. See the examples given in the commentary of R' Ovadiah ben David
> ben
> Ovadiah (printed on the side of the page in the standard Mishneh
> Torah,
> under the header "perush") to Hilkhot Kiddush haChodesh 5:2. The
> way that
> he understands it, the sighting being "on the calculated day" means
> that if
> the calculated date of Rosh haShanah is Monday, for example, the first
> sighting is on Monday night ("leil shelishi"), not that it was on
> Sunday
> night ("leil sheini"). "One day before" would be on Sunday night,
> and "one
> day after" would be on Tuesday night.
If I understand you correctly you are saying that Monday should be
considered as Tuesday and Tuesday should be considered as Wednesday
for purposes of explaining this problem in the Rambam even though if
the Molad happened at 10:00 AM on Monday or 10:00 AM on Tuesday then
Rosh HaShanah would begin on Sunday Night or Monday Night
respectively. I would then wonder why the Rambam would want to insert
confusion in the midst of his explanation by redefining the concept of
"day".
> 2. I also believe that when the Rambam refers to the "calculated
> day" here,
> this DOES include the dechiyot (postponements). The Hebrew word
> used, "yom
> she-kove'in bo," is also used in 7:1 when he states that Rosh haShanah
> cannot be "nikba" on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday.
Putting the issue of the Rambam aside, from the chart provided for the
20 year period from 1999 to 2018 only for Rosh HaShanah September 28,
2000 and Rosh HaShanah October 1, 2016 with combined Molad Zaqen and
Lo ADU Rosh Dehiyyot is the New Moon able to be seen on Erev Rosh
HaShanah.
> When the chart that was linked to the original posting is updated to
> reflect
> these two understandings, the "difference days" column almost always
> comes
> out to either -1, 0, or +1, just as the Rambam wrote.
Shortly I will supplement the chart with some information about the
Old Moon and some new dates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Mosseri <joseph.mosseri@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 27,2009 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Taslich when there are no rivers or streams
David Ziants asked what to do in a city like Ma'ale Adumim where there are
no rivers or streams.
Well most cities do not have any either.
Growing up in Brooklyn,NY there are no such bodies of water in close
proximity to where we lived. What was always done, is that a hose with
running water would be placed in a baby pool or a trash can and that's what
everyone gathered (and still gathers) around to do Seder VeTashlikh.
I believe the key factor is standing by any body of running water and a hose
in a pool suits the job.
Joseph Mosseri
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 27,2009 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Taslich when there are no rivers or streams
There are many places that do not have a river, lake or sea. This is the
case in Jerusalem, see the Kaf Hahaim to S.A. O.H. 583, small no. 30. He
states that in Old Jerusalem they said Tashlch by water pits, even when
they were dry. Because according to Kabbala, the natural sea is only a
remez (hint) to the "upper sea". That is what we do, we put some water
into a pail. And that is why we always say Tashlich on the first day,
because there is no problem of carrying the Mahzor on Shabbat
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 26,2009 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Tevillas Keilim
On Mon, Aug 24,2009, Frank Silbermann <frank_silbermann@...> wrote:
> Therefore, if one holds that the glass coating makes modern china
> inherently kosher and parve -- just like ordinary glass utensils --
> then one definitely should tovel them.
I do not think Frank's line of reasoning that modern china is inherently
kosher and parve is valid because, even if we consider that the glass
coating makes it equivalent to glass vessels, this is only lechumra [as an
act of stringency] to require tevilah. However, the glaze can develop fine
cracks which would allow mamashot [actual food material] to penetrate the
underlying earthenware where a mixture of meat and milk might be developed,
rendering the item assur behana'ah [prohibited for any any benefit].
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 57 Issue 12