Volume 58 Number 47
Produced: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 03:37:56 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
"Egalitarian Orthodox" (Partnership) Minyanim
[Leah S.R. Gordon]
: Certification of Scotch Whisky
[Harry Weiss]
Ayin Horah
[Carl Singer]
Kosher Bacon and Scampi
[Orrin Tilevitz]
Rabbi Asher Weiss
[B Samson]
Rabbinical Headcovering
[Orrin Tilevitz]
Sephardic discrimination (3)
[Martin Stern Meir Shinnar Janice Gelb]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S.R. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 2,2010 at 08:01 PM
Subject: "Egalitarian Orthodox" (Partnership) Minyanim
WRT the Partnership Minyanim, they fill a very important niche in the Jewish
community; more on that below.
First of all, to answer Mr. Stuart Wise's question
> Re: Inclusive Orthodox synagogues
> So how do they differ from non-Orthodox?
This is a complicated question. I don't know if Mr. Wise has attended very
many non-Orthodox services, but Reform, classical Conservative, modern
lay-led egalitarian Conservative, chavurah, etc. are all very different from
one another. But to answer the question of how Partnership Minyanim are
different from *all* of those, and most similar to Modern Orthodox, the
answer is that they are run according to what participants, and their
Rabbis, believe to be Orthodox halakha.
Specifically, there is a mechitza, and women do not lead any d'varim
sheb'kedusha. It is a more complicated issue than I could explain on M.J, but
the halakhic status of Torah reading/aliyot, haftara, etc., is different
from e.g. leading Musaf. Also, other Orthodox practices are followed, in
that there is a full service with full Torah reading, use of
Artscroll/Birnbaum siddur, etc. Members are expected to keep strictly
kosher, shabbat, tzniut, etc.
I personally think that it is a fool's errand to try to align with Orthodox
halakha, and I say this as a proud/active Partnership Minyan member, because
Orthodox people generally sneer at these efforts (though not always). So
from my perspective, why try so hard to join a club that won't have you.
But many of my co-religionists disagree vociferously, and make sure that
Orthodox p'sak is obtained. (Leading predictably enough to the rest of the
Orthodox community disowning people who give this p'sak as "not really
Orthodox".)
Anyway, why do I think that Partnership Minyanim fill a dire need in the
community? Here in Cambridge, MA, there were 80 daveners the very first
shabbat that we ever met (2003), and we gain dozens of members and young
families each year. What members say is that they finally feel "at home".
Partnership Minyan is a mechitza service, with recognizably normal frum
davening, that allows women and men both to modestly contribute to the
extent permissable by halakha. That fills a need for Jewish people,
specifically highly-educated religious Jews.
The modesty level is very high at my Partnership Minyan shul. The mechitzah
goes almost to the ceiling, and the "women's side" of the bima, where women
stand when they are reading Torah or getting aliyot, is visible only to
women; the men's, only to men. Only women carry the Torah in the women's
side, and only men, in the men's. It is much more comfortable for me, than
e.g. an Orthodox shul I once attended where a man carried the Torah through
the women's side, looking at all of us as we davened, in a way that made me
feel very exposed.
The participation level is also very high at this minyan; a very large
fraction (75%??) of members also lead services/activities or read Torah,
etc. Everyone feels buy-in, which may be due to a new-ish shul, but I think
is also due to true alignment with the goals of the minyan: halakha, i.e.
Orthodox halakha, but pushed to include minority opinions where it is
possible to include women in a greater role.
Particularly, it is true for educated women. I have long stated on M.J that
it is a problem when smart, capable women are sidelined in the religious
community. Apologetics about "different roles" aside, we all know the
statistics that religious women leave Orthodoxy more often than do men, and
that they do it because of being marginalized in terms of participation and
leadership. It is the rare Jewish woman in 2010 who is satisfied sitting
where she can neither see nor hear, much less participate, in the davening
in shul.
Orthodox men can shout us down as much as they like, but those feelings are
real, and we are not under lock and key. Our great-grandmothers may or may
not have been fine with a sexist lifestyle, and M.J people will yell at me
for saying this, but women today are not satisfied and will not tolerate
being left out of communal prayer in the same way. It is the rare shul that
still persists in anachronistic practices like restricting "voting
membership" to men, and in fifty years, it will be the rare shul that
persists in restricting other roles for women, as well.
It is a straw-man to attack the word "Egalitarian" in this context. In the
US, we do not use that word about this sort of minyan. That is because the
minyan is not in any sense, egalitarian. Women's roles are in fact
constrained by Orthodox halakha, but they are constrained to the *minimum*
Orthodox requirements.
I think it is a little bit like the commentary on the Adam/Eve, that Adam
supposedly said to Eve, "don't even touch the tree," and then she saw that
touching it was no big deal so why not eat, as well. As long as Orthodox
shuls persist in telling women that they can't vote, and can't say kiddush
out loud, and yes, can't read Torah [or even touch the Torah??], we will not
be convinced. And people less devoted than those reading M.J will say,
"what the heck, let's just go daven fully Egalitarian, instead."
When I learned how to read megilla and Torah in college, I never felt fully
comfortable doing this in egalitarian (Conservative) congregations. I felt
exposed and not used to davening around men. On the other hand, when I led
services for women's tefila groups, I felt weird about that as well, because
so much of the set-up was done as an ersatz davening, e.g. fake aliya
wording and rushing through the davening so we would have time to join the
"real" [men's] minyan later.
I don't expect most, or even many, M.J people to understand or validate
this, but for me, Partnership Minyan has kept me in the fold as my best
possible shul, and as my authentic davening. In my shul, I have learned and
grown Jewishly more than in any previous religious community, and my
impression is that this is common for Partnership Minyan participants.
--Leah Sarah Reingold Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 2,2010 at 08:01 PM
Subject: : Certification of Scotch Whisky
In response to Immanuel Burton in MJ 58#46:
You are correct that for many of us the hechsher or lack of it on a Scotch
whisky will not make a difference, but apparently the owners of Glenmorngie
feel that there are enough people out there who will choose Glenmoragie instead
of the competitor because of the OU, to more than pay for the cost of obtaining
it, it is an acceptable financial call. If after a period of time they
determine that it is no paying for itself they will make the business decision
and drop the supervision.
Regarding from where the hasghacha comes, I get almost weekly an update from
the OU listing the new products under their supervision, They are from around
the world. The supervision is usually not based on where the product is made
but where the customers are. That is why there are OU products from Europe
and Israel with excellent local hashgachas, but the manufacturer is interested
in the US market.
I would guess Glenmorangie feels that there are more people that would choose
it because of a certification in the US than than in UK.
Harry J. Weiss
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 2,2010 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Ayin Horah
I see from time to time that Rabbi such-and-such (sometimes Sfardi - and
ALWAYS someone I've never heard of) is coming to town and that one can make
appointments to see this person for a brocha or resolution of problems.
Perhaps this is couched in more socially acceptable framework.
--
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 3,2010 at 12:01 AM
Subject: Kosher Bacon and Scampi
At last in the States, these products have a long history. Soy "baco-chips" with
a hechsher have been around for over 40 years, and at least that long ago
Morningstar was producing soy breakfast sausages and the like with an O.K.
hechsher. These products really are aimed the vegetarian market and incidentally
are kosher. I can't see how that presents a problem. I was introduced to kosher
"shrimp" (from halibut) at Grossinger's over 45 years ago; that sort of product,
I was told, was designed to make non-Jews comfortable eating at a kosher
establishment. There is also a ham and cheese sandwich with an OU, made of
marzipan; I have put them in Purim baskets. And I also used to, on occasion,
send my children to school with a (soy) ham and cheese sandwich, really to poke
fun at what I viewed as the school administration's phony piety, a view my
children shared. I wonder if it is the latter two are what Martin's supervisory
organizations are really upset about, the idea that these products are somehow
being used to make fun of kashrut, or themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: B Samson <crclbas@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 2,2010 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Rabbi Asher Weiss
I was receiving a weekly Dvar Torah By Harav Asher Weiss from his Yeshiva. An
excellent weekly, it consisted of a different inyan every week based on the
Sedrah. It sudeenly stopped comming. I wrote to them but received no answer.
Anyone know how to get in touch with Harav Weiss and his weekly Dvar Torah?
Thanks.
B Samson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 3,2010 at 12:01 AM
Subject: Rabbinical Headcovering
Rabbi Jacob Kret, Z''L of the Old Broadway Synagogue in Manhattan, wore
one on Shabbat and Yom Tov, and only in shul. None of the other older
men in shul, who were his age (or older) and some of whom were from the
same part of Europe, wore one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 1,2010 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Sephardic discrimination
In M-J V58n45, Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...> wrote:
> Just wanted to point out that it seems odd logic to assume that someone citing
> publications to illustrate a specific point or provide factual information
> reads only those publications. I didn't think it was necessary to provide
> reading lists to prove bona fides for having an opinion on a given topic.
On the other hand, only citing certain publications which are known to take a
partisan stance on a matter would suggest that those taking the opposing one
were not consulted. Since it is well known that certain papers have a
tendency to distort the facts, it is essential to consult others with a
different bias to have any hope of getting to the truth. One can only judge
a case on the basis of what a person publishes and not be expected to be
aware of any sources not disclosed.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meir Shinnar <chidekel@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 1,2010 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Sephardic discrimination
>> Martin Stern
>
> Meir [Shinnar] is making a valid point and, if it is correct, should be
> condemned but,from what I have read, the Sephardi girls were not expected to
> conform to the specifically Slonim customs but only their rather more stringent
> interpretation of halachic norms, something far more widely accepted by both
> Sephardi and Ashkenazi chareidi groups.
My understanding that issues of sephardic pronounciation and davening were also
an issue.
>
>> I would add that the erection of a wall makes any defense of the
>> Slonimer track as not being discriminatory hard to make....
> This was clearly unreasonable and was removed once an objection was made.
> From what I have read this was admitted by their religious leadership.
> Perhaps we should recognise that people can make mistakes and not continue
> to condemn them once they admit this.
Bigotry (and motives) can be hard to prove. If there is an act that can only be
explained by bigotry - then even if, due to outside pressure (and, in my
readings, the only reason the wall came down wasn't internal heshbon hanefesh
(reflection) and tshvua (repentance) - but the pressure from the Supreme Court -
so I assume Martin Stern would praise the court's involvmement) they back down,
it can be used to understand other actions which may not be so clear to everyone
are motivated by bigotry.......
>> 2) The Slonimer have the right to conduct their lives as they see fit
>> - and we should not interfere.
>
>> Again, this right is one that is not (and should not be) unlimited,
>> nor does the invocation that they follow their posek (religious
>> authority ) - give them unlimited license.
>
>> Even without the fact that we are talking about a state funded school
>> - and therefore, yes, the Supreme Court does have power about the use
>> of state funds - we do not give groups such unlimited powers, e.g. the
>> recent accusations against the cult of Elior Chen - who abused the
>> children - few would argue that if Chen would claim that he was the
>> group's religious authority, that would mean that we should say that
>> his cult has the right to conduct their lives as they see fit....('my
>> posek made me do it' is not a good defense..)
> Here Meir is raising a 'straw man'. Nobody has accused the Slonimer parents
> of criminal acts against any Sephardi girls only wishing to restrict those
> whose lifestyle was inconsistent with theirs from attending the school. If
> there were any hint of anything illegal, the courts would have a right to
> interfere but this is primarily a matter of halachic standards which should
> be of no concern to them.
>
The behavior towards the other Sephardic girls was precisely the issue and the
basis of the complaint - the wall eventually taken down is merely sympbolic and
reflects other behaviors and ways in which the other track was made to feel as
second class citizens - and as this behavior was not the behavior just of
individual parents, but of a state sponsored institution, yes, the state has a
right. The extent of the rights given for religious freedom are not absolute -
and are not limited just by criminal behavior - but the public good.
> To put the matter in context, would it be considered within the Supreme
> Court's jurisdiction to insist that Sephardi kashrut licensing authorities
> should refrain from certifying kitniot-containing foodstuffs for Pesach
> because this discriminates against Ashkenazim or, conversely, that Ashkenazi
> ones should not enforce the Sephardi chumras [stringencies] regarding bishul
> akum [food cooked by a non-Jew] to avoid discrimination the other way.
This is a true red herring. The equivalent kashrut issue would be the right of
a haredi rav to come as part of a state paid job to a rabbanut hechsher place
and tell people in the place you are eating trafe, you are not religious because
you eat here...
Meir Shinnar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 2,2010 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Sephardic discrimination
Martin Stern <md.stern@...> wrote:
>
> Meir Shinnar (MJ 58#42) wrote
>
>> I would add that the erection of a wall makes any
>> defense of the Slonimer track as not being
>> discriminatory hard to make....
>
> This was clearly unreasonable and was removed once
> an objection was made. From what I have read this
> was admitted by their religious leadership.
> Perhaps we should recognise that people can make mistakes
> and not continue to condemn them once they admit this.
> [snip]
>
>> Even without the fact that we are talking about
>> a state funded school - and therefore, yes, the
>> Supreme Court does have power about the use of
>> state funds - we do not give groups such unlimited
>> powers, e.g. the recent accusations against the
>> cult of Elior Chen - who abused the children - few
>> would argue that if Chen would claim that he was
>> the group's religious authority, that would mean
>> that we should say that his cult has the right
>> to conduct their lives as they see fit....('my
>> posek made me do it' is not a good defense..)
>
> Here Meir is raising a 'straw man'. Nobody has
> accused the Slonimer parents of criminal acts
> against any Sephardi girls only wishing to restrict
> those whose lifestyle was inconsistent with theirs
> from attending the school. If there were any hint
> of anything illegal, the courts would have a right
> to interfere but this is primarily a matter of
> halachic standards which should be of no concern
> to them.
>
Apologizing for the excessive discriminatory
acts that were imposed to separate the not-so-
frum girls from the Slonomir girls does not
get the school leaders off the hook for having
imposed them in the first place! Those measures
went beyond imposing halachic standards so the
court was within its rights to attempt to rectify
the situation.
-- Janice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 58 Issue 47
