Volume 58 Number 49
Produced: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:21:42 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
"Egalitarian Orthodox" (Partnership) Minyanim (5)
[Stephen Phillips Frankl Silbermann Meir Shinnar Janice Gelb Michael Rogovin]
Mystical and spiritual influences on halacha (2)
[Mark Steiner]
NON "Egalitarian Orthodox" (Partnership) Minyanim
[Joseph Kaplan]
Tikkun on a Yahrzeit (4)
[Stephen Colman Stephen Phillips Joel Rich Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Phillips <admin@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 4,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: "Egalitarian Orthodox" (Partnership) Minyanim
Martin Stern (MJ 58#48) wrote:
> I think Mordechai is being a bit unfair to assume that his Rabbi is
> motivated by financial considerations. Since the wealthy retired
> Conservative Rabbi has left the Conservatives now attends his Orthodox shul,
> we should be melamed zchut [make the best interpretation about him] and
> assume he has done teshuvah [repented] on his previous connection with the
> Conservative movement. This is the precise reverse of the member leading
> services in one, who is mesayeia le'ovrei aveirah [giving encouragement to
> non-Orthodox movements].
That seems correct. Indeed, the Rabbi of the Orthodox Shul in upstate New York
where my wife's family belonged had previously been a Rabbi at a Conservative
Synagogue. He was a YU Musmach [Rabbinic Graduate] and the Orthodox Shul was
under the aegis of the Orthodox Union.
Stephen Phillips
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frankl Silbermann <frank_silbermann@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 4,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: "Egalitarian Orthodox" (Partnership) Minyanim
People have been debating whether a person who participates in the "Egalitarian
Orthodox Partnership Minyanim"are "not Orthodox."
I was told, in the context of the "who is a Jew?" issue, that the main objection
to the Conservative movement is not any specific halachic ruling but rather the
teaching of "Biblical criticism" (ideas that the Torah was assembled from the
writings of four authors rather than dictated by G-d to Moses).
So wouldn't that be the main criterion in determining our response to members of
this shul?
Frank Silbermann Memphis, Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meir Shinnar <chidekel@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 4,2010 at 09:01 AM
Subject: "Egalitarian Orthodox" (Partnership) Minyanim
WRT multiple posts on Egalitarian Orthodox:
There is actually a literature on this (a good summary, containing
both the pro and con positions, in Rav Daniel Sperber's book,
Women and Men in Communal Prayer: Halakhic Perspectives), and a
reasonable summary would be that there are significant talmidei
chachamim who permit it, and there are signficant ones (who are
probably the current majority) who oppose it - both on technical
grounds (my own reading finds the technical opposition unpersuasive,
but one can read it), as well as public policy grounds.
However, the discussion raises separate issues. One can read the
literature (or ask one's rav) and decides whether one wishes to
participate in such a minyan. However, what has been argued here is
far more - that even though there are serious positions that permit
(and even encourage) such minyanim, those who participate are out of
the realm of Orthodoxy. Furthermore, (and unfortunately, this is all
too common in this area), discussion is focusing not on the halachic
issues - but on the personal motivations (eg, to cite, "Why, for
instance, is it important for a woman to read the Torah in public?") -
and personal attacks on LW leaders.
Now, what leaders and halachic positions (and deciders) one chooses to
follow is one thing - and the range is broad. However, to publicly
besmirch those who follow other opinions - and challenge their
motivations - seems to violate d'oraita (torah level) prohibitions of
being motzi la'az (defamation) and hoshed biksherim (suspecting the
righteous) - and therefore put these critics out of the realm of
Orthodoxy defined as fealty to halacha.
Meir Shinnar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 4,2010 at 09:01 AM
Subject: "Egalitarian Orthodox" (Partnership) Minyanim
Susan Kane <suekane@...> wrote:
>
> This reminds me of a story by a member of
> my shul. He was attending a presentation
> on different movements.
>
> The Orthodox rabbi said : an Orthodox Jew observes
> shabbat, kashrut, and taharat hamishpacha.
>
> The Conservative rabbi said: a Conservative Jew
> accepts the rulings of the Rabbinical Assembly.
>
> My friend was glad to know that even though he
> could not be considered a Conservative Jew, he
> was indeed an Orthodox one!
This might seem like a humorous anecdote but
I think it insults the many Conservative rabbis
and Jews whom I know who are observant of Shabbat,
kashrut, and taharat hamishpacha. And the movement
itself calls for such observance.
The rest is also a mischaracterization: the responsa of
the Conservative movement are issued by the Committee
on Jewish Law and Standards, not the Rabbinical
Assembly. Any position that has six or more members
voting in favor is acceptable to be considered by
the mara d'atra of a community. They are not binding
so even that part of the anecdote is not true.
-- Janice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Rogovin <mrogovin118@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 4,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: "Egalitarian Orthodox" (Partnership) Minyanim
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 58#48):
> "...those who are ideologically committed to [non-orthodox] movements...
> are essentially minim [heretics]"
>
I think one must be very careful about calling people minim or kofrim and we
must be very careful about rushing to "expel" committed, observant Jews from
Orthodoxy. This is not to say I agree with partnership minyanim, or the more
recent decision by one orthodox shul to allow women to lead kabbalat shabbat
(I agree that there are halachic as well as sociological reasons not to do
these things). But I am not so quick to write off these people as heretics.
Misguided, well meaning perhaps, but not heretics. Calling them heretics
means more than just not giving them kibbudim (synagogue honors); it implies
total disassociation with them, possibly leading to not marrying them, etc.
I think that there must be better approaches even when condemning their
actions.
Stuart Wise wrote (MJ 58#48):
> I am not sure that what [Blu Greenberg] and her husband practice is what
> most of us would call Orthodoxy"
Their thoughts/philosophies may well be considered to be fringe by many in
the orthodox world, but I sincerely doubt that you will find much of
anything in their basic practice that is outside the pale of orthodoxy, at
least AFAIK.
Mordechai Horowitz wrote (MJ 58#48):
> Your minyan is not halachic because their are no Orthodox poskim (religious
> law deciders) who support such minyanim.....Recently I received an email
> from the anti-Orthodox JOFA announcing they were having an anti-Israel
> demonstration ...As long as you see halacha not as a source of guidance,
> you are outside of Torah Judaism. So its not Orthodox men who are against
> you, its halacha thatis against you.
Very strong words and very misleading. First of all, while he may be a daat
yachid [isolated opinion of a single person], Rabbi Daniel Sperber is an
orthodox poseq and has been for many years. While his reasoning has been
challenged by others (most recently by Rabbis Riskin and Rabbis Dov and Aryeh
Frimer, the latter available online at the RCA blog), there have been many
innovations in halachic history that started with a daat yachid. Whether it is
wise for an American shul to follow this opinion (and/or that of Rabbi Shapiro
who authored an opinion based on different halachic reasoning, which has also
faced criticism) in the face of opposition from the leading poskim of modern
orthodoxy, including those on the so-called left is another question. So while
it may well be true that feminism may motivate some more than mesorah, it is
incorrect that these minyanim are acting without halachic guidance.
And while I disagree with many of the stands taken by JOFA, I think it is
irresponsible to suggest that they held an "anti-Israel" demonstration. JOFA
is very much pro-Israel, pro-Zionist. In a democracy, one should be able to
disagree with government policies and hold peaceful protests without risking
the "anti" label. JOFA is, however, risking losing the orthodox appellation
by continuing to openly advocate, rather than just analyze, practices that
are not accepted by the broad consensus of modern orthodoxy, including
those Rabbis who (formerly) were big JOFA supporters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Guttmann <david.guttman@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 4,2010 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Mystical and spiritual influences on Halacha
R. Harry Schick asks (MJ 58#48)
> First, I am not sure how someone connected to the mystical writings of
> those such as the Ari, Rashbi, Ramchal and Vilna Goan diminishes or takes
> away from Judaism in general or one person in particular. That is, how does
> my study and adherence to such "unfortunate" interpretations negatively
> effect the way someone else practices their religion?
If one is to understand Mitzvot as just ritual acts that somehow impact the
'spiritual" olamot [worlds - MOD] out there, one turns them into magic rather
than teachings which is the translation of the word "torah". Mitzvot are there
to make us perfect so that when we contemplate God, and do so without our
biases, and so that when we try to emulate God's actions after apprehending that
all His actions are "good" we act based on that and not our narcissistic
personal wants and needs. As to what should be eliminated? Anything that takes
away from serving God and is meant to induce Him to do good to me or us. We are
servants of God and God is not at our service.
R. Tzohar (MJ 58#48) posits the general argument it has been accepted for ever
therefore it must be true. I don't think that there is anything I can say to
this other than it is the argument of all religions all the way back to
idolatry. I thought Torah was meant to teach us how to be critical and discern
truth from falsehood.
Apparently Rambam's explanation of Tume'ah and Tahara as tools to teach us
not to see the Beit Hamikdash as mundane and to keep us focussed on the
transcendent is ignored. That explanation fits with every quote from the
Tannaim and Amoraim R. Tzohar alludes to. Why the mystical explanation fits
better to those stories and halachot is beyond me unless we want to see
religion as a means to change God's will so that He serves us well.
> Mysticism has nothing to do with the Galut. The tannaim engaged in
> mystical speculation (chavurat R'Akiva and yordei hamerkava
Again we have here an interpretation of what Yordei Merkavah means. Rambam
tells us it is metaphysical speculation which has nothing to do with
mysticism but an attempt to conceptualize the transcendental. R. Tzohar
claims that the interpretation of the mekubalim is correct.
Let me make a very broad statement that I know will get many up in arms but
the truth cannot be denied.
There is no such thing as mystical "kabbalah" that goes back to Sinai. The
word "kabbalah" as used by "mekubalim" refers to insights of individuals
which they refer to as "Giluy Elyahu". Arizal and going back to Avraham
Abulafia and other early kabbalists all admit to have glossed their ideas
through mystical experiences rather than Mesorah.
Kabbalah in its real sense is transmitted explanations of the Torah
Shebiktav (written law) as to how to practically apply a Mitzvah. For
example what is "Pri Etz Hadar"? Kabbalah tells us it is Etrog. Anything
else is not Kabbalah from Sinai but a result of a personal mystical
experience.
I know that all I say is going to be lost on many but if one only hears it
and starts thinking on his own and arrives at an understanding of Torah and
Mitzvot as a service of God rather that in service of man it is well worth
it.
David Guttmann
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 4,2010 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Mystical and spiritual influences on halacha
I'm afraid that I'm rather confused by Dr. Katz' philosophy. Today (4
August), he writes:
The oft-quoted Rashi cited by Mr. Tzohar leads to an untenable
position for us empiricists.
But on 24 February he wrote:
As a Maimonidean and a rationalist, please permit me this short rant.
As an amateur logician, please permit me to say that, since empiricism is
incompatible with rationalism, and Maimonides was arguably a rationalist, it
follows that -- since I don't suspect Dr. Katz of harboring inconsistent
beliefs -- that Dr. Katz has abandoned Maimonides' philosophy in less than six
months after embracing it. I can only bemoan his defection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Kaplan <penkap@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 4,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: NON "Egalitarian Orthodox" (Partnership) Minyanim
It's amazing how one can skew an argument in a subject line which had erroneously been "'Egalitarian Orthodox' (Partnership) Minyanim." Partnership minyanim may be many things; halachic, non-halachic, Orthodox, neo-Conservative, wise, foolish, meaningful, useless etc. etc. I'll leave it to others to debate those questions. But one thing they are NOT is egalitarian. If they were egalitarian, then women would lead ma'ariv and shacharit as well and there would be no mechitza. They clearly and emphatically do treat women and men differently. Thus, to call them egalitarian is simply false and makes the debate over them unfair and less honest.
Joseph Kaplan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Colman <stephencolman2@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 4,2010 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Tikkun on a Yahrzeit
Stuart Wise <Smwise3@...> enquired (MJ 58#48) about the custom of making a
Tikkun on a Yahrzeit
When my father z'l died in 1980 I asked my Daf Yomi Rebbe - who is Chassidish -
about this and he gave me a very simple explanation. Drinking a l'chaim together
promotes sholom and achdus (peace and unity) amongst the Community. This in the
name of the departed is a tremendous zechus (merit) for him/her.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Phillips <admin@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 4,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Tikkun on a Yahrzeit
Stuart Wise asked (MJ 58#48):
> Can someone provide me with an explanation behind the custom of providing
> tikkun -- cake and schnapps in its most common form -- on a yahrzeit? Truth be
> told, I grew up outside New York and really did not see it. Yet,it is a
> widespread practice that is executed from the simple to the absurd. But what
> exactly does it mean to say L"chaim to the neshamah? It seems to suggest
> that somehow there is something we can say or do on earth that could somehow
> affect the soul of the departed? After a year, does the neshama [soul - MOD] not
> receive
> its final reward?
I always thought that it was the z'chus [merit] of reciting the Blessings on the
drink and cake that was an aliyas neshama [elevation of the soul] of the deceased.
Stephen Phillips
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 4,2010 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Tikkun on a Yahrzeit
Stuart Wise (MJ 59#48) asked:
> Can someone provide me with an explanation behind the custom of providing
> tikkun -- cake and schnapps in its most common form -- on a yahrzeit? Truth be
> told, I grew up outside New York and really did not see it. Yet,it is a
> widespread practice that is executed from the simple to the absurd. But what
> exactly does it mean to say L"chaim to the neshamah? It seems to suggest that
> somehow there is something we can say or do on earth that could somehow affect
> the soul of the departed? After a year, does the neshama [soul - MOD] not
> receive its final reward?
Pretty complex and, as with many items, subject to controversy. A few points -
the gemara discusses fasting on the yahrtzeit, I leave it to others to pinpoint
the tikkun (chassidic?) practice. We generally say kaddish (more importantly do
good deeds) in memory of the deceased on the theory that good things the
deceased caused to be done in this world, even after his death, redound to his
credit.
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 4,2010 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Tikkun on a Yahrzeit
Stuart Wise <Smwise3@...> wrote in MJ 58#48:
> Can someone provide me with an explanation behind the custom of providing
> tikkun -- cake and schnapps in its most common form -- on a yahrzeit? Truth be
> told, I grew up outside New York and really did not see it. Yet,it is a
> widespread practice that is executed from the simple to the absurd. But what
> exactly does it mean to say L"chaim to the neshamah? It seems to suggest
> that somehow there is something we can say or do on earth that could somehow
> affect the soul of the departed? After a year, does the neshama [soul - MOD]
> not receive its final reward?
AFAIK, the L'chaim is actually directed to the other people who are
drinking with you and not the neshamah of the niftar [dead person -
literally "freed of obligation"]. We say "May the neshamah have an
aliyah [raise in status]". that is the concept is that a person can
receive reward or punishment even after death based on the effect that
he or she continues to have in the world. Thus, if someone learns "for
the zchus" [for the merit] of the niftar, the niftar can receive a
reward because a mitzvah is "credited" to him that did not exist at
the time of the original judgment. If someone has influenced his
children in a positive way, then he will receive a "share" of
everything that they do as a result.
Sabba - ' " - Hillel
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 58 Issue 49
