Volume 58 Number 63
Produced: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:37:22 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Administravia
[Mail-jewish team]
An unfortunate analogy
[RE Sternglantz]
Daf Yomi
[Menashe Elyashiv]
Innovations
[Bernard Raab]
Lashon hara
[Bernard Raab]
pre-1918 Hungarian Jewry (3)
[Michael Frankel Carl Singer]
the minyan part of partnership minyanim
[Orrin Tilevitz]
When a mechizah becomes obligatory (2)
[Martin Stern Orrin Tilevitz]
Who is a Posek? (3)
[Stuart Pilichowski Menashe Elyashiv Michael Rogovin]
Women Saying Kaddish (2)
[Martin Stern Elazar M. Teitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mail-jewish team
Date: Wed, Aug 11,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Administravia
Carl A. Singer's recent submission (MJ 58#62) entitled "Who is a Posek?" should
have had the title "Who can Pasken / Who is a Posek". We apologise for any
confusion caused.
Mail-jewish team
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: RE Sternglantz <resternglantz@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 10,2010 at 10:01 PM
Subject: An unfortunate analogy
With regard to the ongoing discussion of appropriate "al pi halacha" [according
to Jewish law] ways in which women can participate in shul, an offshoot of the
discussion of "Egalitarian Orthodox" (Partnership) Minyanim, a poster (whose
identity I am deliberately stripping) wrote:
> 7. I am continually reminded in this discussion of U.N. debates in which
> diplomats are prattling about the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
> Unsaid is that the discussion assumes that there is a Palestinian people
> (Menachem Begin, OBM, and George Habash, YS, among others, would disagree) and
> that if its exists, they have any rights, legitimate or otherwise, to territory
> west of the Jordan. At least in the absence of a posek, I question whether women
> have any legitimate expectation, to officiate at public prayer, particularly
> with men, no matter what their motives. Halacha does not always offer a way out
> if it is emotionally dissatisfying. Es iz shver tzu zein a yid [being a Jew
> entails difficulties - MOD].
Was it really necessary or productive to equate Jewish women who seek to enhance
their spiritual engagement -- howsoever misguided you may think such women are,
howsoever misguided such women may in fact very well be -- with Palestinians??
Come on. The poster's point (questioning whether women have a legitimate
expectation of participation) could have been made without that quite
inappropriate comparison.
Ruth Sternglantz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 11,2010 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Daf Yomi
Shiurim of the Daf are different. Last year we changed teachers in our
Shiur. The former one came sometimes unprepared, and many times sent a
substitute. The new one rarley misses a night, and almost allways is
prepared. But, who understands the daf? I try to study the daf before
hand, the guy next to me is a talmid hacham, but the other men - usually
are out of the picture. Simple things like knowing Mishna before studing
Gemora, knowledge of Rashi on Humash and Nach would make it easier to fit
a daf into a hour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 11,2010 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Innovations
David Tzohar wrote (MJ 58#60):
> Months ago the subject of halachic relativism was thoroughly discussed. I
> will try to sum up what I posted then.
>
> Innovations in halacha because of changes in societal conditions should not
> be made unless they are based totally on how the Gemarra and former
> generations of poskim related to the societal conditions of their times. I
> started this discussion in response to a lecture by R'Broyde where he seemed
> to be saying that the tzniyut (modesty) of today is not the same as the
> tzniyut of former times. The examples in this discussion were mainly about
> womans hair covering. I strongly disagreed with R' Broyde's premise as I
> understood it. I feel that this premise is the major factor in the problem
> of retaining the integrity of Halacha in the psak of many Modern Orthodox
> poskim.
>
> R' Herschel Schter (IMHO, the real) Rosh Yeshiva of YU showed us the way in
> his courageous stand against the ordination of women saying that this is a
> life or death question. IMHO this view against innovations whose source is
> change in societal conditions (in this case the impact of feminism on
> Western society) is the correct one.
What I find strangely missing from this entire discussion is any reference to
"recent" history, as if feminine empowerment is a modern innovation. When Sarah
Shenirer in early 20th century Poland saw the crisis in Jewish life developing
as a result of Jewish women being admitted to secular schools, without women
being offered any corresponding Jewish education, she was determined to organize
a religious school system for Jewish women. Most of today's rabonnim would like
to claim that she readily received the blessings of the rabbis of her day, and
so was born the Bais Yaakov school system. In reality, she was roundly rejected
by the rabbis of her day as a radical troublemaker, to say nothing of a woman
troublemaker! But thank G-d she persisted, despite her lowly status, and
eventually convinced Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, the "Chofetz Chaim", to give his
approval. At the time R. Kagan was hardly viewed with such universal respect as
eventually became his due.Perhaps some of today's innovators will also be viewed
by future generations as great visionaries who saved traditional Judaism from
the fate of irrelevance.
Bernie R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 11,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Lashon hara
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 58#58):
> Aryeh Frimer <frimea@...> wrote (MJ 58#58):
>
>> As to Rabbi Sperber's daughter: Rav Goren was once asked whether as a
>> matter of policy women should go into Tsaha"l. He answered in the negative.
>> The questioner then asked: But your own daughter served in Tsaha"l. To which
>> Rav Goren responded: May we never be judged by the actions of our children!
>> ve-haMeivin Yavin
>
> Perhaps this is a topic that verges on lashon hara which should not be
> pursued any longer.
My question: Since the entire Talmud is a "record" of the statements of many
rabbis and others, made orally over many years, many of which are acknowledged
by the Talmud itself to have been mistakenly quoted, why is the Talmud not
considered lashon hara? And since it is not, why should the transmission of oral
statements made by respected rabbis of later eras be so considered?
Bernie R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Frankel <michaeljfrankel@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 10,2010 at 02:01 PM
Subject: pre-1918 Hungarian Jewry
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 58#61) in response to a comment by Carl Singer (MJ 58#58):
> I always thought that the Marmorish was considered as being in the Unterland
> where Jews normally spoke Yiddish rather than Hungarian. Can anyone more
> familiar with pre-1918 Hungarian Jewry shed any light on this?
As one with, I believe, impeccable marmorish yichus - though luckily born in NYC
- be assured that the jews of the Marmorish region spoke Yiddish, not Hungarian -
nor, for that matter, Romanian since Transylvania at various random moments was
under one or the other. Indeed my father a"h (born during a visit in his
grandfather's house in Volova where his zeide was the rov/rebbe but raised in
Sighet which was the heart and soul of Marmorish) actually came to America on a
Romanian passport and could barely "break his teeth" on Hungarian while his
Romanian was completely missing in action - this at least according to my mother
a"h who reputedly spoke both very gracefully, although she much preferred the
sounds of Romanian. and of course Marmorish in the northeast region of the
country was indeed Unterland.
Mechy Frankel
<michaeljfrankel@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 10,2010 at 02:01 PM
Subject: pre-1918 Hungarian Jewry
In the 1960's the fairly large contingent of Hungarian Jews at the Young
Israel of Cleveland sat together in a side alcove towards the front of the
shul that had previously been the women's section. (Think of the letter L, with
the bottom of the L being the front of the shul.) As membership expanded the
women's section was moved behind the men's section.
It was self-named the "Marmorish" section by its inhabitants. I remember
once sitting their and being addressed in what I later learned was
Hungarian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sbasba@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 11,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: pre-1918 Hungarian Jewry
Martin Stern (MJ 58 #61) wrote:
>> Although we had a "Marmorish" section in shul, I don't recall any use of
>> Hungarian.
> I always thought that the Marmorish was considered as being in the Unterland
> where Jews normally spoke Yiddish rather than Hungarian. Can anyone more
> familiar with pre-1918 Hungarian Jewry shed any light on this?
You are correct. Marmarosh Jews generally spoke Yiddish.
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 11,2010 at 10:01 AM
Subject: the minyan part of partnership minyanim
When this thread started someone (Leah Gordon, maybe) said that partnership minyanim wait for 10 women and 10 men to daven. If they have 10 men, how long do they wait for the women? Past the zman? What happens if 10 women never show? Does everybody leave? Daven privately? Either answer would seem to be problematic halachically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 11,2010 at 03:01 AM
Subject: When a mechizah becomes obligatory
Stuart Pilichowski <stupillow@...> (MJ 58#62) wrote:
> Guido Elbogen <havlei.h@...> claimed (MJ 58#59):
>
>> Nine men can pray in a room containg women, but if there is a minyan,
>> a mechizah becomes obligatory.
>
> Am I missing something? My weekday morning minyan and shabbat afternoon minyan
> has no mechitza because women never attend. Is my bet knesset not kosher?
Surely, Stuart, you must realise that a mechitzah is not necessary in a
place where there are no women.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 11,2010 at 10:01 AM
Subject: When a mechizah becomes obligatory
Stuart Pilchowski wrote (MJ 58#62):
> Am I missing something? My weekday morning minyan and shabbat afternoon
> minyan has no mechitza because women never attend. Is my bet knesset not
> kosher?>
Of course there's no requirement that a shul have a mechitza. The requirement is
that men and women be separated by a mechitza during davening in shul.
Historically, many shuls did not have a mechitza because women didn't attend
services. Which raises a point relevant to another thread. Some ancient shul was
dug up in Israel and it was found to lack a women's section. I think it is the
Rav's discussion of mechitza where he says this proves that in ancient times
women didn't go to shul. The Conservative tshuva that a mechitza is not required
points to this same shul as proof that in ancient times men and women sat
together in shul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Pilichowski <stupillow@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 11,2010 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Who is a Posek?
The answer is really a very simple yet profound Yiddish adage:
If you ask the shalah the answer you get might be "tref"
So better not to ask . . . . . go ahead as if it's ok . . . . . if the custom
prevails you've won!
Stuart Pilichowski
Mevaseret Zion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 11,2010 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Who is a Posek?
For a few years, my boys ran the local hagalat kelim (pre - Pesah
koshering). The store owner would bring a Rabbi to paskan (answer)
problems. Well, one Posek would answer either yes or no. The other ones
would look into their Mishna Brura, state the different sides, and would
conclude that there are different opinions... So who is a Posek?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Rogovin <mrogovin118@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 11,2010 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Who is a Posek?
Aryeh Frimer wrote (MJ 58#62):
> I have always wondered why the supporters of women's aliyyot and
> Partnership Minyanim haven't asked these first league Poskim [Rav Aharon
> Lichtenstein Shlita and Rav Nahum Rabinovitch Shlita] what their stance is?
> They are accessible, forthcoming and "straight-shooters". IMHO, the fact
> that this has not happened speaks reams.
In my mind, what is even more significant is that these supporters, many
associated with JOFA [Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance] have for the last
decade (and for many of the individuals even longer) turned to Rabbis Saul
Berman, Haskel Lookstein, Shlomo Riskin, Yehuda Henkin, and even Avi Weiss.
Every one of these (even Avi Weiss) has explicitly and publicly rejected
Partnership Minyanim. Even when Rabbi Berman published Rabbi Shapiro's
article and said it should be taken seriously as a work of scholarship (not
as halacha lemaase [practical application], he also said it was a
unprecedented change in mesorah and should not be done. I find it very
distressing that JOFA turned to these rabbis for years until they rejected
partnership minyanim (and with the exception of Avi Weiss other recent
innovations for women). At that moment, these leading Rabbis for women's
participation to the fullest extent possible in ritual were dropped and
disappeared from conferences and mention in favor of Rabbi Sperber, who
conveniently supports women's aliyot.
This is not our way. Rabbi Sperber may indeed be correct technically, I am
not the one to judge. But I can judge the way the questions are asked and
the answers applied. If the rabbis that have been the mainstay of support
for JOFA and women's growing participation in ritual life are saying no, not
the Agudat HaRabbonim but OUR rabbis, then halacha demands that we listen,
and not just run to someone, however qualified, to give us what we may
desire. If we do otherwise, we can no longer claim the mantle of orthodox.
To put it another way by example - I think the kitniyot custom [not to eat
certain legumes and grains on Passover] is crazy and halachicly
unjustifiable today. There are rabbis who, under various theories would
support my point of view. But I don't know them, they are not in my
community (or even country) and my rabbi and others that I know and turn to
regularly all say I have to stick to the rule, even when some concede my
logic is correct. That is the way orthodoxy works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 11,2010 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Women Saying Kaddish
Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...> wrote (MJ 58 #62):
> David Tzohar (v58n59) makes several assertions, which due to a subtlety, are
> not completely accurate.
>
> David asserts that:
>
>> there is a controversy between Rambam and Ramban on whether the obligation
>> to pray is Biblical or Rabbinic.
>
> Almost true! Ramban asserts that the Biblical obligation to pray ONLY applies
> in a time of distress. But a woman wanting to say Kaddish IS in distress. So I
> would argue that the Ramban would hold it a Biblical obligation to pray. The
> recitation of Kaddish would then be a fulfillment (kiyum) of a Biblical
> obligation.
Not quite true: Kaddish is not a prayer but a doxology of praise of HKBH and
so nobody, let alone a woman, can fulfil their prayer obligation, according
to any authority, by saying it.
> David further asserts that
>
>> they are not obligated to pray at certain times since halacha exempts them
>> from time bound commandments
>
> Almost true! Honoring one's parents during the year of mourning is not a time
> bound commandment. There is a subtlety here. The commandment is not so much to
> say Kaddish at a particular time but rather to say Kaddish in honor of one's
> parents after certain sections of prayer are completed.
Not quite true: Once a woman marries her obligations to her husband override
those to her parents and she is exempt from the mitsvah of kibbud av ve'eim
(honouring her parents) if their should be a clash of interest. Therefore,
if going to shul to say kaddish were to lead to domestic discord, she would
most certainly not only be exempt but, probably, prohibited from doing so.
> So bottom line? Women ARE AS OBLIGATED as men to say Kaddish.
In view of the above, IMHO I fear Russel is wrong.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 11,2010 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Women Saying Kaddish
In response to David Tzohar's remark (MJ 58#59) that
> there is a controversy between Rambam and Ramban on whether the obligation
> to pray is Biblical or Rabbinic,
Russell Hendel responded (MJ 58#62)
> Almost true! Ramban asserts that the Biblical obligation to pray ONLY applies
> in a time of distress. But a woman wanting to say Kaddish IS in distress. So
> I would argue that the Ramban would hold it a Biblical obligation to pray.
> The recitation of Kaddish would then be a fulfillment (kiyum) of a Biblical
> obligation.
Russell's presenting of Ramban's position is, as Russell might say, "Almost
true!" Ramban does not categorically state that there IS a Biblical obligation
to pray in times of distress; he says that IF the Midrash which Rambam cites for
praying is indeed a Biblical obligation, rather than merely an asmachta [a verse
utilized by the Sages as an allusion to a Rabbinically imposed obligation], THEN
it refers to times of distress.
However, even had Ramban said what Russell claimed, his application of Ramban's
statement to the current discussion is, unfortunately, a misrepresentation of
Ramban's words. Ramban says that when a person is in dire straits, he should
realize that his aid can only come from Hashem, and should turn to him and pray
"that he be spared". It is a prayer asking Hashem to remove the distress in
which he finds himself. There is not the slightest intimation in Ramban's words
that the act of prayer itself should be a palliative.
Thus, any conclusions drawn from Ramban to women's saying Kaddish (or, for that
matter, to men's saying kaddish) are, unfortunately, without foundation.
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 58 Issue 63