Volume 58 Number 68
Produced: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:55:40 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Administravia
[Mail-jewish team]
Daf yomi
[David Tzohar]
Facing the Congregation During Layning (3)
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz Art Werschulz Avraham Etzion]
Getting a second opinion (3)
[Martin Stern Shayna Kravetz Joel Rich]
Gulfs between Jews
[Stuart Pilichowski]
Not a sin to be an agunah?
[David Tzohar]
Ordination of women
[Stuart Cohnen]
Rashi
[Perets Mett]
Wedding Invitations (4)
[Carl Singer Harry Weiss]
Women saying Kaddish
[Elazar M. Teitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mail-jewish team
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Administravia
Some submissions are not coming through to us. This seems to because people
are sending their messages as attachments which cannot be processed by the
Shamash system. I managed to 'rescue' a couple recently but it is not very
easy and takes a lot of time. I shall not be doing so in future so if you
want us to get your submissions please put them in an email and NOT as an
attachment.
Also we do not generally accept anonymous submissions. If you have a very good
reason for requesting anonymity, we might consider it in exceptional
circumstances but only if you explain the reasons to us first. Related to this,
it would therefore be better if names as well as email addresses are put on all
submissions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Tzohar <davidtzohar@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Daf yomi
I don't understand why Akiva Miller feels that he has to apologize for
learning with Shteinzaltz "even" in English. Halevai that every Jew would
learn even one pasuk of Torah every day.
I am a graduate of a non Orthodox day school. We learned very little Gemarra
and to put it bluntly, when we left high school we were am haartzim gemurim
(complete ignoramuses). About ten years later my rav muvhak, Rav Yechezkel
Daum Ztz"l, invited me to come to the daf yomi shiur after ma'ariv. I said to
him that it seemed like a waste of time since for me the Gemarra was about
as accessible as ancient Chinese poetry.
In the end I went to the shiur because of the great respect I had for the Rav. I
stuck to it for a few months and then I said to the Rav that I felt that it was
futile, that after months of trying to learn I understood less than half of the
shiur. He said not to be discouraged that at this rate by the end of the year I
would understand it all. He then suggested that I hire a private teacher; his
name - R' Adin Steinzaltz. At first I didn't get it, he meant of course the
edition of the Talmud translated and explained by the aforementioned rav.
In the next 14 years I had the Zchut (privilege) of finishing the learning of
the entire Babylonian Talmud twice. I went on to learning full time in a
kollel (institute for higher learning of Talmud and Torah law). The moral of the
story is never apologize for learning Torah at any level,and in any framework.
Ignore the snobbery of much of the Yeshiva world and learn at whatever level
which is proper for you.
B'hatzlacha
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Facing the Congregation During Layning
Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...> wrote (MJ 58#67):
> In addition to women receiving aliyot, another Conservative ritual innovation
> I know of is that the chazan and the baal koreh face the congregation. I was
> once told, by someone whose statements I do not automatically discount, that
> while the former is beyond the pale, the latter is not. He gave me no
> sources. Can anyone provide any, going either way? Is the Baal Koreh facing
> the congregation a practice in any shul recognized as Orthodox?
A number of years ago, I attended a shiur which explained that having
the chazan face the congregation rather than the Aron Kodesh [holy
ark] is actually an insult to Hashem. While the rationale is that
"Hashem is everywhere", it is considered that the entire congregation
faces in the same direction and the chazan is *in effect* turning his
back on Hashem. The prophets speak of idol worshipers deliberately
bowing away from the temple as an expression of contempt for Hashem.
When the priests are in the front for "duchening", they face the
congregation in order to show that the blessing is coming from Hashem.
While the congregation is not supposed to look at them, they are not
allowed to turn away as that is a rejection of the blessing.
Similarly, the chazan facing the congregation is derived from the
church concept that the blessing comes from the priest and his prayers
are not directed to Hashem.
During the temple, the daily sacrifices were done in the west in the
morning and in the east in the evening to show that it had nothing to
do with "sun worship".
A google search on the key terms synagogue and "facing the
congregation" and found a reference at
http://www.5as.org/content/default.asp?artid=291 that said the
following.
"Rabbi Kermaier noted that a cantor's facing the congregation is a
problem for Orthodox Jews because we recoil from the innovations of
Reform Judaism, especially insofar as they sought to mimic Protestant
practice. He added that he has only once seen an Orthodox congregation
facing away from the Aron Kodesh. In the last year or two of the
Lubavitcher Rebbe's life, Rabbi Kermaier and a friend were at 770
Eastern Parkway for a Shabbat. Midway through davening, the Rebbe
would be wheeled into a spot in the balcony. In anticipation of the
Rebbes arrival, the Hasidim davened facing the balcony, with their
backs to the Aron Kodesh. (Rabbi Kermaier added that he and his friend
were the only people facing the Aron Kodesh.)"
All references to shuls (including archeological descriptions) have
the bimah [prayer stand?] facing the aron. Note that since most
Orthodox shuls read the Torah in the center of the shul, it would be
impossible to "face the congregation".
In shuls in which the rabbi and important guests whould sit facing the
congregation, they would turn back and daven facing the aron when they
stood.
I do not have sources as this was from memory, but I hope it helps.
Sabba - ' " - Hillel
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Art Werschulz <agw@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Facing the Congregation During Layning
Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...> wrote:
> In addition to women receiving aliyot, another Conservative ritual innovation
> I know of is that the chazan and the baal koreh face the congregation.
This is not universal in C shuls.
Art Werschulz (8-{)}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avraham Etzion <atzion@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Facing the Congregation During Layning
Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...> wrote (MJ 58#67):
> In addition to women receiving aliyot, another Conservative ritual innovation
> I know of is that the chazan and the baal koreh face the congregation. I was
> once told, by someone whose statements I do not automatically discount, that
> while the former is beyond the pale, the latter is not. He gave me no
> sources. Can anyone provide any, going either way? Is the Baal Koreh facing
> the congregation a practice in any shul recognized as Orthodox?
Rabbi Soloveitchick once explained thar Tefila is a dialog between man and
G-d. That is why it is individual and silent. When davening one must have the
presence of G-d in mind. The Chazan is a shliach [representative -MOD] of the
congregation and as such he too faces the ark - the shechina. Having him face
the audience turns it into a show or a performance. It is also an imitation of
Christian practice - where the priest is the advocate or intermediary for
congregation - and as such this is strictly forbidden.
Keria batorah is a form of Talmud Tora - and consequently the paremeters to
judge them are different. I don't recall that The Rav disccussed this issue -
but off hand I see no Issur for Baal Kore to face public. Only issue is whether
this is Chukkat Hagoyim or not.
Avraham Etzion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Getting a second opinion
Carl Singer <carl.singer@...> asked (MJ 58#67):
> What is the halachik propriety of getting a second opinion (psak) ?
If the first were merely an opinion, there should be no problem but if one
asked for a psak one cannot then go and ask another rav without first making
him aware of the first ruling, i.e. one can't go 'shopping' for kulot
(leniencies) or, for that matter, chumrot (stringencies).
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shayna Kravetz <skravetz@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Getting a second opinion
In reply to a note from Carl Singer <carl.singer@...> in
MJ58-67 on Thu, Aug 12,2010 at 06:01 PM:
> What is the halachik propriety of getting a second opinion (psak) ?
There is a problem in the formulation of the question. A psak is not
merely an opinion; it is a ruling or decision. When translated this
way, the difficulty becomes much clearer. If you got a judge's
ruling on some issue, would you then trot back down the courthouse
hallway to have the whole matter retried before another judge? You
might /appeal/ to a higher court, but you wouldn't just try again.
In the case of psak, we do not have an appellate system; once you get
a psak, you're stuck with it, as I understand it. Hence, the
precaution taken by some to make it clear to a rabbi that they are
seeking not a psak but an 'eitzah (advice or counsel). An 'eitzah is
/not/ binding upon the one who asks, and you're at liberty to collect
as many 'eitzot as you like. Ultimately, of course, you still have
to decide what you're going to do. As my former rabbi, Chaim
Sacknovitz, once pointed out, you can have doubt in thought but not
in action.
Kol tuv and Shabbat shalom,
Shayna
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Getting a second opinion
Carl Singer in Volume 58 Number 67 asked:
> What is the halachik propriety of getting a second opinion (psak) ?
IMHO it is permitted since the gemara itself tells us you can do it as long as
you tell the second posek of the first's response.
Interesting questions:
1. Are you bound by the second opinion unless you ask a third?
2.Does HKB"H want you to ask for a second opinion?
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Pilichowski <stupillow@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Gulfs between Jews
Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...> wrote (MJ 58#67):
> Accepting such deviations from traditional Jewish practice would create a
> permanent gulf between the so called Modern Orthodox and Charedi worlds. That
> must be avoided at all costs.
I wish we were all as concerned with present gulfs, divisions, and divisiveness
between ALL Jews. Especially during this month of Elul.
Stuart Pilichowski
Mevaseret Zion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Tzohar <davidtzohar@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Not a sin to be an agunah?
It is not a sin to be an agunah, but it is a very grievous sin to denigrate
Torat Hashem. The one who made agunot "victims" is no other than Hashem
yitbarach shemo la'ad (Gd may his name be forever praised) who revealed the
written and oral Torah to Moshe on Sinai.
Women who call themselves Orthodox must make a difficult choice between a
western, feminist agenda and the word of Torah as it has been applied in Halacha
which is in no way compatible with feminism.
We are now in the month of Ellul, the month of repentance. There are less
than 40 days left till Yom Kippur I sincerely hope that these women will
reconsider their views and actions. Perhaps they will realize how erroneous
they are.
It is never too late for teshuva.
--
David Tzohar
http://tzoharlateivahebrew.blogspot.com/
http://tzoharlateiva.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Cohnen <cohnen@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Ordination of women
Harry Weiss wrote (MJ 58#67)in response to Leah Gordon (MJ 58#66):
> Rabbi Shachter is the major posek of the non-Charedi world. This list is
> supposed to be for Orthodox views***. The vast majority of the centrist
> leaders say these are violations of Jewish tradition and are prohibited.
> Of course 100% of the charedi leaders would agree with that.
I can't believe what I am reading - Rav Schachter IS the major posek for the
Orthodox world. If you trust the kashrus of anything with an OU on it, that
means you accept him as a posek. Perhaps Mr Weiss doesn't accept Orthodox Jews
as Charedi, in this he is sorely mistaken.
Proudly Orthodox and Charedi,
Stuart Cohnen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Rashi
Orrin Tilevitz wrote MJ 58#60):
> I"d bet plenty of charedim think Rashi spoke Yiddish.
And they would be essentially correct. Rashi almost certainly spoke a language
which ultimately transformed into Yiddish.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Phillips <admin@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Wedding invitations
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 58#67):
> I was a little imprecise. Usually the bride's name does appear on the actual
> invitation but is only suppressed in newspaper or notice-board
> announcements. However if the present trend continues, it would not surprise
> me if it is omitted from the invitations as well in the not too distant
> future.
Kind of like those obituaries you read in the chareidi press which give the
impression that the deceased was predeceased by his daughters; they only mention
that he was survived by sons and sons-in-law!
Stephen Phillips
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Wedding Invitations
I've seen the other extreme of wedding invitations -- listing all four
parents (sometimes more in the case of a deceased parent and remarried
spouse), esteemed grandparents, etc.
But the question to be asked is, is there any halachic or religious aspect
to a wedding invitation (analogous to the Catholic custom of posting of
banns?) - or is it simply a social vehicle to assure that people arrive late
to the "shmorg" and to keep printers employed?
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <FriedmanJ@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Wedding invitations
N. Yaakov Ziskind <awacs@...> wrote (MJ 58#67):
> I seem to remember that there was a woman named Rachav who - merely by
> mentioning her name! - could inspire a man to become impure. Is that
> "very very sad"?
I guess if one woman is a whore, even one who saved the Meraglim, then
according to some Torah-observant Halakhic Jewish men, all women must be
whores. Very logical.
I guess men do not need to control themselves. If the sight of a woman's
name on a wedding invite drives them into a sexual frenzy you have to ask
yourself what mental aberration affects them and what creates that sickening
aberration in the first place. You do understand that in the real world,
outside of Orthodox Torah Observant Halakhic Judaism, the mere sight of a
woman's name does not create sexual frenzy, unless that name is Marilyn Monroe
or someone like her
Here's an idea for men like that -- eliminate the women altogether and
procreate via parthenogenesis. That way we solve all the problems that women
create, including the Agunah issue. Very logical.
Jeanette Friedman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Wedding Invitations
N. Yaakov Ziskind <awacs@...> wrote (MJ 58#67):
>
> Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...> wrote (MJ 58#66):
>
>> On the practice of omitting the names of the couple's mothers from
>> wedding invitations, Martin Stern wrote (MJ 58#65):
>>
>>> There is an even more obnoxious custom in certain chassidic circles
>>> to omit the name of the bride as well. I was told that this is
>>> because of the fear that mentioning a female name might arouse the
>>> passions of males who might be led to sinful thoughts or even
>>> actions! This is nonsense.
> I have not seen leaving out the name of the Bride on any inviations,
> including my Charedi both Chassidic and Yeshivish family members.
Leaving out the mother's name is common and not only in Charedi or Jewish
circle but elsewhere as well. The standard Mr. and Mrs. John Doe is the
same as Yonosan Doe v'Rayaso.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 13,2010 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Women saying Kaddish
In response to a comment of mine, Avraham Walfish wrote:
> Elazar is correct that the Kaddish goes back to Talmudic times,
> mentioned near the beginning of tractate Berakhot and towards the end of
> Sotah, and that initially it had nothing to do with death (its connection
> with death is first documented in the 13th century Or Zarua). However, it is
> not a "davar shebikdusha" - it is not listed in the Mishnah Megillah 4:3,
> which lists the devarim shebikdusha, and is not brought in the Gemara in
> that context.
Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 55:1) writes, "Kaddish is said (after the p'sukei
d'zimra, the opening chapters of praise of Shacharis, the morning prayer); and
it is not said with less than ten . . . adult males . . ., and so, too, for
K'dusha and Bor'chu, which are not said with less than ten." On this, the
Mishna B'rura comments, "It requires ten, because every davar shebik'dusha, such
as Kaddish, K'dusha, Bor'chu, Torah reading and N'sias Kappayim ["duchening" --
the kohein's blessing] is not said with less than ten."
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 58 Issue 68
