Volume 58 Number 89
Produced: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:23:18 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Agunot as "victims"
[Avraham Walfish]
Holocaust (2)
[Carl Singer Yisrael Medad]
Honors in shul (2)
[Mark Steiner Ira L. Jacobson]
matir assurim/issurim (4)
[Orrin Tilevitz Gershon Dubin Jack Gross Eitan Fiorino]
Psalm 27 (6)
[Harry Weiss Haim Snyder Menashe Elyashiv Carl Singer Perets Mett Stuart Cohnen]
Using Subsequent Editions
[Leah S.R. Gordon]
WTGs? (2)
[Batya Medad Eitan Fiorino]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avraham Walfish <rawalfish@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 19,2010 at 06:09 PM
Subject: Agunot as "victims"
Akiva Miller Wrote (MJ 58#83):
> Avie Walfish wrote (MJ 58:81):
>> My complaint is about cases - some of which I have personally
>> witnessed - in which the court has authority to compel a divorce,
>> and sometimes has even issued such a ruling, but shies away from
>> enforcing it, due to exaggerated fears of *get me'useh* (a divorce
>> compelled illegitimately, hence void).
> The critical word here is "exaggerated".
>
> Evaluating whether these fears are exaggerated or reasonable is not a
> matter of fact, but of opinion... if the divorce was compelled in an
> illegitimate manner, then it is void... This is a very serious matter,
> especially for the woman, whose children would be mamzerim (halachic
> bastards).
>
> With such consequences, it is easy for me to understand why the court
> would want to be very sure that they haven't gone over the line and put
> so much pressure on that it constitutes an illegitimately compelled divorce.
>
> This does not mean that they should be overly strict either. My only point
> is that just because someone is careful about compelled divorces, that should
> not automatically brand him as uncaring about agunot. Good people can disagree
> about how much care to have.
>
The key word here is "automatically". Were we talking about theoretical
disputes in an ivory tower, then we could philolosphize about how serious is
serious and how exaggerated is exaggerated. When you have real live contact
with real live cases, then these cease to be issues about which you can
philosophize. I have seen rabbinic courts fail to act on their own rulings -
ruling that the husband will go to jail unless he divorces his wife, and
then backing off from enforcing the ruling. Did the halakhah change - or do
we have (yet another case of) an exaggerated fear of invalid divorce taking
precedence over the obligation of releasing the woman from a defunct
marriage?
Avie Walfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 20,2010 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Holocaust
I recently completed reading Winston Churchill's 6 volume history of World
War II. The first volume, The Gathering Storm, clearly indicates that H (y'mach
shmo v' zchirono) could rather easily have been stopped in the mid to late 30's.
With the gift of 20-20 hindsight it is rather difficult to reconcile HaShem's
role vis a vis decisions humans of free will made. I believe the relevant term
is "faith."
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 20,2010 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Holocaust
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz's words in Vol. 58 No. 58 on the Holocaust
remind me of the story of the great tzaddik, in his own eyes, who,
having surviving a boat sinking and is treading water and calling on
Hashem to save him, subsequently refuses to latch on to a fellow
survivor, then a small plank, then a leaking boat and then even a
helicopter - each time assuring himself that since he is such a "great
tzaddik", that der Aibishter [God] will save and rescue him in such an
outstanding and wondrous way. In the end, he drowns and in the
afterlife berates God, saying, "why didn't you save me, I who served you
so well?" and God responds, "who do you think sent you that plank, that
raft, that boat, that helicopter, et al.?
In passing, he writes,
> What we "don't get" is how could so many people have done nothing
> when it appeared that they were capable of understanding what needed
> to be done.
And my mashal [parable] above points to the fact that there was indeed
much evidence of future events, more so than Rome coming to Jerusalem.
And the responsibility of the Rabbonim is probably a greater difficulty
for believers than the issue of God's hester panin [hiding himself;
withdrawing from the events unfolding] for the most outstanding of them,
the leaders of tens of thousands and more, not only ignored the signs as
did the grosse tzaddik in the story, and not only did many quash any
freedom of choice of their followers, and not only did they actively
battle the only Jewish social and political force capable of at least
providing an opportunity for being saved, i.e., Zionism, but they even
made use of escape routes for themselves, including immigration
certificates via the Zionist movement to Mandate Palestine (Belz &
Satmar), American State Dept. intervention that was lobbied for (Ger &
Lubavitch) and I am not going to go into the issue of what was more
important for the 6th Chabad Rebbe, his daughter and son-in-law or his
books when he left Warsaw by train for Berlin to the US in early 1940.
It's not a question of theology or of divinity but of human frailties
that need to be analyzed and lessons learned.
Yisrael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 19,2010 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Honors in shul
I was once visiting a shul in London (name on request). The gabbai came
over to me and said: "Cohen? Levi?" To which I responded "Shlishi."
"Not in this shul, mate," was the answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 20,2010 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Honors in shul
Carl Singer <carl.singer@...> stated the following V58 #65):
> I also once got to wash the Kohane's hands prior to his
> dichuning (no Levi present and I'm a bechor) I managed to
> accomplish this task without drowning the Kohane or making too big a mess.
This brings up a remotely related issue. In the shul in which I
daven on weekday mornings, there is one Kohen who comes every day and
no regular Levi.
Lately, a certain Levi has been coming on occasion -- mostly or
perhaps only -- on Mondays and Thursdays and Roshei Hodashim. He is
naturally given the second aliya. Aliya veqotz bah. :-*
He never once has washed the Kohen's hands. (We are a shul in which
the Kohanim bless the congregation every day.)
Logic would say that without fulfilling one's obligations, one has
forfeited his right to the privileges.
Any thoughts on the matter (with references)?
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 20,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: matir assurim/issurim
Naomi Graetz wrote (ML Jewish 58:87):
> The concept of "mattir assurim" [the permitting of prohibitions] is thus
> clearly tied to "matir assurim", and the cases cited show that the process
> of permitting formerly forbidden matters is both directly in the Torah, ...
Didn't Shabbetai Zevi publicly make the pseudo-blessing "matir isurim" when
doing a serious transgression (e.g. eating on Yom Kippur or having relations
with a menstruant) as a sacramental act?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 20,2010 at 10:01 AM
Subject: matir assurim/issurim
Disregarding for the moment the rule that we do not learn halacha from
midrashim, the bigger issue is that because God permits something cannot in any
way be construed to allow humans to abrogate God's law in imitation of Him.
The example Naomi Graetz cites is one of many cited by the Gemara, quoting
Hashem, that I (Hashem) forbade A but permitted B; two other examples are:
I forbade mixtures of meat and milk, but permitted the meat of the udder; I
forbade blood but permitted eating (properly prepared) liver.
These do not mean that because not everything is forbidden, that we have it in
our power to permit whatever we like. There cannot be a greater distortion of
Torah than that.
One of the distortions of the Shabtai Zevi movement was saying the "beracha" of
matir issurim before transgressing various laws.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Gross <jacobbgross@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 20,2010 at 10:01 AM
Subject: matir assurim/issurim
Naomi Graetz wrote (m-j, 58:87)
> In Vayikra Rabba Aharei Mot 22:10, in an interpretation of the phrase
> "matir assurim" from Ps. 146:7, the point is made that "matir assurim"
> means both freeing prisoners and permitting the prohibited.
. . .
> The concept of "mattir assurim" [the permitting of prohibitions] is thus
> clearly tied to "matir assurim", and the cases cited show that the process
> of permitting formerly forbidden matters is both directly in the Torah, that
> is Divine, and therefore used in the rabbinic decision making of halakhic
> issues. Thus, these midrashim are very important for those who understand
> that part of the halakha is a process which continues the Divine law by
> authorizing rabbinic authority to use already revealed procedures.
Ms. Graetz is losing track of Who is "permitting the prohibited": "Hashem
matir asurim", meaning, the revealed law contains provisions that prohibit
an action under some circumstances yet permit it under others. That in no
way supports a "process ... authorizing" any mortal to amend the law.
In fact, even the Giver of the law has relinquished the ability to amend it
("lo va-shamayim hi: me'ata ein navi rashai l'chadesh davar" ["It is not in
the Heavens: henceforth no prophet is authorized to add to the law already
revealed by Moshe"]).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eitan Fiorino <afiorino@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 20,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: matir assurim/issurim
Just an interesting historical note on the phrase "matir issurim" that has
featured in the interchange between Naomi Graetz and Rabbi Teitz - there is a
significant historical background to this phrase - Shabbetai Tzvi would recite
this as a beracha before performing various forbidden acts that he, as mashiach,
had permitted (for example, consuming chelev, Biblically forbidden fat).
-Eitan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 19,2010 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Psalm 27
> The ubiquitous Art Scroll siddur specifies that "from Rosh Chodesh Elul
> through Shemini Atzeres Psalm 27 .... is recited." (At the conclusion of
> Shacharis & Maariv.)
>
> The common Nusach haGrah siddur omit this.
>
> Any comments?
There are numerous customs. A great shiur on that is
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/736949
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Haim Snyder <haimsny@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 20,2010 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Psalm 27
Carl Singer <carl.singer@...> wrote (MJ 58#83):
> The ubiquitous Art Scroll siddur specifies that "from Rosh Chodesh Elul
> through Shemini Atzeres Psalm 27 .... is recited." (At the conclusion of
> Shacharis & Maariv.)
>
> The common Nusach haGrah siddur omits this
In "Ma'ase Rav" para 53, it says (my translation): Do not say any psalm
other than Shir shel Yom (the psalm for that day), not Shir Yihud and not
Shir Hacavod except on holidays. Also from Rosh Hodesh Elul until Yom Kippur
do not say Psalm 27.
All of the above applies to Shaharit. As to Ma'ariv, the portion relating to
Psalm 27 is applicable there too.
Haim Shalom Snyder
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 20,2010 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Psalm 27
In MJ 58/83 Carl asked:
> The ubiquitous Art Scroll siddur specifies that "from Rosh Chodesh Elul
> through Shemini Atzeres Psalm 27 .... is recited." (At the conclusion of
> Shacharis & Maariv).
> The common Nusach haGrah siddur omit this
The Gra objected adding anything to the basic prayers, such as Kabbalat
Shabbat, Psalm 30 before Psukai Dzimra, anything after counting the Omer,
and also Psalm 27. The only exception is Shir shel Yom, as being a very
old practice, mentioned in M. Sofrim. BTW, there are some old - yishuv in
Jerusalem that say Psalm 27 only at weekday Shaharit.
Sefaradim in general, do not add it.
Why do some say it after Minha instaed of Arvit? It seems to me, that the
older practice was to say it at the end of the combinded Minha - Maariv,
no Alenu or Kaddish said after Minha, rather from full Kaddish straight to
Barhu. That was the usual way of praying. About 200 years ago, Minha and
Maariv were seperated - and so became the two minhagim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 20,2010 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Psalm 27
In response to Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz's question (MJ58#88) re: my previous
posting (MJ 58#83):
>> The ubiquitous Art Scroll siddur specifies that "from Rosh Chodesh Elul
>> through Shemini Atzeres Psalm 27 .... is recited." (At the conclusion of
>> Shacharis & Maariv.)
> Does it say at all when to say it or does it assume that the person
> davening would know when to say it?
The when is positional - as the commentary and the text of the Psalm are
inserted in the location (after Alaynu) where it is to be said.
The only additional notation (at Schacharis) is that some congregations
sound the shofar before and some after.
I was sent (off line) a link to an interesting shiur on this topic by Dr.
Shnayer Leiman:
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/736949
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 20,2010 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Psalm 27
Carl Singer (Mail-Jewish 58 #83) wrote:
> The ubiquitous Art Scroll siddur specifies that "from Rosh Chodesh Elul
> through Shemini Atzeres Psalm 27 .... is recited." (At the conclusion of
> Shacharis & Maariv.)
>
> The common Nusach haGrah siddur omit this.
>
> Any comments?
This custom is relatively recent, and is found in neither Shulchon Oruch nor RMO
Many communities do not have the custom of adding this Psalm. Amongst those who
do, there is a divergence of practice, some ending the recitation on Hoshano Rabo
The custom in Galitsyaner communities (those who say, that is) and among Russian
chasidim is to say the evening recitation at Mincho, as brought in the Mishna Bruro.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Cohnen <cohnen@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 20,2010 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Psalm 27
Carl Singer wrote (MJ 58#83):
> The ubiquitous Art Scroll siddur specifies that "from Rosh Chodesh Elul
> through Shemini Atzeres Psalm 27 .... is recited." (At the conclusion of
> Shacharis & Maariv.)
> The common Nusach haGrah siddur omit this.
Try to listen to a fascinating shiur on this given by Dr Shnayer
Leiman where he explains in great detail why some do and some do not
(including the Gr'a) say L'Dovid.
In short, it was not brought down in any sefer until the Mishna
B'rura -- but it goes back to the 16th Century.
Of note, Yekees (German congregations) and many Chassidic do not.
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/736949/Dr._Shnayer_Leiman/Reciting_L%27Dovid_Hashem_Ori,_A_Secret_History
Stuart Cohnen (<cohnen@...>)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S.R. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 20,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Using Subsequent Editions
To follow up on relying, or not, on subsequent editions of books like
"Shemirat Shabbat..." I would say that sure, for a telephone book, the most
recent edition is the one on which to rely. Halakhot about nail polish on
shabbat are not likely to have new revisions in quite the same way.
Halakhot about new technologies like DNA cloning, ok - but I think anyone
who reads the books in question can see a gradual chumra increase. I'm not
interested in the chumra of the month, or in following rules written for
someone who doesn't know better [as some posters claim is being done].
--Leah
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 20,2010 at 04:01 AM
Subject: WTGs?
Sarah Beck wrote (MJ 58#87):
> Zalman Alpert, a librarian at Yeshiva University, heard from his
> father that in prewar Kurenets, a large town in greater Vilna, many
> shuls had a "chazante," a female prayer leader, as a matter of routine,
> especially on the holidays when a lot of women were in shul. This
> excited no comment at all. But they were Litvaks and, as such, probably
> didn't have much of a process!
Sometime during my two years in Stern College, 1967-69, I heard a first
person story from a female staff person who had just traveled to the
USSR. In one of the large old shuls there she was the only woman in the
Ezrat Nashim with a siddur and the knowledge of how to doven. She found
herself acting as shaliach tzibbur for the women, dovening out loud so
they could follow.
Batya Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eitan Fiorino <afiorino@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 20,2010 at 12:01 PM
Subject: WTGs?
Sarah Beck <beckse@...> in v. 58 #87 wrote:
> Zalman Alpert, a librarian at Yeshiva University, heard from
> his father that in prewar Kurenets, a large town in greater
> Vilna, many shuls had a "chazante," a female prayer leader,
> as a matter of routine, especially on the holidays when a lot
> of women were in shul. This excited no comment at all. But
> they were Litvaks and, as such, probably didn't have much of
> a process!
This practice was not unique - Howard Alderman has written several articles on
women's liturgical practices in early modern (16th-18th century) Italy,
including the use of a chazanit who would lead the women in prayer in the
women's section.
-Eitan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 58 Issue 89