Volume 59 Number 19 Produced: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 04:20:55 EDT Subjects Discussed In This Issue: Clapping and Dancing on Shabbat [Yechiel Conway] Crumbs of comfort for Rosh Hashonoh [Marilyn Tomsk] Stealing crumbs erev rosh hashana [Naomi Graetz] Women Davening [Chana] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Yechiel Conway <jeremy.conway@...> Date: Sun, Sep 5,2010 at 06:01 PM Subject: Clapping and Dancing on Shabbat B"H The Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) states in Orach Chaim 339:3 that on Shabbat, one may not clap or dance, because one might come to prepare or fix a musical instrument. It is, however, permitted to clap backhandedly. The Rama adds that we should not object when someone claps or dances on Shabbat, because it is preferable for someone to transgress inadvertently than deliberately. He adds that nowadays, some authorities permit clapping and dancing on Shabbat because we are not experts at making or fixing musical instruments and there is therefore no reason to enact a decree prohibiting it for fear that one might come to make or fix a musical instrument. The Mishnah Berurah 339(10) comments on the Rama that clapping and dancing does not deserve to be tolerated except in cases involving a mitzvah. Earlier, in 339(8), the Mishnah Berurah, citing acharonim (later authorities) who clearly include Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (see Shulchan Aruch HaRav 339:2, but note that Chabad chassidim nowadays follow the ruling of the Minchat Elazar mentioned below), states that it is permitted to clap and dance on Simchat Torah in honour of the Torah, but not for any other mitzvah rejoicing (the term used by the Mishnah Berurah is "simcha shel mitzvah") such as a wedding feast. The Minchat Elazar (1:29), however, takes the view that according to all authorities, including the Ashkenazim who follow the Rama (the language used is a pun on Shemot 14:8), it is permitted to clap and dance on Shabbat whenever a mitzvah is involved. Nowadays, according to the Minchat Elazar, clapping and dancing is part and parcel of the mitzvah rejoicing of Shabbat enjoyment (the term used is "simcha shel mitzvah shel oneg Shabbat") and is therefore permitted as an accompaniment to vocal singing. The Minchat Elazar would not have allowed clapping by way of applause because this has nothing to do with the "simcha shel mitzvah shel oneg Shabbat". The Minchat Elazar's ruling is widely followed by chassidim, including Chabad chassidim. In Sha'arei Halacha uMinhag, the 7th Lubavitcher Rebbe justified the practice of holding children's Shabbos parties (which involve clapping and dancing) in the face of objections based on the Shulchan Aruch. The Aruch HaShulchan (Orach Chaim 339:7 et seq) takes a completely different approach from the Minchat Elazar. The Aruch HaShulchan objects to the Rama's assertion that we are not experts at making or fixing musical instruments, and points out that it is easy to string a guitar. He takes the view that we cannot "disapply" a rabbinical enactment, but he arguably proceeds to do exactly that! He also discounts the "mitzvah" approach, even in the case of clapping and dancing on Simchat Torah. The Aruch HaShulchan's approach is to analyse the context of the original rabbinical enactment against clapping and dancing on Shabbat. In his view, the enactment only ever applied in the case of rhythmic clapping and rhythmic dancing in the Temple, and does not apply to our clapping and dancing nowadays. This reasoning would seem to allow clapping by way of applause as well as clapping and dancing as an accompaniment to vocal singing. Many people follow the ruling of the Aruch HaShulchan, but it is worth noting that the Aruch HaShulchan remarks that he has seen talmidei chachamim (learned rabbis) clapping and dancing on Shabbat and that it therefore must be permitted. Best wishes to all for a k'tiva vachatima tovah l'shanah tovah um'tukah (that we should all be inscribed and sealed for a good and sweet year.) Regards from Leeds, England. Yechiel Conway. Yechiel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marilyn Tomsk <jtomsky@...> Date: Sun, Sep 5,2010 at 07:01 PM Subject: Crumbs of comfort for Rosh Hashonoh "Elozor Reich: TASHLICH is performed during the High Holiday season throwing crumbs of bread into a body of water. Some people have been known to ask what kind of bread crumbs should they throw: - - " I think that it is a joke list but this is ridiculous! Instead of throwing bread into the water, why not do a good mitzvah and take it to a food center or a food kitchen for the poor. I am sure God would approve of that rather than this waste nonsense. Children and hungry homeless would appreciate that. You would be saving lives instead of wasting. That makes more sense. If you want to be generous give a little more. That would be a blessing to the hungry. Marilyn Tomsky ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Naomi Graetz <graetz@...> Date: Mon, Sep 6,2010 at 02:01 AM Subject: Stealing crumbs erev rosh hashana I imagine that Elozor Reich in his MJ 59 #17 posting of crumbs of comfort is unaware of his sin of non-attribution, which is a form of Geneivat da'at, stealing of knowledge. Since it is erev rosh Hashanah, we should be getting rid of our old habits of non-attribution. By quickly googling, as I did, one can avoid this egregious sin. The work that was passed around as crumbs of comfort was not called that by the original author, Rabbi Richard Israel zl and it was originally meant to be part of a service for tashlich as can be seen at the web site of http://www.bethshalomwilmington.org/chaipod/resources/tashlich.pdf. It is worth while reading the following which I hope the editors of MJ will print in its entirety, since it can serve as tochecha, friendly rebuke, since we are all too quick in the sin of passing around unattributed work that appears on the internet. This entry can be found at http://www.bricklin.com/jokeattrib.htm and at the end of this entry I am posting the last 13 lines of Rabbi Israel's work, which do not appear in the version of what ER posted. It's amazing how problems we run into in the new world of the Internet are really just the same problems of old, often with similar solutions. Here is an example: There is a custom among many Jews during the second day of the Rosh Hashanah holiday to symbolically get rid of their sins by throwing bits of bread into a body of water, such as a river. The practice is known as "Tashlich" (pronounced "TAHSH-lich"). My friend Robbie Fein had the idea that it would be fun to associate different types of breads with different types of sins. He mentioned this to a friend of his, Rabbi Dick Israel of Newton, Massachusetts. Dick liked the idea, and wrote a humorous piece listing several different sin/bread combinations for a sermon. For example: For ordinary sins, use - White Bread For exotic sins - French Bread For particularly dark sins - Pumpernickel For complex sins - Multi-grain For twisted sins - Pretzels (You get the idea...) Dick participates in an email mailing list for rabbis, and sent a copy to the list. Like many professional mailing lists, this was supposed to be a closed list, with no sharing of the material outside of the list. Unfortunately, that's not what happened with his piece. Within hours of posting the Tashlich list, people all over the world were forwarding each other copies. Dick was getting back copies of his own joke. While he was flattered by the widespread delight at his humor, he was upset that the attribution to him was removed and didn't travel with it. (In the academic and spiritual world, of course, attribution is important.) Dick described it this way: "It was circulated not only with no attribution, but also with spurious attribution. If A sent it to B, B assumed that A wrote it and gave A credit. There were any number of A's who were given such credit. But the worst was when someone showed me a copy of the list which they thought was clever and I responded that I had written it. 'You did not!' He said, 'No one wrote it.' It had become folk-lore and it was apparently my lot to have my fifteen minutes of fame anonymously." One of the people who wrote him was his friend Richard Dale. Richard had received a copy of the Tashlich piece from a friend in England. Understanding Dick's problem, Richard proposed a Rabbinical solution to keeping the attribution with the text. He suggested that Dick send out an updated list with additional entries. This time, Dick should encode his own name in the text using a method common to the poems of old: make the first letters of each entry spell out his name. Richard found it a little strange to propose a solution that came from his religious background rather than his technical background. It is well known to most Jews that some prayers, such as the Lecha Dodi sung every Friday evening, have the author's name encoded this way (in that case, Shlomo HaLevi). Dick followed Richard's advice, and now the new version circulates with his name "Richard Israel" encoded inside as the first letters of the last 13 items. The problem that Dick ran into is an important one in the Internet world. People with content, including images, programs, text, music, video, and more, face the problem of attributing ownership and authorship. "Digital watermarks" in pictures, encrypted file formats, and more are being developed. But the problem is not new. The content creators of hundreds of years ago left "watermarks" in their works that have survived copying for generations. Hopefully we can come up with simple and powerful enough methods so that our signatures will last as long. In his Tashlich Supplement he embedded his inititals which I (Naomi Graetz) took the liberty of putting into CAPS so that it stands out clearly!!! (c) 1997 Richard J Israel For Rearing children incompetently - Raisin Bread For Immodest behavior - Tarts For Causing injury or damage to others - Tortes For Hardening our hearts - Jelly doughnuts For Abrasiveness - Grits For Recurring slip ups - Banana Bread For Davening off tune - Flat Bread For Impetuosity - Quick Bread For Silliness - Nut Bread For Risking one's life unnecessarily - Hero Bread For Auto theft - Caraway For Excessive use of irony - Rye Bread For Larceny (especially of copyright material) - Stollen etc.,etc. Naomi Graetz Ben Gurion University of the Negev <graetz@...> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chana <Chana@...> Date: Sun, Sep 5,2010 at 09:01 AM Subject: Women Davening Mark Steiner writes (MJ 59#17): > In light of Chana's continued ignoring our Galitsyaner poskim :), > preferring to shift the discussion to Hungarians :), I had no choice but > to look myself for this material. For which I thank you, I had an enjoyable morning exploring the the Shoel Umeishiv reference you provided. > Arguably one of the greatest of them all is the Shoel Umeishiv. ... > In First Edition, Part I, section 62, sure enough: he says that although > tefilah is "rahamei" (which he understands as mercy), that function can be > served by one tefilah (probably the shmone esreh) a day. As for the other > two tefillot, we revert to the rule that women are exempt from time bound > mitzvot. It is interesting, he says this despite the fact that he holds that tephila is rabbinic, i.e. he appears to argue that when the rabbis included women in tephila because of the need for mercy, they only did it to the extent of one prayer, as that will solve the need for mercy problem, and therefore for the rest it reverts to the standard positive mitzvah dependent upon time position where women are exempt. In addition, he refers us to another of his works where he discusses the reasoning for women being exempt from positive mitzvos dependent upon time (but unfortunately Bar Ilan does not appear have it). However he does make it clear from here that the reason he concludes there for women's exemption is that they are in the domain of others, namely their husbands, and their husbands might not like them to do positive mitzvos based on time (presumably including davening). What is not clear here is what his position is on women who are not in the domain of others - most obviously the widowed or divorced, does the positive mitzvos spring back (the analogy with workers which he half makes might suggest it might, but other language suggests that it wouldn't). Similarly, if the husbands were not makpid [particular] about women performing these mitzvos, then, analogous to workers, would the obligations then reappear? > He is willing to say this about people who work as well, by the way, Actually, I don't think he is as categorical as that. He raises it as a possible suggestion, (he is mesupek [doubtful]) but also suggests that as they are "bnei chiyuvin" [generally within the category of obligated] one has to say that they did not meshubad [subjugate] themselves to their employers to this extent. > so men who complain about having to find a place to daven mincha can't > argue about how hard life is for them--workmen in the trees are allowed > to come down to daven, true, according to the Mishnah, BUT, says the > greatest Galitsyaner posek, they MAY be also exempt from mincha. > (Note the work ethic for workers implied here. I doubt that this can be > applied today. The assumption is that workmen spend every minute working > for the boss, and this is obviously not true today--if you get a coffee > break, first daven mincha and then see if you have time to drink coffee.) I don't know that you are right about the metzius [reality] here. That might be true in factories where one gets 15 minutes (or whatever) off for a coffee break, during which time one stops working. But for example in the law offices I have mostly worked in, while it is perfectly acceptable to wander down to the coffee machine to get coffee, it is assumed that you are available during that time to discuss deals (in fact the coffee machine is a great place to corner or be cornered to discuss something, as you are assumed not to be solidly concentrating on something else). This of course is not the case with the Shmonei Esrei, where you are not available to talk and you are required to be concentrating on davening and not interupt. I think the more correct reason why it is not a problem in most modern offices is because the employer is assumed not to be makpid [particular] for you taking 5-10 minutes out to do personal things during the day, especially if you make up those minutes after hours. In fact most of the firms I have worked for have said in their handbooks things like - you are permitted to use the telephone for reasonable personal matters during the day that cannot be dealt with at other times, but such use should be kept to a minimum and not abused - or some such. And particularly in places where one bills in six minute units, the employer clearly does not care when the six minute units are billed, and if one stops for one or two units at around 2 or 3pm, and bills more later they do not lose out in any way and the gezel [theft] question is therefore moot. What it seems to me is a far more real question in modern offices is that of fasting on a taanit tzibbur [public fast]. This question has been raised (see eg Yabia Omer Chelek Bet Orech Chaim siman 28 si'if katan 8 and the sources he brings there). Again Rav Ovadiah there rejects the idea that workers might not be obligated to fast (eg on the four minor fasts) mostly again on this idea that the employer took them on this basis or the employer is not makpid. However, while this might be the case in Eretz Yisroel where people may be aware of these fasts, and know what it means to employ religious workers, I am not at all convinced that this is the case outside Israel. Nor, in jobs where one is employed to think, something which is unquestionably impaired by a day of fasting, am I sure that an employer would not be makpid, in the way it would not be with a few minutes out to daven. In fact, I had my employer say this to me explicitly once. There were two of us working on a huge securitisation (shows it was a while ago), myself and the partner, (lots and lots of money, big public name) and I was the one who knew all the documents. And it had to close two days after Tisha B'Av and so of course I was fasting and trying to work. And feeling more and more rotten (eventually I did phone a Rav and he did authorise me to break my fast, but by then I was struggling to eat without throwing up I was so nauseous). And the partner said to me something along the lines of - what am I supposed tell the client, this deal can't close because you are fasting? i.e there was absolutely no question that my employer was indeed makpid. (Just to give you a further idea, after the deal closed a couple of days later, the first thing I did was go to one of the shops near my work and buy myself some new clothes, as I was still in the clothes I had been wearing for Tisha B'Av, and before, of course, because I hadn't been home to shower or change my clothes since Tisha B'Av finished. Even so, I don't think my partner was the slighted bit fussed about time out for davening, but wrecking myself fasting was another story). > I would therefore respectfully suggest that the statement that "most > poskim in Ashkenaz require women to daven twice or thrice a day" is > unproven. Actually what I said was: (first post): "Instead of relying on what are, at least amongst Ashkenazim, approaching minority opinions in the poskim (albeit widely practiced positions amongst the laity)" (second post): And, at least for Ashkenazim, the position is doubly complicated by the fact that even the Magen Avraham's limud zchus [justification] only works if you follow the position of the Rambam and the Rif, and while that appears to be the position brought in the Shulchan Aruch, it is not, as the Magen Avraham and other Ashkenazim note, the dominant position amongst Ashkenazi poskim, who generally hold that tephila is a rabbinic enactment. ... Still, leaving logic aside, women who follow Sephardi psak have much stronger names and fewer hurdles to justify a practice of noy davening three (or two) times a day. (third post): I am not disputing the need and desire for a limud zechus here. The issue was that the original poster posited a "science fictiony" idea - how would women feel if suddenly they discovered they were actually obligated in three times a day davening? Are they not quietly relieved that this is not the case? What I was trying to point out is what I called the halachic reality, rather than the historical reality, is that this science fictiony idea is actually a fact. Now I stand by the idea that davening less than two times a day is, at least amongst the Ashkenazim "approaching minority opinions in the poskim". The Shoel U'Meishiv you will note is disagreeing even with the other Ashkenazi poskim who learn a limud zechus for women not davening three times a day (like the Magen Avraham) by positing both tephila as a rabbinic obligation and exempting women from part (but part only) of that obligation. That is unquestionably a minority position, and the verdict of history (whether as a result of brainwashing or not) is not to quote him so extensively, and not to quote him at all on this issue. If people have a personal minhag [custom] to follow a particular posek that is fine, and this can be l'chumra [stringency] or l'kula [leniency]. But on this issue, anybody following such a position would have to be, if any sense of being quietly relieved is going, being quietly relieved that one's personal posek is lenient in the face of the dominant position coming out of the increasingly accepted (if you would prefer me to phrase it this way) poskim. Kativa v'chatima tova Chana ----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 59 Issue 19