Volume 59 Number 30
Produced: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 04:49:06 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
"Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuality (4)
[Avraham Walfish Susan Kane Frank Silbermann]
Eldest Brothers Marrying Sisters (4)
[Martin Stern Russell J Hendel Akiva Miller Shoshana L. Boublil]
Middle Ages?
[Martin Stern]
Shabbat violation (was "Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuali
[Chana Luntz]
Time for Selichot (2)
[Orrin Tilevitz Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avraham Walfish <rawalfish@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 14,2010 at 06:01 PM
Subject: "Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuality
Russell wrote (MJ 59#29):
> I thank Avie Walfish (MJ 59#27) for his very CLEAR eludication of
> "flexibility" and the role of the Local Orthodox Rabbi. I in fact agree
> with almost everything EXCEPT its application to homosexuality.
>
> Why? Because (male) homosexuality differs from almost all other Biblical
> prohibitions in that the Bible EXPLICITLY classifies it as a TOAYVAH
> (abomination). There of course has been discussion WHAT toayvah refers to
> (I think it refers to unnaturality; others suggested (Strongly) to me that
> it refers to breaking of family life)
>
> But can't we all agree that if the BIble herself calls something a TOAYVAH
> then it **MUST*** (independent of LOR) be classified as FLAGRANT.
I'm glad we agree on the basic principles, and I will offer my response to
your point regarding their application to homosexuality. It bears repeating here
that To-eivah (abomination) is not unique to homosexuality. So, presumably - for
example - you would regard a husband who remarries his divorced wife after she
has been married to someone else would also be automatically classified as
FLAGRANT. To my mind that is counter-intuitive, but that is only a heuristic
argument, and if you're prepared to insist that all communities exclude such
remarried husbands (and wives), then there is no inconsistency.
But the main point - heuristically supported by my intuition regarding
remarried husbands - is that the halakhic category which we have loosely
translated as FLAGRANT is not a function of how seriously the Torah regards the
sin, but of the psychology of the sinner, which in turn depends upon
sociological factors. When a transgressor is presumed to be acting in full
awareness that he is flouting core values of the community, this is an act of
rebellion, i.e. FLAGRANT. When he feels that the community adopts a more
tolerant attitude towards his transgression, that is NOT FLAGRANT. Since we
presume that transgressors have a sense of communal attitudes - gauged
sociologically, i.e. what people feel and express, not what the Torah
mandates them to feel - the degree of FLAGRANCY is closely bound up with the
actual attitudes of the community.
Avie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lisa Liel <lisa@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 14,2010 at 06:01 PM
Subject: "Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuality
Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...> wrote (MJ 59#29):
> I thank Avie Walfish (MJ 59#27) for his very CLEAR eludication of
> "flexibility" and the role of the Local Orthodox Rabbi. I in fact
> agree with almost everything EXCEPT its application to homosexuality.
>
> Why? Because (male) homosexuality differs from almost all other
> Biblical prohibitions in that the Bible EXPLICITLY classifies it as
> a TOAYVAH (abomination). There of course has been discussion WHAT
> toayvah refers to (I think it refers to unnaturality; others
> suggested (Strongly) to me that it refers to breaking of family life)
>
> But can't we all agree that if the BIble herself calls something a
> TOAYVAH then it **MUST*** (independent of LOR) be classified as FLAGRANT.
Four points.
1) The term to'eivah is used as well for having inaccurate weights
and measures and for speaking lashon hara. Are these
"unnatural"? Lashon hara is probably the single most widely violated
halakha there is, and there's certainly nothing unnatural about
it. It's simply assur.
2) You've gone on the record as believing (contrary to 3000 years of
Torah decisions) that male homosexual *orientation* is
prohibited. So before anyone agrees with what you've said here, they
should bear in mind your underlying assumptions.
3) Not all homosexuals are male. And when you say "I in fact agree
with almost everything *except* its application to homosexuality",
you are failing to make a distinction that the Torah
makes. Continuing to blur that distinction is treading very close to
a violation of bal tosif, and I think that particularly in these days
leading up to Yom Kippur, it would behoove us all to be wary of such
Torah violations.
4) Nothing "breaks family life" nearly as much as divorce, but the
Torah does not forbid divorce, let alone call it a to'eivah. It in
fact *mandates it* when necessary. Yet it is clear that the default,
the norm, and the expected situation is *not* one of divorce. The
default, the norm, and the expected situation is heterosexual
marriage for life. Judaism is not so fragile that the existence of
exceptions which differ from the default, the norm, and the expected
situation can be considered a danger to institutions of marriage and
standard family life.
As a side issue, I would like to ask that all posters (not only
Russell) be aware that using all capital letters is not the Internet
convention for emphasis. It is, rather, the Internet convention for
shouting, and is deemed to be poor etiquette. Emphasis is more
properly signified by enclosing the word(s) to be emphasized in
*asterisks* or _underscores_.
G'mar Chatima Tova,
Lisa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Kane <suekane@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 14,2010 at 07:01 PM
Subject: "Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuality
In response to Russel Hendel's post (MJ 59#29):
My main response is that this kind of creative thinking is confusing to me on an
Orthodox listserv. I'm quite familiar with this level of creativity, but it's
pretty foreign to Orthodox Judaism as I understand it.
You assert, without sources, and despite other conflicting uses of the term,
that toeyvah means "unnaturality". You further assert that despite the many,
many discussions by gedolim over centuries about sabbath violators and the near
ABSENCE of any discussions about male homosexual violators - that we should, at
the start of the 21st century, priviledge the latter concern over the former.
How is this creative thinking, based on your personal thoughts and ideas, any
different from an assertation that the Torah prohibition on male sexual behavior
is only in the context of idolatry, as evidenced by other uses of the word
toeyvah, and therefore not relevant to a consensual sexual relationship between
two Torah observant men?
In both cases, we are reading the text and applying our own analysis. In both
cases, we cannot call upon traditional sources that support our thinking.
Why is your assertion within the realm of Orthodoxy (and the rules of MJ) while
the other assertion is not?
May G-d grant that we all be sealed in the Book of Life!
Susan Kane
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Silbermann <frank_silbermann@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 14,2010 at 07:01 PM
Subject: "Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuality
Russell J Hendel (MJ 59#29) says he would have wanted the Statement of
Priniciples to say something more along these lines:
> "Although each LOR will judge violators according to local customs, his own
> understanding of halacha, and general norms, there can be no such flexibility
> for male homosexuality since the Bible explicitly classifies male homosexuality
> as an abomination. Therefore, while we do encourage toleration and community
> acceptance this must be tempered with recognition of the flagrancy of the
> violation. At the very least certain types of honors - being cantor, receiving
> aliyoth - should be denied to those who practice male homosexuality or who
> openly live with male partners."
He defends his position against earlier challenges saying:
> (I agree) with almost everything (Avie Walfish wrote in MJ59#27 on the
> flexibility inherent in the role of the Local Orthodox Rabbi) EXCEPT its
> application to homosexuality. Why? Because (male) homosexuality differs
> from almost all other Biblical prohibitions in that the Bible EXPLICITLY
> classifies it as a TOAYVAH (abomination).
> ... can't we all agree that if the BIble herself calls something a TOAYVAH
> then it **MUST*** (independent of LOR) be classified as FLAGRANT?
I think that if we wanted to take Russell's position on homosexuality,
his argument would give us justification for doing so.
But since we _don't_ wish to take that position and instead prefer the position
originally offered, the question is not whether we CAN classify any Toayvah as
flagrant, but whether we MUST do so.
Frank Silbermann ............... Memphis, Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 14,2010 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Eldest Brothers Marrying Sisters
Shoshana L. Boublil wrote (MJ 59#29):
> The ancient custom was (in many communities worldwide) for the father to
> decide on the daughter's husband. But it is clear from all Jewish sources that
> the woman has to agree. Nowhere does the tale state that the proposed marriage
> was going to be against common Jewish custom of the era. The presumption
> therefore, following all the other sources, is that indeed in this case as
> well, Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish knew that the marriage was contingent on
> the sister agreeing with the proposed marriage.
> ...
> Even when a father marries off his minor daughter - when she achieves adult
> status she can proclaim that she doesn't want the marriage - and it's
> nullified.
I fear Shoshana last statement is incorrect. What she is referring to is
miun in which a girl on reaching adult status (usually at 12 years of age)
declares that she does not wish to continue as the wife of her husband. This
is only an effective way of terminating a marriage if that marriage is
purely rabbinic, i.e. she was orphaned of her father and the marriage was
arranged by her mother and/or brothers. Biblically, the latter, unlike a
father, do not have the power to effect a marriage but the rabbis allowed
them to do so with the get-out of miun. Where a father has married off his
daughter the marriage is Biblically established and miun is ineffective to
dissolve it.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 14,2010 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Eldest Brothers Marrying Sisters
Shoshana writes (MJ 59#29):
> In his rush to return to his previous agenda of implying suspicious behavior
> to Tana'im,
Excuse me! I have no such agenda and the laws of forbidden speech prohibit
exaggerating what people do. I also believe this accusation contrary to mail
jewish and internet etiquette. My agenda was to show that a person WHO LATER
BECAME A TANNA, during the stage he was a THIEF, engaged in other forbidden
activities. That may be incorrect but does not justify an accusation of my
attitude towards tanaim. NOTE: Rashi in BM (in contrast to Rabbi Teitz's
comments) **explicitly** states LISTIM HAYAH - he was a thief. I did not make
this up. Again: I believe all criminal gangs use extortion and sexual methods. I
have never slurred any Tanna during his Tannaship. Mail Jewish etiquette
requires respectful disagreement - I suggest people start by explaining how Resh
Lakish's criminal gang silenced and threatened people and why Rabbi Jochanan was
so angry at his sister's plea that she would become a widow if he didn't forgive
her.
Shoshana continues:
> Russell has completely ignored a whole collection of G'marot and halachot
> regarding the issue of a parent marrying off his daughter.
Later on she says:
> The ancient custom was (in many communities worldwide) for the father to
> decide on the daughter's husband. But it is clear from all Jewish sources
> that the woman has to agree.<<
I have not ignored any laws. There are laws that fathers can marry a minor girl
(and bethroth a beginning-puberty girl) but the context of the laws is CLEARLY
APPLICABLE to an environment of extreme poverty (In other words the father is
worried what will happen to a poor girl and prefers a forced marriage which she
can later renounce to an expected life of prostitution which can be normal in
poverty).
I in fact repeat what I said earlier: Jewish law - absent forces of extreme
poverty - considers women their own agents. They pick their husbands. There is
no custom in any period for men to make recommendations which will probably be
expected.
This is not to deny that people make introductions - all the time. But I resent
the implication that there ever was a period when women were forced or suggested
into marriage in Jewish communities. Again: Any exceptions have to be studied in
light of the economic status.
Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA http://www.Rashiyomi.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 14,2010 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Eldest Brothers Marrying Sisters
Shoshana L. Boublil (MJ 59#29) wrote:
> Even when a father marries off his minor daughter - when she
> achieves adult status she can proclaim that she doesn't want
> the marriage - and it's nullified.
But until that point, this young girl is married against her will, right? And
that could be for several years, right?
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shoshana L. Boublil <toramada@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 15,2010 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Eldest Brothers Marrying Sisters
I would like to make a correction o my submission in MJ 59#29. When a minor
daughter is married off, she has a right to not accept the marriage when the
adults involved are her mother and brother (who took the place of the father who
had passed away), but not in the case of a father marrying off his minor daughter.
Nevertheless, most of the rabbinical sources show that, except for in exigent
circumstances, such marriages should not take place. One case where such
marriages were indeed encouraged was in Yemen, following the Law of the
Orphans whereby a Jewish underage orphan was forced to become Moslem. To
prevent this, such orphans were married off as minors. Apparently similar
historic cases are known also in Europe and elsewhere.
For a discussion of this issue by Rav Zerech Varhaftig (in Hebrew) see:
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/ezrachut/harabanut2a-2.htm
Especially the 2nd chapter on "Nissuei Bosser" [marriage of minors].
Shoshana L. Boublil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 14,2010 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Middle Ages?
Ben Katz wrote (MJ 59#29):
> Ashkenazim were always more prudish than Sepharadim. When Yedid Nefesh makes
> its way from Sepharad to Ashkenaz in the Middle Ages, shifchat olam (your
> everlasting maidservant) becomes simchat olam (eternal joy), which doesn't
> even really make sense.
Yedid Nefesh was composed by R. Eliezer Azkari, the author of the Sefer
Chareidim, who was a contemporary of R. Yosef Karo and, therefore, lived
about 400 years ago, after the end of the Middle Ages.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <Chana@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 14,2010 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Shabbat violation (was "Statement of Principles" regarding homosexuali
> Avie Walfish wrote (MJ 59#22):
> Shabbat violation is undoubtedly a very serious transgression, but
> ... it is common practice in many shuls, ... to let such people get
> aliyot and other synagogue honors (although presumably in Orthodox shuls,
> they would not be selected as hazzanim for yamim noraim - although in my
> youth I saw that in an Orthodox shul as well).
And Orrin Tilevitz (MJ 59#23) replied:
> The case of shabbat, which many posters have cited as an analogy in
> this discussion, is a red herring. For one thing, as serious a
> transgression as it is, it is not in the category of yehareig ve-al
> yaavor. For another, at least in the past, many who committed that
> transgression felt that the alternative was starvation for themselves
> and their families, That is not the alternative to abstaining from sex.
> For a third, even today there are Orthodox shuls with few or no Sabbath-
> observing congregants beyond the rabbi, at least congregants capable of
> acting as shelichei tzibur. There are also specific sources, which Rabbi
> Fuchs quotes, that permit sabbath-desecrators to receive aliyot.
Not to get into the substance of the topic under discussion, but just to
comment on this side point, I do not think that the case of Shabbat is a red
herring in the way that Orrin suggests.
The Rambam in hilchos shabbas perek 30 halacha 15 states:
... and the sabbath is a sign between HKBH and us forever. Therefore one
who violates other mitzvos are in the category of the wicked of Israel.
But one who violates the Sabbath publically behold he is like one who
worships idols and both of these are like a non-Jew in all respects ...
Similarly in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah siman 2 s'if 5 it states:
"A mumar [violator] out of spite [l'hachis] even in respect of only one
matter or one who is a mumar for idolatry or who violates the sabbath
publically ... their din [status] is like a non-Jew."
And while Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman 55 si'if 11 states:
"A sinner who violates a decree of the community or who violates any sin, if
they do not put him in cherem he is counted towards a minyan of ten"
the Mishna Brura in Orech Chaim siman 55 si'if katan 46 commenting on this
writes:
"The Pri Megadim writes this is davka for a sin which he did out of desire
[l'teyavon] but for a sin which he did out of spite, even for one matter, or a
mumar for idolatry or who violates the sabbath publically his din [status] is
like a non Jew and he is not counted."
Whatever one wants to say about acts of homosexuality, surely it would have
to be classified as almost the classic case of a sin out of desire [l'teyavon].
On the other hand, as you can see from this brief set of sources, violating
the Sabbath publically was traditionally considered in the sources as
putting one into the category of a non Jew and plain ineligible for minyan,
not to even get to the question of honours.
Now as I have discussed at length before (I am pretty sure on this list),
there are also a lot of teshuvos in the last couple of hundred years that do
allow for public Sabbath violators to be included in minyanim and generally
not given the status of non Jews, most commonly (but not exclusively) by
considering modern non-religious Jews to have the status of a tinok
shenishba [a child raised amongst gentiles]. But that should not blind us
to the fact that the sources generally regard public Sabbath violation as
being in many ways worse than crimes of passion.
Regards
Chana Luntz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 14,2010 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Time for Selichot
Yehonatan Chipman wrote (MJ 59#29):
> This means that, unless the minyan is one of vatikin (i.e., who begin the
> Amidah precisely at sunrise), Selihot are recited during the early daylight
> hours.
In New York City this time of year, the time between dawn and sunrise is over
1:20. Selichot takes 35 minutes at a reasonable pace. Allowing a generous 25
minutes to get to the Amida, a vatikin minan presumably would be starting
selichot after dawn unless it stops and waits for 20 minutes
The first shachrit minyan at my shul is at 6:00 A.M. (in mid-October for a while
and maybe in January, we have to start later), with selichot 35 minutes before.
Right now, that puts the start of selichot after dawn, but in a year that RH/YK
fall later, selichot would routinely be before dawn. And NYC is on the eastern
side of the time zone. At the other end of the time zone, selichot at this sort
of minyan would routinely be before dawn.
> it is well-known that the proper time for Selihot is described as
> "be-ashmorot" or "be-ashmoret ha-aharonah"-- during the [last] watches of
> the night, usually interpreted as between midnight and dawn. There are also
> many places at which Selihot, particularly on the first night and on Erev
> Rosh Hashanah, are recited at 11 pm or slightly earlier -- i.e., before
> midnight.
The Mishna Brura holds that the first selichot should be after midnight (that's
local astronomical time) not because of "ashmoret haboker" but because of the
piyut, Bemotzaei Menucha, "At the Culmination of Rest"), and in some sense the
last vestiges of shabbat don't end until midnight. My impression is that people
in NYC routinely did just that until the 1970s when increasing crime caused many
shuls to move the time either earlier or to the following morning. BTW, the
minyan I davened in this year started selichot erev rosh hashana at 4:45 A.M.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 14,2010 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Time for Selichot
Yehonatan Chipman wrote (MJ 59#29):
> There is a very common and widespread custom - in the US, in Israel, I suppose
> in other places -- to recite Selihot immediately before Shaharit, usually
> between 20 to 30 minutes before the regular time for the minyan in question.
How on earth do they manage in such a short time? In the shul I have been
going to, they start selichot 35 minutes before shacharit before Rosh
Hashanah and 50 minutes before during the Asseret Yemei Teshuvah, and I
still find it impossible to say more than about half of each one.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 59 Issue 30
