Volume 59 Number 44
Produced: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 01:11:25 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Buying Arba'at haMinim in Israel (2)
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz Stuart Wise]
Carrying on Yom Tov (not Shabbos)
[Carl Singer]
Christianity
[Joseph Kaplan]
Christianity and idolatry
[Meir Shinnar]
How leaders poskin (was "entering a church")
[Carl Singer]
Lo Yishama al Picha (It shall not be heard through you)
[Yechiel Conway]
Mezonos bread/hamotzi cake (2)
[David Tzohar Orrin Tilevitz]
Position from which to read haftarah (2)
[Elazar M. Teitz]
Prohibition of entering a church
[Eitan Fiorino]
Shower on second day yom tov
[Orrin Tilevitz]
Yom Kippur "closing" shofar
[Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 27,2010 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Buying Arba'at haMinim in Israel
Eric Mack <ewm44118@...> wrote (MJ 59#43):
> Two hours before chag I looked at our arba'at minim [4 species for Succot] and
> discovered there were only three minim; the aravot [willows] were not
> included. In our past three years here in Israel, I bought all four species at
> once, I am told that this sale of only three species is common practice in
> Israel, because of the short shelf life of the aravot. However, to my mind it
> is consumer fraud, given that some vendors do sell all four species, and given
> that all the signs and flyers promoting the merchandise clearly say "arba'at
> ha-minim". Your thoughts?
I am in chutz la'aretz (Baltimore) and there are times when the purchasers
have to come back for the aravot closer to the chag in order to make sure that
the aravot will last. Others use vacuum sealed, refrigerated aravot.
Even when you purchase all four at once, you need to double check that
you took all four with you.
Sabba - ' " - Hillel
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Wise <Smwise3@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 27,2010 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Buying Arba'at haMinim in Israel
Eric Mack <ewm44118@...> writes (MJ 59#43):
> Two hours before chag I looked at our arba'at minim [4 species for Succot]
> and discovered there were only three minim; the aravot [willows] were not
> included. In our past three years here in Israel, I bought all four species
> at once, I am told that this sale of only three species is common practice
> in Israel, because of the short shelf life of the aravot. However, to
> my mind it is consumer fraud, given that some vendors do sell all four
> species, and given that all the signs and flyers promoting the merchandise
> clearly say "arba'at ha-minim". Your thoughts?
Fraud? Why not clarify before buying what is included, or at least check
what you're buying before you walk away? The fact that they advertise that
they selling arba minim does not imply they are offering a package deal.
Stuart Wise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 27,2010 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Carrying on Yom Tov (not Shabbos)
In a previous post (MJ 59#38) I addressed wearing Kittle & Tallis to / from
Shul on Yom Kippur.
In the same vein I now see some of my neighbors wearing (as opposed to
carrying) their tallis to shul on Yom Tov (while carrying their arba minim.)
Am I missing something -- on the one hand I see some folks carrying tallis
bags that are growing ever larger with room for seforim perhaps a change of
clothes and lunch -- on the other hand I see some people wearing their tallis
when it's not Shabbos.
Is it yuhara to wear one's tallis to / from shul when it's not Shabbos (or
Yom Kippur) ?
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Kaplan <penkap@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 27,2010 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Christianity
There have been many recent learned postings about Christianity and whether
it is avodah zara for Christians; the most recent one was in MJ 59#43
entitled "David Berger on Christianity." While I am way out of my league
concerning the theological understanding of Christianity and halachot based
on such understanding, I happened to look at The Rav's article Confrontation
recently and I noticed an addendum to the article -- the RCA's Statement on
Interfaith Dialogue which was adopted based on the Rav's position in
Confrontation. That Statement, which was directed, in the main, at
Jewish-Christian dialogue (or non-dialogue) included the following sentence:
"Each religious community is endowed with intrinsic dignity and metaphysical
worth". To me, at least, that sounds quite respectful and not something one
would say about a religion that was deemed avodah zara not only to Jews but
even to its practitioners.
Joseph Kaplan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meir Shinnar <chidekel@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 27,2010 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Christianity and idolatry
WRT debate about the status of Christianity - and our attitudes
towards it and Christians - several different issues are, IMHO, being
confounded. I don't think that anyone here is advocating Christianity
as permissible for Jews - but the issue of how we view them is germane
to what interactions (and benefits) one might obtain (the initial
debate arose about a Jew entering a church..)..
1. Theology. Is the theology of Christianity permissible for a non-Jew,
being shittuf (association of something with Hashem)?
Mark Steiner (vol 59 #43) has cited David Berger's analysis - and, as
noted, interpretation 1 would conclude that Christian theology is not
avoda zara for gentiles ..(even if it is for us)
2. Actions. Regardless of theology, are certain actions considered
to be either real avoda zara or too close to avoda zara that are
forbidden?
Here, Mark Steiner can point to the action of lighting votive candles
in front of images (crosses or icons) - that is viewed as forbidden.
3. Individual status and status of property
However, these issues are actually not the most important The real issue
is even if the theology and/or the actions are considered to be under the rubric
of avoda zara for the gentiles - does that mean that those who do
it have the halachic status of ovde avoda zara, and that everything that
is involved in that worship is considered to be subsumed under the
prohibitions of avoda zara? This is actually the crux of the issue for
most - and here it is not clear.
The crux is a statement of Rabbi Yochanan (hulin 13) that gentiles "today"
outside of Israel are not considered idolators. Of course, Rabbi Yochanan
was surely aware of the fact that in his time many people were offering
libations, etc to idols - but he thought that there was a fundamental difference
- that even though their actions seemed included in the classical prohibitions,
there was some fundamental difference in what they do that
those actions didn't translate into issues of personal status.
The question is how far to take it, under what cases may it apply, and
the halachic weight of this.
- see,eg, tshuvot Rabbenu Gershom (most explicit basing himself on
Rabbi Yochanan), "vechevan delav ovde avoda zara hem af al pi sheovdim avoda
zara eyna nechshevet avoda zara" - that since that they are not considered
idolators, even though they do idolatry it is not considered
idolatry..."
The Meiri's attitude seems very closely related to Rabbi Yochanan's
attitude - although I don't recall him explicity citing it - but in
essence, whether the actions of the non-Jew fall technically under the
rubric of avoda zara is not the crucial issue about our dealings with
him
Furthermore, while there are clearly many different views about the
mechanics and specifics of Christianity, there are relatively few
poskim, especially in Ashkenaz - who would be willing to impose the
full range of sanctions and boundaries that are supposed to separate
us from full fledged idolatry - and even many of the sanctions and
boundaries that are imposed are waivable for a variety of
considerations - and considerations that would not be valid in cases
of full blown idolatry...
The question of where the border actually should be is, of course
not simple - but the issue of whether shittuf is permissible to a
non-Jew or votive candles are idolatry are actually only a small piece
of the issues that need to be decided..
Meir Shinnar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 27,2010 at 09:01 AM
Subject: How leaders poskin (was "entering a church")
Eitan Fiorino (MJ 59 #42) concludes his scholarly discussion with a thought
that bears its own "topic":
> While some may cringe at the idea that sociological and economic factors
> could have possibly played a role in the evolution of a halachic position,
> we live in a world in which our leaders poskin halacha out of books. The
> millieu of the Rishonim, particularly the Rishonim of Ashkenaz, was completely
> different, as has been exhaustively documented by many scholars, and they
> lived in a time and place in which (1) they had few books, (2) they placed
> enormous inherent value on minhag, and (3) they viewed the behavioral norms
> of their communities as possessing an inherent chezkat kashrut.
I submit that one factor inherent to today's "culture" is instant global
communication and the nearly universal eradication of the truly "local"
community and authority.
Meaning no disrespect, but if a Rav here in Passaic sneezes, someone in
Jerusalem (or perhaps Zanzibar) may say "getzuntheit."
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yechiel Conway <jeremy.conway@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 27,2010 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Lo Yishama al Picha (It shall not be heard through you)
I have wondered for a long time whether using the English names of the days of
the week is a violation of the prohibition of lo yishama al picha (the names of
other deities shall not be heard through you).
Yechiel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Tzohar <davidtzohar@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 27,2010 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Mezonos bread/hamotzi cake
There is a difference in halacha between Ashkenazim and Sefardim on this subject.
The Ashkenazim go according to the Rema who said that mezonot is only when the
flour is mixed with more eggs, honey, fresh fruit juice or milk than water. The
determination is according to the proportion of the ingredients, not the taste.
The Sefardim go according to the Shulchan Aruch who said that if you can easily
taste the honey, juice etc. it is mezonot. Therefore Sefardim don't make motzi on
sweet challah.
There are many present day authorities who pasken that when there is kviat
se'udah (defining a meal) one must wash, make motzi and birkat hamazon even
on cake, and even on an amount as small as k'zayit(27 grams). This is
especially true at seudot mitzvah such as webbings and britot. According to
these authorities (R'M Eliyahu ztzl and R'S Aviner, R'E Melamed and R' D
Lior all shlita,) "mezonot rolls" are a stumbling block before the blind.
--
David Tzohar
http://tzoharlateivahebrew.blogspot.com/
http://tzoharlateiva.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 27,2010 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Mezonos bread/hamotzi cake
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 59#43):
> If something has all 3 characteristics, e.g. strudel, it is definitely pat haba
> bekisnin and one makes borei minei mezonot before and al hamichyah after eating
> it.
> Where only one or two apply one comes into a safeik [position of doubt] so one
> should avoid eating too much of it since, if one eats kedei sevia [until
> completely satiated] one would have to make hamotsi and birchat hamamzon>
I think Martin partially misstates the problem, which I believe to be as
follows. Pat [bread] requires a motzi (and washing) before and birkat hamazon
after. Pat haba bekisnin requires borei mezonot before and al hamichya
afterwards, unless one is "kovea seuda" , in which case it is treated like
actual bread. "kovea seudah", which I had left untranslated, can mean more than
eating a lot of it -- for example, if one eats it at the beginning of the meal,
treating it as one would treat bread, that is (or may be; I think there are
other opinions) that is keviat seuda, causing it to require washing and hamotzi.
If a baked good meets any of these three definitions, it is pat haba bekisnin,
not merely a safek.
Here is a Star-K article:
http://www.star-k.com/kashrus/kk-issues-pashabah.htm
So unless the shape governs -- and I would guess that a rectangular loaf-shaped
object could just as well be cake as bread -- is it that easy to toggle between
bread and cake?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chips <chips@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 27,2010 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Position from which to read haftarah
David A. Kessler <kessler@...> wrote (MJ 59#43):
> There is a relatively new "fashion" making the rounds these days and I was
> hoping someone could provide information on its provenance. The fashion is
> to stand on the side of the bima when reading the haftara, as opposed to
> facing the aron kodesh.
Something people have been doing for at least 40 years is a "new fashion"? Maybe
in Israel, but I've seen the haftorah read from the side in Baltimore, Monsey &
Brooklyn , nusach sfard and ashkenaz, chasidish and non-chasidish since as long
as I can remember. I've also seen men do the haftorah from the front of the
shulchan, in some of the places I've seen the reading from the side, in other
words, it was not considered a big deal where the man stood.
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 27,2010 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Position from which to read haftarah
David A. Kessler writes (MJ 59#43):
> There is a relatively new "fashion" making the rounds these days and I was
> hoping someone could provide information on its provenance. The fashion is
> to stand on the side of the bima when reading the haftara, as opposed to
> facing the aron kodesh. The justification, I am informed, is from a Mishna
> Brura comment (Siman 147, Sief Katan 29, which cautions the person holding
> the 1st sefer when the maftir is read from the 2nd sefer to sit slightly to
> the side in order not to sit directly behind the Ba'al Kore. This has been
> elevated evidently to a major issur, so that in order to avoid the problem,
> the Haftara reader stands completely off to the side to avoid any "chashash".
He then asks, inter alia:
> Who is responsible for generalizing the Mishna Brura's instruction to the
> Sefer Torah holder to the reader of the Haftara? Clearly, no one suggests
> that the Baal Kore of the 2nd sefer has to stand to the side!
> Is anyone else as offended by this reform movement as I am. If it didn't
> bother the Maharal in the Alteneue shul to stand with ones back to the Sefer
> Tora, why should it bother us?
If I am offended by anything, it is the characterization of the hanhaga as a
"reform movement." It was practiced in Telshe Yeshiva in Cleveland and in
Ponevez Yeshiva in Bnei Brak when I attended there -- at the former, sixty years
ago.
As to why it didn't bother the Maharal miPrague in the Alteneue shul, I would
imagine that it was because the haftara was in all likelihood not read by the
ba'al maftir from a chumash, but by a bal koyre from a klaf with the ba'al
maftir standing next to him, and is thus akin to a second sefer, which is not
read from the side.
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eitan Fiorino <afiorino@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 27,2010 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Prohibition of entering a church
In MJ 59#42 I wrote, regarding the fact that during the Crusades and various
pogroms in medieval Ashkenaz, some Jews would engage in suicide and filicide:
> Murder appears unjustified by any halachic
> norms or rationale. The best that the Baalei Tosafot can do
> in trying to justify the behavior is to say that perhaps, if
> someone is not sure that they won't convert to Christianity
> under torture or threat of death, then maybe they can commit
> suicide to avoid that possibility. Nobody even tries to
> tackle the question of filicide, to my knowledge.
Having read Israel Yuval's _Two Nations in Your Womb_ over the first days of
sukkot, I must amend this, as he brings two sources to bear directly on this
question.
He cites a teshuva of the Maharam miRutenburg (13th century), who wrote
(regarding the need for repentence for a man who had murdered his wife and 4
children during a pogrom in Koblenz) that "permssion to do so is widespread, for
we have heard of many great men who slaughtered their sons and daughters. And
R. Kalonymus permitted doing so in the kina 'amarti sh'eu mimeni.'" I find it
amazing to imagine that one could permit murder on the basis of a piyut! But
also note - it is more fundamentally the observation that "great men" engaged in
such behavior that serves as the post facto matir - supporting the idea that the
rishonim of Ashkenaz sought halachic positions that synthesized communal
behaviors with conflicting textual norms. On the other side of the issue, Yuval
also cites a tosafist comment (from daat zekenim on bereishit) strongly critical
of a rabbi who was known to have killed children during a pogrom.
I think in addressing the question of whether a Jew today may enter a Church, it
is difficult to rely on the rishonim. As demonstrated by the above and my
general comments in the previous posting, the rishonim lived in a time of highly
charged and violent interactions between Christians and Jews, with that violence
being fed in part by the theology of the Church. Yuval illustrates how despite
living in intimate quarters (indeed, with synagogues often close enough to
churches so that noisy davening disrupted mass, as he documents from primary
sources), Christians often misunderstood Jewish ritual and behavior (eg, he
makes a fairly compelling case linking the host desecration libel to both the
kashering of pots erev Pesach and to the practice of nailing the eruv matza on
the wall of a shul or home). He does not discuss it (it is not the focus of his
work), but it is equally likely that Jews misunderstood Christian ritual. Given
the heated rhetorical atmosphere in which the rishonim lived, and at least the
reasonable possibility that their interpretation of Christian ritual was
influenced not only by their revulsion and hatred towards the religion but also
by misperception of its symbols and rituals, their views must be treated with
some degree of caution in attempting to answer this quesiton honestly.
There is another factor. In my view, this question is no different than a
question about a new medical procedure or a some new technology that may or may
not be usable on shabbat. In order for a posek to answer the question
"permitted or not" he cannot simply rely on the rishonim and their 500-1000 year
old knowledge of the issues, nor on the achronim with perhaps somewhat more
current information or understanding. The posek must consult contemporary
experts and understand the issue in all its intricacy today in order to rule on
the question (particularly since we know that just like science and medicine has
changed, Christian theology has changed since the medieval period, as has their
stance regarding Jews and Judaism). Therefore, and I am interested to hear if
anyone disagrees with me, a person who has not spent time consulting with and
learning from Christian theologians is simply unqualified to offer a psak on
this question.
More succinctly - just like I'm not going to ask for a psak (or accept an
unrequested one) about medical care from a "posek" clueless about science and
medicine, so too with regard to a query regarding the status of other religions.
Is there any defense that anyone cares to offer for demanding less of our poskim?
-Eitan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 27,2010 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Shower on second day yom tov
Short of making aliya and in the absence of a 37C+-type heat wave, are there any
authorities or circumstances permitting someone who is not ill to take a hot or
warm shower on the second day of yom tov with water that has been heated on yom
tov? An "istinis" [one who is fussy], perhaps? What if it's been heated on the
second day of yom tov? Would it help if the second day of yom tov were also erev
Shabbat?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 27,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Yom Kippur "closing" shofar
Wendy Baker wrote (MJ 59#42):
> Martin Stern (MJ 59#41) wrote:
>> Dr. William Gewirtz wrote (MJ 59#38):
>>> 2) you cannot sound the shofar until after the point of nightfall
>> This cannot be true since blowing a shofar does not involve any forbidden
>> work, as the Gemara puts it is "chochmah ve'eino melachah" [a skill rather
>> than labour].
> Wouldn't this then prohibit the sounding of the shofar at the end of Yom
> Kippur when Yom Kippur is on Shabbat as this year and quite a few in the next
> four years?
There is no difference between blowing a shofar on Yom Kippur or Shabbat.
> Apparently, the legal assumption is that had someone forgotton to bring the
> shofar before the beginning of Yom Kippur, he would be able to run home and
> get it before the final blast.
Carrying the shofar in the absence of an eiruv might be more problematic
since , generally, it would be treated as muktseh [an object rabbinically
prohibited to be handled] though strictly not so. However towards the end of
YK when used for the closing tekiot this would not apply if it is available
in shul.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 59 Issue 44
