Volume 59 Number 98
Produced: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:39:20 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Adon Olam
[Mark Symons]
Bameh Madlikin (5)
[Guido Elbogen Martin Stern Harry Weiss Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz Haim Snyder]
First Two Sheva Brachot Blessings - Together or Separate
[Yisrael Medad]
Help with Research on Davening
[Bernard Raab]
Important Times Article on Homosexuality (2)
[Ira L. Jacobson Mordechai Horowitz]
Purim message
[Martin Stern]
Query: "Lamed Vov"niks
[Jeanette Friedman]
Reporting abuse (2)
[David Tzohar Carl Singer]
Shir shel yom
[Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Symons <msymons@...>
Date: Tue, Mar 15,2011 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Adon Olam
... Ve-acharei kichlot hakol / levado yimloch, Nora ...
This seems to imply a belief that one day everything (apart from Hashem, of
course!) will cease to exist: Olam Hazeh, Olam Haba etc etc - which would
seem to be in conflict with the belief in everlasting life.
Does anyone know a source for this, or another way of understanding it?
MSS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Guido Elbogen <havlei.h@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 6,2011 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Bameh Madlikin
Baruch J. Schwartz wrote (MJ 59#97):
> In our shul (Rimon Central Synagogue, Efrat -- Nusah Ashkenaz), the
> hazzan stands at the bimah for Kabbalat Shabbat and then moves to the amud
> for Arvit. Recently someone asked: is there a preference as to whether he
> should remain at the bimah while saying Bameh Madlikin (which we say before
> Barchu) or move to the amud to say it. Anyone with any information on this?
IMHO, and perhaps Martin Stern could verify, the reason the hazzan stands at
the bima for KS is that KS is not actually considered part of the true
Ashkenaz liturgy.
However the BM, again IMHO, was usually recited in the liturgy although
located just before Alenu.
Here in Israel, we suffer from kibbutz galuyot syndrome in many schuls,
leading to mixed (or undefined) minhagim.
This is very evident in those schuls that purport to daven Nusach Ashkenaz
but their (founding) members are (or were) products of Nusach Sefard (from
childhood) and/or the minimalist Nusach Yeshivati Litait.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 6,2011 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Bameh Madlikin
I think Guido is correct with this. KS was only introduced some 500 years
ago. I believe that, at first, in some communities everyone went outside the
shul for it and then returned for maariv. In my old shul, the minhag was for
the chazan to say the tehillim at the amud and go up to the bimah for Lechah
Dodi and then return to the amud for Barechu. I suppose the rationale was
that saying tehillim was a regular thing and only LD was an innovation.
The original minhag was to say BM at the end so that latecomers would not
have to go home from shul on their own. This was at a time when shuls were
outside the town and this could be dangerous. This minhag antedates the
saying of Aleinu (apart from on Rosh Hashanah as part of Mussaf) which is
only about 800 years old.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 6,2011 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Bameh Madlikin
Kabbalat Shabbat is really supposed to be done before Shabbat. Bameh
Madlikin is learning about the period before Shabbat. Neither are a part of
Maariv.
In addition, there is a practical issue. Many Rabbis or shul officers
speak before Barchu. That makes that a convenient time to switch
locations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 6,2011 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Bameh Madlikin
Baruch J. Schwartz <schwrtz@...> wrote (MJ 59#97):
> In our shul (Rimon Central Synagogue, Efrat -- Nusah Ashkenaz), the hazzan
> stands at the bimah for Kabbalat Shabbat and then moves to the amud for Arvit.
> Recently someone asked: is there a preference as to whether he should remain at
> the bimah while saying Bameh Madlikin (which we say before Barchu) or move to
> the amud to say it. Anyone with any information on this?
In our shul, the bameh madlikim is treated as part of kabbalat
Shabbat. After the kaddish, the shliach tzibbur sits down while our rav gives a
dvar halacha and then goes to the amud to say Barchu.
In most other shuls that I have been in it is also considered part of
Kabbalat Shabbat and the shliach tzibbur goes to the amud for Barchu.
In any write-up that I have seen, the reasoning is that it is not part
of davening as such, but is part of the "welcome" that we give the
Shabbat and the preparation for Shabbat. I do not have a specific
citation at hand for that reasoning.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Haim Snyder <haimsny@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 7,2011 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Bameh Madlikin
Baruch J. Schwartz (MJ 59#97) asked where the hazzan should stand while saying
Bameh Madlikin. In Mekor Haim, Nahalat Zeev and the Young Israel of Kfar Ganim,
all in Petah Tikva, he stays at the bimah and goes to the amud during the
Rabanan Kaddish. Presumably this is because it isn't part of maariv, but more
associated with Kabbalat Shabbat. As an aside, the siddur Azor Eliyahu (nusah
HaGR"A) has Bameh Madlikin before Kabbalat Shabbat. This is closer to the time
that learning about lighting the candles is relevant.
Regards,
Haim Shalom Snyder
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 6,2011 at 04:01 PM
Subject: First Two Sheva Brachot Blessings - Together or Separate
In a discussion I had, the topic came up of the custom that the first
two blessings of the Sheva Brachot at the Chuppah/Wedding ceremony are
usually said by one person together. It was suggested that there is no
Halachic basis for this and actually, they should be recited separately
so as to give more persons a role of participation. The reason would
seem to be that the first benediction, over the wine, is considered
somehow insufficient or less-than-important and that person need be
compensated and awarded a second benediction.
Of course, for Kiddush, that one blessing is quite enough on its own.
Any thoughts?
Yisrael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 7,2011 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Help with Research on Davening
Steven Scher (MJ 59#97) wrote:
> We are writing you from the Psychology Department at Eastern Illinois
> University in Charleston, IL. to ask for help with a study of the effects of
> prayer among Orthodox Jews.
> There has been considerable research looking at the connection between prayer
> and both physical and psychological health. However, these findings have all
> been based on research using at best a very small number of Jewish
> participants (and an even smaller number of Shomrei Mitzvot). Because of
> this, the findings do not accurately show how Jewish prayer works.
I don't know if this relates at all to Steven Scher's request, but it seems that
it might. Yesterday (3/6/11), the New York Times printed an article on happiness
in America:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/weekinreview/06happy.html?_r=1&hpw
They reported on a study called the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index. They
asked Gallup to come up with a statistical composite for the happiest person in
America, based on the characteristics that most closely correlated with
happiness in 2010.
The Times reports:
"Gallup's answer: he's a tall, Asian-American, observant Jew who is at least 65
and married, has children, lives in Hawaii, runs his own business and has a
household income of more than $120,000 a year.
"A few phone calls later and Meet Alvin Wong. He is a 5-foot-10, 69-year-old,
Chinese-American, Kosher-observing Jew, who's married with children and lives in
Honolulu. He runs his own health care management business and earns more than
$120,000 a year."
The Times continues:
"Reached by phone at his home on Friday (and referred to The Times by a local
synagogue), Mr. Wong said that he was indeed a very happy person. He said that
perhaps he manages to be the happiest man in America because 'my life philosophy
is, if you can't laugh at yourself, life is going to be pretty terrible for
you.' He continued: 'This is a practical joke, right?'"
Everybody I know is simply flabbergasted at this article!
Bernie R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 6,2011 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Important Times Article on Homosexuality
Bernard Raab stated the following (MJ 59#97):
> It seems that many of our co-religionists are under the impression
> that gayness is some sort of voluntary choice. I find this
> incomprehensible, since whenever I hear this in conversation, I ask
> the person if he or she could have, at any time in the past, or
> could now, "switch sides." The inevitable response is "Oh no not me,
> but some others might be able to." Nobody who has ever really known
> a gay person would make the mistake of thinking that it is a
> voluntary choice. It is also evidence of a startling lack of
> sensitivity to think that it would be a preferred lifestyle, or that
> gays are generally unattractive to the opposite gender. Anyone with
> a modicum of wordliness would understand the absurdity of this
> position. How to reconcile this with our understanding of the Torah
> I leave to the more learned among us.
Friday's Yisrael Hayom had a report, entitled "Ve'ahvta lere`akha,"
of a meeting between three "courageous" Zionist rabbanim and a group
of otherwise religious young homosexual men (p 29ff., Yisrael
ShiShabbat, 28 Adar Alef, 5771).
http://digital-edition.israelhayom.co.il/Olive/ODE/Israel/Default.aspx?
href=ITD%2F2011%2F03%2F0
Rav Ya`aqov Medan, in referring to a Declaration of Principles
circulated by some American rabbis, states, "I agree with what is
written; this document leaves great leeway without taking a decisive
position on the crucial items. . . . No reasonable person could
disagree with the call to relate honorably to every person.
"I do not agree with every word in the document -- it states that
'Halakha regards sexual relations between people of the same sex as a
severe prohibition.' This is not sufficiently unambiguous. It
ought to have stated . . .'a capital crime.' This is unambiguous, we
cannot compromise here on a Torah prohibition."
I believe that his position did not find much favor with the young
men he was addressing.
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mordechai Horowitz <mordechai@...>
Date: Thu, Mar 10,2011 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Important Times Article on Homosexuality
Bernard Raab <beraab@...> (MJ 59#97) wrote:
> It seems that many of our co-religionists are under the impression that
> gayness is some sort of voluntary choice. I find this incomprehensible,
> since whenever I hear this in conversation, I ask the person if he or she
> could have, at any time in the past, or could now, "switch sides." The
> inevitable response is "Oh no not me, but some others might be able to."
> Nobody who has ever really known a gay person would make the mistake of
> thinking that it is a voluntary choice
You could say the same thing about any immoral behavior.
After all someone who is a wife beater could claim I couldn't help it.
I know someone (I won't call him a friend any more) who I recently found
out was a wife beater, a child beater and a sex pervert (heterosexual, so
it's OK to condemn him).
He was born that way, or maybe his parents' poor parenting (and yes I've
known him since he was a high school student so I know what I saw) made
him do it. His family knew when he got married he was mentally ill
(thrown out of the IDF for his mental illness), but of course we Jews all
preach judge someone favorably and don't say loshon hora so the uncle, a
famous rosh yeshiva, performed the ceremony.
But it's no one's fault..right. No need for anyone, not the abuser, not
his uncle, the rosh yeshiva, not his parents. He couldn't help it. They
couldn't help it.
A homosexual may have no choice over his or her desires. But s/he has
full control over his or her behavior.
And, yes, there are groups like JONAH http://www.jonahweb.org/index.php
that can help someone get out of this lifestyle. Yes, the flamers will
ignore all the articles on the website and respond with the tried-and-true
attacks that there is no science to the claim someone can stop
sinning. Of course they ensure that by banning any article from being
published in a academic journal that does anything other than promote
the gay agenda or by throwing out any student in a therapy program who
doesn't see promoting the gay agenda as a therapist's job. But in spite
of that there is a ton of scientific proof that therapy can help. Not
everyone, not everytime, but that is the same for all disorders whether it
is being bipolar, a pedophile or an eating disorder. But even if someone
has a mental illness that really takes away their free choice, we don't
morally justify immoral behavior -- we just lock them up in a psychiatric
institution instead of a jail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Purim message
Having received many mishloach manot packages with cards wishing "Purim
sameiach", it occurred to me that this may not be grammatically correct.
Since Purim is plural, which the qualifying adjective should also be, i.e.
"Purim smeichim". The same might apply to "Channukah sameiach" which
grammatically should be "Channukah sameichah". Any explanations?
Well this query probably only reinforces the old saying "Don't tell a Yekke
a joke on Purim - he might come to laugh on Tisha be'Av!"
May we soon all see the final annihilation of Amalek speedily in our time.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeanette Friedman <FriedmanJ@...>
Date: Tue, Mar 8,2011 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Query: "Lamed Vov"niks
I just looked at an article that mentions the lamed vovniks and translated
it as 36 righteous MEN. Are women ever counted among the LVs?
Jeanette Friedman, EIC
The Wordsmithy
201-986-0647
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Tzohar <davidtzohar@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 6,2011 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Reporting abuse
There are two very different aspects to this issue: How to protect potential
victims and how to prosecute and punish accused offenders. In Israel, two recent
cases (Katzav and R'Eilon) have shown how difficult it is to serve justice where
there is only "He said-she said" or "He said-he said" evidence. Both the
governmental authorities and Forum Takkana failed miserably.
We can only pray for battei din sheHashchina shoreh bahem. I for one have no
trust in secular justice.
--
David Tzohar
http://tzoharlateivahebrew.blogspot.com/
http://tzoharlateiva.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 6,2011 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Reporting abuse
Orrin Tilevitz (MJ 57#97) wrote:
> An article in The Jewish Week,
>
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new_york/abuse_case_tests_ohels_adherence_repo
rting_laws
> and a book that came out several months ago, "Hush" by the anonymous
> Eishes Chayil, that raise the issue of mesirah (turning Jews over to
> non-Jewish authority) in the context of familial sexual abuse. In the
> former, the social service organization Ohel is asserting, publicly,
> that the ban on mesirah trumps its obligations under New York's
> reporting law, thus further raising the issue of dina demalchuta dina
> (secular law is binding as halacha). The case in Jewish Week, and the
> principal case in "Hush," is heterosexual. I am curious what list
> members, particular those who lean to the right, think of these issues
> in this context, in particular because predictable voices from the Orthodox
> right have asserted, in online discussion of "Hush," that these issues
> should be dealt with solely within the Orthodox community.
The Jewish Week article asserts that Ohel has violated its mandatory
reporting requirements.
To be fair and accurate, Ohel denies these assertions and attributes them to
a disgruntled former employee.
Ohel printed a full page rebuttal to the Jewish Week article in the Jewish
Press -- even chastising the Jewish Week article for calling them
"ultra-orthodox" and in essence, staging/selecting the picture shown in the
article.
I do not know any of the parties involved and thus have no idea where the
truth lies.
There are myriad links and articles dating back several years on this topic
-- here's one:
http://www.thejewishstar.com/stories/Call-the-cops-Ohel-recommends-
alertingtheauthorities,1800?
content_source=&category_id=6&search_filter=&event_mode=&event_ts_from=&list_typ
e=&order_by=&order_sort=&content_class=&sub_type=&town_id=
The above link may be of interest re: a June 2010 Ohel statement.
Nonetheless, the articles, accusations and denials flying back and forth
among newspapers, websites, etc., are not fodder for serious halachic
discussion. Who did or did not do what is for the tabloids. What should be done
is for discussion. Thus, I will repeat something posted in MJ many years ago:
When my wife was principal of a boy's day school in Manhattan (and thus
a mandatory reporter), she suspected a case of child abuse. The then Dean of her
school questioned whether she should report it as he was reluctant to do so.
She persisted and per agreement contacted Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky. As she
began describing the situation, Reb Shmuel immediately interjected -- "YOU MUST
REPORT!"
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2011 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Shir shel yom
While the shir shel yom (daily psalm) is usually said towards the end of
davenning each morning, either before Aleinu (Nusach Sfard) or after it (Nusach
Ashkenaz), in many places the shir is said before Psukei Dezimra on the Yamim
Noraim. Why this is done has always puzzled me, though it seems a more natural
place since they were said in the Beit Hamikdash when the nesachim that
accompanied the Tamid shel Shachar (a lamb sacrificed each morning) were
brought. Recently I found that the Kitsur Shlah, first published about 330 years
ago in Fuerth, seems to place the shir shel yom there every day. It would seem
that Ashkenazim moved it to the end of davenning at a later date.
I speculate that the reason for this might have been to enable aveilim
(mourners) who may have been unavoidably delayed in getting to shul in time the
opportunity to say kaddish after it. The original custom among Ashkenazim was that
only one aveil said each kaddish and this led to problems in larger communities
where the number of aveilim exceeded the number of kaddeishim. In such situations,
every available kaddish was necessary so it would have been unfortunate if
this one were 'lost'. Has anyone any further ideas on this?
Incidentally, I have noticed that there seems to be widespread 'minhag' not
to come to shul before the designated starting time, whether shacharit,
minchah or ma'ariv, on weekdays, Shabbat or Yom Tov, though I have been
unable to trace its source. Does anyone know anything about it?
Unfortunately some people who follow it become quite upset when they are
aveilim and arrive to find that the the tsibbur have started without them.
Should the congregation perhaps have waited for them?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 59 Issue 98
