Volume 6 Number 47
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Divorce
[Nachum Issur Babkoff]
Kedushah or Kedoshah
[Elliot Lasson]
Orthodox minyan in a non orthodox synagogue
[Ben Pashkoff]
Reb Moshe's Teshuva - Orthodox Minyan in Conservative Synagouge
[Yosef Bechhofer]
Yom Haatzmaut Program
[Sam Gamoran]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <babkoff@...> (Nachum Issur Babkoff)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 17:49:08 +0200
Subject: Re: Divorce
In Vol.6 #37 Freda Birnbaum raised the issue of Divorce claims based on
the impotence of the husband, and stated that even gentiles recognized
the concepts of fairness based on the statement "for better and for
worse, in sickness and in health" etc.
I don't want to shock you, Freda, so I'll start with the more "moderate"
examples I thought of.
1. In the last Mishnah in Tractate "Gittin", we find the following opinions:
a. Beit Shamai say that one may divorce his wife only if she has commited
an act which can fall into the category of "erva", for example, consorting
with strange men, etc. In other words, her behavior has to fall into the
broader category of lack of modesty, in any way, shape or form.
b. Beit Hillel say that ANY misconduct which angers the husband, can be
deemed valid grounds for divorce! The example brought is: "afilu hikdicha
tavshilo" lit. "Even if she BURNED HIS SOUP"!
c. R. Akiva goes the farthest, and says, that one doesn't need ANY grounds
for divorce: "Afilu matsa na'ah mi'menah" lit. "Even if he FOUND A WOMAN
BETTER LOOKING THAN HER"!
2. In Tractate K'tubot, we find an even "stranger" law, which hits directly
on the point you brought. If a married woman becomes ill, it is her husbands
obligation, as part of her rights for "m'zonot" (in modern Anglo-American
law, "maintnance") to pay for her medical treatment. BUT, it is within HIS
discretion, to decide that the payments are too heavy for him, and he may
therefore divorce her, pay up her "k'tuba", and tell her to "go and heal
herself"!
Is that to say that Jewish law condones forsaking the weak? The answer seems
to me to be two-fold.
As far as the right to sue for divorce, Jewish law has obviously taken the
stand, that society should allow the parties to sort out their own problems
as much as possible. Therefore, as a religio/legal system, the divorce laws
are surprisingly liberal, in as much as it is virtualy unnecessary to present
to the courts a "valid" grounds for divorce.
On the other hand, the Rabbis, in both responsa as well as in Rabbinic court
decisions do not view divorcing on the aforementioned grounds (including
impotence and barrenness) with favor, and in fact scorn at such practices.
Asside from the moral sanctions, the courts tend to favor the weak parties,
in such cases as far as monetary compensation is concerned, and that allows
for both a detterence in future cases, as well as some form of financial
protection for the weak party.
Finaly, I'm not sure what the term "for better and for worse" etc. means.
>From what I recall, it is part of the "matbe'ah" ("coin") :-) used in
Roman Cath. marriages. If so, then the legal meaning of that phrase cannot
be removed from the entire context, which is, that according to Roman Cath.
divorce is impossible!
If it refers to a MORAL imperetive, then as I said, Jewish law too, frowns
upon forsaking the weak and feable, and DOES afford some form of protection,
without limiting the individuals freedom and autonomy where marriage and
divorce are concerned.
If you want more specific sources on the topic, I will be happy to supply
you with them.
Nachum Issur Babkoff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Elliot_David_Lasson@...> (Elliot Lasson)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 22:08:58 -0500
Subject: Kedushah or Kedoshah
A friend of mine recently pointed out the following "error" that many of
us are accustomed to in our daily tefillah. In the Kedushah which we
recite as part of the Birchot Kriah Shma (in Shacharit) there is the
phrase:
l'hakdish l'yotzram b'nachat ruach b'safah brurah u'ven'emah kedusha
kulam k'echad onim v'omrim b'yirah, etc.
Now, the questions is where to place the punctuation. According to many
s'durim (e.g. ArtScroll, Rinat Yisrael), there is a period or comma
after the word "u'ven'emah". The word "kedushah", however, is clearly a
noun (grammatically). The ArtScroll translation, which I believe to
be problematic, translates this line as: "....with tranquility, with
clear articulation, and with sweetness. All of them as one proclaim
*His holiness* and say with awe...Etc."
For that to really work, the word should be "kedushato" and not
"kedushah". In addition, the position of the word "kedushah" would not
really be appropriate. Perhaps it should be "kulam k'echad omrim
*kedushah*, v'omrim b'yirah etc."
Now, according to the Avudraham, he has a version that makes much more
sense. (If I remember correctly, this is the version in the old Tikun
Meir siddur which I grew up on.) He uses the word "kedosha". Using
this, "kedoshah" becomes an adjective which modifies the word
"u'ven'emah (kedosha)", or translated as "holy sweetness". This would
also make more sense, because the context in the preceding words is
"b'safa brurah", translated as "with clear articulation" (also with the
noun-adjective construction). Then, the subsequent phrase of "kulam
k'echad onim v'omrim b'yirah etc.", without having to account for this
dangling noun of "kedushah".
My question is what is the source for using "kedushah", rather than
"kedoshah" or "kedushato" (to preserve the conventional punctuation).
Could this be a misprint which has been erroneously perpetuated in the
siddurim? In my opinion, that is what seems to have been the case.
Does anyone have an answer to this?
Elliot Lasson, Ph.D.
Wayne State University - Department of Psyc. - Detroit, MI
E-Mail: <FC9q@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <BEN@...> (Ben Pashkoff)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 07:52:12 -0500
Subject: Orthodox minyan in a non orthodox synagogue
In MJ 6:43 Daniel Lerner asks about a specific reference mentioned in
Daughters of the King. Since my wife is reading that now, I went and
looked. The pertinent reference:
Daughters of the King: Women and the Synagogue
Grossman, Susan and Haut Rivka, eds.
1992 JPS
p. 126
Joseph, Norma Baumel
"Mehitzah: Halahikhic Decisions and Political Consequences"
"...One must not pray or attend any service in a non-Orthodaox
congregation. A synagogue that is Conservative is considered a
community of 'kofrim' [deniers], even if they do not know any better. He
extends this category to Reform congregations and rabbis in other
responsa. It is therefore forbidden to pray in their building(IM OH
4:91, sec. 6). Even if they establishe a special room with an acceptable
'mehitza' [partition] for those who wish it, it is still forbidden to
pray there (IM OH 2:40). Feinstein argues that one must not do anything
that will bring suspicion [hashad] upon one's self, nor do anything
whose appearance might be misinterpreted, thereby leading others astray
[ma'arit 'ayin]. Entering the building of such a synagogue falls into
these categories. If someone is seen entering a Conservative synagogue,
he or she will be suspected of being Conservative or will lead others
astray by example. In his terms, the non-Orthodox synagogue benifits
both financially and morally, as it can claim that it satisfies all
needs. For both halakhic and social reasons, then, Feinstein prohibits
praying in such a room, even if it has a proper mehitzah. However, if
the same arrangement exists but the synagogue in question considers
itself Orthodox, he permits praying in a separate room with a
mehitzaah(IM OH 4:91, sec.6). If the Orthodox congregation uses a
microphone or does not have a proper partition (and there are some), the
members are not considered 'kofrim'. They have accepted the 'mitzvot'
[commandments] and are just disrepectful in the one area. Avoidance is
therefore not required."
"Note 36: Rabbi Soloveitchik also takes an uncompromising position on
prayer in a Conservative or Reform synagogue. He rules that it is
preferable to pray alone, even on Yom Kippur, than to enter a synagogue
where there is no separation (Litvin, The Sanctitiy, 110)"
"Note 37: Feinstein restricts contact with Conservative or Reform
institutions in a number of responsa. He even forbids answering "amen"
to a Conservative rabbi's blessing. IM OH 2:50,51; OH 3:21,22 See
Robinson, "Because of Our Many Sins," pp 40-41."
This is the quote that seems pertinent to your question. I and probably
many others would STRONGLY encourage you to find an Orthodox Authority
and get a claer standing for your specific case!
Ben Pashkoff <BEN@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <YOSEF_BECHHOFER@...> (Yosef Bechhofer)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 02:35:24 -0500
Subject: Reb Moshe's Teshuva - Orthodox Minyan in Conservative Synagouge
Reb Moshe has two teshuvos, Orach Chaim 3 :28 and 4:91.6. He forbids
such an arrangement, but in the latter teshuva he allows an Orthodox minyan in
a Traditional synagouge under certain conditions.
A note of zealousness: In the posted query Reb Moshe is quoted as
"Moshe Feinstein" without the title of Rav, Rabbi, or, as he is affectionately
known, Reb Moshe. Kavod HaTorah?!
[Good point, Yosef. I will try and keep an eye out as well. Note that in
Ben's article, he is quoting written material, so one may wirsh to take
the matter up with the original writer, but I do not think it
appropriate to change here. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <shg@...> (Sam Gamoran)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 10:00:38 -0500
Subject: Yom Haatzmaut Program
Because I am the "aliyanik who is back for a year" Rabbi Kaminetzky of
Ohav Emeth here in Highland Park New Jersey asked me to take on what for
me is a difficult task. He wants me to organize a program for erev Yom
Haatzmaut (Israel Independence Day) at the shul.
Yom Haatzmaut occurs this year on Sunday night April 25 into Monday
April 26th. The program will have to begin after Maariv (7:35PM that
week so I estimate it will be over by 8:00) and has to fit into the
constraints of Monday being a regular work/school day (a sad but true
constraint here in the bitter galut).
I've never been much for running programs. Would anyone who has
organized or attended a successful program share ideas with me.
Thanks,
Sam Gamoran
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 6 Issue 47
