Volume 61 Number 07
Produced: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:20:13 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Aleppo Codex
[Sammy Finkelman]
BASH (2)
[Sammy Finkelman Martin Stern]
Concubinage revival? (4)
[Josh Backon Martin Stern Frank Silbermann David Tzohar]
End of fast days
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Kaddeshim
[Lawrence Myers]
No Mechitza - What to do? (3)
[Stuart Wise Martin Stern Katz, Ben M.D.]
Ritual hand washing after delivery
[Martin Stern]
Segulas and other Misrepresentations of Judaism (2)
[Marshall Gisser Katz, Ben M.D.]
Waiting for the Rabbi
[Perets Mett]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 6,2012 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Aleppo Codex
There was a New York Times Magazine article about the Aleppo codex.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/magazine/the-aleppo-codex-mystery.html?
_r=1&pagewanted=all [or http://goo.gl/nbTbh --Mod.]
It seems that it was saved in 1948 - maybe only a few pages got lost.
It was eventually taken to Israel but not turned over to the Rabbis as
the people who turned it over were promised it would be. In the
Ben-Zvi Institute it was probably looted. It is for sure other things
were.
And the justification given for taking it was:
"After all, if the book had not reached Israel, it would probably be
sitting right now in some museum being shelled by the guns of Bashar
al-Assad."
But that's unlikely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 6,2012 at 05:01 PM
Subject: BASH
In MJ 61#05, Martin Stern wrote:
> AFAIK this restriction only applies to passing in front of someone
> davenning shemoneh esrei. Two reasons are generally given:
> 1. Not to disturb that person's concentration; and
> 2. Because the Shechina 'stands' in front of such a person.
I would think a reason would be because otherwise, when he bows, it
could look like he's bowing to you and when he prays, it could look
like he's praying to you.
Or, you're not leaving space for him to be clearly not bowing or
praying to something else. In this context, a wall in front of him
doesn't matter, and, in fact, is best.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 7,2012 at 01:01 PM
Subject: BASH
Elliot Berkovits wrote (MJ 61#06):
> In MJ 61#05, Martin Stern wrote:
>
>> AFAIK this restriction only applies to passing in front of someone
>> davenning shemoneh esrei...
>> 2. Because the Shechina 'stands' in front of such a person.
> Is this not conjecture? How do we know when the Shechina appears in
> front of a person? [Apologies if Martin's initial post answered this.] I
> would only suggest: 'Toavas Hashem Kol Gevah Leiv' (arrogance is despised by
> H' -- Mod.) - and it is somewhat arrogant to daven in a location which would
> inconvenience others.
Many thanks to Elliot for adding the scriptural support for the Gemara I
quoted when I wrote (MJ 61#03):
>>> This should not be a problem, because the Shechinah is not in front of an
>>> arrogant person. Of such a person, HKBH says that "I and he cannot be
>>> together" (Sotah 5a), and what is a greater arrogance than brazenly taking
>>> over the public right of way.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Josh Backon <backon@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 6,2012 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Concubinage revival?
Yisrael Medad mentioned the recent rabbinical court ruling in
Jerusalem allowing a man to take a "concubine" (MJ 61#06).
On the matter of PILEGESH (roughly translated as "concubine"),
the unmarried woman living in a PILEGESH relationship shouldn't
be embarrassed about going to the MIKVEH since there's nothing
inherently wrong with it.
This follows the disagreement between the Rambam and RAAVAD (Hilchot Ishut 1:5)
on pilegesh. The RAAVAD permits this and this is the view of most poskim (see:
Beit Shmuel Shulchan Aruch EVEN HA'EZER Siman 26 s'k bet).
Needless to say, this is NOT one-time casual sex but a permanent living-together
arrangement. If the woman is bound up in a living-together relationship and thus
no other man can marry her, even according to the Rambam, the woman isn't in the
category of KEDESHA. A KEDESHA is a loose and promiscuous woman.
The question revolves around whether kiddushin removes an issur [prohibited
relationship - MOD] or is a kinyan mamoni [monetary acquisition - MOD]. The
Avnei Miluim (42 s'k 1) derives from the Rashba (Kiddushin 6b d"h ileimah) that
there isn't kinyan (see also: Meishiv Davar Chelek Daled 35 and SHUT Chelkat
Yoav EH 6).
There is, however, a rabbinical prohibition of a couple living together without
a ketuba (Rambam Hilchot Ishut 10:7-10). So kids, don't do this at home!
Josh Backon
<backon@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 6,2012 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Concubinage revival?
Yisrael Medad quoted from a "The Forward" 'blog (MJ 61#06):
> The chief judge of Jerusalem's rabbinical court, Rabbi Eliyahu
> Abergel, recently ruled that a man may take a concubine if his wife is
> unable or unwilling to bear children, and unwilling to divorce him.
> ...
> Abergel states that his ruling "will enable husbands to fulfill the
> commandment of procreation," and that a concubine can live with the
> couple or separately....
I presume Rabbi Abergel is a Sefardi, and therefore not covered by the Cherem
Rabbeinu Gershom, so I cannot understand why he does not rule that the man is
permitted to take a second wife in these circumstances. If the husband agreed at
the time of his first marriage not to do so without his first wife's consent and
she does not agree, there might be grounds for annulling the first marriage under
the heading of mekach ta'ut since he would never have made such an agreement had
he envisaged such an extreme situation.
There is a very good discussion of the halachic disputes regarding the practical
application of the concept of pilegesh [concubine] in the book "Nissuin shelo
kedat Mosheh veYisrael" by Rav Getzel Ellinson z"l (Devir, 1975).
Perhaps Rabbi Abergel is only suggesting concubinage as a way of getting 'round
the secular Israeli (religiously coercive?) law that bans polygamy even when it
is halachically justified, rather than as a real halachic option.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Silbermann <frank_silbermann@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 6,2012 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Concubinage revival?
In reply to Yisrael Medad (MJ 61#06):
Would that not be even better justification for taking a second wife?
If so, then why the need for concubinage?
Is it to evade the conditions Askenazi tradition requires for taking a second
wife? Or is it to evade the restrictions imposed on marriage by secular Israeli
law?
Frank Silbermann Memphis, Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Tzohar <davidtzohar@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 7,2012 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Concubinage revival?
In reply to Yisrael Medad (MJ 61#06):
Rav Abergel ruled to officially recognize a situation that already
exists de facto. If a married man takes a mistress and she is faithful
to him and observes the laws of ritual purity, he has many halachic
authorities who permit this. This can be a solution for the problem
of an Ashkenazi whose wife refuses or is not competent to receive a
get. The edict of Rabbenu Gershom forbids him to take a second wife,
but he is allowed to take a concubine and for all intents and purposes
live with her as man and wife. Although the concubine does not have a
ketuba, there is an upside - she does not require a get to dissolve the
relationship so there is no danger of becoming an agunah.
There are of course many poskim who are against the practice and fear
that it would be a slippery slope which in the end would undermine the
institution of marriage. These authorities, while agreeing that
concubinage is permitted according to the letter of Halacha, say that a
man who takes a concubine is a "naval b'reshut haTorah (one who uses a
loophole in the law to justify improper behavior)."
--
David Tzohar
http://tzoharlateivahebrew.blogspot.com/
http://tzoharlateiva.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 2,2012 at 02:01 PM
Subject: End of fast days
In MJ 61#05, thread "Time to begin the fast", Menashe Elyashiv wrote:
> ...the fast [of Tisha B'Av] also ends faster, 24 - 27 minutes after sunset --
> I was home for havdala at 8:12 after a sunset Arvit & Birkat Halevana.
According to the Luach Yerushalayim by Rav Tukechinski, accepted almost
universally by the Litvaks (i.e., Misnagdim) here [in Israel], on general fast
days (Tzom Gedalya, Ta'anis Esther, ...) the fast ends 17 minutes after sunset,
whereas on Tisha B'Av it ends 25 minutes after sunset.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lawrence Myers <lawrm@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 8,2012 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Kaddeshim
Chaim Casper (MJ 61#06) wrote:
> (Rosh Hodesh) Elul 1 this year (2012) will occur on Sunday. That means our
> davening will end with Aleinu, the Shir Shel Yom (the Psalm for Sunday), Borkhi
> Nafshi (the Psalm said on Rosh Hodesh) and L'David (the Psalm said from Elul 1
> until Shmini Azeret). Everyone agrees we say a kaddish after Aleinu (per the
> RaM"A). But the KSA would have us say kaddish after Shir Shel Yom, after
> Borkhi Nafshi, and after L'David, too. On the other hand, given his
> druthers, the MB would rather we say kaddish only once, only after L'David.
> To put it thematically: the MB is worried about tirha d'zibura (inconveniencing
> the majority) while the KSA is concerned with the rights of the individual.
Matei Ephraim says that one should say a kaddish before L'Dovid, to make it
clear that that is not a shir shel yom.
Lawrence Myers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Wise <Smwise3@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 6,2012 at 05:01 PM
Subject: No Mechitza - What to do?
Stuart Pilichowski wrote (MJ 61#06):
> Here's the scenario: Arrive at shul for Eichah and Kinnot Saturday night.
> Someone took the portable mechitzah. Now there's no mechitzah. We have a
> very small minyan of about twenty. Two women arrive.
>
> What to do? Ask them to leave, because we have no mechitzah . . . . or stay
> with us, but seated in the back where you'll be to yourselves?!?!?
>
> Remember, in asking them to leave, they would not go elsewhere and they
> would frankly be insulted.
>
> Are Eichah and Kinnot required to be read to an audience with a mechitzah?
Why would they be insulted? Is this not an Orthodox minyan? You would think
on their own they would feel they would have to leave. Was there not a hallway
where they could sit?
Stuart Wise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 6,2012 at 05:01 PM
Subject: No Mechitza - What to do?
In reply to Stuart Pilichowski (MJ 61#06):
Presumably they were dressed in a manner that did not preclude a man from
learning or davenning in their presence. If that were the case, and this
were a one-off situation, there might be room to be lenient and merely ask
them to sit separately rather than offend them. If, on the other hand, their
attire were inappropriate, there would, unfortunately, not really be much
choice in the matter.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Katz, Ben M.D. <BKatz@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 7,2012 at 02:01 PM
Subject: No Mechitza - What to do?
In M-J V61#06, Stuart Pilichowski wrote:
> Here's the scenario: Arrive at shul for Eichah and Kinnot Saturday night.
> Someone took the portable mechitzah. Now there's no mechitzah.
> We have a very small minyan of about twenty. Two women arrive.
>
> What to do? Ask them to leave, because we have no mechitzah . . . .
> or stay with us, but seated in the back where you'll be to yourselves?!?!?
>
> Remember, in asking them to leave, they would not go elsewhere and
> they would frankly be insulted.
>
> Are Eichah and Kinnot required to be read to an audience with a mechitzah?
I do not believe a mechitzah is required for Torah reading, let alone
Eichah and kinot. I don't see any reason why the women should not have
just been able to sit apart from the men.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 6,2012 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Ritual hand washing after delivery
Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 61#06):
> A young lady of my acquaintance, having just given birth in Laniado Hospital,
> was brought a washing cup with water and instructed to use it. Has anyone
> heard of this practice or its basis? The obvious answer is that giving birth
> causes a woman to become ritually impure. It is also obviously wrong because
> that sort of impurity is cleansed only by immersion in a mikveh.
Presumably, this was done because during labour her hands very likely touched
parts of her body that are normally covered. Others in such a situation would have
to wash their hands, so why should she be any different?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marshall Gisser <mgisser@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 6,2012 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Segulas and other Misrepresentations of Judaism
In reply to David Ziants (MJ 60#06):
I agree that the Talmud cites demons and other phenomena. The question is
whether we view such Talmudic stories literally, or that the Rabbis had some
other intent?
King Solomon (Proverbs 1:6), and many Rishonim apart from the Rambam, have
described the style in which the Rabbis talked as that they wrote in riddles,
subtle sayings, metaphor and allegory, so he is not a lone voice. And even if he
were a lone voice, we are to follow reason, even if only from one wise man,
instead of the opinions of the masses who err. Numbers matters only in Halacha,
not in reality. Either demons are real, or they are not. It's not subject to a
vote.
To date, no demons, ghosts, or powers other than God and man (See Sforno Deut.
4:28) have been witnessed. Saadia Gaon says the Egyptian astrologers used
sleight of hand to mimic blood and frogs. (Emunos V'Dayos)
Regarding shadim (demons), don't you think there is a reason the Talmud said
they are found in only 4 places: mountain tops, deserts, caves and nighttime?
Why only 4? Can't they walk if they are real beings? These are generous clues to
unravel a deeper idea. See this article:
http://www.mesora.org/shadim.html
Rabbi M. Gisser
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Katz, Ben M.D. <BKatz@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 7,2012 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Segulas and other Misrepresentations of Judaism
In M-J V61#06, David Tzohar wrote:
> In MJ61#05 Marshall Gisser decries the use of segulot and calls them
> "a misrepresentation of Judaism". He quotes Rambam as a source, but
> the Rambam is practically a lone opinion among the rishonim.
> The Talmud of course is full of segulot and the use of amulets,
> not to mention sheidim (goblins) and other manifestations of the spirit world.
> This may make moderns uncomfortable, but it is certainly not
> a misrepresentation of Judaism but is rather a part of Judaism.
I partially disagree with David Tzohar here. Rambam tried to accomplish
2 things: 1) convince people that God didn't have a body and 2) rid Judaism
of superstition/place Judaism on a more firm philosophical basis.
He was successful in his first endeavor, not in his second, despite the fact
that he either did not codify laws he thought were superstitious, even if
they were found in the Talmud, or changed their reasons to more rational ones.
(See Marc Shapiro's book Studies in Maimonides and His Interpreters.) Calling
Rambam a daat yachid (lone opinion) here is like calling him a lone opinion when
it comes to anthropomorphism. True, there are elements of Judaism that still
cling to amulets and the like, but Rambam and other rationalists would argue
that they should not be a part of Judaism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett00@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 7,2012 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Waiting for the Rabbi
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 61#06):
> A problem arose recently when the rabbi was away but we were graced with the
> visit of a rosh yeshiva who was honoured with sitting in the mizrach [front
> row next to the rabbi's empty seat]. His davenning was very extended, as
> would have been appropriate in his yeshiva, and the shliach tzibbur wanted
> to wait for him, even though almost everyone else had finished and some
> people were getting rather fidgety...
> Was the shliach tzibbur correct in waiting for him?
It is customary to wait for the shul's rabbi.
I know of no custom requiring the shliach tsibur to wait for a visiting
dignitary, unless the community wishes to honour him specifically.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 61 Issue 7
