Volume 61 Number 11
Produced: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 01:57:41 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Chasan getting maftir at the aufruf
[Stuart Wise]
Cherem D'Rabbenu Gershom (was Concubinage revival) (3)
[Yossi Ginzberg Robert Rubinoff Ari Trachtenberg]
Concubinage revival? (2)
[Martin Stern Leah S. R. Gordon]
Daf yomi online resource
[Stuart Wise]
Meat after Tisha B'av
[Isaac Balbin]
No Mechitza - What to do? (3)
[Martin Stern Bill Coleman Meir Shinnar]
Ritual handwashing after childbirth (2)
[Martin Stern Yossi Ginzberg]
Tachnun at a Wedding
[Carl Singer]
Waiting for the Rabbi
[Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Wise <Smwise3@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 12,2012 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Chasan getting maftir at the aufruf
It has always seemed to be the custom that when possible, a chasan would
get maftir at his aufruf. Of course, it is not always possible if there is
more than one chasan, or if there is a chiyuv such as a yahrzeit, or a
yahrzeit in the coming week. But is there a custom NOT to give the chasan
maftir when none of the above situations arise? I witnessed this a couple times
recently.
Stuart Wise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yossi Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 12,2012 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Cherem D'Rabbenu Gershom (was Concubinage revival)
According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, there are no original texts of the Cherem
of Rabbenu Gershom. There are no contemporary references to his making these
Takanos, the first being a letter to the Rashba, approximately 300 years later,
from someone claiming that his community had an oral tradition regarding this
Cherem.
Yossi Ginzberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Rubinoff <rubinoff@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 12,2012 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Cherem D'Rabbenu Gershom (was Concubinage revival)
Keith Bierman wrote (MJ 61#10):
> Robert Rubinoff wrote (MJ 61#09):
>
>> I've heard this lots of times, and I find it very puzzling. I've never
>> heard of any other decree that had a time limit (except the one requiring
>> women who inherit land in Eretz Yisrael because their father had no sons to
>> marry within their tribe, but that's not a Rabbinic decree). Does anyone
>> know of an actual source for this?
>
> I don't have the text of the original takana. However, at the shiur there
> were copies which purported to be accurate which had a fixed date (which
> has passed). Now, the Rabbi who gave the shiur wasn't pushing for the ban's
> reversal (in fact, he argued against it), but he wanted us to go through
> sources and find basis for arguments either way.
>
> It was more than two decades ago, I don't recall the name of the Rav (just
> that it was while I was in Israel) or even the precise yeshivah (it wasn't
> mine, I was just visting a friend).
I find this quite surprising. My understanding has always been that we don't
actually have the text of the original decree, only descriptions of it written
later.
In the absence of an actual citation, I will continue to be skeptical of the
claim that the cherem had a time limit which has expired (despite having heard
this claim from lots of people - never with any source, though). I would
certainly be delighted to be proven wrong, though. (Incidentally, I have heard
two versions of this: one that the decree was to last for 1000 years, the other
that it was to last till the end of the then-current millenium, i.e. the year
5000, which would be around 1240 in the Common Era.)
Robert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 13,2012 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Cherem D'Rabbenu Gershom (was Concubinage revival)
My good friend Leah Gordon wrote about the problems with polygyny,
some which led to Rabbeinu Gershom's decree prohibiting it. I hope
she (and the rest of the MJ readership) will forgive me for looking at the
issue from an entirely different perspective.
The effect of polygyny is to weaken the role of a woman in a marriage
(I had this confirmed anecdotally from a Yemenite friend whose grandfather
had a second wife through yibum [Levirate marriage]) ... the several women
can end up competing with each other for their own source of fertility and
affection (the man), reducing the standing of any one woman.
When Rabbeinu Gershom made his decree, the situation was such that women were
already largely excluded from many aspects of public life: earning an income,
owning land, holding public office, etc. In such an environment, polygyny
served to further weaken women within a marriage, which is likely to provide a
less stable family life (unless, I suppose, you take Bereshit 3:16 as an
all-encompassing Torah obligation). In this context, Rabbeinu Gershom's
decree made a lot of sense.
In the modern, Western world, however, women have an almost equal public
standing as men. They earn income (although it appears to be a bit less than
that of men), they own land, hold public office, ... and, within Jewish law, they
have absolute veto power on sexual relations (men, on the other hand, have
a positive Torah obligation to procreate). Within this context, monogamy shifts
the balance of marital power squarely into the corner of the woman. Though
traditionalists may support this from the perspective that women form the
backbone of the Jewish family, it is not hard to see how this could unhealthily
imbalance a Jewish marriage.
Just my $0.02 ... please be gentle with your fire :-)
-Ari
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 12,2012 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Concubinage revival?
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz wrote (MJ 61#09):
> Whenever multiple wives are explicitly mentioned, trouble will ensue.
> Consider Avraham, Sara, and Hagar. Consider the tension between Rachel
> and Leah and the trouble it led to between Yoseph and his brothers.
> Consider King David and the trouble with Avshalom (the son of a Yefas
> Toar).
No wonder a co-wife is called a tzarah, as in the case of Channah and
Peninah (I Sam. 1,6), meaning, literally, a "misfortune".
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. R. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 12,2012 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Concubinage revival?
Martin Stern writes (MJ 61#10):
> Frank Silbermann wrote (MJ 61#09):
>
>> Unfortunately, the acceptance since the 1960s of sexual promiscuity
>> in secular society (based on the axiom that "what consenting adults
>> do sexually in the privacy of their own homes is no one else's business)
>> may prevent the secular authorities from doing anything about it.
>
> Surely the more regulated concubinage system is infinitely preferable to
> this sexual promiscuity that has almost become the norm in secular society.
> A concubine has defined rights and any children of the union are also
> legally protected. Much the same is true of polygyny.
>
> Martin Stern
>
>
I'm afraid I must strongly disagree with Mr. Stern. It cannot be
"preferable" to have a system that so disenfranchises women. In the
"sexual promiscuity that has almost become the norm" women have largely
equal sexual and social status to men.
Whatever I think of sexual promiscuity for myself, I prefer to live in a
world that allows for it, in the context of full and equal sexual status,
than to live in a world that permits polygyny/conbubinage, with its
correlated low power/status for women.
In short, I want any religious strictures on sexuality to be 100%
voluntary, as indeed I believe that all religious strictures - of any kind
- should be voluntary. I grant that Mr. Stern is of a country from whom my
own country rebelled for exactly this issue, among others. :)
--Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Wise <Smwise3@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 12,2012 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Daf yomi online resource
In case you haven't heard of this, there is an online Daf Yomi free, with
an intro, the shiur, and a five-minute review. The one learning the daf is
in a little box in the corner and the line being learned is highlighted. It
was quite good.
The web site is:
dafhachaim.com
Learn well!
Stuart Wise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Isaac Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 12,2012 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Meat after Tisha B'av
Thanks for the responses.
The "lo plug" (same rules apply whether it's a deferred fast or not) doesn't
apply. There are many differences which already exist. Try a Bris at Mincha time
on the Sunday where they can break their fast and eat meat
The "let's not rush to be happy by eating meat" argument is problematic. If that
is indeed the Halacha it would not need to be mentioned for normal Tisha B'Av.
Now, I'm happily oblivious about Aveylus, but is there a Din that says the Avel
shouldn't eat meat after Shiva?
There is also good reason to be lenient:
1. it is already pushed off and
2. the meat we eat isn't Simcha D'Orayso (biblical happiness) given that this
refers to the meat of Korbanos (sacrifices).
Finally, why do we make Havdalla on wine when they could have been consistent
and suggested using a substitute (chamar medinah)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 12,2012 at 06:01 AM
Subject: No Mechitza - What to do?
Stuart Wise wrote (MJ 61#10):
> I certainly agree that a makeshift mechitza could be made, but my point was
> why would an Orthodox woman on her own want to be in a situation and not
> feel uncomfortable, rather than insulted. It probably all depends on how
> important one views the mechitza and the separation of sexes in occasions,
> sacred or not. I know my wife and daughters in no way would attend such a
> place that had no mechitza, nor feel insulted if there is no accommodation,
> and would sit in the hall if that is an option...
>
> As far as I can tell, most Orthodox congregations are not egalitarian.
I have my doubts as to whether any 'egalitarian' congregation, whatever that
might mean, could be Orthodox in any meaningful sense.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Coleman <wbcoleman@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 12,2012 at 10:01 AM
Subject: No Mechitza - What to do?
Stuart Wise wrote (MJ 61#10):
> In reply to Deborah Wenger (MJ 61#08):
>
> I certainly agree that a makeshift mechitza could be made, but my point was
> why would an Orthodox woman on her own want to be in a situation and not
> feel uncomfortable, rather than insulted. It probably all depends on how
> important one views the mechitza and the separation of sexes in occasions,
> sacred or not. I know my wife and daughters in no way would attend such a
> place that had no mechitza, nor feel insulted if there is no accommodation,
> and would sit in the hall if that is an option. I have also been in situations
> where accommodations were made with tents outside,
>
> Under the halachic circumstances, I don't believe "women" and "people" are
> interchangeable. As far as I can tell, most Orthodox congregations are not
> egalitarian.
I find this attitude incomprehensible. Personally, I find it uncomfortable
to daven in a room where women are not accommodated. This issue has
nothing to do with egalitarianism, it has to do with treating other human
beings with respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meir Shinnar <chidekel@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 13,2012 at 11:01 PM
Subject: No Mechitza - What to do?
I am late in the thread but several comments:
1) It has been assumed that a Mechitzah was needed for the two women, (except
for one who thought echah was different). Rav Moshe Feinstein disagreed - see
Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim heh, siman 12 - where he paskens that in a shul when
they daven in the bet midraSh without a Mechitzah, on an occasional basis, one
can allow up to 2 women in the men's section - and that it was standard in all
generations for a woman to enter the shul for charity or to say Kaddish.
Therefore the two women seem to be in the right and the shul in the wrong....
2) It has been argued that the women had no right to be upset - as Halacha is
not egalitarian. While Halacha is not egalitarian, it is also not misogynistic
- and the cavalier dismissal of the desire of the women to say echah and kinot
with a kahal and refusal to recognize their spiritual needs is clearly
misogynistic, outside the range of permissible behavior, reflects an
(unfortunately widespread) utter failure of Jewish education to instil values,
and deserves to be broadly condemned. Not every desire for greater
participation - even for spiritual motives - can be granted - but the denial has
to recognize the pain caused. To use Rav Soloveichik's model, we may be all
called to make sacrifices - and lack of participation is sometimes such a
sacrifice. However, for others to deny that there is a sacrifice involved
suggests a spiritual callousness worthy of condemnation.
Meir Shinnar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 12,2012 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Ritual handwashing after childbirth
Leah S. R. Gordon wrote (MJ 61#10):
> I feel like I've seen Orthodox women nursing their babies hundreds of times
> and never seen one do netilat yadayim afterward. Even in shul. Maybe I'm
> just not that observant. (My assumption is that they are handling at
> minimum, their bra/breasts/stomach area to nurse the baby.)
I have never really thought about this scenario - perhaps they should. At
the very least, the fact that they do not would need some rabbinic
justification, just as was done by the Arukh Hashulchan regarding men
reciting devarim shebikdushah [e.g. Shema, birkhat hamazon etc.] in the
presence of a married woman with uncovered hair.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yossi Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 12,2012 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Ritual handwashing after childbirth
Why are people looking for what she may have touched? Hand-washing is required
after haircuts, manicures, bloodletting and such even if no "unclean" areas were
touched. Simply put, the same "ruach rah" that comes from sleeping (and thus
nearing death a bit), comes from any encounter with loss of bodily integrity,
nearness to serious danger, and so on, and this requires natilas yadayim.
Yossi Ginzberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 12,2012 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Tachnun at a Wedding
Recently at a wedding, after the Chupa, a group gathered in what was
formerly the room with the Chussan's Tish to daven Mincha.
The groom was not present, should tachnun have been said - given no other
reasons for not saying tachnun?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 12,2012 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Waiting for the Rabbi
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz wrote (MJ 61#10):
> I have seen situations in which a rov asks the people not to wait and then the
> congregation insists on waiting
This is unlikely to be the case on a weekday in a shul where most people
have to get to work - the situation to which I thought I had made it clear I
was referring.
> or complaining that the congregation is not waiting ...
Unless I have misunderstood Hillel, he seems to be referring to a rabbi who
told the congregation not to wait for him and then complains when they do
what he told them. That sounds the ultimate in chasing honour - I hope that
my reading is incorrect and such a situation never occurs.
> Since the rov is still davening, he cannot signal the shliach tzibur to
> continue, and more disturbance is created.
I have seen many rabbanim make a gesture with their hand to indicate to the
shliach tzibur to start chazarat hashatz.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 61 Issue 11