Volume 61 Number 18
Produced: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:00:30 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Accommodating both women and men in shul
[Barak Greenfield]
An unusual form?
[Poppers, Michael]
Arkaot shel Akum (3)
[Josh Backon Frank Silbermann Keith Bierman]
Benching gomel
[Joel Rich]
Formal logic (was Accommodating both women and men in shul) (2)
[Martin Stern Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Is Chabad Lubavitch?
[Martin Stern]
Reporting Crimes committed by Jews (2)
[Carl Singer Martin Stern]
Tircha detzibbura (was Benching gomel) (2)
[Martin Stern Carl Singer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barak Greenfield <docbjg@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 21,2012 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Accommodating both women and men in shul
Ben Katz wrote (MJ 61#17):
> There is no "obligation" for men to daven with a minyan either. The Shulchan
> Aruch uses the word "yishtadel" (he should try) not chayav (obliged). Once 10
> men get together, then there are some chiyuvim that the congregation has (eg
> kedushah, reading Torah Mon and Thurs, etc.)
This was discussed in MJ 49:85. "Yishtadel" means he must try, not just that
it's a nice thing and that if ten men happen to get together then certain things
are performed. See later on in siman 90, in seif 16, where the Shulchan Aruch
gives an example of how far one must go to "try" to pray with a minyan: if he's
traveling, and comes to a city without a minyan where he's thinking of spending
the night, but there's a city that has a minyan up to four mil farther ahead, or
one mil out of the way, he must go to that city. A mil is 2000 amos, so this
means he must be willing to continue traveling about 2.5 miles further than he
had intended, or over half a mile out of his way (on foot, over the unpaved
roads of that time!), to pray with a minyan. (Sometimes a mil is used in the
sense of kedei hiluch mil, or the time it takes to travel that distance, which
is considered anywhere between 18 and 24 minutes, so that would mean 18-24 min
out of his way or 72-96 minutes further along.) See Mishnah Berurah 52 where he
says that this means that if someone lives within a mil of a minyan he must go,
and considers this seif to be a rebuke of those who, in his words, are too lazy
to go to shul.
Barak Greenfield
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Poppers, Michael <Michael.Poppers@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 20,2012 at 05:01 PM
Subject: An unusual form?
In MJ 61#17, Martin Stern asked:
> Has anyone any explanation for the form "kehayom hazeh" (Nehemiah 9:10) that
> we say every morning -- is there any significance in its use rather than the more
> common "kayom hazeh"?
See RaShY on Gen 39:11. (You might also want to consider the varying use in
Yirm'yahu 44.)
All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Josh Backon <backon@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 20,2012 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Arkaot shel Akum
Martin Stern (MJ 61#17) asked about Arkaot shel Akum:
> The Jerusalem Post reports that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has ruled "that anyone
> who sends their children to a secular school or turns to the civil courts
> system instead of the religious courts for legal redress cannot lead prayers
> services in synagogue" and that "there is no doubt all the judges in the
> secular court system are ineligible as witnesses, you can't take them to a
> wedding to sign on a marriage certificate, it is forbidden... someone who
> does so... it is as if there was no were no wedding ... [and] added that
> anyone who uses such witnesses at his wedding subsequently engages in
> illicit sexual relations when he sleeps with his wife because the witness,
> and thus the marriage, is invalid".
This is based on a gemara in Gittin 88b and codified as halacha in Shulchan
Aruch Choshen Mishpat 26:1. Also see the Aruch haShulchan CM 26 #1 who
deems anyone who uses gentile courts as "rasha gamur" [completely wicked].
The Aruch Hashulchan was written 120 years ago.
Josh Backon
<backon@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Silbermann <frank_silbermann@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 20,2012 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Arkaot shel Akum
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 61#17):
> The Jerusalem Post reports that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has ruled ... that
> "there is no doubt all the judges in the secular court system are ineligible
> as witnesses, you can't take them to a wedding to sign on a marriage
> certificate, it is forbidden... someone who does so... it is as if there was
> no were no wedding ... Any comments?
It sounds to me like he's trying to solve the agunah / mamzarkeit problem.
Frank Silbermann Memphis, Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith Bierman <khbkhb@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 21,2012 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Arkaot shel Akum
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 61#17):
> The Jerusalem Post reports that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has ruled "that anyone
> who sends their children to a secular school
> ...
> Any comments?
*Sigh* I find this more frightening and chilling than even the prospect of
Iranian lunatics having nuclear weapons. The polarization of our people
into warring camps has never worked out well in the past.
While I have no doubt that (assuming he has ever forgotten any!) he has
forgotten more halacha than I will ever learn, I fear he appears to be
forgetting the sort of schisms that led to our being exiled from Haaretz to
begin with.
I also don't doubt that he views this as akin to the Vilna Gaon's decrees
against the early Hasidim (resulting in their eventually coming back) or to
Rav Feinstein's against the Conservative movement (which hasn't borne fruit
yet). But such "brinkmanship" is hazardous at best, and historically a
disaster for our national ownership/survival in our land.
As we approach the Yamim Noraim, I pray for national unity. If we can't
agree (and as Jews that's always unlikely), at least I pray we can disagree
in ways which permit/promote a civil (kind, not secular) society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 21,2012 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Benching gomel
I wrote (MJ 61#15):
> Martin Stern wrote (MJ 61#14):
>> This (Thursday) morning we had a troop of people come up one after the other
>> to bench gomel, delaying the davenning interminably. IMHO it would be much
>> better if the gabbai would call out before the first one that he would be
>> doing so in order to be motsi (exempt) everyone else present and not permit
>> this tircha detzibbura. What do others think?
> It pretty clearly works (see S"A O"C 219 :4-5) and I think the tzibbur would
> have the right to implement such a rule BUT one should also consider in "the
> norm" that there is a basic chakira (underlying issue) as to whether hagomeil
> is primarily a blessing instituted by chazal or an act of Thanksgiving in place
> of the todah (thanksgiving offering). To the extent that there is an element
> of the latter, it would seem that one would want to be obvious about their
> thanksgiving.
The Chashukei Chemed (R' Yitzchak Zylberstein - son in law of R' Elyashav z"l)
in his commentary on Masechet Berachot says it would be an issue unless it is
obvious that the folks are being exempted (e.g. they stand by the bima when it is
being said).
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 20,2012 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Formal logic (was Accommodating both women and men in shul)
Leah S. R. Gordon wrote (MJ 61#17):
> Might I inject some formal logic here? :)
>
> Clearly, where there's a will there's a way - thus where there hasn't been
> established a way, there must not have been a will!
Though "where there's a will there's a way" is a popular saying, it is
clearly not universally true so the contrapositive is similarly not
necessarily true :-(.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 20,2012 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Formal logic (was Accommodating both women and men in shul)
Leah S. R. Gordon wrote (MJ 61#17):
> Bill Coleman wrote (MJ 61#15):
>
>> Where there's a will there's a way, and where there isn't there isn't.
> Might I inject some formal logic here? :)
>
> Clearly, where there's a will there's a way - thus where there hasn't been
> established a way, there must not have been a will!
Not necessarily. Perhaps when the original donor left the money to the
shul in his will, he did not specify the women's section in the bais
medrash. Thus there can be a way even without a will. Similarly, perhaps
it was not yet set up even thought the will had been written.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
<SabbaHillel@...>
http://sabbahillel.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 21,2012 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Is Chabad Lubavitch?
This article on the Jerusalem Post website of the historic distinction
between Chabad philosophy and its current expression, the Lubavitch
movement, might be of interest to list members:
http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Judaism/Article.aspx?id=281471
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 20,2012 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Reporting Crimes committed by Jews
Dr. Oppenheimer in his post (MJ 61#17) uses the example of a reckless driver who
may cause injury to others -- the only caveat being a procedural issue that the
rodef should be warned prior to one's going to civil authorities.
A few years ago when I was driving along a highway near our community I saw
a woman (presumably frum as she was wearing a tichel and her two children
were wearing yarmulkes) driving down the road with her two children
un-belted, jumping up and down in the back seat. I was appalled! I
memorized the license number of the vehicle and asked the moderator of our
local Jewish email list to post something to the effect of "would the owner
of car (description) with license #, please contact ...."
He refused because apparently it was more important to save someone from
potential embarrassment than to possibly save the lives of their children.
This is a rather singular example -- but it seems that mistaken social
"loyalties" seem to overcome halacha -- much to our detriment.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 20,2012 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Reporting Crimes committed by Jews
Steven Oppenheimer wrote (MJ 61#17):
> Elliot Berkovits (MJ 61#16) referred to a responsum by Rabbi Y. Y. Weiss zt"l
> regarding reporting crimes committed by a Jew.
>
> Rabbi Y. Y. Weiss zt"l was asked whether it is permitted to report a
> reckless driver to the police since the reckless driver is a menace to
> pedestrians and other vehicles. Rabbi Weiss answered that someone who
> speeds and, therefore, could potentially injure pedestrians or other
> vehicular traffic is considered a rodef. Consequently, if this individual
> has been warned to refrain from driving in this manner, yet continues to do
> so, it is permitted to report him to the police.
If I remember correctly, Rabbi Y. Y. Weiss zt"l paskened that one is OBLIGED
to report him to the police in such circumstances, not merely permitted.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Aug 20,2012 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Tircha detzibbura (was Benching gomel)
David Tzohar wrote (MJ 61#17):
> I think the problem of "tircha d'tzibbura" is somewhat
> exaggerated. Even if there are ten who bench, how long will it take?
> I say definitely less than five minutes, probably more like three.
On a busy workday, where people have to leave on time, three minutes can
make a significant difference especially if the davenning has, in addition,
been delayed by other factors, such as a yahrzeit who fancies himself as a
bit of a chazan.
Each short delay may, in itself, be insignificant, but they tend to accumulate
and, before one realises it, they can add a considerable time. In a shul where I
daven, I have noticed the following phenomenon that illustrates this. Every time
we come to a period in which tachanun is not said, the davenning slows down on
the assumption that "we have an extra minute or so to spare", but it does not
speed up afterwards. Over the years this has led to davenning taking at least a
quarter of an hour longer and, in consequence, fewer people who go to work are
attending. They are replaced by those with fewer time constraints and the
vicious circle continues.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Tue, Aug 21,2012 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Tircha detzibbura (was Benching gomel)
Recent discussion re: benching gomel has evolved to include the issue of
tircha d'tzibbura.
I imagine that there are many examples of actions (or inactions) that
qualify as causing a tircha -- specific to the instance of many people
benching gomel is time delay.
It should be pointed out that many morning weekday minyanim are geared to a
specific END time. That is, their starting time and pace, be it a Rosh Chodesh,
Monday or Thursday, whatever, is geared to ending by a certain time so
participants can catch a bus or train. Thus an unexpected 5 minute delay wreaks
havoc and can get many people off on the wrong foot.
Even on Sunday, when one would think that time is not of the essence, the
end time of the minyan impacts those who are driving carpool, etc.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 61 Issue 18