Volume 61 Number 21
Produced: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:33:52 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Accommodating both women and men in shul (2)
[Martin Stern Menashe Elyashiv]
Arkaot shel Akum (2)
[Leah S. R. Gordon Carl Singer]
Kashrus Of Canned Tuna (2)
[Martin Stern Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Rabbi Gershon Yankelewitz -- Sichos Mussar -- Elul in Mir - Europe
[Carl Singer]
Taking advantage of an obvious mistake (2)
[Leah S. R. Gordon Harlan Braude]
Unknown Paternity (was "Concubinage revival?") (2)
[Martin Stern Leah S. R. Gordon]
When to release the tzitzit after Kriat Shema
[Steven Oppenheimer]
Where are these minhagim (customs) first reported?
[Irwin Weiss]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 26,2012 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Accommodating both women and men in shul
Chana Luntz wrote (MJ 61#20):
>
> Martin Stern writes (MJ 61#14):
>
>> Women do not have any obligation to participate in public prayer
>
> Note that we appear here to be conflating two separate issues.
>
> The discussion on Mail Jewish started by Stuart Pilichowski writing in MJ 61
> #06 - No Mechitza - What to do? "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."
> ie the discussion is about Eicha and Kinnot.
>
> On the other hand, Martin Stern, above, is discussing public prayer - which
> is about saying (at base) Shmonei Esrei with a minyan, and associated divrei
> kedusha (ie kaddish, kedusha, borachu).
Perhaps I did not make my point clearly enough. It was that it is unreasonable
for shuls with small batei midrash, used only on weekdays, to have a permanent
ezrat nashim there for the very occasional female visitor where this would
present a considerable inconvenience and/or financial investment.
Unfortunately, the discussion did become diverted to whether women have an
obligation to attend public prayers.
In my opinion, on occasions where women may be expected to come, such as
Tisha be'Av, the main shul, where the facilities are available, should be
used.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 26,2012 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Accommodating both women and men in shul
Chana Luntz wrote (MJ 61#20):
> And it is also fascinating to note that as far as I am aware, among the
> Eidot HaMizrach (not being Yemenites), the only time they still do targum,
> ie translate what is being read, is on Tisha B'Av. Note that the targum
> they do is different from the kind of targum done by the Yemenites every
> Shabbat. The Yemenites I believe generally read what is formally known
> as "the Targum" ie Onkelos, even though that may not be understood by many.
> But the targum that is done by the Edot HaMizrach on Tisha B'Av of the
> haftorah is a real translation - done in Spanish or Arabic or, in the more
> modern shuls, in English.
Of course in Israel we do not translate - we understand the original
Hebrew
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. R. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 24,2012 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Arkaot shel Akum
Having now read the original cited article [about Rav Yosef and his
statements that one is forbidden to engage in the secular court system] in
the Jerusalem Post, I am even more convinced by Chaim's words (MJ 61#19).
Rav Yosef is upset that the Israeli secular court system isn't acting as a
judicial arm of the chareidi viewpoint. To my mind, this ideal of his
would change a social democracy into a Taliban-style theocracy. However,
his statements are not surprising because chareidim are not fans of a true
democratic process. Rather, they would prefer a system where they win
based on how strongly they think something is right. At any rate, the
chareidim do win for precisely that reason too much in Israeli culture and law -
witness my recent post about women davening at the Kotel.
To wit, Rav Yosef's two stated examples of Israeli justice gone wrong are:
1. Yeshiva students may no longer take indefinite leave from national/military
service, and
2. "They [the courts] accept the testimony of women"
In the olden days, secular - or Christian or Moslem - courts would often
beat, torture, rape, hold ransom, or kill Jewish people instead of giving
them a fair shake. Naturally, any Jew who would turn in his/her fellow to
such a "court" would be indicted harshly by the halakha. To twist this
reasonable indictment into a 5772 attack on the open, fair Israeli courts -
is an abomination and perverts the original Jewish holy sources.
No one is threatening the chareidim with any sort of harm if they are
reported to the courts for illegal behavior. Quite the opposite - everyone
is protected by these courts.
In general, it is a problem to set up an "anti-snitching" mentality in a
democratic state. It sets up the people and the government as opposing
forces, and leads to a culture in which crimes are not perceived as
problematic, but tattling is. What might have been reasonable for an
out-group minority in a monarchy, is merely detrimental to the public
welfare in a society where every person has enforced equal rights.
We are dealing with something similar in Boston right now - there has been
a crime wave this summer among the minority community, and there are open
discussions about whether "snitching" to the largely-white police force is
appropriate. It is true that minorities in our country have often
struggled to get a fair hearing or a fair trial. But I think it is
well-established that the best solution to this is to make the courts even
more fair, not less fair according to the loudest complainers.
--Leah Sarah Reingold Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 26,2012 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Arkaot shel Akum
In a perfect world a Bet Din would be THE perfect vehicle for resolving disputes.
Unfortunately, in today's Jewish society there are multiple organizations
which call themselves a "Bet Din."
Here in the United States - I cannot speak for other locales - there are
multiple Batei Din. Many (perhaps most) are of great repute and function as one
would expect. Unfortunately, there are other organizations which are not of
positive repute.
This reality muddies the water.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 24,2012 at 01:01 AM
Subject: Kashrus Of Canned Tuna
Immanuel Burton wrote (MJ 61#19):
> Has anyone seen any sources relating to what my question actually was,
> i.e. why does bishul akum apply to tuna in the first place given that
> the prohibition of bishul akum does not apply to foods that can be eaten
> raw, and that tuna is eaten raw in a type of sushi? If bishul akum
> doesn't apply on account of this, then surely the issues of the method
> of cooking (steaming) and whether it's fit to be served to a king are
> irrelevant?
I think the crucial point is not whether a certain food item is occasionally
eaten raw but whether this is the norm. So the fact that tuna is eaten raw
in a type of sushi may not be sufficient on its own to exempt it from the
prohibition of bishul akum. If circumstances change and this way of
consuming tuna becomes much more prevalent, the din may change.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 24,2012 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Kashrus Of Canned Tuna
In reply to Immanuel Burton (MJ 61#19):
Going back to the analogy with carrots. Carrots could always have been
eaten raw, but the point seems to be what is the normal way of eating
them. Thus, when the normal way of eating carrots was cooked, then it
was subject to the halacha of bishul akum. Now that the normal way of
eating carrots is raw, it is not subject to that halacha. In this
way, it is not that tuna can be used for sushi, but that this is not the
prevalent method of serving tuna.
Similarly, "al shulchan melech" appears to be a matter similar to a
"state dinner" and not when the king is hungry and orders up a snack
from the kitchen.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
<SabbaHillel@...>
http://sabbahillel.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 26,2012 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Rabbi Gershon Yankelewitz -- Sichos Mussar -- Elul in Mir - Europe
This is a first hand description of what things were like at the Mir Yeshiva during
Elul (pre World War II) by Rabbi Yankelewitz who is over 100 years old, may he
live to 120, from Yeshiva University. As a young adult he was in the Chofetz
Chaim's minyan -- he is also among those of the Mir who escaped via Shanghai.
Go to this website and download:
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/727701/x/Sichos_Mussar-_Elul_in_Mir,_Europe
Download the .mp3 file -- the lecture is approximately 70 minutes long.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. R. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 24,2012 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Taking advantage of an obvious mistake
In MJ 61#19, Carl Singer writes:
> As many may be aware, due to human error El Al posted erroneous ticket
> prices on their website. Word spread quickly and many people bought up
> these tickets. According to one newspaper article between 5,000 & 8,000
> tickets were thus sold.
>
> There are several fundamental halachik questions that come to mind:
>
> 1- May you take advantage of an obvious error?
I think this is the trickiest question (especially for internet pricing,
especially if there is a disclaimer on the site that "errors in price" are
subject to correction after the fact), and I will leave it to others,
particularly as one could argue that travelling to Israel is a mitzvah and
maybe there are things I haven't thought of in this case, but I wanted to
reply to your other questions:
> 2- Do you have a obligation to notify the merchant?
I would say yes, particularly if everyone knows you're Jewish, as a sort of
kiddush ha-shem. Yesterday, I took my 14 year old son to get ice cream. We got
small sizes because it was shamefully close to dinner :). The sale rang
up as $2.55. On our way out to pick up my youngest, I noticed that the
price for the large size was $4.29. I had to rush to daycare, but I called
the store and said, "I think you undercharged me or charged just for one
serving." They said no, a small size is $1.19. But I definitely felt
obligated to call and make it right. And this was just a couple of
dollars! (To correct it, I would have brought more over later, or given a
credit card number over the phone, if it was incorrect. Or potentially
since this was a kosher, but goyish, ice cream store, they might have said
"thanks but no thanks we appreciate the effort" - I'm quite sure El Al
would not do this ha ha ha)
> 3- Are you permitted to tell others so that they, too, can take advantage
> ....?
A tricky question regarding travel. I frequent "flyertalk.com" where this
is practically a way of life, but I don't think it's quite right. Sure,
for on-purpose sales, but for mistakes...?
> For the sake of simplicity, let's forget about El Al and make this a
> generic merchant who due to some error is unaware that (say) a $500 item
> is ringing up at only $50.
>
> And when we're through with the halachik discussion -- what of the social
> implications. And what if your child were present and fully aware of what
> is transpiring.
My son was fully aware and present, and not only that, was wearing his
kippah when we were in the store. I absolutely thought it was important
for him to see me do the right thing about the ice cream pricing, and for
the store to know that Jews act properly [particularly about money].
I realize that it might be easier to be a good person when $2 is at stake
instead of $2000 :) .
--Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harlan Braude <hbraude@...>
Date: Fri, Aug 24,2012 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Taking advantage of an obvious mistake
In MJ 61#19, Carl Singer wrote:
> As many may be aware, due to human error El Al posted erroneous ticket
> prices on their website. Word spread quickly and many people bought up these
> tickets.
> [...]
> There are several fundamental halachik questions that come to mind:
I think this issue was very nicely analyzed on this blog:
http://torahmusings.com/2012/08/el-al-ethics/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 26,2012 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Unknown Paternity (was "Concubinage revival?")
Elie Rosenfeld wrote (MJ 61#20):
> Leah Gordon wrote the following (MJ 61#08), at the end of a post (with
> which I was otherwise in strong agreement) on the negative aspects of
> polygamy:
>
>> In the olden days, polygyny was practiced, some think, in cultures where
>> known paternity was a priority (not universal in all cultures, by the
>> way), and it was thought to be a good way to assure known parentage. In
>> actuality, studies seem to show that known or enforced paternity was more
>> a result of low status/power of women, often correlated with severe
>> restrictions on their education and mobility.
> I guess to start with the obvious, paternity is of paramount importance in
> numerous areas of halacha. In fact, a Jewish child of unknown paternity is
> more or less in the category of a mamzer and forbidden to marry most other
> Jews.
If anything, s/he is a safeik mamzer [someone whose parentage is doubtful]
and so is worse off than a vadai mamzer [someone born from a union
punishable by death or karet (excision)] who can at least marry another
vadai mamzer (or a ger/giyoret and a few other categories that are virtually
non-existent nowadays) though s/he will transmit this mamzer status to all
children born of the union. A safeik mamzer is barred from marrying any born
Jew and, therefore, is much more restricted - s/he cannot even marry another
safeik mamzer.
> From a sociological standpoint, while there are segments of the underclass
> where it is not uncommon for women to have babies who will never know their
> fathers, this is certainly not a situation to be admired or emulated. In
> fact - exactly the opposite of the original conclusion above - it seems to
> me that it is just those women of "low status/power" who are most often
> stuck with the onerous burden of single motherhood.
This is polyandry, if some form of marriage has taken place, or harlotry,
otherwise, both of which are unconditionally banned for Jews and, therefore,
not particularly relevant to our discussion.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. R. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 26,2012 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Unknown Paternity (was "Concubinage revival?")
In MJ 61#20, Elie Rosenfield replies to me, on the topic of polygyny:
> Leah Gordon wrote the following (MJ 61#08), at the end of a post (with
> which I was otherwise in strong agreement) on the negative aspects of
> polygamy:
>> In the olden days, polygyny was practiced, some think, in cultures where
>> known paternity was a priority (not universal in all cultures, by the
>> way), and it was thought to be a good way to assure known parentage. In
>> actuality, studies seem to show that known or enforced paternity was more
>> a result of low status/power of women, often correlated with severe
>> restrictions on their education and mobility.
> I was quite surprised that there have been no responses to this item and
> would be interested in a more detailed explanation of this assertion from
> the author, and further discussion of this view from a halachik standpoint.
I remember seeing a study/documentary on TV (I'm sorry that I do not
remember it more specifically now, but perhaps it was based in China?),
addressing this issue. Basically, if you assign three or four women to a
man, the tendency will be for them to take other lovers, since their
"husband" isn't really being faithful to them either, and since their
sexual/intimacy needs are not met, and since there are many available
single men in polygynous cultures.
In a time/place without DNA analysis, this leads to lots of babies born
without accurate paternity according to marriage.
The exception to this usual tendency is in cultures where the women are so
subjugated, physically, educationally and economically, that it would be
virtually impossible for them to arrange for side lovers and/or survive the
experience.
Due to these phenomena, the "known paternity" was found to be more
correlated with low status of women.
The flip side of this is that in highly egalitarian cultures such as those
Polynesian and Asian cultures in which women establish matriarchal homes
and take lovers as desired, paternity is not well-established and this is
thought to be evolutionarily desirable in a different way: the various
lovers all have a stake in the survival of any children born.
At any rate, it is my opinion that either extreme is really undesirable for
the modern Jewish family :). But last time I checked, the chareidi
establishment is not asking for my opinion, more's the pity.
> I guess to start with the obvious, paternity is of paramount importance in
> numerous areas of halacha. In fact, a Jewish child of unknown paternity is
> more or less in the category of a mamzer and forbidden to marry most other
> Jews.
Is this true? My understanding was that known, problematic paternity was
the issue. But I admit to ignorance on this point.
> From a sociological standpoint, while there are segments of the underclass
> where it is not uncommon for women to have babies who will never know their
> fathers, this is certainly not a situation to be admired or emulated. In
> fact - exactly the opposite of the original conclusion above - it seems to
> me that it is just those women of "low status/power" who are most often
> stuck with the onerous burden of single motherhood.
Ah, so you are describing e.g. poor mothers on welfare as women of "low
status" - and this may be true. But the status to which I referred above,
was a generalized societal status, i.e., do women at large have the right
to vote, to attend school, to take men to court with lawsuits, to respond
to email listservs ha ha, etc.
A woman in a "low-status" situation such as I meant to describe, who became
pregnant from an unknown man, might be stoned to death for immorality with
little in the way of due process.
By the way, I recently found a think tank paper on this topic for anyone
who is interested:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/05/5338
It comes out of the "Witherspoon Institute" which is not at all in line
with my usual U.S. politics, but nonetheless, this strange bedfellow has
described quite a lot of the issues with polygyny.
--Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steven Oppenheimer <steven.oppenheimer@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 26,2012 at 01:01 PM
Subject: When to release the tzitzit after Kriat Shema
A while back, the question was raised as to when is it appropriate to let
go of the tzitzit after kriat shema. Many of us remember from yeshiva
ketana that we were taught to release the tzitzit after "lo'ad kayomet."
However, newer siddurim such as Artscroll instruct one to release the
tzitzit after "ne'emanim venechemadim lo'ad."
What is the proper way?
The Kaf HaChaim (24:8) quoting the Sha'ar HaKavanot writes that one should
hold the tzitzit in both hands until "ne'emanim venechemadim lo'ad."
However, the siddur of Rav Ya'akov Emden (Siddur Ya'avetz) instructs that
one should kiss the tzitzit and release them after "lo'ad kayomet." See
the following link for the source:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=22431&st=&pgnum=252
See the reasoning of the Ya'avetz there.
So for those of us who grew up with the minhag of kissing and releasing the
tzitzit after "lo'ad kayomet" the above should serve as a source.
Steven Oppenheimer, D.M.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Irwin Weiss <irwin@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 26,2012 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Where are these minhagim (customs) first reported?
1) I know many people who rap their knuckles on the table during Birkat HaMazon
(Blessings after meals) when they recite the verse containing "v'al shulchan
zeh", "upon this table". Where is this custom first reported?
2) For Tashlich, when one goes to a stream on Rosh Hashanah or soon thereafter
to recite the appropriate prayers, we recite the passage which says "V'tashlich
Vimtzulot Yam, Kol Chatotam"-- (we cast our sins into the sea). Many have the
custom of throwing bits of bread into the water. Where is this first reported?
Irwin Weiss
Baltimore, MD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 61 Issue 21
