Volume 62 Number 70
Produced: Tue, 22 Mar 16 10:29:07 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
A hint for nineteen berachot in shemoneh esrei?
[Martin Stern]
Halachically married without civil marriage (5)
[Perry Dane Rose Landowne Carl A. Singer Susan Buxfield Susan Buxfield]
Synthetic meat? (3)
[Dr. Josh Backon Immanuel Burton Irwin Weiss]
Tircha d'Tzibbura
[Martin Stern]
Why? (5)
[Mark Symons Elazar M. Teitz Jack Gross Immanuel Burton Michael Poppers]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 13,2016 at 06:01 AM
Subject: A hint for nineteen berachot in shemoneh esrei?
In the Gemara (Ber. 28b) various reasons are given why the Anshei Kenesset
Hagedolah composed specifically eighteen berachot in the weekday Tefillah.
Of these Rav Yosef says that they correspond to the eighteen times the
Divine names appear in the Shema. The Artscroll Gemara (note 33) points out
that these are HaShem eleven times and forms of Elokim seven times.
The problem is that we have a nineteenth beracha "Lamalshinim", added later
in the days of Rabban Gamliel when heretical groups began to multiply, so it
is difficult to understand how Rav Yosef, who lived several centuries later,
could make this statement without any qualification.
It struck me that this nineteenth berachah might also have its source in the
Shema where the word "elohim" also appears in the phrase "elohim acheirim",
which the Artscroll note (ibid.) points out was not counted in the eighteen
since it does not refer to the Almighty but, rather, to idols. This would
seem to be particularly appropriate since this extra berachah would seem to
have originally started with "lemeshumadim", but was changed as a result of
censorship, and referred specifically to those who went over to idolatry.
I have not found any source for this idea and would be most grateful if
anyone could provide a reference.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perry Dane <dane@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 20,2016 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Halachically married without civil marriage
FWIW: For more on the relation between civil and religious marriage, see my
article "A Holy Secular Institution," at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1293946
and my blog post at
http://clrforum.org/2013/12/16/polygamy/
The bottom line is that "It's complicated."
Perry Dane
Professor of Law
Rutgers Law School
<dane@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rose Landowne <Roselandow@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 20,2016 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Halachically married without civil marriage
David E Cohen wrote (MJ 62#69):
> In reply to Carl Singer (MJ 62#68):
> I have heard that this is a problem under American law, and a rabbi I know well
> has told me that he has refused requests to conduct such marriages due to their
> illegality, but frankly, I have never understood how a law prohibiting such
> religious marriages could be Constitutional.
I think that in America, rabbis who are certified by the state to conduct
marriages are required to see to it that the marriages they conduct are duly
registered with the civil government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl A. Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 20,2016 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Halachically married without civil marriage
Responding to the three cogent postings on this subject (MJ 62#69):
Perhaps clarifying as well -- as we see the differences between the UK and the
USA welfare systems -- focusing on eligibility among other things.
These are not by any stretch of the imagination single parent homes -- these are
"normal" families who chose NOT to have a civil marriage so they can reap the
benefits of the bride being classified as a single, unwed mother.
As to the government intervening -- clergy in many (perhaps most or all)
jurisdictions may choose to become licensed to perform weddings. Thus when they
perform a religious wedding they may sign appropriate civil documents so that in
addition to having performed whatever religious wedding is appropriate to their
religion, they have also attest to a civil wedding. The bride and groom, having
previously obtained a civil marriage license now has their civil marriage
attested to (signed by) the clergy. No need to go to a judge,
justice-of-the-peace, etc. The benefits of the civil marriage might include,
for example, the one spouse now being a dependent on the other spouse's health
insurance.
As we know, in Judaism, Clergy (Rabbis) have no special halachic status -- thus
a Jewish wedding requires only 2 "kosher" witnesses -- no Rabbi is necessary.
All other things being equal -- two bar mitzvah boys could serve as witnesses
and the wedding is halachically valid.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Tue, Mar 22,2016 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Halachically married without civil marriage
Martin Stern (MJ 62#69) wrote:
> Unlike the USA, in the UK such cohabiting couples are treated as married as
> regards welfare benefits but not for other purposes.
The situation both in the UK and the USA, is not as simple as Martin states. A
simple google search will reveal a multifaceted legal approach to unmarried
cohabiting couples.
> It has got to the stage where one is no longer asked in official documents
> for the name of one's husband/wife but rather one's partner, presumably so
> as not to embarrass those not legally married.
Embarrassment is surely not the reason but rather a unified and legal approach
to any form of co-habitual status
> On another point, I believe it is not uncommon for those remarrying later in
> life to omit the civil aspect so as not to make complications for their
> children regarding inheritance matters
Not uncommon? The opposite would appear to be true.
Rare are there religious marriages that are not registered civilly.
The main exceptions being Jewish second marriages under the Heter Meah Rabbonim
as sanctioned by Rabbeinu Gershom and of course Muslims when marrying their
second, third and fourth wife as permitted in the Koran.
Susan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Tue, Mar 22,2016 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Halachically married without civil marriage
David E Cohen (MJ 62#68) wrote:
I have heard that this is a problem under American law, and a rabbi I know
> well has told me that he has refused requests to conduct such marriages due to
> their illegality, but frankly, I have never understood how a law prohibiting
> such religious marriages could be Constitutional.
Presumably the Rabbi is concerned with Dina D'Maluchuta Dina - the law of the
country is our law.
Most countries accept a Jewish ceremony of tying the bond as long as the
marriage is registered civilly - which is not the same as a civil marriage.
A Jew who wishes to marry an additional wife while the first is still married to
him but unable to accept a get due, generally, to mental incapability, has to
obtain a heter meah rabbonim, as permitted by Rabbeinu Gershom, but not register
that marriage due to bigamy concerns.
Muslims, being permitted up to four wives, also have to forgo on civil
registration to avoid bigamy legal challenges.
Susan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dr. Josh Backon <backon@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 20,2016 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Synthetic meat?
Shmuel Himelstein (MJ 62#69) asked about the status of the new
artificial/synthetic lab grown meat. Here is my MJ post from 2011 (MJ 60#18):
> Here are my comments taken from an ongoing email interaction with Rav Arie
> Folger who published it in December 2009 on his website:
> http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/but-is-it-still-pork
> I started out with:
> 1) IMHO Kosher (pareve) and not meat. This is *svara* from the gemara in
> Bechorot 6b-7b and the ROSH in Avoda Zara II #42. My guess is when this
> becomes prevalent, it would still be prohibited on the basis of LO PLOOG
> (we don't differentiate).
>
> [Rav Folger then had a question on my reading of the ROSH] and I replied with
> a clarification and modification]
>
> 2) I'm saying that the 'meat' culture would be like TZIR DAGIM and at most
> would be an issur d'rabbanan. Another 2 possibilities:
>
> a) the artificial 'meat' would be like the SHILYA (placenta) and cooking it
> with milk would be an issur d'rabbanan (YD 87:7 in Shach and Pri Megadim).
> Ditto for soft antlers (TALPAYIM) or horns or GIDIN.
>
> b) the artificial 'meat' would have the din of basar CHAYA or OHF and thus
> cooking it with milk would only be an issur d'rabbanan."
>
> I then wrote:
>
> It just occurred to me to look at the Chiddushei Aggadot of the MEHARSHA on
> the gemara in Sanhedrin 65b and 67b re: the status of the 'calf' created by
> R. Hoshiya using the Sefer Yetzira. I wonder if it is 'meat'.
> [It isn't !]
>
> I ended up with:
> See the Malbim to Bereshit 18:18 re: egel of Avraham being created by Sefer
> Yetzira and therefore could be eaten with milk. BTW the Darchei Tshuva YD I
> 22 indicates that only because of Marit Ayin would a cow created by Sefer
> Yetzira possibly need shechita. It then dawned on me to check the status of
> the GAVRA (golem) in the first part of the sugya and how Rav Zeira was allowed
> to kill it. See: Birkei Yosef [CHIDA in Machazik Beracha) ORACH CHAYIM 55 #4;
> Pitchei Tshuva YOREH DEAH 62#2; Gilyon haShas to Sanhedrin 19b. And BTW from
> the Meharsha Sanhedrin 66b, a Golem that SPEAKS **is** a human. Ergo, one
> that doesn't, isn't."
Josh Backon
<backon@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 20,2016 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Synthetic meat?
Shmuel Himelstein (MJ 62#69) asked about lab-grown meat from cells taken from a
live animal, and pointed out that one can obtain meat without slaughtering any
animals. I suspect one kashrus problem may lie with how the original cells were
obtained - if they were obtained from a live animal or an animal that died other
than by shechitah, then all subsequent lab-grown tissue may also be not kosher.
It is in any event already possible to obtain kosher meat without shechitah. A
calf found inside a cow after the cow has been shechted [ritually slaughtered]
does not itself need shechitah before it is eaten (a calf like this is called a
"ben pekuah") for the reason that the shechitah of the mother includes the
foetus that is still inside. Furthermore, a ben pekuah can't be unkosher,
assuming that the mother animal was found to be kosher after shechitah, and not
only do its lungs not have to be checked for lesions, the fats and sinews
normally forbidden for consumption do not have to be removed.
A calf with two ben pekuah parents is also considered a ben pekuah, with the
same rules. It would therefore seem that if one could raise herds with
documented parentage, one could raise kosher meat that doesn't require shechitah
or porging. In fact, there seems to be a commercial attempt to do just that:
http://www.benpekuahmeats.com
I understand, however, that a ben pekuah requires shechitah by Rabbinic
ordinance, but does that shechitah have to be 100% kosher, etc?
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Irwin Weiss <irwin@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2016 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Synthetic meat?
Shmuel Himelstein inquired (MJ 62#69) about the Kashrut of synthetic meat based
on his reading of:
http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/03/14/indian-american-scientist_n_9456524.html
I found this discussion:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2293219/jewish/Is-the-Lab-Created-Burger-Kosher.htm
The real question here is this: Does it taste like tofu?
Have a freilich Purim everyone!
Irwin Weiss
Baltimore
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 20,2016 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Tircha d'Tzibbura
Yisrael Medad wrote (MJ 62#69):
> David Tzohar (MJ 62#68) notes the jumping element of Bratzlav.
> Let us recall Rabbi Akiva, Berachot 37a:
> It has been taught: Such was the custom of R. Akiba; when he prayed with the
> congregation, he used to cut it short and finish in order not to inconvenience
> the congregation, but when he prayed by himself, a man would leave him in one
> corner and find him later in another, on account of his many genuflexions and
> prostrations.
I think the crucial point is that Rabbi Akiva's 'jumping' was restricted to
when he was praying alone NOT during communal prayers "in order not to
inconvenience the congregation". Perhaps Yisrael should point this out to
his Bratzlaver members if they cause a disturbance with their peculiar (in
its original sense of specific to them) practices.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Symons <mssymons@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 20,2016 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Why?
Martin Stern (MJ 62#69) wrote:
> A friend asked me why the word 'lamah' is sometimes written with a dagesh
> in the mem and sometimes without. Does anyone know if there is an
> explanation?
> Also the word is sometimes read milra (stress on the final syllable) and
> sometimes mil'eil (stress on the penultimate syllable). Does this alter the
> meaning?
AFAIU, the "default" position is LAMmah - mil'el - and therefore, because of the
accented "long-vowel" (qamatz), the mem takes a dagesh chazak.
Where the next word starts with Alef or Heh, in order to prevent running the 2
words together, and losing the sound of the first syllable of the second word,
it changes to laMAH - mil'ra - and therefore the mem loses the dagesh. So you
sometimes get both in the same sentence (eg Ex 5:22 - ... laMAH harei'ota ...
LAMmah zeh ...)
Mark Symons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 20,2016 at 09:01 PM
Subject: Why?
In reply to Martin Stern (MJ 62#69):
In virtually every case in which the word "lama" appears in Tanach, if the
following word begins with a letter which cannot take a dageish (i.e., the
gutturals (alef, hei, ches and ayin) and reish), the word is accented on its
final syllable, "ma." If the next word begins with any other letter, the accent
is on the first syllable, "la."
The presence or absence of a dageish in the mem is a consequence of the stress.
A t'nua g'dola (essentially, long vowel), generally appears in an "open"
syllable -- i.e., one which ends with a vowel, without a consonant at the end of
the syllable. When the syllable containing the long vowel is accented, however,
it is often closed by a second consonant. Thus, when the word is pronounced
la-MA, the first syllable, with its long-vowel kamatz, is open. However, when
the pronunciation is LAma, the accented syllable becomes closed, and is
pronounced LAMma. The doubling of the mem is denoted by the presence of the
dageish.
(Parenthetically, the same difference in stress is followed in words such as
shuva, kuma, riva, etc.: if the following word's first letter is one of those
which get no dagesh, the stress is on the final syllable; otherwise, it is on
the penultimate (next-to-last) rather than the ultimate (last) syllable. Hence,
we say SHUva Yisraeil, but shuVA Hashem; KuMA ezrasa, but KUma v'ya'azruchem;
and, in davening, riVA riveinu.)
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Gross <jacobbgross@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 20,2016 at 09:01 PM
Subject: Why?
In reply to Martin Stern (MJ 62#69), in Chumash there are two forms.
When it is the final (or only) word in a phrase (i.e., when the trop assigned is
a mafsik) the form is always LAM'ma.
When it does not end a phrase (i.e., when its trop is a mesharet) that form
generally appears, and the initial consonant of the following word is geminated,
indicated by a dagesh -- BUT if that word starts with letter that cannot take a
dagesh, the form is changed to laMAH. In the reading on a fast-day, you find
both forms, in successive verses:
vayechal Moshe ...laMAH Hashem (which is read as if its first letter is aleph)...,
LAM'ma yomeru... (Dagesh in the mem and in the yod)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 20,2016 at 09:01 PM
Subject: Why?
In reply to Martin Stern (MJ 62#69), who asked about the word "lamah" sometimes
being written with a dagesh in the mem and sometimes without, and also how it
sometimes read with the stress on different syllables.
Is there a correlation? For example, the occurrence of the word "lamah" in
Genesis 27:45 has no dagesh in the mem and is read milra, i.e. the stress on the
final syllable. The occurrence of the word "lamah" in the very next verse has a
dagesh in the mem and is read mil'eil, i.e. the stress on the penultimate syllable.
In Genesis 27:45, the word "lamah" is followed by the word "eshkal", which is
stressed on its final syllable. In Genesis 27:46, the word "lamah" is followed
by the word "li", which is stressed (and there's not much option here) on its
first (and only) syllable. We have, therefore, an example of a rule called
"nasog achor" (lit. "moving backwards"): If a word that is accented on its final
syllable is immediately followed by a word that is accented on its first
syllable, then the stress on the first word is moved back a syllable so that
there is one unstressed syllable between where the two stressed syllables are
now - in other words, we try to avoid having two stressed syllables in a row.
A nice example of this occurs in Exodus 21:20, on the following words:
eLOhay CHEsef ve'loHAY zoHOV.
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Poppers <the65pops@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 21,2016 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Why?
Martin Stern asked (MJ 62#69):
> ...the word is sometimes read milra (stress on the final syllable) and
> sometimes mil'eil (stress on the penultimate syllable). Does this alter the
> meaning?
RSRHirsch felt it did -- see what I noted in a Leining-group thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!searchin/leining/lamah/leining/nbHH3VuPTbw/nNNKYAzZLWUJ
.
!miruP tuG
and all the best from
Michael Poppers* * *Elizabeth, NJ, USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 62 Issue 70