Volume 63 Number 22
Produced: Mon, 20 Mar 17 02:41:58 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Airbrushing out females appearing in pictures
[Yisrael Medad]
Genuine Conversion
[Leah S. R. Gordon]
Should one go to shul when one is unwell? (2)
[Martin Stern Yisrael Medad]
Tefilat nedavah (voluntary prayer)
[Martin Stern]
The Case of the Mistaken Levi (2)
[Martin Stern Chaim Casper]
When a Sefer Torah Falls
[Yisrael Medad]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Tue, Mar 14,2017 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Airbrushing out females appearing in pictures
Martin notes (MJ 63#21):
> The absence of women from haredi newspapers has become a well known and now
> almost unremarkable phenomenon in recent years.
I do not think it is "unremarkable". But for sure, airbrushing out of
photographs of news content, as with Hillary Clinton five years ago is astounding:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/hillary-clinton
> An Orthodox Jewish newspaper has apologised for digitally deleting an image
> of US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton from a photograph of Barack Obama and
> his staff monitoring the raid by navy Seals that killed Osama bin Laden.
>
> Brooklyn weekly Di Tzeitung <http://www.ditzeitung.com/>, which says it does
> not publish images of women, printed the doctored image last Friday. It issued
> a statement saying its photo editor had not read the "fine print" accompanying
> the White House photograph that forbade any changes. The newspaper said it has
> sent its "regrets and apologies" to the White House and the US department of
> state.
>
> The counterterrorism director, Audrey Tomason, was also deleted from the photo,
> which captured a historic moment in the decade-long US effort to apprehend the
> mastermind of the September 11 attacks.
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. R. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 13,2017 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Genuine Conversion
In response to Martin Stern (MJ 63#21):
> Even subsequently, at least until about 60 years ago, there were certainly
> social disadvantages in being Jewish so some genuine, though perhaps lesser
> degree of, religious motivation must have existed.
>
> It is only in more recent times, especially in the USA, that intermarriage
> has become acceptable both to a majority of Jews and non-Jews, so much so
> that it has become politically incorrect in more liberal circles to
> disparage it, at least publicly.
Martin already knows that I think it is unseemly to judge another person's spiritual motives (and it's
probably assur after that person's conversion in any case).
I fail to see how his comment implies that more converts would be less genuine in the modern era. Martin
posits that because of anti-semitism, he believes that historical conversions were ab initio well-motivated
[or why switch religions to one where you'd be persecuted].
However, he then points out that intermarriage is widely accepted today. How is this a force in favor of
casual conversion? (If you might as well stay your nonJewish religion, wouldn't a convert also be presumed
to have good motivation?)
Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 13,2017 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Should one go to shul when one is unwell?
Carl A. Singer wrote (MJ 63#21):
> Should one go to shul when one is unwell or. more precisely, if one is (or may
> be) contagious.
>
> This morning a gentlemen came into shul red-nosed, coughing and sneezing. As
> luck would have it, he ended up sitting next to me.
>
> He was NOT a chiyuv -- that is he didn't recite the mourner's kaddish.
>
> I did not interact with him other than a friendly nod.
>
> Should he have stayed home?
If he was suffering from an infectious disease then he should certainly NOT
have come to shul or, for that matter, have gone to any public place - doing
so makes him into a rodef. I don't see why being a chiyuv should make any
difference - not causing others to become unwell certainly takes precedence
over saying kaddish even during sheloshim or on a yahrzeit for a parent (and
a fortiori any other occasion).
It is possible that the gentleman was suffering from acute allergic rhinitis
which has much the same symptoms as the common cold but is not contagious so
one might be able to be dan lekhaf zekhut [give him the benefit of the
doubt]. However, since one cannot know, prudence suggests not getting too
close and Carl's mode of interaction would seem to be the best in the
circumstances.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Tue, Mar 14,2017 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Should one go to shul when one is unwell?
Carl Singer asks (MJ 63#21):
> Should one go to shul when one is unwell or. more precisely, if one is (or may
> be) contagious?
and then notes a case when someone ill sat next to him and all he did, it
would seem, is
> not interact with him other than a friendly nod.
Whether or not the sick person should have stayed home, Carl should have moved
due to the injunction "v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoteichem" (you must take
special care for yourselves" in Deuteronomy in several places in several forms
especially 2:15).
There are always two sides to halachic issues. At least.
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 13,2017 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Tefilat nedavah (voluntary prayer)
Joel Rich wrote (MJ 6321):
> There is a concept of tefilat nedavah (voluntary prayer), whereby one can say
> an extra shemoneh esrei on a voluntary basis.
>
> Why do we no longer allow it in most cases? Has human nature dramatically
> changed over time since the Talmud so as to make such prayer generally
> suspect? What are the observable indications of this change?
The Rema writes, in connection with using this procedure as a way to rectify
lack of concentration in shemoneh esrei, that one should not do so because
there is no guarantee that the person will concentrate any more the second
time.
A tefillat nedavah requires complete concentration and it would seem that
people's attention span has decreased over the centuries which is why we do
not encourage people to make such formal prayers. This may be related to the
decrease in memory since the greater availability of written texts - perhaps
a psychologist can shed light on this.
However, this does not preclude an ex tempore prayer in one's own words (in
any language) when faced with a pressing need for Divine help.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 13,2017 at 09:01 AM
Subject: The Case of the Mistaken Levi
Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 63#21):
> Here is a problem:
>
> You are the rabbi of an Ashkenazi (i.e., not Sefaradi) shul. A new person
> turns up in shul who says he is a Levi, and gets called up to the Torah for
> some time as such.
>
> You then find out -- not from him -- that in fact he was adopted; his adoptive
> father is a Levi, but his birth father was not.
>
> (1) Must you immediately begin calling him up as a Yisrael, not a Levi (and
> explain to him why), or
>
> (2) May you continue to call him up as a Levi so as not to hurt his feelings?
>
> I am not asking for a psak; I am curious whether there is any basis of saying
> that option (2) is a possibility.
Presumably he must be aware of his adoptive status but only does not realise
that adoption does not confer on him any tribal status. Perhaps the first
step is to make him aware, privately, of the halachah. Probably he would
then not be offended to be called up as a Yisrael in future. Option (2) does
not seem to be a possibility because it could easily be mistakenly extended to an
adopted son of a cohen where there could be more serious repercussions.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Casper <surfflorist@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 13,2017 at 10:01 PM
Subject: The Case of the Mistaken Levi
Orrin Tilevitz asked (MJ 63#21):
> A new person turns up in shul who says he is a Levi, and gets called up to
> the Torah for some time as such.
>
> You then find out -- not from him -- that in fact he was adopted; his adoptive
> father is a Levi, but his birth father was not.
>
> (1) Must you immediately begin calling him up as a Yisrael, not a Levi (and
> explain to him why), or
>
> (2) May you continue to call him up as a Levi so as not to hurt his feelings?
I had a similar situation when I was a senior gabbai of a local shul. The
father, who was m'challel Shabbat b'farhesiya i.e. he publically violated
Shabbat, thought he was a Levi and instructed his son accordingly. The son
became Shomer Shabbat [Shabbat observant] and later did some family geneology
research which led him to realize he was not a Levi. So he asked me to no
longer call him up to the Torah as a Levi.
But that still left us with the issue of what to do with the father. The way I
solved it was I would call the father up as Acharon (the last of the extra
aliyot on Shabbat to the Torah). That aliyah can go to a Levi or Yisrael (or
for that matter even a Cohen!) so it made no difference that I called up a
person of questionable lineage.
Now, there would still be a question of what to do with the father on a weekday
when there are only three aliyot with no room for maneuvering. However, the
father does not attend the weekday davening so that is not a problem!
B'virkat Torah,
Rabbi Chaim Casper
North Miami Beach, FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 19,2017 at 07:01 PM
Subject: When a Sefer Torah Falls
A Sefer Torah fell out of the Aron HaKodesh at our synagogue.It was not being
handled, and in fact, it was pasul, i.e., invalid due to incomplete writing.
There was no chain to hold it in place and when a scroll from a lower row was
removed, and when the person removing the other scroll had his back turned, out
it fell.
The decision of the Rav was to fast one day and instructed that all those who
saw it or heard the noise of it hitting the ground are to fast. This despite
that the Shulchan Aruch does not mention it but he holds that it is a firmly
entrenched minhag, i.e., custom, mentioned by Ahronim, i.e., post-16 century
Rabbinic decisors.
I myself learned of this minhag to fast over a half-century ago. However, only
in the case if the person actually saw the Torah fall to the ground.
Has anybody either, read, or heard or even experienced this instance when the
congregation members who did not see the fall but only heard it had to fast?
--
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 63 Issue 22
