Volume 63 Number 31
Produced: Tue, 09 May 17 01:41:11 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Kaddish and Kedushah when in an 'alien' shul (3)
[Martin Stern Daniel Geretz Lawrence Myers]
Malbish Arumim other than birkat hashachar
[David Ziants]
Misplaced pasuk?
[Martin Stern]
Mixed seating on planes (3)
[Martin Stern Rabbi Meir Wise Carl A. Singer]
Separating the sin from the sinner
[Chaim Casper]
Tefillin on Chol Hamoed (2)
[Immanuel Burton Lawrence Myers]
What is a 'chalalah'?
[Elazar Teitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, May 5,2017 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Kaddish and Kedushah when in an 'alien' shul
Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 63#29):
> In a discussion on birkat kohanim when a sefaradi davens in an Ashkenazi shul,
> R. Daniel Gertz writes (MJ 63#28):
>
>> Perhaps a slightly similar situation arises when a Sefardi who is obligated
>> to say kaddish davens at an Ashkenaz minyan which does not say V'Yatzmach
>> Purkanay Viykarev Meshichay." In that situation, would one advise them to use
>> their own nusach, or use the Ashkenaz nusach to avoid machloket? IIRC, the
>> generally accepted advice is the former.
> I don't think that is right. Igrot Moshe OC 2:23 holds that one must recite
> kedusha in the nusach of the tzibur, and that holding is brought down in
> Fuchs, Hatefilah Betzibur 6:6. R. Feinstein does not there deal explicitly
> with kaddish, but does distinguish between material that is said aloud and
> said silently (although he also notes that the responses in kedusha are
> short.)
The custom in Germany followed the Shulchan Aruch for the tzibbur only to
recite the pesukim (at least on weekdays) and not the shatz's introductions,
so there was nothing to change.
> However, in OC 2:104 he holds that anything that is said aloud -- i.e.,
> everything except the shmone esrai
This is a far too sweeping generalisation.
> -- must be said in the nusach of the tzibur.
> And that is precisely what I have observed, generally; I daven periodically in
> a Nusach Sefarad shul, and those of us who davens Nusach Ashkenaz answer
> kedusha, and recite kaddish, in the nusach of the tzibur. And vice versa.
Those who use Nusach Sefarad are basically Ashkenazim though they have made
a few changes, for kabbalistic reasons, in line with the Sefardi tradition.
> The only exception I've seen is that individuals from Edot Hamizrach,
> including Bukharans, quite aggressively and loudly use their own nusach in our
> shul. (We don't say anything to them because it probably would do no good.)
>
> Or could it be that Ashkenazi poskim say to use the local nusach, and Sefardi
> poskim say to use your own nusach, come what may?
Precisely the point as I wrote (MJ 63#29):
> A Sefardi rav will rule as Rabbi Geretz suggests and an Ashkenazi one would
> probably rule the other way. In practice, Sefardim do not usually even ask and
> assume they should follow their own minhag (probably being unaware of there
> being a problem), often to the irritation of the Ashkenazim.
With which last observation, Orrin and his shul clearly agree.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Geretz <danny@...>
Date: Fri, May 5,2017 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Kaddish and Kedushah when in an 'alien' shul
Martin Stern writes (MJ 63#29):
> A Sefardi rav will rule as Rabbi Geretz suggests and an Ashkenazi one
> would probably rule the other way.
Orrin Tilevitz writes (MJ 63#29):
> Igrot Moshe OC 2:23 holds that one must recite kedusha in the nusach of
> the tzibur, and that holding is brought down in Fuchs, Hatefilah Betzibur 6:6.
> R. Feinstein does not there deal explicitly with kaddish, but does
> distinguish between material that is said aloud and said silently (although
> he also notes that the responses in kedusha are short.)"
While I can't cite specific instances, I am pretty sure I have heard an Ashkenazi
rav rule that a Sefardi or an Ashkenazi who davens nusach Sefard ought not
change their nusach during kaddish.
Additionally, I thank Orrin Tilevitz for the Igrot Moshe cite and will bli neder
look at it eventually (is Rav Moshe zt"l talking about a shaliach tzibbur or
someone in the tzibbur who is responding?)
Nonetheless, one might be able to make a chiluk [distinction] between kedusha
and kaddish - the former being a chiyuv (obligation) for the kehilla
[congregation] to recite and the latter being a chiyuv for the kehilla to answer .
Also - for those who hold by the Rav zt"l as cited by Wolowelsky, kaddish
differs essentially from kedusha in that a woman who is the only chiyuv in a
shul may recite kaddish by herself, out loud, and the tzibbur may respond. No
one (at least within Orthodoxy, that I know of) is arguing at this point that
women ought to serve as shelichei tzibbur for chazarat hashat"z.
Finally, a mea culpa - I was too fast to hit the send on my posts, and did not
edit my signature to remove the honorific. On this list, please continue to
refer to me as "Daniel" or even "Danny," as people have been doing for maybe the
past 25 years or so.
Daniel Geretz
<danny@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lawrence Myers <lawrm@...>
Date: Sat, May 6,2017 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Kaddish and Kedushah when in an 'alien' shul
I always understood that anyone saying Kaddish is acting as a "quasi" Shliach
Tzibur, and therefore should follow the minhag and nusach of the kehillah,
Lawrence Myers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Mon, May 8,2017 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Malbish Arumim other than birkat hashachar
Sammy Finkelman (MJ 63#30) responds concerning my question on the instruction
"on cleading news south" for b'racha "Malbish Arumim" which appears with the
berachot for special occassions:
> I meant was this instruction printed, or handwritten by someone?
Yes, the instruction was printed in the Siddur.
Sammy remarks concerning the transliteration of kaddish yatom on the
back page:-
> "Ousay sholom bimroumov hoo yah'say sholoum olinu vio'l kol Yisroile vi'-mroo
> omine. "
>
> This sounds like some kind of a (German) pronunciation of Hebrew.
Thank you for the comment about the transliteration. Also, thank you to the
others who responded in MJ 63#29.
I agree that "ou" (in British English rhymes with "cow") is the German way of
saying a cholem.
Are you sure about the "omine" at the end? I thought Germanic pronunciation was
"omain" (in British English rhymes with "rain"). Is there a difference between a
zereh with a yud e.g "ousay" and "yah'say" and a zereh without a yud e.g "olinu"
and "omine" ?
I have heard an older Dutch lady say "omine" like this, but assumed that this
was of Polish influence. Am I mistaken?
David Ziants
Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, May 8,2017 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Misplaced pasuk?
I have always felt that the last pasuk in prashat Kedoshim (ve'ish o'ishah ki
yihyehvahem ov o yidoni...) is out of place, as if it is a bit of an
afterthought. Can anyone explain what is the significance of its being there
rather than in, say, Shemini or earlier in Kedoshim?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, May 7,2017 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Mixed seating on planes
In response to Leah Gordon and Irwin Weiss (MJ 63#30) both of whom made the
same comment on my submission (MJ 63#29):
>> On our return from a very pleasant Pesach outside Dubrovnik, my wife and I
>> were allocated two window seats, one behind the other, for some reason. The
>> other two seats in each row were allocated to two non-Jewish couples. What
>> struck me was that, in both cases, the couples arranged themselves to sit so
>> that the male sat next to me and the female next to my wife. It would seem
>> that generally people prefer to sit next members of the same sex as
>> themselves so a desire to do so is in no way abnormal.
that I could not know that they were non-Jewish or that they might have had
some completely different reason.
As regards the first point, I would concede that I could not be certain but
I had no reason to suppose they were Jewish and so applied the principle kol
deparish meirubba parish [any unidentified person or thing can be assumed to
have come from the majority of such unless there is evidence to the
contrary]. The majority of people are not Jews and there is no particular
reason to suppose that Jews would travel from Dubrovnik to Manchester on the
Thursday after Pesach.
As regards the second point, I would agree as well that this might have just
been pure chance, especially that such a small sample is not statistically
significant as Leah wrote:
> ...
> two couples is hardly a convincing set of evidence (and perhaps your dress or
> manner indicated that you and your wife were religious, so those couples might
> have been accommodating what they believed to be your preference...
If they were non-Jews this is highly unlikely since most non-Jews in the UK
are unaware of this chareidi preference. In fact, I personally have no
problem with sitting next to women so they would not have had any indication
thereof. If they had been Jews, then they must resemble Carl Singer in being
sensitive to other people rather than the person who told him that he did
not have to accommodate the chareidi bochur (MJ 63#29).
> More significantly, it happens that I do prefer to sit next to other women on
> public transportation, if I have to sit next to a stranger.
I suspect that Leah's preference is fairly widespread and that was the point
of my original submission.
> But that in no way permits a man to violate my civil rights by asking me to
> move to be somewhere else lest he sit next to me.
Making a polite request in no way violates anyone's civil rights but
refusing to accede for no other reason than to "put such people in their
place" might be seen as uncharitable as Carl pointed out, as do comments
like
> ...
> It is also offensive on airplanes in particular, and by religious people in
> particular, to have expectations that "everyone will adapt to accommodate
> ME". ... There is a long list of "charitable" attitudes that I would request
> before honoring misogynistic requests.
> ...
> Maybe if everyone refuses to dance to that tune, then chareidim will get the
> picture and stop asking for unreasonable accommodations to their narishkeit.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rabbi Meir Wise <Meirhwise@...>
Date: Sun, May 7,2017 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Mixed seating on planes
Leah Gordon (MJ 69#30) wrote:
> It is also offensive on airplanes in particular, and by religious people in
> particular, to have expectations that "everyone will adapt to accommodate ME".
> ...
> There is a long list of "charitable" attitudes that I would request before
> honoring misogynistic requests.
>
> I was once on an El Al flight sitting next to my husband on one side and a
> secular man on the other side. The stranger was asked by a flight attendant if
> he would go switch with a woman, at the request of the woman's neighbor, a male
> chareidi complainer. He refused to do so, and I fully supported that choice.
> Maybe if everyone refuses to dance to that tune, then chareidim will get the
> picture and stop asking for unreasonable accommodations to their narishkeit.
The request might have been a narishkeit but the refusal was petty in the extreme.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl A. Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Mon, May 8,2017 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Mixed seating on planes
Leah S. R. Gordon wrote (MJ 63#30)
> Carl Singer (MJ 63#29) writes:
>
>> Professional (ice) hockey has a rule which, roughly speaking, penalizes a
>> third player who gets involved with a fight that is going on between two
>> players.
>>
>> I had an interesting situation while boarding an El Al flight for Israel last
>> week and would appreciate feedback.
>>
>> My wife and I were sitting in the center (4 seat across) section of a 747
>> Jumbo Jet. I in the aisle, my wife next to me. A young Chadishe bocher
>> approached from the other aisle - his was to be the third seat -- that was
>> next to my wife. He asked if my wife and I would mind switching seats. (The
>> 4th seat, the other aisle seat was still unoccupied.)
>>
>> It was a simple request and my wife and I agreed to switch seats with each
>> other. The reason for my inquiry was the "third man in" -- a young man,
>> perhaps late teens / early twenties was walking past us at that moment and
>> exclaimed, "You know, you don't have to move on account of him." I chose to
>> ignore him. But it has bothered me, not so much his being the "third man in"
>> -- many people believe the world is thirsting for the input / wisdom. BUT
>> why would someone have such an uncharitable attitude re: doing something to
>> help another human being.
>
> I believe you are inappropriately applying the hockey rule. The passer-by
> thought that he was standing up for your civil rights (particularly your
> wife's civil rights) to remain in your original seats. This wasn't some
> dispute over an armrest, in which case the hockey rule might apply.
>
> It is offensive to many people, including me, to be viewed as such an
> over-sexualized object that even to sit fully-clothed (and annoyed) next to
> such a person, could be considered lewd in some way. I can easily imagine a
> situation in which some man requests me to move, and I'm momentarily
> shocked / uncomfortable and silent, and where I would welcome a neutral
> observer to come to my rescue. I hope your "third man" shows up if something
> like that happens to me!
>
> It is also offensive on airplanes in particular, and by religious people in
> particular, to have expectations that "everyone will adapt to accommodate
> ME". Note that even what I consider to be FAR more reasonable requests
> ("please seat that cat farther from me because of allergies") and ("please
> don't recline so far; you are squashing me") are typically viewed with the
> jadedness of travelers who are not interested in indulging other people's
> whims. There is a long list of "charitable" attitudes that I would request
> before honoring misogynistic requests.
>
> I was once on an El Al flight sitting next to my husband on one side and a
> secular man on the other side. The stranger was asked by a flight attendant
> if he would go switch with a woman, at the request of the woman's neighbor, a
> male chareidi complainer. He refused to do so, and I fully supported that
> choice. Maybe if everyone refuses to dance to that tune, then chareidim will
> get the picture and stop asking for unreasonable accommodations to their
> narishkeit.
It seems that Ms. Gordon in her zealous response is now the *THIRD PERSON IN!*
She now crowns the passer-by as one who is defending *MY* civil rights
rather than as an interloper (third man in) who is mixing into a situation that
does not involve him at all, but who wants to make an an anti-frum comment, or
perhaps thinks the world is thirsting for his wisdom and insight. BTW -- I do
not need anyone to defend my rights, civil or otherwise.
Ms. Gordon further escalates her rhetoric by somehow tying a simple courtesy of
switching seats to [being] viewed as an over-sexualized object, misogynistic
requests, etc. etc.
Ms. Gordon is certainly entitled to her world view and her view of how the world
looks at her -- but her comments have little to do with the situation I
described. A situation which apparently has served as a springboard for her
energetic response.
*Carl A. Singer, Ph.D.
Colonel, U.S. Army Retired*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Casper <surfflorist@...>
Date: Sun, May 7,2017 at 12:01 AM
Subject: Separating the sin from the sinner
A while back in these pages, I mentioned that Jewish and Christian thought (i.e.
Western thought) for the last one thousand plus years has separated the sin from
the sinner. No one contested that statement.
So let me offer some examples. For simplicity, I have abbreviated the full
halakhic reasoning for each of these cases.
1) Habad/Lubavitch, in their kiruv [outreach] efforts, encourage the
non-observant to attend programs at Habad synagogues or homes on Shabbat. Now,
driving on Shabbat is considered to be a Biblical prohibition. In a sense,
Habad (and many in the Modern Orthodox community as well) are separating the sin
(driving on Shabbat) from the sinner (the non-observant Jew) who needs "to be
reached on his/her level" (to use the terminology of the late Rebbe, zt"l.)
2) A person who committed suicide (ham'abed atzmo la'da'at) is meant to buried
in a separate part of the cemetery because he/she did something very wrong and
shameful. There are those who accept the medical idea that a person who commits
suicide is extremely depressed and as a result they are no longer responsible
for their actions. As a result, the suicide victim is buried in the regular part
of the cemetery even though he/she did something against the halakhah. Again,
the idea that suicide is wrong and to be condemned is separated from the the
person who commits suicide.
3) A kohen who does not fast on a fast day is still called up to the Torah at
minhah time. The fact that he is not fasting on a public fast day is separated
from the idea that he is part of the community.
My question for the community:
What other cases can you think of where the sin and sinner are separated? I
Thank you in advance for your input.
B'virkat Torah,
Chaim Casper
North Miami Beach, FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Sun, May 7,2017 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Tefillin on Chol Hamoed
Martin Stern (MJ 63#30) asked about the point in davenning when tefillin are
taken off during Chol Ha'moed.
The Shulchan Aruch (Hilchos Tefillin 25:13) says that on Rosh Chodesh tefillin
are taken off before Musaf. The Rema there writes that this is also the
halachah on Chol Ha'moed, which does indeed raise the question of why some
people remove their tefillin before Hallel on Chol Ha'moed Pesach. The Levush
agrees with the Rema, but states that for this purpose the Musaf is not the
silent prayer but the reading of the relevant passage from the Torah, so,
according to the Levush, the tefillin are removed after the Torah reading. The
difficulty with this is why one would take one's tefillin off at that point and
not keep them on for the 'kedushah' in the prayer of U'va Le'Tzion.
Like Martin, I am of the opinion that the custom to remove tefillin on Chol
Ha'moed before Hallel is a "back formation" from the custom on Succos, although
I can't find any confirmation of this opinion in the sources.
I had a lengthy posting about this in Mail Jewish 28#66 back in 1999,which can
be accessed online at:
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v28/mj_v28i66.html
It would seem that the catalyst for taking off one's tefillin is not Chol
Ha'Moed or Hallel, but the Kedushah which starts "Kesser Yitnu Lecho", and it is
inappropriate to say this while wearing the kesser [crown] of tefillin. I don't
know why this applies to Ashkenazim, who don't say this kedushah.
Why is there a difference of opinion as to whether to put on tefillin on Chol
Ha'moed in the first place? Surely on the first Chol Ha'moed after the Torah
was given the question of whether to wear tefillin could have been posed to
Moshe Rabbenu, who had good access to the highest authority?
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lawrence Myers <lawrm@...>
Date: Mon, May 8,2017 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Tefillin on Chol Hamoed
Martin Stern (MJ 63#30) asked about the point in davenning when tefillin are
taken off during Chol Ha'moed.
In the Kehilla of Kingsbury, in London, where I lived for more than 40 years,
the minhag was to keep tefillin on until after krias hatorah throughout Chol
HaMoed Pesach, just like Rosh Chodesh. Our Rav said that since you keep them on
for krait hatorah on 1st day Chil Hamoed (Kadesh Li) you continue thereafter the
same way.
Lawrence Myers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar Teitz <emteitz@...>
Date: Mon, May 8,2017 at 03:01 PM
Subject: What is a 'chalalah'?
In discussing the prohibition of a union between a kohein and a chalala, Martin
Stern (MJ 63#30) stated, inter alia, that a kohein may not marry the daughter of
a chalala, and asked about the chalal status of a child born out of wedlock to a
kohein and a woman prohibited to him because of his status as a kohein.
The first statement is not fully accurate; if a chalala marries a non-kohein,
the daughter resulting from that marriage is permitted to a kohein. As for his
query, a child of a union between a kohein and a woman prohibited to him (e.g.,
a divorcee) is a chalal whether or not his parents were married. Both topics
are discussed in Rambam, Hil. Issurei Biah, chapter 19.
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 63 Issue 31
