Volume 63 Number 45
Produced: Thu, 03 Aug 17 07:09:22 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Birchot hashachar (3)
[Perets Mett Mark Steiner Susan Buxfield]
Parashat Hatamid on Tisha B'Av morning
[Susan Buxfield]
Responsibility to warn of a sakanah (3)
[Martin Stern Irwin Weiss Susan Buxfield]
The Dweck affair (4)
[Martin Stern Martin Stern Daniel Cohn Susan Buxfield]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett00@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 2,2017 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Birchot hashachar
Ben Katz, (MJ 63#44) wrote:
> In response to Joel Rich and Michael Poppers (MJ 63#43):
>
> The Rambam specifically argues against the "new" custom of saying all of the
> birchot hashachar in a row in shul, as opposed to as one gets up in the morning.
>
> Frankly, we don't make any other berachot in that manner - we don't say boray
> peri ha-etz in shul after we ate an apple at home in the morning.
>
> When I was saying kaddish for my father ob"m and was asked to daven I would just
> say that I davened birchot hashachar at home and would start with Rabbi Yishmael
> omer.
>
> There is another side benefit to doing the berachot in this manner which is that
> nothing in my morning routine makes me want to bless God for not making me a
> woman! When I put on my tallit katan I say a positively formulated blessing,
> similar to what the Vilna Gaon recommends. I also don't thank God for rooster's
> cunning (unless perhaps I hear birds chirping). I know I will lose my haredi
> credentials with this post!
And where exactly does Rambam say that you can pick and choose which of the
Birchos Hashachar to say and which to omit?
Perets Mett
London
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <mark.steiner@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 2,2017 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Birchot hashachar
Dr. Katz writes (MJ 63#44), a propos his custom of saying the birkhot hashahar
at home (which I also do):
> There is another side benefit to doing the berachot in this manner which is
> that nothing in my morning routine makes me want to bless God for not making
> me a woman! When I put on my tallit katan I say a positively formulated
> blessing, similar to what the Vilna Gaon recommends. I also don't thank God
> for rooster's cunning (unless perhaps I hear birds chirping). I know I will
> lose my haredi credentials with this post!
I'm not sure whether at this stage if it is possible for Ben to lose his haredi
credentials. He has in any case nothing to lose. If he's a top doctor, the
haredim will go to him and pay top money whatever he says in the morning.
He has to worry, however, about losing his SCHOLARLY credentials. We find
the three berachot in question in Menahot 33b.
1. Who has made me an Israelite (Jew): she-asani yisrael.
2. Who has not made me a woman (shelo asani isha).
3. Who has not made me an ignoramus (bur).
The gemara goes on to substitute "slave" (eved) for "ignoramus".
If we look at what the Gaon of Vilna says at Orah Hayim 46 we find:
1. The Gra does not suggest saying it. He just reports that the Gemara, Tur,
Rosh have it "while the Tosefta, Rambam, Yerushalmi don't.
2. In any case, the Gra does not suggest anything other than shelo asani
isha. Sheasani yisrael replaces shelo asani goy. The Gaon clearly mandates
shelo asani isha.
3. It is clear that the sources that have she-asani yisrael have been
censored. Not a single ms of the gemara available to us has it. I checked the
Venice (printed) edition of the Talmud; the Munich ms of the Talmud; the Vatican
ms (120-121) of the Talmud; and the Vatican (118-119) of the Talmud. Every
single one of these has the text: who has not made me a Gentile (goy). Add this
to the texts that the Gaon quotes: Tosefta Berakhot 6:18, Yerushalmi, Rambam.
There is no such beracha as she-asani yisrael.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 3,2017 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Birchot hashachar
Ben Katz, M.D. (MJ 63#44) wrote:
> Frankly, we don't make any other berachot in that manner - we don't say boray
> peri ha-etz in shul after we ate an apple at home in the morning.
Birchot HaNehanin have no validity after the fact - and generally eating before
davenning is usually not permitted unless its medically necessary or as an aid
to davenning better (coffee or tea!)
> nothing in my morning routine makes me want to bless God for not making me a
> woman!
So why the blessing for not making you a slave? The blessing on not making you a
woman is only to acknowledge that you have been endowed with a greater potential
to perform those mitzvot which women and slaves are not so required.
> When I put on my tallit katan I say a positively formulated blessing,
Can Ben explain what "positively formulated" implies?
Most halachic experts hold that if there is not a significant time gap between
the wearing of the katan and gadol, the separate blessing on the katan is
unnecessary.
> I also don't thank God for rooster's cunning. I know I will lose my haredi
> credentials with this post!
Haredi? Not even orthodox credentials.
Denying what has been fixed by the Anshei Knesset Hagedola is pure heresy. The
non-orthodox pick and choose their orthoprax "mitzvot"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 3,2017 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Parashat Hatamid on Tisha B'Av morning
Baruch J. Schwartz (MJ 63#44) wrote:
> I have been using Rev. Abraham Rosenfelds Seder Kinot HaShalem for Tisha B'Av
> (London 1965) since it appeared, and I have always been very appreciative of
> the tremendous amount of thought, learning and meticulous care that was
> invested in this excellent and oft-reprinted volume.
> This morning, for the first time, I noticed that the Parashat Hatamid (Num
> 28:1-8, with or without Lev 1:11) that we say every morning at the beginning
> of the seder korbanot is missing from the Shaharit service in this book.
> ...
> From everything I ever read or learned, I was positive that Parashat Hatamid
> is said on Tisha BAv in the morning, and I haven't found anything even remotely
> suggesting the contrary. But its hard to imagine that the editor, translator
> and annotator of this extremely precise book simply overlooked it. Can anyone
> enlighten me?
There are AFAIK two reasons Parashat Hatamid is not recited on Tisha Be'Av:
1. From 17 Tammuz there were no more lambs available for the Tamid
2. Tisha Be'Av is a future yomtov as such there is also no Tachanun or Avinu
Malkeinu.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 2,2017 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Responsibility to warn of a sakanah
Carl Singer wrote (MJ 63#44):
> My community has many two-family homes some of which have illegal basement
> apartments. These basement apartments are deemed illegal because they have
> only a single exit and thus are hazardous.
>
> Ignoring potential issues of dina demalchusa these apartments are dangerous
> and thus a sakanah. What is the obligation to warn of this sakanah if you are:
>
> 1. A community leader or Rabbi
>
> 2. A landlord seeking to rent out such an apartment
>
> 3. A disinterested third party.
IMHO they are all obligated to publicise the danger and, if it involves a
danger to life, to inform the civil authorities so that they can enforce
whatever measures are necessary to remove the danger. This NOT mesirah
[handing a fellow Jew over to the non-Jewish authorities] since pikuach
nefesh trumps all other considerations.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Irwin Weiss <irwin@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 2,2017 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Responsibility to warn of a sakanah
In response to Carl Singer (MJ 63#44):
While Carl says to ignore issues of dina demalchuta dina (the law of the land is
the law), I cannot help but point to the Maryland case of Pittway v. Collins
which you can access at:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-appeals/1302927.html
Two children died and another was seriously injured in a basement fire. Carl's
concern about the wellbeing of the tenants under these circumstances is well
founded.
Duty comes from several sources. There is halachic duty, moral duty, and legal
duty. There may be a variation in the duties depending on which one we are
considering.
Irwin E. Weiss, Esq.
Suite 302
920 Providence Road
Baltimore, MD 21286
410-821-0001
410-821-7117 (fax)
<irwin@...>
www.irwinweiss.com
Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 3,2017 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Responsibility to warn of a sakanah
Carl Singer (MJ 63#44) wrote:
> These basement apartments are deemed illegal because they have only a single
> exit and thus are hazardous. What is the obligation to warn of this sakanah
A distinction should be drawn between a potential and immediate sakanah. To be a
Malshin (informer) is generally forbidden. And if you are so concerned perhaps
scout the whole city for violations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 2,2017 at 04:01 AM
Subject: The Dweck affair
Leah S. R. Gordon wrote (MJ 63#44):
> I maintain that people on MJ are trying to use Judaism to back up their own
> personal distaste for various sexual orientations.
Unfortunately Leah is making an unsubstantiated claim which borders on the
sort of flaming which MJ does not allow.
She continues:
> To take a less emotive analogy, let's take herring. I detest herring - the
> smell, sight, taste, everything. Those who eat herring are participating in
> what I consider to be an abomination. Some of those on MJ might participate
> in this lifestyle, and I don't like to think about it.
A nice analogy but for one major omission: the Torah to which we assume all
MJ participants adhere bans certain activities associated with "gay sex" so
it is not just a matter of personal taste.
> Suppose I could find a 5000-year-old text that says not to eat herring, in my
> own wacky religion.
Implying that it is a "wacky religion" is denigration of the Torah - I would
hope that this was not her real intention but an unfortunate slip of the pen
on Leah's part
> Well, that still doesn't mean that the secular law should be imposed to make
> that illegal. Since none exists on Earth, I assume that no MJ members live in
> a Jewish theocracy. Therefore, it is incumbent on all of us to keep religion
> and its views on herring, or of sex, OUT of secular law and culture.
I don't think we have been discussing "secular law and culture" but how we,
as a Torah-adherent community should treat those who do not keep its
commandments.
> Also, suppose I don't even like hearing someone say, "I went to kiddush" if I
> know they're a herring-eater, because it makes me think about the fact that
> they might have eaten herring. That is exactly analogous to Martin's
> objection to hearing about "lifestyles" e.g. a photo of a gay couple or a
> reference to "my spouse".
I think I have made the distinction between those who, for various reasons,
transgress the Torah and those who flout these transgressions and demand
that their activities be legitimised. There is a world of difference between
these - a photo of a gay couple that does not draw attention to their
relationship is no more objectionable than one of any two males (or
females).
However referring to a member of the same sex as one's spouse is a demand
that such a relationship, with the implicit message that they are engaging
in forbidden behaviour, be acknowledged.
I think that we should take the same position on anyone who brazenly
transgresses any Torah commandment, even Leah's earlier example of
sha'atnez, demanding that their wearing of it be treated as perfectly
acceptable, and they should not be accepted as members of an Orthodox shul.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 2,2017 at 05:01 AM
Subject: The Dweck affair
Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 63#44):
> Michael Rogovin asks (MJ 63#43) whether, in various factual scenarios, a
> homosexual couple may be offered "family membership" in a shul. In a prior
> discussion (see e.g., MJ 49#39), which as I recall resulted in, shall we say,
> fireworks, I took the position that a shul may not acknowledge such a
> relationship and therefore cannot grant family membership unless it does to
> all roommate groups, although I noted that I was aware of a Young Israel that
> had done just that.
This would seem the best solution to such problems and might have the
beneficial side-effect of encouraging young people to join shuls. As I wrote
previously (MJ 63#40):
> Nobody can deny that the Torah proscribes all male homosexual activities,
> though one can always assume, as I do, that when two males (or females)
> share accommodation are only doing so in order to share its exorbitant cost,
> and treat the individuals accordingly - provided they do not expect others
> to be aware of, and approve, their different intention. This is the
> traditional principle of "dan lechaf zechut [judge everyone favourably]".
> Others might misread the 'chaf' of 'zechut' as a 'nun' to make it mean
> "judge everyone as being promiscuous" - but this is contrary to the Torah's
> outlook.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Cohn <4danielcohn@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 2,2017 at 05:01 AM
Subject: The Dweck affair
Leah Gordon wrote (MJ 63#44):
> Sexual orientation is an inborn inclination, according to our scientific
> understanding.
This is at best misleading. Science is still undecided on this. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation
"A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been
conclusively demonstrated; various studies point to different, even
conflicting positions, but scientists hypothesize that a combination of genetic,
hormonal, and social factors determine sexual orientation."
>From an hashkafic point of view, I don't see how it can be argued that the Torah
will forbid a behavior that is "inborn" in certain people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 3,2017 at 05:01 AM
Subject: The Dweck affair
A couple of contributors have been trying to justify membership of a synagogue
as being a matter of ascertaining the correct response to a a number of questions.
Questions relating to lifestyle are only to assure that membership will be
dependent on acceptance of the rules, regulations and customs that, as such,
permit a cohesive congregation.
In particular, Leah S. R. Gordon (MJ 63#44) wrote:
> I maintain that people on MJ are trying to use Judaism to back up their own
> personal distaste for various sexual orientations.
Personal distaste is irrelevant. What is being discussed is Orthodox Judaism's
"distaste for various sexual orientations"
> I take issue with the use of the word "lifestyle" or "alternative lifestyle,"
That is how the world currently describes what they consider to be sexual deviance.
> Sexual orientation is an inborn inclination, according to our scientific
> understanding.
Can Leah justify her contention of inborn and scientific? From what can be
gathered by (the obviously non academic) googling, the vast majority of what has
been written seems to imply that those inclinations appear to develop later in life.
> Susan Buxfield says (MJ 63#43):
>> Since most of the medical world consider sexual deviance as usually being a
>> psychological aberration, the usual practical suggestion to those who wish
>> to vanquish those inclinations is to get involved in projects far removed
>> from sexuality, and far removed from those groups that purport to legitimise
>> immoral behavior.
> This sentence is full of inaccuracy:
>> The medical world certainly does not consider homosexuality as a
>> "psychological aberration"
Recent medical opinion tries to avoid adjudicating because of the current social
acceptance of the gay community. But in essence very little proof either way has
been ascertained. However the American Psychiatric Association "assumes that
homosexuality per se is a mental disorder". See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
> I assume that no MJ members live in a Jewish theocracy. Therefore, it is
> incumbent on all of us to keep religion and its views on herring, or of
> sex, OUT of secular law and culture.
That exactly is the basic difference between the orthodox and the progressives.
Being orthodox in today's society is believing in a conceptualized existence of
a Jewish theocracy which is undermined by the perforced acceptance of
incongruous secular values.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 63 Issue 45
