Volume 66 Number 52
Produced: Thu, 07 Sep 23 14:16:34 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Must v Must Not.
[Immanuel Burton]
Psak
[Chaim Casper]
Rules of Psak
[Chana Luntz]
Straws in the wind?
[Chaim Casper]
Women Saying Kaddish
[Aryeh Frimer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 6,2023 at 05:17 PM
Subject: Must v Must Not.
Is the phrase "must not" really the counterpart of "must"? For example,
consider this:
On Sukkot, men must sit in a Sukkah.
On Sukkot, women must not sit in a Sukkah.
Clearly this isn't correct. So why is "men must learn Torah" turned into "women
must not learn Torah"? Or, dare one say it, "men must say kaddish" is turned
into "women must not say kaddish"?
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Casper <info@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 6,2023 at 06:17 PM
Subject: Psak
Carl Singer (MJ 66#50) wrote that his wife had received a psak halakhah (a
halakhic ruling) from her Posek (rabbi) who said that she "had 30 days" from the
day that she and Carl moved into their new house to put up a mezuzah on their
new residence. Someone asked who that was, whereupon Carl's wife replied "with
the name of a Gadol haDor who happens to be a family friend. (I had put up
mezzuzahs on day one.)"
Perets Mett (MJ 66#51) quoted the Sde Chemed (40:113) who ruled "that on moving
into a house which you own (bought), even in Chuts lo-orets, the mezuza must be
affixed immediately. At which point Perets asked, "Would Carl be kind enough to
identify the Godol haDor who holds otherwise?"
I am not a Gadol Hador (just ask my wife - she'll be more than happy to tell you
I know nothing from nothing on a good day!). But Rabbi Joseph Caro writes in his
Shulhan Arukh (YD 286:22) that someone who rents (I will add "or buys") a house
in Chuts lo-orets has 30 days to put up a mezuzah. As the Sha"kh adds, "because
[before 30 days] it is not considered a residence. But, continues the Mechaber,
if you rent a house in Israel, you must put up a mezuzah immediately as that is
the rule for Israel (i.e. that houses rented, bought or built by a Jew in Israel
are considered part of the yishuv [the Jewish community] from day one). Carl and
his wife live in New Jersey so I think the 30 day rule applies to them. Even if
it doesn't apply to them, Carl did fix their mezuzot on Day#1.
I would add that this halakhah was taught to me by a sofer [ritual scribe] in my
adopted community of Bet Shemesh when I went looking to buy mezuzot for my new
home there. I said I have 30 days. He said, "I don't think so." He was right.
B'virkat Torah u'virkat Shanah Tovah u'Metukah,
Chaim Casper
North Miami Beach, FL
Neve Mikhael, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <Chana@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 6,2023 at 09:17 PM
Subject: Rules of Psak
Joel Rich wrote (MJ 66#51):
> Chana Luntz wrote (MJ 66#49):
>
>> I think the Mechaber is pretty explicit about why in his introduction.
>> Originally he was going to sort through all the proofs of all the Rishonim
>> (and he includes so very many in the Beit Yosef) and decide who was right,
>> but he then realised that was impossible:
>
> Yes but this was a complete change in the derech hapsak - the rishonim
> could've also said that about their predecessors
I don't think that is true to anything like the extent implied. Nobody had
previously written a commentary with the breadth and depth of the Beit Yosef,
gathering thousands and thousands of Rishonic comments together in the manner he
did.
By and large the previous Rishonim learnt within a specific tradition, whether
it be the Ashkenazi one, the North African one or that of the Rambam. The
closest might have been something like the Hagahot Maimoniot commenting on the
Rambam, and bringing some of the Ashkenazi greats on the same points. Yet he
realised he was dealing with a different tradition and brought Ashkenazi
alternatives - so it was very much a type of 'them and us' analysis. The Beit
Yosef as well as being well after the Hagahot Maimoniot and being much, much
more extensive, tries to bring all traditions. We know who the Rambam's
teachers were, and his teachers teachers etc, and similarly with the Ramban,
Rashba, Ritva, Ran etc. etc. But Rav Yosef Karo in producing the Beit Yosef
drew together all of these disparate learning traditions and melded them into
one book. It is the first work that genuinely spanned the entire Jewish world
at least since the Geonim, and possibly since the Talmud. If you are drawing
only on one line of tradition, you fundamentally learn from your Rav, and then
when you reach a certain level, you might disagree with your Rav based on your
own analysis, but still use the learning methodology of your own school. That is
what pretty much all the previous Rishonim did, even though some of the later
ones might then cross quote from other learning traditions. But the Beit Yosef
gathers all those traditions together, and genuinely is at home in all of them.
It is an extraordinary work (and he must have had an extraordinary library).
But in doing this he was able to see how different the different threads were,
and he felt they had veered too far apart and needed bringing together.
> (as could R' Moshe about earlier Achronim).
Rav Moshe is as different from Rav Yosef Karo in this regard as he could be.
One of the striking things about Rav Moshe's psak is that he quotes very, very
few Achronim, and the very few he quotes are usually so he can disagree with
them. Others (Rav Ovadiah Yosef, for example, or the Tzitz Eliezer, for that
matter) are far more inclined to gather together and review what has been said
across the spectrum, in that sense they are much more like Rav Yosef Karo. But
they have something that Rav Yosef Karo didn't have - namely the Shulchan Aruch.
Rav Ovadiah sees the Shulchan Aruch as the fundamental underlying psak, and all
the rest of everything is built around that. Rav Yosef Karo, given his
tradition, could have said that - he could have used the Rambam. But he also
knew the Ashkenazi and North African response to the Rambam, and realised that
he would not be able to unite those other traditions without taking them into
account. As it was, the Ashenazi poskim felt unable to accept the Shulchan
Aruch without the Rema, so in that sense Rav Yosef Karo failed.
> I would hesitate a guess that a research paper on whether this matches the
> actual psakim would show an interesting result (also are all the yesh omrims
> where there was no 2/3 position? and when the accepted practice did not follow
> the 2/3 rule was any reason unpacked or just accepted as divine intervention?)
People have done this analysis - I believe that the Shulchan Aruch is something
like 80% Rambam. I went searching for a source for this - and haven't yet been
able to find it, but I found the following via Google:
"The Rambam is cited by the Shulchan Aruch no less than 10,319 times! The next
most quoted Rishonim are the Rosh at 8,075 times and the Rif at 3,715 times." R'
Haim Jachter - Bridging Traditions, Demystifying Differences between Sephardic
and Ashkenazi Jews, p. 281, footnote 1"
There are definitely anomalies, but by and large I do think Rav Yosef Karo
roughly stuck to his stance. A lot of the yesh omrims are potentially raising
points that the main pillars didn't address, and also the reality is that very
often, the Rif does not have anything to say on the matter, so it is Rambam
versus Rosh, or Rambam versus other rishonim. The Rambam is far more
comprehensive than anybody else and rather dominates the Shulchan Aruch.
But objecting to the novelty of this Rif, Rambam, Rosh approach was part of the
Rema's reasons, as stated in his introduction, for writing his gloss. Given the
requests to see this, here is my translation of some key portions:
"And without this [tablecloth, the Rema's commentary is called the mapa or
tablecloth, over the arranged table that is the Shulchan Aruch], the table which
he [Rav Yosef Karo] has arranged before G-d will not be given yet to the people
who are in our lands {Ashkenaz], as the majority of the customs of these lands
do not conform with it, because already they say [Eruvin 27a] we do not learn
from general rules ... all the more so from a general rule that the
aforementioned Gaon [Rav Yosef Karo] by himself has created to hold like the Rif
and the Rambam in a place where the majority of the later commentators disagree
with them, and by way of this has set out in his books many matters that are not
according to the halacha according to the words of the Sages from whose waters
we drink, the famous poskim amongst the people of Ashkenaz, that they have
always been our guide and we have followed them from earliest times, and these
are the Or Zarua, the Morderchai, the Ashri, the SMaG, the SMaK and the Hagahot
Maimoniot which all of them are built on the words of the Tosfot and the Sages
of France of which we are their childrens' children ... and I see all his words
in the Shulchan Aruch [risk being treated] like those which we were given from
the mouth of Moshe from the mouth of the Almighty, and the students will come
after him and drink his words without dispute, and in this they will conceal all
the customs of our lands. And therefore I saw fit to write the opinion of the
later commentators in the places where it seemed to me that his words were not
correct, at the side, in order to awaken to the students in every place that
they should know that there is disagreement with his words, and in every place
that I know that the custom is not like his words I will investigate and I will
write, and this is the custom, and I will put it at the side, even though my
words are closed and sealed [i.e. the reasons and proofs for these positions
have not been given] and are not arranged like the words of the Gaon where all
his words [i.e. proofs and reasons] are found in his book the Beit Yosef, in any
event I went in my way to write the words simply [i.e. without reason or proof],
because for the majority I know they can be found in his book [i.e. in the Beit
Yosef] and one who will investigate will find them. And those that are not
found in his book can be derived from the works of the later commentators which
are spread out in our lands, one here and one there, and it will be found with
difficulty, that with some trouble I have gathered and when I have written my
own opinion I write so it seems to me to make known that from me goes forth the
words. And I hope with the help of G-d that also a lengthy version will be
spread out in Israel, and there will be included many bundles and many parcels
of proofs and reasons, in every matter according to my ability, and one who has
the ability to engage in halachic reasoning will discern the reasons by himself,
and he will not rely on others, and one who has not reached this level will not
move from the custom" (Introduction of the Rema to his commentary on the
Shulchan Aruch)
That is, it seems to me, the Rema saw his role as threefold:
a) to bring the actual customs of Ashkenazim within the world of the Shulchan
Aruch (for while Shulchan Aruch is translated as prepared table, it would not be
a table prepared for Ashkenazim if it deviated significantly from what they did
in practice);
b) to bring the words of the specifically Ashkenazi early Rishonim as well as
later Rishonim that Rav Yosef Karo effectively ignored by paskening only from
the Rif, the Rambam and the Rosh. In particular, the Rema mentions as key early
Rishonim who were the forerunners of the Ashkenazi tradition as being the Or
Zarua, the Mordechai, the Ashri, the SMaG, the SMaK and the Hagahot Maimoniot; and
c) to make sure that students of halacha don't think that what the Shulchan
Aruch writes is like halacha l'Moshe MiSinai, without understanding that there
are many disputes about it, so that, if they are at the level they are able to
do this they will engage in their own halachic analysis of the proofs and
reasons, while if not they will know the custom in Ashkenaz to rely on and
follow that.
Sometimes these aims conflict, e.g. where the custom that had spread in
Ashkenaz, if reasoned through, contradicts the rulings of the later Rishonim in
another related area. But because of the third aim, it seems to me that the
Rema nevertheless tends to include the rulings of the Ashkenazi Rishonim, which
is why I suspect we seem to find so much more often what seems to be a
contradiction within the Rema - noting that many of the Acharonic commentators
(such as e.g. the Pri Megdim) tend to take the view that the Rema never
contradicts himself, and therefore an understanding needs to be found that
unifies his position. I do sometimes wonder if that was ever the intention of
the Rema. While he was keen that proofs and supports for the positions he brings
be generated (to match those of the Beit Yosef), it also seems to me from the
Rema's own words that it was key for him to ensure that students of the halacha
were aware of the multitude of disagreements "out there", so that somebody who
was able to reason halachically could reason and pasken for himself. It
therefore seems to me that the Rema would, while writing a custom where it
existed, not have held back from transmitting the rulings of other Ashkenazi
Rishonim, even where such rulings might contradict the underlying rationales of
the prevailing Ashkenazi custom. More usually, when there is something
difficult in the Rema, the Ashkenazi response seems to be to posken like the
Magen Avraham or Taz, or similar, instead (which I suspect he would have been
perfectly happy with), but still to treat the Rema as one unified whole, in a
way that, reading his introduction, I am not sure was ever his intention.
Regards
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Casper <info@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 6,2023 at 07:17 PM
Subject: Straws in the wind?
Joel Rich (MJ 66#50) quotes the Wall Street Journal which printed an article
concerning Americans not going back to houses of worship post-covid even though
they still felt connected to religion.
I have trouble understanding and accepting the premise of this article. For
years, the 5.5 million American Jews who are not Orthodox have drifted in and
out of synagogue participation only when they need a rabbi to preside over a
life cycle event: brit milah, bar/bat mitzvah, weddings and funerals. They can
talk all they want about spirituality but the reality is they have no need for
the synagogue nor have they for the last 100+ years, long before the advent of
Covid. So what is the impetus, if any, that encourages them to go back to shul
or the bet medrash? Where do they express and experience Jewish spirituality?
B'virkat Torah and best wishes for a Shanah Tovah u'Metukah,
Chaim Casper
North Miami Beach, FL
Neve Mikahel, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aryeh Frimer <Aryeh.Frimer@...>
Date: Thu, Sep 7,2023 at 03:17 AM
Subject: Women Saying Kaddish
Carl Singer (MJ 66#50) posits that when a woman says the Mourner's Kaddish a man
needs to say the Kaddish with her . While this seems to be the view of R. Yosef
Eliyahu Henkin ZT"L, R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik ZT"L (The Rov) disagreed. There
is a wonderful treatment of Women and Kaddish in R. Joel Wolowelsky's Book,
"Jewish Law and Modernity," pp. 88-90. Therein he cites a conversation R. Ezra
Bick had with the Rov in the early 1970's in which the Rov was asked this
question head on Halakha le-ma'aseh. The Rov responded that he could see no
objections to a woman saying the Kaddish either alone or with a man. R. Bick
and then R. Wolowelsky quote other sources that concur.
Here in Rehovot, we have discovered that there are often women who would say
Kaddish, but will not do so alone. Hence, if there is no male mourner, the
Gabbai will say kaddish along with her.
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL
E-mail (office): <Aryeh.Frimer@...>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryeh_Frimer
Tel: 972-3-5318610; Fax: 972-3-7384053
Tel Home: 972-8-9473819/9470834
E-mail (home): <FrimerA@...>
Cellphone: 972-54-7540761
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 66 Issue 52
