Volume 25 Number 54
Produced: Wed Dec 25 21:22:01 1996
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Chevra Kadisha Precautions
[Gershon Dubin]
Chevra Kadisha: Precautions
[Freda B Birnbaum]
Pledges under pressure (2)
[Daniel Eidensohn, Perry Zamek]
Trams and roads in Arlington
[Yehuda Poch]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <gershon.dubin@...> (Gershon Dubin)
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 16:40:55 PST
Subject: Chevra Kadisha Precautions
>l. We have been told that the danger of infection from hepatitis is
>much greater than the danger of infection from the AIDS virus. Most of
>our members have already been vaccinated for hapatitis but not all. Do
>you advise or require all your members to take the hepatitis
>vaccination?
I am not a member of a chevra (although I am a member of
Hatzolo, for which the questions are similar) but I am fairly well
conversant with these topics from an occupational standpoint.
All members of the chevra should absolutely be vaccinated for
Hepatitis B. The danger is in fact greater than AIDS, as you have been
told. The dangers of the vaccination itself are negligible. So an
absolute unqualified yes.
> BTW, are you aware that after the first 3 initial injections, it
>is necessary to receive a booster injection?
This is not true. A significant percentage of the population
will not become immune (seroconvert) after the initial series of three
injections; most will. There is a small percentage who will not convert
even after the fourth. The only way to know for sure is to have a
Hepatitis B Surface Antibody test done to assess the immune status. But
certainly a fourth injection is not and should not be standard
procedure.
>2. In order to combat infection, we have been advised to use bleach.
>Do you wash the tahara table with a bleach solution before and after
>each tahara?
You should.
> Do you use bleach in the tisha kavim?
Bleach is a surface disinfectant. I don't see a reason to use it
in the tisha kavim. Wash down the table and other surfaces after the
tahara.
>Until now we have not been using the masks and goggles. We find it
>very difficult to wear the masks and goggles as the masks get fogged
>and both interfere with vision and breathing.
They are not comfortable by any stretch of the imagination.
However, you should experiment with different makes and models to find
one(s) which you can live with. I am assuming that a determination has
been made that a significant danger of splashing exists and that is why
the masks or goggles or face shields are being recommended.
> Have you considered wearing the masks and goggles, only when you
>have specifically been warned that there is a danger of infection? We
>have been concerned with the issue of kavod ha-meyt (respect for the
>deceased) as it applies to making a differentiation between one tahara
>and another.
The recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control is to
treat all bodily fluids as potentially infectious. This is borne out my
numerous studies which indicate that you just can't know who is and who
is not infectious. The only way for you properly to protect yourself is
to use the same precautions for everyone, even aside from kovod hameis
considerations.
May you be richly rewarded for your work in gemilas chesed shel emes.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
Consultants in OSHA & CLIA compliance
http://pw2.netcom.com/~gdubin/lcs.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Freda B Birnbaum <fbb6@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 07:35:08 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Chevra Kadisha: Precautions
In V25N52, Andrea Penkower Rosen asked about practices concerning
precautions for chevra kadisha members:
> l. We have been told that the danger of infection from hepatitis is much
> greater than the danger of infection from the AIDS virus. Most of our
> members have already been vaccinated for hapatitis but not all. Do you
> advise or require all your members to take the hepatitis vaccination?
> BTW, are you aware that after the first 3 initial injections, it is
> necessary to receive a booster injection?
Hi Andrea, as you know I occasionally get a call from the LSS group, and
am active in my shul's chevra in Washington Heights, a more or less modern
Orthodox shul whose chevra works under the supervision of several of the
Breuer chevra's ladies.
We are sort of aware of the hepatitis/AIDS issue (probably because I
followed LSS's lead and bugged them about getting hepatitis shots), but
nobody seems to get very exercised about either of these issues. We don't
wear or do anything special except wear gloves, and we are quite insistent
about people doing that.
Thanks for the info about the booster shot. How often should that be
done? (p.s. you should also mention to the doctor who is giving you the
shots if you have been exposed to hepatitis before; when I finally got
around to an annual checkup my new M.D. was pretty concerned about that.)
> Have you considered wearing the masks and goggles, only when you have
> specifically been warned that there is a danger of infection? We have been
> concerned with the issue of kavod ha-meyt (respect for the deceased) as it
> applies to making a differentiation between one tahara and another. Of
> course, we will consult with our Rabbi for a final decision but we are
> interested in learning about the solutions adopted by other chevrot.
This is why we always wear gloves; but the issue of this full-dress thing
has never come up. My private hunch is that it may be a funeral-home
thing of concern with liability.
It may be of interest that some years ago Rabbi Berman gave a lecture to
the LSS chevra on the issue of taharas and AIDS victims. As I recall, his
position was that everyone had a right / the community had an obligation
to give EVERYONE a proper tahara, but if an individual were to have qualms
for reasons of his own health about doing a particular tahara, he/she
could be excused.
Freda Birnbaum, <fbb6@...>
"Call on God, but row away from the rocks"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 16:08:42 -0800
Subject: Pledges under pressure
>From: Perry Zamek <jerusalem@...>
>Joseph Greenberg in v25n49 discussed the collection of pledges made in
>a "Mi she-Berach" on Shabbat.
>OTTOMH (off the top of my head !), I seem to recall a teshuva of Rav
>Moshe Feinstein (zecher tzaddik livracha) that these pledges are not
>legally enforceable, since, in many cases, people are "pressured" (my
>term) to pledge, to avoid embarassment.
Your recall does not seem accurate. I found two relevant tshuvas which
seem to be the opposite of your assertion. If there is another tshvua I
would appreciate the citation.
1) Reb Moshe (tshuva YD I 142 page 281) discusses someone coming into a
Shul with guests and being told afterwards that there is a standard fee
of $25 per aliya. He pledged only $10. Does he have the obligation to
pay $25? He replies that these fees are enforceable under certain
conditions which he discusses in the tshuva. The community has the right
to establish fees and if it is an officially established fee then they
have the right to collect it even if he wasn't aware of it before hand.
The exception being, if he had known he would have gone elsewhere where
the fee is lower. If it is not officially established the obligation is
less clear.
2) tshuva YD III 95 page 336 where a person pledged money but refuses to
pay up until he is told the name of the person who suggested that he be
solicited. In that tshuva he deals with the issue of a person being
pressured by embarrassment to pledge. He indicates that the average
person will refuse to pledge that which he can't afford. If it is known
that the person will be unable to resist pledging that which he can't
afford because of the embarrassment it is prohibited for the request to
be made. He sees no problem, however, with pressuring a person to pay as
long as the person has not reached the limit of a fifth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perry Zamek <jerusalem@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 20:44:59 +0200
Subject: Pledges under pressure
Daniel Eidensohn replied to my recent posting. I admit that my recall
was not totally accurate, however, I would like to comment on the two
teshuvot that he referred to. (I did not see another teshuva, and so I
must withdraw my initial statement).
Daniel writes:
>1) Reb Moshe (tshuva YD I 142 page 281) discusses someone coming into a
>Shul with guests and being told afterwards that there is a standard fee
>of $25 per aliya. He pledged only $10. Does he have the obligation to
>pay $25? He replies that these fees are enforceable under certain
>conditions which he discusses in the tshuva.
Here the issue is that the host has asked that the "Mi She-Bereach" for
the guests not include "Ba'avur she-nadar..." ("For having
pledged..."). In other words, the $25 fee per aliya seems to be
applicable where the host is "purchasing" the aliyot for the guests (and
this seems a reasonable interpretation, since the reason for the fee is
to offset tircha de'tzibura caused by the simcha, and to make up for the
fact that the guests are being given aliyot in place of the regular
members).
>The community has the right to establish fees and if it is an
>officially established fee then they have the right to collect it even
>if he wasn't aware of it before hand.
Although Rav Moshe does suggest that, in the case under discussion
there, because it is a "new thing" (new custom? novel situation? -- I
didn't understand his intent here), the shule should try to come to some
compromise with the individual.
In any case, (and maybe I did not make this clear), the problem I had
seen seems to be where the person called up had a particular sum in
mind, but was embarassed because it was lower than the norm for that
shule, and therefore said "matanah", and the shule board had decided
that someone offering matanah would be charged a specific sum. This
relates to the second teshuva quoted by Daniel Eidensohn:
>2) tshuva YD III 95 page 336 ... In that tshuva he deals with the issue of
a >person being pressured by embarrassment to pledge. He indicates that the
>average person will refuse to pledge that which he can't afford.
If he says "matanah" to avoid embarassment, and the shule interprets
this as a specific amount (larger than that which the donor is able to
give) -- would we say that the shule is entitled to the larger amount?
No refusal is involved here, only a difference in interpretation.
>If it is known that the person will be unable to resist pledging that
>which he can't afford because of the embarrassment it is prohibited for
>the request to be made.
This would tie in with those places where a "Mi She-Berach" is said
automatically, including a pledge. It would seem from this teshuva that one
would have to specifically refuse the "Mi She-Berach" (possibly in a very
embarassing way?). Any solutions?
>He sees no problem, however, with pressuring a person to pay as
>long as the person has not reached the limit of a fifth.
Rav Moshe also points out that few people reach this limit (or even 1/10).
Perry Zamek | A Jew should hold his head high.
Peretz ben | "Even in poverty a Hebrew is a prince...
Avraham | Crowned with David's Crown" -- Jabotinsky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yehuda Poch <yehuda@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 00:13:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Trams and roads in Arlington
Further to the discussion on roads in cemeteries. Avi indicated that he
still does not follow the argument I put forth. Allow me to provide two
examples.
I live on a street that borders a Jewish cemetery. This street is a
thoroughfare, and is used by kohanim with no problems. Even the
sidewalk on the same side of the street as the cemetery is used. But
when the cemetery was created, it was fenced off about 10 feet from the
sidewalk. This allows that any trees which overhang graves do not also
overhang the sidewalk. There is therefore no issue of ohel there. The
cemetery also has a roadway which goes through the cemetery and exits at
the other side onto a major road.
Should it be necessary for a kohen to use this road, it would be
allowed, except for two factors. 1. There are trees that overhang the
road. 2. The roadway is often closed unless it is needed for a service,
and is too narrow for two vehicles to pass each other during a service.
The other road in the cemetery does not go all the way through, and
kohanim are prohibited from using it.
There is another cemetery not too far away which is about 1 mile in
length. A secondary road cuts through the cemetery. The cemetery
actually lies on both sides of a relatively major city street. Now,
this cemetery is not a Jewish one, so the argument is moot. But the
issue did once come up in the community that there might be Jews buried
there whose families did not see the need for them to be buried in a
Jewish cemetery.
The response that came down, as I understand it, is that the roadway is
okay for use, even though it cuts right through the cemetery, for two
reasons, assuming there is one Jewish grave there. 1. It is a
thoroughfare, and not used only as access to the cemetery. 2. There are
no overhanging trees which cover the roadway.
There are, however, overhanging trees which cover parts of the sidewalk.
Kohanim were told to try to avoid them by walking on the road in those
spots. I guess the fact that this cemetery is not in a Jewish area also
helps.
The through-road in the Jewish cemetery near my house can be treated
like a thoroughfare, according to at least some opinions. There are
likely those who will say that since the cemetery can close off the road
by locking the gate, that this makes the road private property and
therefore unfit for use by kohanim. But there, the issue is private
property, which makes the road not qualify as a proper thoroughfare.
In the case of Arlington, there are three operative questions.
1. Are there any Jewish graves in the cemetery. If not, there is no problem
for kohanim.
2. Does the road cut through the cemetery, meaning are there exits on two
opposite sides from the same road? If not, and there is a Jewish grave,
then kohanim are not allowed on the road.
3. Assuming there are Jewish graves, and that the road cuts through, are
there any trees which overhang the road. If yes, then kohanim are not
allowed to use the road. If not, then the question that remains is whether
the road can be termed private property or whether it can be interpreted as
a public thoroughfare. Some opinions may state that if the cemetery can
close off the road by locking the fence then it is private property and
cannot be used. But some may say that even in this case, it is a usable
thoroughfare when it is open, and since that is when kohanim would use it,
it is allowed.
\ \ \ \ | / / / / Yehuda Poch __/\__
\ \ \ \ | / / / / Toronto, Ontario \ / \ /
\_\_\_\|/_/_/_/ <yehuda@...> /_\_/_\
_|_ http://www.interlog.com/~yehuda \/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 25 Issue 54
