Volume 35 Number 18
Produced: Thu Jul 19 6:11:11 US/Eastern 2001
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
The function of the Yoatzoath
[Saul Davis]
Kosher butchers trial (2)
[Joseph Kaplan, <rubin20@...>]
Mezonot bread
[Idelle Rudman]
More on Haftarot
[Baruch J. Schwartz]
Orthodox
[Anonymous]
Talmidah Chachamah
[Leona Kroll]
Talmidei Chachamim
[Bernard Raab]
Vsen Tal Umatar
[Mike Gerver]
Why does the Torah request "meitav haaretz" payment?
[Bernard Raab]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Saul Davis <sdavis@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 17:31:15 +0300
Subject: The function of the Yoatzoath
In mail-jewish Vol. 35 #15 Digest Russel Hendel wrote:
"A brief summary might be that the Yoatzoth function to (a) give classes on
the importance and basic ideas of Tarahat Mishpacah, (b) they transmit
serious questions to Rabbis (The function of the Yoetzet here is to identify
the question as serious and to help formulate it properly), (c) they
encorage women to talk about these matters (or help them formulate their
concerns), (d) they instruct women on known Tarahat mishpachah procedures
(the same way women always gave advice to their daughters)., (e) they answer
routine questions on Taharat Mishpacha (and part of their education is to
find out what routine questions are)."
I have rephrased Dr Hendel's comments in the following manner (where my
additions are in square brackets and Yoatseth becomes LCHA/LOR (which is
rabbi in forumspeak)):
A brief summary might be that the LCHA/LOR function to (a) give classes on
the importance and basic ideas of Tarahat Mishpacah [and other important
halakhic issues], (b) they transmit serious questions to [more senior]
Rabbis (The function of the LCHA/LOR here is to identify the question as
serious and to help formulate it properly), (c) they encourage [men and]
women to talk about these [and other halakic] matters (or help them
formulate their concerns), (d) they instruct [men and] women on known
Tarahat mishpachah [and other halakhic] procedures (the same way [men and]
women always gave advice to their [sons and] daughters)., (e) they answer
routine questions on Taharat Mishpacha [and other important questions] (and
part of their education is to find out what routine questions are).
Where is the difference between Rabbi and Yoatseth?! I cannot see it.
Are women competent to study tora (including halakha and gemorra)? Do they
succeed in these studies? If the answer to these questions is "yes" we have
de facto created women rabbis because a rabbi is someone who knows halakha
and is capable of answering halkhic questions. If someone can show me that
rabbis do have uniqueness and that uniqueness is not attainable by women
then my thesis is wrong and women have not and cannot become rabbis
regardless of academic (halkhic) abilities.
Saul Davis
Beer-Sheva, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Kaplan <penkap@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:19:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Kosher butchers trial
Henry Cohen asks about a trial of kosher butchers in the 20's or 30's.
There was a major kashrut case in the 1930's called S.S.& B. Live Poultry
Corp. v. Kashrut Ass'n of Greater New York, 158 Misc.358, 285 NYS 879
(Sup. Ct. NY Co. 1936). In it, a rabbinical organization established a
bet din which in turn promulgated an issur (religious prohibition) against
buying chickens from any butcher who did not attach to his chickens a
plumba (seal) issued by the rabbinical organization which would certify
the chickens as kosher. The plaintiffs (butchers) sued for an injunction
against the issur since it was hurting their business and they did not
wish to incur the additional expense of paying for plumbas. The court
upheld the rabbinical court's right to issue the issur, giving great
weight to the fact that the bet din assumed jurisdiction. Since
jurisdiction was proper in this case, it was the duty of the civil court
to determine only if the rabbinical court had the right to act and not
whether it acted properly in a religious sense. The court decided that
the bet din did have the right to act because kosher butchers who receive
the benefit of their profession (ie, higher prices and a steady clientele)
must also be willing to accept the disadvantages (ie, regulation by the
laws of kashrut as decided by rabbinic authority). See too a
Massachusetts case, Cohen v. Silver, 277 Mass. 230, 178 NE 508 (1931)
where the court stated: "He [the kosher butcher] cannot claim the benefits
of the business without accepting the burdens attached to it."
An older friend once told me that as a young man he attended some of the
New York case, and he remembered that piled high on the lawyers' desks
were, in addition to legal reporters, numerous religious texts such as the
Shulchan Aruch etc., which the lawyers quoted constantly (in translation
of course). And all this to an Irish Catholic judge.
I did a little more research, and I found another 1930's kosher butcher
case, People v. Gordon, 172 Misc. 534, 14 NYS2d 333 (Kings Co.1939),
rev'd, 258 App Div 421, 16 NYS2d 833 (2d Dept. 1940), sff'd, 283 NY 705,
28 NE2d 717 (1940).That case dealt with the New York law that made it a
misdemeanor to sell non-kosher food as kosher. In defining "kosher"
food, the statute said that it must meet "Orthodox Hebrew religious
requirements." The lower court ruled that when a bet din decides that a
plumba is necessary, this, in effect, becomes the definition of
"orthodox Hebrew requirements." Therefore, the fact that a chicken did
not have a plumba (seal) means that it is not kosher within the meaning
of the statute. The Appellate Division reveresed, pointing out that
there was no proof that the bet din had complete authority to decide
conclusively what is and what is not kosher for purposes of the statute.
Since the issur (prohibition) was binding only in New York and was
therefore a local regulation, it could not be considered the "orthodox
Hebrew requirements" required by the statute. Thus, the lack of a
plumba may be used as evidence that food is not kosher, but a butcher
may present other evidence that it is kosher (eg, private competent
rebbinical supervision), and it is up to the rtiesrs [maybe triers?
Mod.] of fact to decide kosher or not. Therefore, while the rabbis had,
under the cases, the right to promulgate the plumba issur, that issur it
did not become the sole determinant of what is kosher for purposes of
New York's kosher statute (in 1940 at least).
Joseph C. Kaplan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rubin20@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:49:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Kosher butchers trial
There is a book called "Holy men ...(I forget the rest)" written in the
50's that extensively covers that trial. I obtained it from Princeton
University via inter library loan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Idelle Rudman <rudmani@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:34:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Mezonot bread
In England, two years ago, we were told that Rav Padawer, major
halakhist (don't know official title), ruled that since one was not
eating a "proper meal," mezonot bread is okay. A "proper meal" was
defined as being seated at a dining table with regular silver and
dishes. A meal eaten on a stool, on the run, wrapped in paper, etc.,
would not considered as a regular meal.
England still has a more formal atmosphere than the US and Israel. From
what we heard, we felt that it was an issue tied to the culture of the
country.
Idelle Rudman, MLS, MA, Librarian tel: 212-213-2230 x119
Touro College, Women's Division fax: 212-689-3515
Graduate School of Jewish Studies <rudmani@...>
160 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10016
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Baruch J. Schwartz <schwrtz@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 07:02:09 +0200
Subject: More on Haftarot
I was asked off-line the following question:
"But much more commonly, R"Ch Elul falls out on Shabbat-Sunday, raising
similar issues wrt the R"Ch haftarah. What do we do then?"
In response:
When RH Elul comes on Shabbat, as happens quite frequently, the Shulhan
Arukh writes (OH 425:1) unequivocally that the haftarah of consolation
(aniya so`ara) overrides the haftarah of Rosh Hodesh (hashamayim kis'i)
since the haftarot of consolation are never skipped. This is the practice
of the Sefaradim right down to the present (though they do stick in a
verse or two from hashamayim kis'i afterwards).
The Rema, however, says that in Ashkenaz this is not the practice,
rather, the haftarah of Rosh Hodesh is read. The rationale given for the
latter view is as follows: 1) Since all of the haftarot of consolation
are taken from the consolation chapters of Isaiah, and the haftarah of
Rosh Hodesh is also from the same prophetic collection and it too
contains the message of consolation of Jerusalem, it can easily be
substitued for aniya so`ara (see Mishnah Berura there); 2) The official
haftara of Re-eh, aniya so`ara, can easily be made up two weeks later by
combining it with the haftara of Ki Tetze, roni `aqara since, in the book
of Isaiah, aniya so`ara (Isa 54:11--55:5) is the direct continuation of
roni `aqara (Isaiah 54:1-10), and there is nothing objectionable about
adding on a few more verses of consolation to the haftarah of the week
(see Yehave Daat 3:45). In this fashion: 1) none of the haftarot of
consolation are actually skipped, one is simply combined with another
one; 2) accepatable haftarot of consolation, from the appropriate
prophetic book, are in fact read on all seven shabbatot (although one of
them is admittedly not the "official" one); 3) at the same time, the
haftarah of RH is not skipped. A wonderful case of having your cake and
eating it too. This is the practice of the Ashkenazim whenever RH Elul
comes on Shabbat.
Baruch Schwartz
Efrat
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anonymous
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:02:29 +0300
Subject: Re: Orthodox
Rabbi Leo Jung z"l often referred to himself as being a "Jew". He felt
that adjectives only serve to modify and detract from the real thing and
that there is only one authentic Judaism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leona Kroll <leona_kroll@...>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Talmidah Chachamah
"He carried this principle a bit further and mentioned anecdotally that
he was in the presence of a group of Rabbis when he staunchly used the
term "Talmidah Chacham" referring to a female as opposed to what he felt
was the incorrect "Talmidah Chachamah". This was met with mild derision
but Rabbi Pruzansky still defends his position."
It seems that he assumes, incorrectly, that a talmidah who wishes to
learn from the wise must automatically learn from men, hence "chacham",
ignoring a.the large number of truly amazing women scholars and b. the
fact that a close mentor/mentee relationship such that a woman could be
considered the "talmidah" of a scholar (which implies an intense
relationship) is more likely to be between two women. The question is,
does the word "chacham/ah" refer to the Biblical and Talmudic sages
whose teachings we study or to the scholar/mentor whose student we
become?
If the latter, then there are many students of Nechama Leibowitz, may
her memory be blessed, who would properly be called "talmedei chachamAH"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:17:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Talmidei Chachamim
>From: Michael Szpilzinger <mikes@...>
(Referring to Rabbi Steven Pruzansky:)
>He carried this principle a bit further and mentioned anecdotally that
>he was in the presence of a group of Rabbis when he staunchly used the
>term "Talmidah Chacham" referring to a female as opposed to what he felt
>was the incorrect "Talmidah Chachamah". This was met with mild derision
>but Rabbi Pruzansky still defends his position.
Unless, of course her teacher was Nechama Liebowitz or some other such
"chachamah".
I am overwhelmed by the erudition brought to this subject by everyone who
contributed to this discussion. I would only add that in the vernacular and
certainly in the Yiddush vernacular, a "talmid chochom" is a "lamdan"
himself and not necessarily a student of a "lamdan".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Gerver <Mike.Gerver@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:15:56 +0200
Subject: Vsen Tal Umatar
Sam Gamoran writes, in v35n15,
> In the 15th (or was it 16th) century when Pope Gregory adjusted the
> calendar for slippage in the calculation of solar leap years (Gregorian
> vs. Julian calendars), 15 days were skipped to correct for the error
> that had occured over the years. Thus November 21/22 became December
> 4/5. Even though this is meteorologically wrong, somehow this shift
> became permanent.
The fact that the date when we (chutz la'aretz) start saying "ten tal
umatar" is meteorologically wrong, has nothing to do with the fact that
the Christian world started using the Gregorian calendar, and skipped
some days so that THEIR dates would be meteorologically correct.
Whether or not they had done that, and whether or not their shift were
permanent, our date for starting "ten tal umatar," 60 days after Tekufat
Tishrei, would still be meteorologically wrong, because the year of the
Hebrew solar calendar (essentially the Julian calendar, with a
365.25-day year) is about 12 minutes longer than a tropic year. The
only way to fix that problem would be for the Jews to start using a more
accurate solar calendar. But there is no one today with the authority
to institute such a change. I think you might need a Sanhedrin for
that. Or at least a posek more widely accepted than any posek is today.
> Interestingly, I think this is the only event in halacha tied to the
> solar calendar. Can anybody mention something else? (Well you could
> argue that the entire calendar is tied to the sun in the 19 year cycle
> but I mean on an annual basis).
Not exactly an annual event, but there is Birkat HaChamah. It occurs
every 28 years, and the date is based on the solar calendar, not on the
lunar calendar.
Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:45:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Why does the Torah request "meitav haaretz" payment?
>From: Daniel Cohn <dcohn@...>
>Can anyone offer an explanation on why does the Torah request a person
>to compensate damage in "meitav haaretz" (the best of his land) when
>payment is made by means of a piece of land? That is, if the damage is
>worth $100, paying 100 sq. mts. of land worth $1/sq. mt. looks the same
>as paying 10 sq. mts. of land worth $10/sq. mt., doesn't it?
You are assuming that you can get a good appraisal of each property. I
think the Torah is saying that you are less likely to get cheated if you
are offered a piece of a producing orchard for instance, than if you
were to be paid in a larger tract of non-producing land that "will
certainly become very valuable in the future" which you can imagine the
landowner saying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 35 Issue 18