Volume 46 Number 37
Produced: Wed Dec 29 23:10:27 EST 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Cell Phone Ban
[Tzvi Stein]
Eyver Min HaChai
[Josh Backon]
Refusal to Grant Aliyot (6)
[Yisrael & Batya Medad, Tal Benschar, Ari Trachtenberg, Saul
Newman, Harry Weiss, Martin Stern]
Tefillin
[Nathan Lamm]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 08:35:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Ban
> From: David Riceman <driceman@...>
> I'm puzzled by this. As far as I know "rabbis" don't have the authority
> to ban anything, only the kahal [community] as a whole, represented by
> representatives of all its members (not just rabbis) can do that. Is a
> political party a community? Do the rabbis represent all parts of that
> community? Otherwise they can only clarify existing prohibitions, not
> add new ones.
I am also puzzled, but apparently many people do believe they have that
power. There are certain rabbis that have very high stature. In Israel
how it works is when some group wants something banned, they write up a
decree and go convince these rabbis to sign it. Then the group goes and
plasters signs all over the neighborhood (the high walls in Mea Shearim
are perfect for this). Lots of times there is confusion over whether
the rabbis that appear on the poster actually signed it or not (good
application for digital signatures).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:07 +0200
Subject: Re: Eyver Min HaChai
There is no problem with Eyver Min haChai with regard to fish (see:
Aruch haShulchan YOREH DEAH 13 # 2 who does quote a Tosfot that
indicates that swallowing a live fish is prohibited due to "baal
teshaktzu" (even the the Rambam and the Tosefta in Terumot (9th perek)
seem to permit this). This seems to be another instance of what I term
"relativistic" halacha determined by local custom and tradition. Thus,
if you were living in a country whose inhabitants DID swallow live fish,
then it would be permitted for a Jew to do likewise.
But kids, please don't do this at home :-)
Josh Backon
<backon@...>,ac,il
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael & Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 00:17:46 +0200
Subject: Refusal to Grant Aliyot
Ari Trachtenberg reacted in revulsion to my query about prohibiting
aliyot to recalcitrant dues payers by writing:
> This is absolutely terrible and reduces the religion to a terribly
> mercenary level.
a) rest assured, we are talking about persons who have been asked, if
they have financial problems to come to an arrangement with the board
which is willing to considerably reduce fees. in two cases, one keeps
claiming to have "forgotten" and in another, he just ignores the
requests but nevertheless, asks for yahtzeit aliyot for his relatives
who are not his chiyuv like an uncle, asks to be allowed to daven Mussaf
(and while he carries a tune, his voice is grating and just awful. once
when he asked to daven Yom Kippur Mussaf, half the copngregation found
another schule to daven in).
b) as for "some categories of people for whom an aliya priority is
halachicly mandated", that is a given. we are talking about your
ordinary aliyot and kibudim.
c) as for establishing "a terrible precedent/slippery slope. One could
then argue that visitors should not get aliyot, people with
unfashionable political/religious opinions, etc.", it doesn't
necessarily have to do that and on the other hand, why not? does a
visitor "have" to get an aliyah or do many schules do so assuming he
will give even more than a reglar congregant? and as for political
opinions, many schules in Israel bump those who are considered to
leftist.
d) as for "In the US, such a policy could run amok of laws regarding
donations. In effect, it could require shul memerships to be taxed
because they provide tangible benefits." I am not a tax lawyer but
schules are usually some form of association which can levy membership
dues? what's wrong or illegal about that?
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tal Benschar <tbenschar@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:25:18 -0500
Subject: Refusal to Grant Aliyot
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
>> From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
>> A congregant doesn't pay his dues. The board wants to prohibit him from
>> receiving aliyot.
>
>This is absolutely terrible and reduces the religion to a terribly mercenary
>level. Besides my revulsions, I could see several problems with this:
>
>1) There are some categories of people for whom an aliya priority is
>halachicly mandated.
>
>2) It establishes a terrible precedent/slippery slope. One could then
>argue that visitors should not get aliyot, people with unfashionable
>political/religious opinions, etc.
>
>3) In the US, such a policy could run amok of laws regarding donations.
>In effect, it could require shul memerships to be taxed because they
>provide tangible benefits.
I could not disagree more! A shul costs money: mortgage, electricity,
heating, air conditioning, maintaining the Sifrei Torah, etc. The
halakha is that members of the community can force one another to pay
the necessary upkeep of a shul. (If memory serves correctly, part is
paid per person and part is paid according to one's means.)
It is one thing for someone who cannot afford dues to be given a break.
It is quite another for someone who can well afford to pay dues to
refuse to do so. Why should that person be permitted to free-load off
others, who are just as hard working?
An aliyah is a kavod by the tsibbur. One who withholds his dues is not
entitled to that kavod.
As for the specific issues raised:
1. So what if an aliyah is sometimes a chiyuv (halakhic oblication)?
Having a shul is also a chiyuv, as are tefillah be tsibbur and keriyas
ha Torah (public prayer and reading the Torah). The person refuses to
participate in the tsibbur's fulfillment of its obligations. Let that
person start his own shul and pay for all the expenses and then he can
fulfill his chiyuv.
2. Visitors are quite different -- they are not members of the tsibbur
and so are not obligated to assist it financially. As to
"unfashionable" views, that is an undefined term. If a person is an
apikorus, then it is forbidden to give him an aliyah (indeed, Rav
Moshe Feinsten held it is forbidden to answer Amen to his brachah.)
If his views are simply a bit offbeat, I doubt most shuls would have
any interest in denying him an aliyah.
3. First, so what?, the issue here is halakha, not tax law. Second, I
believe you are wrong. Although I am not a tax expert, a shul is a
non-profit organization, so I don't believe that its income is
taxable, even if it provides services for dues. (Plus, I doubt most
shuls make a profit anyway -- most operate deeply in the red.) I
think what you mean is that dues are not deductible from the donor's
income tax. While that is an interesting side issue, it should not
have any impact on the shaila at hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 11:34:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Refusal to Grant Aliyot
Benschar, Tal S. wrote:
> I could not disagree more! A shul costs money: mortgage, electricity,
> heating, air conditioning, maintaining the Sifrei Torah, etc. The
> halakha is that members of the community can force one another to pay
> the necessary upkeep of a shul. (If memory serves correctly, part is
> paid per person and part is paid according to one's means.)
(Though, of course, I do pay full shul dues) I would rather not daven in
a minyan than daven in a shul that forces its members to pay. If there
are not enough members who are willing to financially support a shul,
then the shul should cease to exist, in my opinion. This is both the
emotional and pragmatic reality.
> It is one thing for someone who cannot afford dues to be given a
> break. It is quite another for someone who can well afford to pay
> dues to refuse to do so. Why should that person be permitted to
> free-load off others, who are just as hard working?
Who gets to decide who can or cannot afford dues? If you had an ideal
method for doing so, your system might be more fair ... in reality,
communities many times do not extend "kaf zchut" (benefit of the doubt)
to members who don't pay (or pay less than recommended).
> An aliyah is a kavod by the tsibbur. One who withholds his dues is
> not entitled to that kavod.
How about one who speaks lashon hara, or slanders his fellow Jew, or
engages in unethical business practices. These all deeply hurt the
community ... should we ban them from aliyot?
> As for the specific issues raised:
> 1. So what if an aliyah is sometimes a chiyuv (halakhic oblication)?
> Having a shul is also a chiyuv ... Let that person start his own shul and
> pay for all the expenses and then he can fulfill his chiyuv.
Very generous ... indeed?
> 2. Visitors are quite different -- they are not members of the tsibbur
> and so are not obligated to assist it financially.
So what about a long-term visitor ... at what point does a visitor
become a member, and who decides?
> 3. First, so what?, the issue here is halakha, not tax law.
Many rabbis rule that violating tax law is also a violation of "dina
d'malchutcha dina" [the law of the land is the law] ... so halcha and
tax law are clearly linked.
> Second, I believe you are wrong. Although I am not a tax expert, a
> shul is a non-profit organization, so I don't believe that its income
> is taxable, even if it provides services for dues.
Sorry if I was not clear ... I meant that the members of the shul could
not claim dues as a deduction. Given that it is highly likely that most
members would still do so, such a policy sets up people for violating
halakha.
Remunitvely,,
-Ari
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Saul Newman <Saul.Z.Newman@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:34:17 -0800
Subject: Re: Refusal to Grant Aliyot
unlike some previous comments , this is not a slippery slope. a kehilla
is defined by its members. if someone cant afford, that is
understandable. if he can afford, he has forfeited his rights. he is
essentially a non-member visitor. the OU or RCA can give you their
criteria for davening before the amud. it is spelled out there that
only non-members who are visiting from out-of-town, or very recent
immigrants to the city, are entitled to take precedence to the
amud. someone who lives in town but is not a member of this shul has NO
preference over a shul member---let him go to where he pays. an aliya
should be no different. let this man get one in the shul he pays...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:17:57 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
Subject: Refusal to Grant Aliyot
I have strong feelings against penalizing people for not paying. One
never knows what a person's true financial situation. The shul is the
last place that a person should be punished for having financial
problems.
Yes, most shuls have a policy that people can get all or part of their
dues waived if they go and embarras themselves to their neighbors and
plead poverty.
What is true is that special kibbudim go to people who distinguish
themselves. Those who hold positions of honor in the community, or give
a lot eiher in time or money will get the extra kibbudim, but others
should never be penalized for not giving.
There are also some people for various backgrounds who do not have a
tradition of paying dues, but do contribute other funds to the shul.
Let the gabbai not replace Hashem in judging people
Harry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 08:59:57 +0000
Subject: Re: Refusal to Grant Aliyot
The word kibbudim means honours. People who deliberately and
persistently withhold the financial contributions they voluntarily
agreed to meet do not deserve any honours. If they consider themselves
to be chiyuvim (entitled to an aliyah) they should be sent a letter well
in advance informing them that they will receive an aliyah on condition
that their outstanding obligations have been met prior to that date. The
letter should of course be framed in the most conciliatory manner
suggesting, perhaps, that the reason for their non-payment may be caused
by a temporary liquidity problem and offering to discuss a rescheduling
of the debt but if they choose to ignore it then they have in essence
accepted the bar.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 05:30:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Tefillin
--- Martin Stern <md.stern@...> wrote:
> All perfectly true but then in those days tefillin were only kasher
> bedieved and now we can have ones that are kasher lekhatchillah. By
> doing so we are not la'ag al harishonim (denigrating former
> generations) merely taking advantage of technological
> advantances. Should we revert to using the pebbles mentioned in the
> Gemara instead of toilet paper?
Of course not. Note that I said that (almost) perfectly-shaped tefillin
are a very good thing, and I'm happy I live in an age when I can have
them. I was just trying to point out that non-perfect squares are not,
in fact, bad bedieved.
I do wonder, though: How can something be required lechatchila if it
wasn't possible until recently? Did chazal make ideals that they knew
couldn't be lived up to? I mean this question seriously- when I consider
it, I think it might be true- and more power to them!
Nachum Lamm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 46 Issue 37
