Volume 47 Number 06
Produced: Thu Feb 24 5:25:36 EST 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
An alternative approach to the reason for Mechiza
[Russell J Hendel]
Bris Milah in Sweden
[Susan Shapiro]
Disagreeing with a Gadol
[Batya Medad]
Early New York Jewish Community
[<FriedmanJ@...>]
Is the Great Divide upon us? (2)
[Mike Gerver, Bernard Raab]
Metzitza
[Sam Gamoran]
National-Religious cutting themselves off?
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Testing a mohel for herpes
[Andrew Sacks]
thekotel.org (5)
[Bernard Raab, Ari Trachtenberg, Robert Schoenfeld, Andrew
Marks, Tzvi Stein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:52:43 -0500
Subject: An alternative approach to the reason for Mechiza
Most people take the reason for Mechiza to be modesty. The argument goes
that when we pray to God we should be thinking about our helplessness
and not praying with our spouses who give us a sense of comfort
In passing this never made sense to me: For example a child can pray
with his father even though the father gives the child a sense of
security. Also you can sit near a window with a pretty tree (i have
frequently) even though it gives you a sense of security. While
helplessness is an important component of prayer, maybe even a primary
component, there are nevertheless other components. Certainly praise to
God on those things He has given us which make us feel good is one part
of prayer! Why then deny them while we pray!?
In my article GENESIS 1 SPEAKS ABOUT THE CREATION OF PROPHECY NOT THE
CREATION OF THE WORLD published in BOR HATORAH, Vol 10e, and located at
http://www.Rashiyomi.com/gen-1.htm, I advocate the idea that the purpose
of the Temple was to help restore/maintain prophecy and the Mechiza in
the synagogue was a symbolic reminder that separation from marital
intimacy is a prerequisite for prophecy I also argue that the sacrifices
in part are there to restore/maintain prophecy. So it makes sense that
if we pray for the restoration of the temple we should also symbolically
affirm that certain sacrifices need to be made by us to restore
prophecy.
If we are to maintain our religious identity we should affirm those
values unique to us. Personally I am dismayed by people who explain
everything in terms of modesty. True, modesty is important but it is
only one component of Judaism
Russell jay Hendel; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <SShap23859@...> (Susan Shapiro)
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:37:44 EST
Subject: Bris Milah in Sweden
I have heard that Bris Milah is illegal in Sweden, at least Circumcision
is. Does anyone know the facts? Is it illegal? If it is, what do the
Jews there do? Thanks.
Susan Shapiro, CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:49:41 +0200
Subject: Disagreeing with a Gadol
In Perkei Avot, we're instructed to "find ourselves a rabbi." That
means that we should choose a rabbi, a rabbinical authority for
ourselves. Nobody has the right to force us to follow the psak of a
rabbi we haven't chosen. Even the greatest gdolim of the same
generation disagree with each other at times, so all we have to say as a
reply is: "He's not my rabbi."
Batya
http://me-ander.blogspot.com/
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <FriedmanJ@...>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:45:25 EST
Subject: Re: Early New York Jewish Community
>From the beginning, in New York, there was the only religious freedom in
the colonies, and the Jews tried to emulate the Protestants as much as
possible in their worship because they didn't want to be all that
different. Puritans and Protestants came here for religious freedom, for
themselves, not for Jews, and the fact that New Amsterdam granted them
religious freedom was amazing. What was more amazing is when the Brits
took the city over, they didn't change the rules, which they normally
did, to throw the Jews out of their territory, like they did back home.
In 1654, when the Jews came to New Amsterdam, Stuyvesant wanted them to
speak Yiddish only, force them to wear yellow armbands and live in a
ghetto. As investors in the Dutch West India Company, however, the
burghers, in charge back in Holland had other ideas and told him to back
off.
In the meantime, they needed a place to daven because they got here about
two weeks before the yomim noraim, and the Dutch Reformed Church gave
them a place to do so.
Truth?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <MJGerver@...> (Mike Gerver)
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 04:04:23 EST
Subject: Is the Great Divide upon us?
Shmuel Himelstein writes of Rabbi Shear Yashuv Hakohen, in v47n03,
Rabbi Hakohen adds that "... If the state declares itself as a
state of all its citizens, I will respect that government as if it
had been any other government, but not 'the beginning of the
flowering of our redemption.'" ...
It would thus seem to be that the National Religious camp may be
on the brink of a great divide, between those who still see the
State as something different, the "beginning of our redemption,"
and those who see it as no more than any other state. And
ironically, the latter view puts those who hold of it in the same
category as Agudath Israel.
I think Shmuel missed the key point, the clause "If the state declares
itself as a state of all its citizens..." (as oppoosed to a Jewish
state). My impression is that such a declaration would, at this time, be
favored by only a small minority of Israelis on the left, and is not
going to happen any time soon. Absent such a declaration, I can't see
the national religious camp adopting the same attitude toward the state
as Agudah.
Mike Gerver
Raanana, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:33:47 -0500
Subject: RE: Is the Great Divide upon us?
>From: Shmuel Himelstein
>
>Rabbi Hakohen adds that "This means that we might not be able to
>continue with the prayers and blessings of Yom Ha-Atzma'ut. If the state
>declares itself as a state of all its citizens, I will respect that
>government as if it had been any other government, but not 'the
>beginning of the flowering of our redemption.'" (my translation
>throughout - SH)
>
>It would thus seem to be that the National Religious camp may be on the
>brink of a great divide, between those who still see the State as
>something different, the "beginning of our redemption," and those who
>see it as no more than any other state. And ironically, the latter view
>puts those who hold of it in the same category as Agudath Israel.
I wonder what sort of state is envisioned by those who will accept no
compromise on their vision. Certainly it is not democracy. Do they wish
for a theocracy, a Jewish version of Saudi Arabia? Or does the
"flowering of our redemption" require that all real power reside in the
clergy, a la Iran? What is the model for their vision? Have they thought
it out in any depth?
Just wondering--Bernie R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sam Gamoran <SGamoran@...>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:08:26 +0200
Subject: RE: Metzitza
In the Birkat Hamazon (Grace After Meals) at a Brit we add various
paragraphs asking God (Harachaman) to bless the various celebrants
(father & mother, sandek, mohel, Moshiach, Cohen). The stanza regarding
the mohel reads (ArtScroll Siddur translation) "The compassionate One!
May he bless him who circumcised (mal) the uncircumcised flesh, and
revealed (para) and drew (matzatz) the bloods of the circumcision, the
service of the coward and the faint-hearted is unfit - and if he does
not perform upon it these three acts."
The simple reading of the text states that a circumcision is unfit
(pasul) if metzitzah is not done. Even though this poem is not a
halachik psak, it is no stretch of the imagination for one to assume
from this that metzitzah is an integral required part of the
circumcision. Sociologically, I think it may be harder to get some
people to change the text than to change the actual practice and refrain
from doing the metzitzah. And of course, the practice is derived from
the text...
Sam Gamoran
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 12:53:45 +0200
Subject: National-Religious cutting themselves off?
Mike Gerver points out that the quote I noted by R' Shear Yashuv Hakohen
Kook about treating the state as any other state would only apply if the
state becomes one "of all its citizens."
While that is indeed what Rabbi Kook said, there were two earlier
statements he made, quoted in my mailing, that would seem to imply the
same thing, and these are not conditional on the state being one "of all
of its citizens."
Again I quote R' Kook:
a) If the Israeli government raises a hand to uproot Jewish settlements
from Eretz Yisrael, it will destroy with its own hands the very
justification for and goals of the existence of the State.
b) This means that we might not be able to continue with the prayers and
blessings of Yom Ha-Atzma'ut.
If that is not cutting oneself off the State as the Jewish national
home, I don't know what is.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Sacks <raisrael@...>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:51:03 +0200
Subject: Re: Testing a mohel for herpes
Testing Mohalim for a variety of illnesses would be helpful - but not
entirely practical. A person who tests negative for HIV may have the
virus. It can take months to be detected. So a test would indicate
that as of (say) three months back there is no indication of HIV.
Here in Israel there are no laws governing who may serve as a Mohel (and
I am not aware of laws in the States). So who would track the testing?
How would it be known to the public that the Mohel was up-to-date on
vaccines or blood tests.
I do belive that the Ministry of Health in Israel ought require
Hepatitis vaccines of all Mohalim. But when legislation was brought
before the Knesset about 12 years ago the fervently Orthodox parties
felt that no law was better than passing authority to a secular body
(the Ministry of Health). So in Israel there are no rules or
regulations.
In addition, no less important that testing the Mohel's blood (and
saliva) would be testing his knowledge of sepsis. Are the instruments
being properly sterilized?
Andy Sacks
Mohel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:04:01 -0500
Subject: RE: thekotel.org
> Seriously... what melacha is performed (and by whom???) when an
> automated system runs on Shabbat? The webcam is not motion sensitive,
> it is not being run by those people davening at the Kotel. So why
> should they care?
I imagine the answer is that those being photographed are causing the
camera to activate the sensors which cause their image to be registered
and transmitted electronically. This is not unlike activating a motion
sensor. In the case of the motion sensor it seems that the consensus
ruling is that it is to be avoided if you are aware of the sensor. If
the same ruling applies to a digital camera, then one would have to
avoid visiting the kotel on Shabbat if the cameras are known to be
operating. The question is: Does the same ruling apply? Have there been
any t'shuvos on the matter?
A related question: If a non Jew wants to take your picture on Shabbat
using a film or digital camera, are you obliged to decline? I imagine
this question has been dealt with, but I do not recall reading about it
anywhere.
b'shalom--Bernie R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:56:04 -0500
Subject: thekotel.org
Though I personally agree with your lack of concern, but I could easily
see how people could have halachic problems with this. For example,
there is a direct connection between someone walking across the camera's
view and the writing of specific pixel information in the camera's
memory (later transmitted on the internet). If I were to get more
technical, then depending on the video encoding being used, there could
be a direct connection between moving across the camera's view and
electric current use in storing the changes in video content. As such,
one could put this action in the same category as turning on a light by
means of a semi-conductor switch (on Shabbat) - which many frum Jews
avoid doing.
Best,
Ari Trachtenberg Boston University
http://people.bu.edu/trachten
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Schoenfeld <frank_james@...>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 12:32:04 -0500
Subject: thekotel.org
I believe this is run by Bezeq, the incumbant telephone co in Israel,
However there is no one at the location and you control the camera from
your computer where it is not Shabbos so no transgression of Shabbos
occurs when either you look at the pictures or control the camers
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Marks <machmir@...>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:45:11 -0500
Subject: Re: thekotel.org
What exactly is the problem? There's no chillul shabbos involved in
unknowingly walking in front of a camera. Similarly, if you say that
you don't want people going to the webpage on shabbos, this should be
easily covered by Rav Heineman's e-commerce p'sak.
Avrohom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:10:32 -0500
Subject: thekotel.org
On the contrary, I'm quite sure that would it become widely known amongh
the chareidi community in Israel that this camera was operating, there
would be a big tumult, and it would probably get shut down. It has all
the political sensitivity of the Kotel, plus a double whammy... chullul
Shabbos and "the Internet".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 47 Issue 6