Volume 47 Number 58
                    Produced: Tue Apr 12  6:09:42 EDT 2005

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Artscroll and "truth" (2)
         [Jack Gross, Shayna Kravetz]
         [Rabbi Ed Goldstein]
Kel Melech Ne'emon
         [Ricky Noimark]
Maintaining Local Nussach (2)
         [Carl Singer, Tony Fiorino]
Slow shatz
         [Joshua Hosseinof]
Tircha d"tzibbue
         [Yisrael Medad]
Women's Megila Reading (4)
         [Martin Stern, David Eisen, Rhonda Stein, Simon Wanderer]
"women's" readings
         [Leah S. Gordon]


From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:06:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Artscroll and "truth"

From: Jeremy Rose <jeremy@...>
>I think R' Dessler explains the difference between "truth" and "emess" /
>""falsehood" and "sheker" by pointing out that "emess" should properly
>be defined as what is the Rotzon (will) of Hashem and "sheker" is what
>is not the will of Hashem.
>So something can be logically true and yet be "sheker", and vice versa.
>For example, if I tell you that Reuven is prison, it may be completely
>true, but it is probably "sheker" because it is Rechilus.  Similarly,
>there are circumstances (eg Shlom Bayis) where it is required to tell a
>"lie" because of Tzniyus or other factors.

I really object to that.  Sounds like "Russian history".

"Shinnu mip'nei hashalom" means they told a falsehood, not a Higher
ruth.  - Drishat shalom is Docheh "v'lo t'shakkru", not Mattir; it
remains a falsehood.

From: Shayna Kravetz <skravetz@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:33:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Artscroll and "truth"

Jeremy Rose <jeremy@...> writes:
[Same quote as above submission]

This reminds me of the wonderful philosophical joke attributed to
Abraham Lincoln.  "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a cow
have?"  "Four.  Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

If language is to have any meaning at all, then it must mean something
commonly understood.  Calling a lie "emet" or truth "sheqer" can
undermine the whole function of these words.  One may have a halachic
obligation to tell a lie, but shouldn't delude oneself into thinking
that it's the truth.  Indeed, this reasoning could have very negative
results, in that we all hesitate to tell a lie whereas, if we can
convince ourselves that lies are truths, we will stop considering the
halachic questions behind them.

Shabbat shalom.
Yours truly <g>,


From: <bernieavi@...> (Rabbi Ed Goldstein)
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:06:18 -0400
Subject: Chiyuv

most shuls don't recognize chiyuv beyond sheva krovim, not even a
father/mother in llaw. So I don't know about sainted zayde's being a
'chiyuv'.  However, ma'ase shehaya when I was a guest in a shul during
my aveilut and was the last choice shatz (since I was not a member which
I consider reasonable if there are others who are), the gabbai made an
announcement afterwards 'I know we're running a little late'.  Well, not
for nothing, but when I went to Yeshiva and camp I was usually shatz
because I was the FASTEST there was.  My son in law says my slowness is
due to my new minhag of actually reciting the davening word for
word. LOL.

Rabbi Ed Goldstein


From: Ricky Noimark <trickyx@...>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 16:15:49 +0100
Subject: Kel Melech Ne'emon

Does one say Kel Melech Ne'emon before the krias shema before one goes
to sleep if one is not customised to say all three perokim of the shema?
It is commonly found in siddurim although they only print one paragraph
of the shema. Surely since one is not going to be saying 248 words, the
need for these three words is no longer there.


From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:54:09 -0400
Subject: Maintaining Local Nussach

> In our shul, the rule is nusach ba'al hatefila, provided it is a nusach
> of eidot ashkenaz.

Rabbi Abraham Levene of Lower Merion Synagogue tells a beautiful story
that his father upon retiring and making Aliyah had a shul with a
diverse group of daveners, mostly European holocaust survivors, all of
whom davened in accordance with the nusach that they learned in their
own particular homes.  To accomodate this -- the nusach of the ba'al
hatefila was instituted rather than a single nusach.

Although "mergers and acquisitions" have taken place over the many years
I recall growing up with shuls that were in effect a lantsmanshaft --
with people from the same region joining together -- the Bialastoker
shul, the Tetiever shul, etc.  One could tour Europe going from shul to

Carl Singer

From: Tony Fiorino <Fiorino@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 13:01:05 -0400
Subject: RE: Maintaining Local Nussach

> From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
> The varying minhagim of different communities can be compared to an
> artist's palette on which he has a selection of brilliantly coloured
> paints with which he can produce a beautiful picture. If they are
> mixed together the result would be a drab muddy brown which would be
> useless for his purpose.  Similarly each group of Jews with its
> minhagim adds to the overall beauty of Judaism which is lost when the
> lowest common denominator prevails.

Don't tell this to Rav Ovadia Yosef who has been trying to coalesce the
various Sephardic minhagim in eretz yisrael into a unified rite
according to the Shulchan Aruch.



From: Joshua Hosseinof <JHosseinof@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:39:32 -0400
Subject: re: Slow shatz

To put it very bluntly, when a father dies r"l, the son becomes a Yatom,
not a Chazzan.  There are plenty of requirements listed in the Shulchan
Aruch as to who is allowed to be the shaliach tzibbur.  See Orach Chaim
53:4, 53:11, and 53:20 for some relevant requirements to this case.


From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:37:27 +0200
Subject: Tircha d"tzibbue

To follow up my previous comments regarding S Phillips reliance on the
Rama I reviewed another book, Chazon LaMoed, and was struck by the very
many prayers that an Eivel does not say or doesn't even go out to hear
which would or could lead to a logical conclusion that while an Eivel
says the Kaddish at every possible opportunity, prayers are secondary.
Moreover technically even learning Torah during the first week is
prohibited while the Kaddish is the staple of mourning.

Of course, the leading of prayers might be in a different category but
nevertheless the point that should be made is that even if the Chiyuv is
in leading the prayers, the Kaddish still takes a form a precedence, in
my humble opinion

Yisrael Medad


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:12:14 +0100
Subject: Re: Women's Megila Reading

on 8/4/05 11:36 am, Avi Feldblum at <mljewish@...> wrote:

> For one thing, and this may be the difference between the English
> society and American / Israeli, I have never come across a 'second'
> reading in a shul that was 'women only'. In all such cases, even if
> the majority of the second reading is women, it is still a mixed
> reading.

The situation described by Simon Wanderer is definitely the norm in
England where shuls organise Megila readings, either on their premises
or in private homes, for ladies who cannot manage to come to the regular
one following ma'ariv or shacharit, usually because of child care
responsibilities. If any men attend these, and that is unusual in
England, it is because they were unwell and could not attend the regular
one. The reader is almost invariably a man and there is no 'gabbai' at
such relatively informal gatherings.

Martin Stern

From: David Eisen <davide@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:18:11 +0200
Subject: RE: Women's Megila Reading

Avi Feldblum wrote:

> I have never come across a 'second reading in a shul that was 'women
> only'. In all such cases, even if the majority of the second reading is
> women, it is still a mixed reading. The only 'women only' readings I am
> familiar with is 'womens tefilah group' readings.

Perhaps I don't follow Avi's above query, but I believe that it is quite
common for a second Megilla reading to take place on Purim morning
following Shaharit; i.e., an independent reading for those who wish to
fulfill the mitzva of Mikra Megilla outside of tefila b'tzibur. I am the
baal qoreh for such a reading every year in my community and while I
will not say that no men ever attend this meeting, since the
overwhelming majority of men heard the Megilla reading at their minyan,
those who attend this later reading are comprised of women only (except
for those few men who attend, and many times sit in the Ezrat Nashim
upstairs gallery as the women sit on the main level).

Shabbat Shalom,
David Eisen 

[It clearly seems to be a difference of cultural experiences. What I am
familiar with is similar to what David describes, which is majority
women, but usually there are a few men there as well. So I would not
call that a "women's only" reading. Based on the responses from England,
and maybe this is the case for David as well, the reality there appears
to be not just majority, but actually only women attending those
readings. It appears that is why Simon's post was misinterpreted by many
of the readership whose experience was closer to mine, so that a women's
megilla reading was assumed to mean a women's tefila group reading. Avi]

From: Rhonda Stein <rhondastein@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 13:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Women's Megila Reading

>-One final comment may be relevant:- I would suggest that the residents
>of certain unnamed countries, who form a preponderance of the members of
>this list may generally be more assertive [and hence more willing to
>correct] than the English, to whom my anecdotal evidence pertains; like
>tea and crumpets, this may be a peculiarly English phenomenon.

I was thinking about responding to this thread, but this comment has
finally pushed me.

I assumed the original poster meant the reading such as I have attended
when my children were small, where my husband, son, or neighbor read for
a group of ladies.  I suppose most of us understand an ambiguous post
based on the circumstances with which we're most familiar.

(This year I went to hear my son lein for his wife because I had
evidently fallen asleep several times at the leining in shul...)

In my experience the wife of the person who reads is usually not too
timid to correct him (especially if it's I).

One year a couple of hours after we finished my neighbor's husband
called my husband and said his wife thought my husband skipped a word in
perek gimmel.  My husband told him he'll read again, but please tell
your wife she must be more assertive in such a case!  Guess what her
nationality was?

From: Simon Wanderer <simon.wanderer@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:05:33 +0100
Subject: Women's Megila Reading

>From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
>me. For one thing, and this may be the difference between the English
>society and American / Israeli, I have never come across a 'second'
>reading in a shul that was 'women only'. In all such cases, even if the
>majority of the second reading is women, it is still a mixed
>reading. The only 'women only' readings I am familiar with is 'womens
>tefilah group' readings. 

This is definitely a question of cultural perspective. I can state with
confidence that the vast majority of Jews from England would interpret
the term 'Women's Megila readings' as those I have described.

>I am also unaware of any postings on the Halachic aspects what you are
>calling 'Women's Megila readings' that you start your post off with,
>while there have been quite a few postings discussing the halachic
>aspects of 'womens tefilah group' readings.

Again, I may have been understanding the discussion from my perspective
and I don't have the time to go through back issues, but I seem to
recall discussion about whether women count towards the 10 people
required for the post-Megila blessing. This issue appears to me most
relevant to the types of reading I described, where the congregation
listening is composed primarily or exclusively of women.


From: Leah S. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:06:46 -0700
Subject: "women's" readings

Mr. Wanderer has replied to the answers about Megillah corrections at
"women's readings", including a slightly anti-Revolutionary comment
about the fierce and assertive nature of the women of his fomer Colony.
(I question whether English men might not also be hesitant to correct,
if it is really a geopolitical matter....)

Then he concludes:

>having any more cyberspace devoted to it. I cannot help but feel that
>had this discussion not contained the word 'women' it would have
>attracted far less interest.

I think that this is the crux of the whole matter, actually.  Since when
are private readings "women's" readings?  I find that classification to
be unnecessarily sexist.  (I personally find all sexism unnecessary, but
on this list I recognize that there could be some things people find to
be necessarily sexist.)

It is the usual language, IME, to use the term "women's readings" to
refer to readings by women [often by women, for women, but not always].
OTOH, perhaps Mr. Wanderer is on to something, and all Megilla readings
should be called "readings" with no gender assumptions instead of the
default assumption of "male".

I do agree that had he referred to "home-based" readings, there would
have been no problem.  I further agree that the average member of a
home-based Megilla audience is probably less likely to correct the
reader.  For one thing, the listener may be fearing that s/he is
inconveniencing the reader by having this special reading in the first

--Leah S. R. Gordon


End of Volume 47 Issue 58