Volume 48 Number 06
Produced: Tue May 24 5:47:53 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Getting to the women's section
[Martin Stern]
Mourner's Kaddish
[Carl Singer]
Name Questions: Zushe and Pesha
[Martin Stern]
Quinoa (3)
[Perry Zamek, Martin Stern, Joshua Hosseinof]
Quoting Rav Henkin correctly
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Stopping women from saying kaddish
[Carl Singer]
Women's Section - Getting To It
[Aliza Berger]
Zishe and Pesha
[Perets Mett]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 12:10:54 +0100
Subject: Re: Getting to the women's section
on 23/5/05 11:00 am, Ken Bloom <kabloom@...> wrote:
> Is it forbidden for a woman to talk through the men's section to reach
> the women's section (and vice-versa)? Does it make a difference when
> she's walking across the back of the men's section, rather than down the
> middle where a lot men will see her?
>
> Besides, how do these shuls manage on shabbat?
In many places, the main shul is not used during the week and, instead,
a smaller room is used which can present such logistic problems. Even if
there were no halachic objection to a woman slipping through, it could
be embarrassing for her, though she could set a good example to the men
by coming early like many ladies in my shul do on a Shabbat morning
(where they anyway have a separate entrance); bizkhut nashim tsidkaniot
....
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 06:59:21 -0400
Subject: Mourner's Kaddish
From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
>
>- Where kaddish is recited by several aveilim, they should take care to
>recite it in unison. That is more easily accomplished if those reciting
>kaddish stand together is a designated place.
Some shuls have this minhag. Others have only a single mourner say on
behalf of all. Others who have what might be politely called a
"cacophony" with people saying / answering at different volumes, speeds,
etc.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 12:36:41 +0100
Subject: Name Questions: Zushe and Pesha
on 23/5/05 11:00 am, <Yoxar@...> wrote:
> Also, has anyone heard of a girl's name spelled
> pay-ayin-samech-yud-alef-how is it pronounced and what does it mean-is
> it "Pesha"?
I have no idea how it should be spelt, but that would only be of
importance in a get. We have a neighbours who called one daughter Pesha,
which always struck me as a rather unfortunate choice of name for a girl
in view of the pasuk (Job 34,37) 'Ki yosif al chatato pesha'!
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perry Zamek <perryza@...>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 15:24:32 +0200
Subject: Re: Quinoa
Martin Stern wrote, in response to my comments:
>This problem depends on the definition of kitniot and the scope of the
>minhag. Just because one qualified Orthodox rabbi paskened, according to
>his criteria, that quinoa does not come under the prohibition does not
>mean that the question is entirely settled. Accusing those who have an
>open mind on quinoa of 'seeking a chumrah' is entirely unfair.
I'm not sure that my comment is unfair (although I certainly apologize
if anyone took offense).
At what point would the question be considered to be "entirely settled"?
Does it require total agreement from all or most of the poskim? Or
should we, even then, still keep an open mind?
Surely the effect of continuing to have an "open mind" is, in fact, to
sow doubt in the minds of those who accepted the psak of the rabbis who
permitted quinoa, and now feel that they ought to be "strict", or check
again, because the issue isn't really "settled" after all. This, to me,
seems like seeking a chumrah (since that is the direction in which
practice would seem to be moving), where none is required.
Could Martin or anyone else suggest a parallel case where something is
generally accepted as forbidden, and yet we should keep an open mind, in
case there might be some heter [permission]?
Perry Zamek
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 13:42:20 +0100
Subject: Re: Quinoa
on 23/5/05 2:24 pm, Perry Zamek at <perryza@...> wrote:
> At what point would the question be considered to be "entirely settled"?
> Does it require total agreement from all or most of the poskim? Or should
> we, even then, still keep an open mind?
Just because one Orthodox rabbi decides something does not settle it in
all perpetuity; he may have overlooked some important factor. After
discussion, all relevant points will hopefully come to light and
eventually a consensus will be reached.
> Surely the effect of continuing to have an "open mind" is, in fact, to
> sow doubt in the minds of those who accepted the psak of the rabbis
> who permitted quinoa, and now feel that they ought to be "strict", or
> check again, because the issue isn't really "settled" after all. This,
> to me, seems like seeking a chumrah (since that is the direction in
> which practice would seem to be moving), where none is required.
A similar situation occurred with the use of electricity on Shabbat
which was initially permitted by some rabbis but it was eventually
decided that it involved the performance of melachah. The initial
permission was in this case dependent on an incorrect understanding of
its nature.
In the case of quinoa, its status depends on the definition of kitniot,
which is unclear, and, in all probability, will end up dependent on
local custom.
> Could Martin or anyone else suggest a parallel case where something is
> generally accepted as forbidden, and yet we should keep an open mind,
> in case there might be some heter [permission]?
How about allowing (among Ashkenazim) several people to say kaddish
together which was until 200 years ago considered forbidden.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joshua Hosseinof <JHosseinof@...>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 14:19:19 -0400
Subject: Quinoa
Martin Stern wrote:
> This problem depends on the definition of kitniot and the scope of the
>minhag. Just because one qualified Orthodox rabbi paskened, according
>to his criteria, that quinoa does not come under the prohibition does
>not mean that the question is entirely settled. Accusing those who have
>an open mind on quinoa of 'seeking a chumrah' is entirely unfair.
My understanding is that the current controversy about Quinoa is more a
question about the processing than the actual kitniot-status of it. See
the quinoa question at the OU Kosher website:
"While Quinoa is not one of the five grains that can create Chametz
(wheat, oat, barley, spelt and rye); and Quinoa is not grown in the same
vicinity as the grains mentioned above, the processing of Quinoa is
generally done at the same location where they process wheat flour as
well. It is highly doubtful that they clean the mills effectively
between grains. The concern of wheat flour finding its way in the Quinoa
flour would be a serious one. It is possible to prepare this product
for Passover but we have not heard as yet of any enterprising company
doing so."
The Star-K hashgacha however, does not seem to have such a concern and
allowed quinoa with the requirement being that the grains are checked
BEFORE passover for extraneous matter:
http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-passover-quinoa.htm
Rabbi Eidlitz of kosherquest.org wrote this year regarding quinoa:
"UPDATES: Quinoa is fine for Ashkenazim to use from a plant that only
produces quinoa. Ancient Harvest found at Whole Foods stores and Trader
Joes quinoa are both reliable certified by the Half Moon K."
A similar announcement was also put out by the Chicago Rabbinical
Council.
I was not able to find a any hashgacha that had announced that Quinoa
was either kitniot or safek kitniot (possibly kitniot). The major
hashgachot had no qualms at all about making that designation in regards
to the spice cumin because cumin does grow in proximity to wheat fields.
Previously the following from an old star-k Kashrus Kurrents article was
posted to mail-jewish:
"Quinoa was determined to be Kosher L'Pesach in the summer of 1996, when
Rabbi Aaron Tendler of Yeshivas Ner Israel, brought a box of quinoa to
Rabbi Blau, Dayan of the Eidah Hachareidus in Israel. Rabbi Blau
consulted with professors at the vulcan Institute and ruled quinoa to be
Kosher L'Pesach."
I would hardly call the Dayan of the Eidah Hachareidit in Israel to be
just "one qualified Orthodox Rabbi". This is the "Badatz" of the Edah
Hacharedit which has by all accounts some of the strictest kashrut
standards.
In summary, several major hashgachot in the U.S. publicly state that
Quinoa is 100% kosher for Ashkenazim on Pesach, as does the Badatz of
the Edah Hacharedit in Israel. Some of the hashgachot have a concern
about processing issues involved with Quinoa which render it unfit for
use on Pesach. But, I have not found a single Hashgacha, large or
small, that pronounced that Quinoa is either chametz, kitniot, or even a
safek kitniot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 14:21:12 +0200
Subject: Quoting Rav Henkin correctly
When I wrote that:
> Rav Henkin, the grandfather, pointed out that in olden times the
> person to say Kaddish would come to prayer-reader's desk, and to have
> a woman there would not be proper, but now that all stand at their own
> place to say Kaddish, that problem no longer is relevant.
Martin Stern commented that:
>I presume that Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin has not been quoted correctly.
Just to clear up any confusion, the source of my statement by Rav Yosef
Eliyahu Henkin was none other than his grandson, Rav Yehuda Henkin.
It would seem to me that the grandson, a noted Posek in his own right,
may be presumed to have quoted his grandfather correctly.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 07:10:12 -0400
Subject: Stopping women from saying kaddish
>In the same number, Janice Gelb asks, with regard to a congregation allowing
>a woman to say kaddish, "how could they stop her?"
> I can think of four ways, some already mentioned:
> Not having provision for a defined woman's area in the room used for weekday
> minyanim.
> The congregational rabbi ruling that women are forbidden to say kaddish.
> Sarcastic remarks, social pressure, not answering amen, etc, from the men in
> attendance.
> If the woman is the only person saying kaddish, simply rushing past the
> kaddish points.
> David E. Maslow
Three of the four methods mentioned above are quite objectionable --
both in this specific instance and in general. Certainly the
congregational Rabbi can (should) pasken on this and other "issues" --
if it is an issue. But the other three examples are beyond the pale and
involve multiple avayrohs. To paraphrase another of this morning's
postings, ben Adam l'chavayroh, is also part of Yiddishkite.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aliza Berger <alizadov@...>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 13:49:11 +0200
Subject: Women's Section - Getting To It
Ken Bloom wrote:
<Is it forbidden for a woman to talk through the mens section to reach the
<women's section (and vice-versa)?
I assume you meant "walk," not "talk," but it's a great Freudian slip. :)
Many synagogues are set up so that walking through one section to get to
the other is in fact necessary. But others purposely have separate
entrances for men and women.
<Does it make a difference when she's <walking across the back of the
men's section, rather than down the middle <where a lot men will see
her?
Halakhically, again it would depend on where the congragation lies in
general on the separation-between-the-sexes axis (e.g., do they have
separate seating at weddings). I don't want to generalize, but offhand,
even in Modern Orthodox synagogues, the preference in terms of synagogue
construction is for this to occur only in the back, or only toward the
back. But sometimes makeshift arrangements mean it happens toward the
front.
<Besides, how do these shuls manage on shabbat?
Often this is a problem only during the week, either because a smaller
room is used that has a makeshift women's section in an inconvenient
spot, or because the entrance directly to the women's section is locked.
Often the reason given for not setting up a women's section in the small
room used for daily prayer is that the only door is in the front, so there
is no inconspicuous place for the women's section. If men sit right near the
door, as is often the set-up in a small room, the problem is exacerbated.
Hopefully in the not-too-distant future, a women's section will always be a
factor when planning such a room, and the problem will be avoided.
(I can always hope.)
Sincerely,
Aliza Berger-Cooper, PhD
English Editing: www.editing-proofreading.com
Statistics Consulting: www.statistics-help.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 13:16:13 +0100
Subject: Zishe and Pesha
Anonymous wrote
> Question: How is the name Zushe spelled in Yiddish? I have seen it
> spelled zayin-vav-samech-yud-alef. Is the name from the word "zees".
zayin-vov-samekh-yud-alef
or
zayin-vov-shin-alef
Very likely derived from same root as zis =sweet.
The name is a contraction of Zusman
> Also, has anyone heard of a girl's name spelled
> pay-ayin-samech-yud-alef-how is it pronounced and what does it mean-is
> it "Pesha"?
Pesha = pey-ayin-samekh-yud-alef
or
pey-ayin-shin-alef
The use of samekh-yud for the sh sound could well be the influence of
Polish, in which the sh sound is often spelt 'si'
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 48 Issue 6