Volume 48 Number 57
Produced: Wed Jun 22 5:22:27 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Accepting Psak without reviewing sources (2)
[Ari Trachtenberg, Avi Feldblum]
Feminism and men
[Mona Berdugo]
Kiddush Levana on Yom Tov and Shabbos
[Elazar M. Teitz]
Kiddush Levanah - Need a Minyan? (2)
[Martin Stern, Mark Steiner]
Public Sabbath Desecrator
[Janice Gelb]
Public sabbath Desecrator (2)
[Frank Silbermann, David Charlap]
Responsa and Mail-Jewish
[Mark Steiner]
Seven full weeks
[Martin Stern]
Valid Marriage - Need for Get
[Carl Singer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:32:20 -0400
Subject: Accepting Psak without reviewing sources
> From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
> I believe the relevant issue is not the authority bestowed upon "modern
> Rabbis" nor their lineage (Moshe kabayl Torah from Sinai and ....) --
> but our responsibility to Assay l'cha Rav -- find for ourselves a
> teacher / decider.
Is this a responsibility or a suggestion? Either way, my objection is
not to having a teacher or even a halachic interpreter, but rather to
the super-legal or super-moral powers that are attributed to modern
rabbis (e.g. the entire discussion about heavenly support, not being
permitted to ask for a second opinion, not being responsible for an
erroneous p'sak din). If a modern rabbi has the ability to make binding
p'sak din whether or not it is an accurate portrayal of Torah mi-Sinai,
it seems to me that we need quite a strong traditional proof text. As a
rather controversial example, consider the implicit acceptance of male
homosexual relations (which seem to be clearly and unequivocally
forbidden in the Torah) accorded by a very intelligent and personable
YU-ordained rabbi travelling on the lecture tour as an openly gay
Orthodox rabbi.
Ari Trachtenberg, Boston University
http://people.bu.edu/trachten mailto:<trachten@...>
[Note: That while the referenced individual above self-identifies
himself as an "Orthodox" Rabbi, I believe that the overwhelming majority
of the Orthodox Rabbinate rejects his contentions. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:32:20 -0400
Subject: Accepting Psak without reviewing sources
> Is this a responsibility or a suggestion? Either way, my objection is
> not to having a teacher or even a halachic interpreter, but rather to
> the super-legal or super-moral powers that are attributed to modern
> rabbis (e.g. the entire discussion about heavenly support, not being
> permitted to ask for a second opinion, not being responsible for an
> erroneous p'sak din). If a modern rabbi has the ability to make binding
I'm not sure what you mean above when you refer to "modern rabbis". Are
you distinguishing between Rabbis of the last say 200 years vs Rabbis
from say 500 years ago or are you distinguishing between classic S'mecha
from the Tanaitic era to post S'mecha rabbis?
The issue of what responsibility is held by each party in the case of an
erroneous p'sak din, especially in financial matters, is well documented
in the classic halachic sources, so this is clearly not "super-legal or
super-moral". The issue of not asking for a second opinion in halachik
matters was probably much clearer in earlier times, when there was a
clear Mara D'Atra - a local halachik authority for any given town or
city. I suspect that this question of asking multiple Rabbis is truely a
"modern" issue due to the breakdown of structured Jewish communities
along with the accessabilty due to modern communications. The third
point you bring up, the idea according to some that there is a form of
"heavenly support" is far from universally accepted and I would be
interested in the history of that concept.
The second part of your posting above, concerning the so-called Orthodox
rabbi and his opinions about homosexuality - I think are at most only
marginally relevent to the discussion. First, you refer to it as
"implicit acceptance". By definition, this is not a p'sak din and as
such has marginal relevance (I do not say no relevance, since we have
discussed in the past the idea of later p'sak being based on observed
practices). Second, even if we were to accept that he has the status of
Yoreh Yoreh ("modern S'mecha"), and he were to issue a p'sak din, it
would only have relevance to those individuals who have chosen to make
him their halachik authority. If such individuals have accepted him for
all areas of halacha, and he gives a psak and they hold that you cannot
go to someone for a second opionion, then those individuals would be
bound by his p'sak.
Avi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mona Berdugo <yignmona@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:23:07 +0200
Subject: Re: Feminism and men
>> And, I stand by my point that a ("the") marketplace is not a
>> place that most people avoid.
> In most places nowadays, I totally agree. But the observation of the
> Yalkut is that Dinah went to a place which most women *did* avoid,
> and/or she went there more frequently than other women did.
Why would the Yalkut (or anyone else for that matter) assume that Dinah
went to a place most women avoided? The Torah specifically says she
went "lirot b'bnot ha-aretz" (to see the girls of the land.) Wouldn't
that imply that she went somewhere that girls (and women) would be
expected to be found?
Mona
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:05:17 GMT
Subject: Re: Kiddush Levana on Yom Tov and Shabbos
To the statement, "The possibility of saying Kiddush Levana on Shavos
just passed and the thought occurred to me as to why we do not say it on
Yom Tov. (Since Shavos is the only Yom Tov occurring in the first 1/2
of a month it is also the only Yom Tov on which it might be possible to
say it.)," the reply was made that "Off hand, it would seem that with
the present calendar, where there could be up to a two-day difference
between the molad and Rosh hodesh, such an occurrence is more likely
than HB thinks."
It is indeed more likely, but not because of the gap between Rosh
Chodesh and the molad. The molad might be two days _before_ Rosh
Chodesh, but it can never be _after_ Rosh Chodesh.
However, since Pesach and Succos both begin fourteen days after the
onset of Rosh Chodesh, the first night will indeed often be less than 14
days and 18 hours after the molad, the (approximate) mid-point of the
month and the final time for kiddush l'vana according to most opinions.
Further, there is an opinion that regardless of molad, kiddush l'vana
can be said through the 15th of the month; according to this opinion,
all three r'galim are on nights eligible for kiddush l'vana.
As to the question of saying kiddush l'vana alone, there is no
requirement that there be a minyan. It is preferable because "b'rov am
hadras melech" (the majesty of a king is with a multitude of people),
but it is not a necessity.
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:37:25 +0100
Subject: Kiddush Levanah - Need a Minyan?
on 21/6/05 11:03 am, Aliza Berger <alizadov@...> wrote:
> What if one doesn't ever attend minyan regularly for maariv? Can it then
> be said at home without a minyan? I'm fairly certain I have seen people
> do this (and I have done it myself).
Kiddush Levanah is not a davar shebikdushah and so does not require a
minyan though it is preferable to say it in company when dressed
festively, hence the custom to say it preferably on Motsa'ei Shabbat.
Also, as far as I am aware, the custom based on kabbalistic reasons is
that women do not say it at all.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:05:53 +0300
Subject: RE: Kiddush Levanah - Need a Minyan?
Kiddush levana would not seem to require a minyan, it's like any other
beracha said on "seeing" something. Since however the Talmud regards
this beracha as equivalent to an encounter with Hashem every month, and
thus must be said standing, it is nice to do this with a minyan.
A number of reasons are given why KL is said after shabbat, but note
that in most European countries, the only time you could GET a minyan
for maariv and KL at the right time was after shabbat.
According to the Vilner Gaon KL one need not wait for motzaei shabbat in
order to recite KL, for example (a) when inclement weather may make it
impossible later one; (b) before Yom Kippur, when, said the Gaon, the
extra mitzvah of KL could tip the balance in one's favor (note that this
practice goes against the usual minhag of reciting KL right after YK).
I assume that those who follow the Gaon might be forced to say KL
privately; in my shul, which follows the minhag haperushim (based to a
large extent on the Gaon), we say KL with a minyan 72 hours after the
"molad."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Public Sabbath Desecrator
Stuart Pilichowski <cshmuel@...> wrote:
> What are the practical applications when dealing with my very Jewish
> neighbor in Israel who isn't yet observing all Shabbat laws? "Sorry,
> your wine is assur to me because you have different beliefs than I do?"
>
> No, they're not baalei teshuva on their derech (road) to
> observance. They may light candles and make kiddush, but have no
> problems with driving or watching TV. They consciously decided to limit
> their observances and not observe the way their parents and grandparents
> did.
This doesn't seem to me to be a case of deliberate Sabbath violation
davka. They are acknowledging the Sabbath, just not to the fullest
halachic extent. I was always under the impression, confirmed by
previous messages here, that the strictures about a public Sabbath
desecrator were because the person was publicly denying Hashem. That is
clearly not the case with someone who is lighting candles and making
kiddush.
-- Janice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:44:55 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Public sabbath Desecrator
Stuart Pilichowski <cshmuel@...> in V48 N55:
> What are the practical applications when dealing with my very Jewish
> neighbor in Israel who isn't yet observing all Shabbat laws? "Sorry,
> your wine is assur to me because you have different beliefs than I do?"
You could tell them that, for the sake of caution, it is your policy
only to drink mevushal (boiled) wine.
(You don't have to tell them that their policy is only with respect to
Shabbas desecrators. But I guess we can now discuss whether your
omission of details constitutes a permitted deception for the sake of
peace, or a stealing of the mind to make them believe you think more of
them than you do.)
Frank Silbermann New Orleans, Louisiana 70118
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Charlap <shamino@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:53:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Public sabbath Desecrator
Stuart Pilichowski wrote:
> No, they're not baalei teshuva on their derech (road) to observance.
> They may light candles and make kiddush, but have no problems with
> driving or watching TV. They consciously decided to limit their
> observances and not observe the way their parents and grandparents
> did.
In some cases, they are observing more than their parents and
grandparents.
-- David
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:19:04 +0300
Subject: RE: Responsa and Mail-Jewish
I accept the Moderator's liberal policy of publshing discussions
of halakhic matters that some might regard as too close to being
responsa--on reflection he is probably right, considering "hilchos
moderator."
What I mean by a responsum is an argument by analogy which
applies existing halakhic literature (poskim, responsa) to cases not
previously decided. It is the knowledge, or skill, to detect a valid
analogy which is the hallmark, as R. Moshe z"l wrote, of the the posek
or gadol batorah. Analogies have to be based on knowledge of the entire
Torah, both letter and spirit, on the level of giants like Rav Moshe,
R. Shlomo-Zalman, etc.. I feel that posters (including of course
myself) should try to refrain from overstepping this bound.
Nothing I say here is meant in any way (has veshalom) to detract
from my admiration for Chana Luntz and her obvious love for Torah which
enhances our mail-jewish list.
Mark Steiner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:33:04 +0100
Subject: Seven full weeks
on 21/6/05 11:03 am, Alan Rubin <alan@...> wrote:
> Many communities seem to be adopting the custom to delay bringing in the
> first night of Shevuos until nightfall. My impression is that this
> custom was not so prevalent until recent years. I am aware that the
> custom is mentioned by the Taz and brought in the Mishnah Berurah. Are
> there any other sources? It seems then that the idea that we must wait
> until nightfall to bring in Shevuos is recent.
>
> With Shevuos being so late this year, our shul did not daven Maariv
> until 10.25 pm. I would be interested in any sources that are critical
> of this practice and more concerned with Simchas YomTov than what Rabbi
> Yaakov Emden describes as an "insubstantial fine point." Apart from the
> opinion of Rabbi Yaakov Emden in his siddur are there any other gedolim
> that have criticised this custom?
This has been discussed extensively on mail-jewish recently. The first
mention of opposition to this custom is found in the Yoseph Omets, siman
450, by Yoseph Yuspe Hahn Nordlingen, dayan in Frankfort am Main some
400 years ago. There is a full discussion in Rabbi Binyamin Hamburger's
Shorshi Minhag Ashkenaz Vol 4 pp. 344 - 369. There is a teshuvah from
Rav David Hoffman, about a 100 years ago, in Melamed leho'il, siman 108,
permitting davenning early in Hamburg.
Alan should consider himself lucky that night was so early, in
Manchester it was at 10.56! However, our shul follows the German minhag
of ignoring this chumra. We davenned at the time of Yomtov which was
9.23, quite late enough in my opinion. One could have davenned ma'ariv
at plag haminchah, with minchah before at about 7.35, but,
unfortunately, it was not possible to organise it this year. Perhaps
Alan should find out if there is a similar congregation in his part of
the world.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:38:55 -0400
Subject: Valid Marriage - Need for Get
The issues of valid marriage and the resultant need for a get are
unfortunately topical.
With many secular Jews divorcing and re-marrying without a get the
status of children born from second marriage comes into question. The
normal operational halachic response is to attempt to invalidate the
first marriage based on flaws with witnesses, etc.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 48 Issue 57