Volume 49 Number 43
Produced: Tue Aug 9 4:54:35 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
An Aramaic answer
[Yeshaya Halevi]
Aveil as Unwanted Sheliach Tzibur (2)
[Gershon Dubin, Carl Singer]
Barking dogs
[Perets Mett]
Brich Shemay
[Nathan Lamm]
Candle Lighting by a Yoldes
[Perets Mett]
Davening for Amud
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Gabbai's Guide to Yamim Nora'im Prayers
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Kedushah (was: Visitors in Shule)
[Perry Zamek]
meaning of `Yotzeir`
[<chips@...>]
Polygamy
[Mark Steiner]
Responses to distorting quotes from Talmud
[David Prins]
Talmudic abuse of women
[Joseph Ginzberg]
WWI Truce
[Nathan Lamm]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yeshaya Halevi <c.halevi@...>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 15:41:51 -0500
Subject: An Aramaic answer
Shalom, All:
Having read the many thoughtful (and some rather simplistic) responses
to my question of why we don't teach Aramaic as a language, to better
understand the G'mara (Talmud), I am left with the inescapable answer
that it ain't done - cause it ain't done. That's it, plain and
simple. Gevalt!
So here's my challenge to the many rabayeem (rabbis) and baalei bateem
"householders") who teach at, fund Jewish day schools and yeshivot
(seminaries) and send their own kids there:
It's time to move this from a discussion within a Jewish elite (m-j) and
borrow/paraphrase a line from a movie and yell - in private and at board
meetings - I'm mad as hell and ain't gonna take it any more! Either
begin teaching Aramaic as a language or I'll yank my kids, self and $$$
and put them in a place where the educators will teach it.
Betcha you see some action.
Kol Tuv,
Yeshaya (Charles Chi) Halevi
<halevi@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:23:47 GMT
Subject: Aveil as Unwanted Sheliach Tzibur
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
> if someone like him were to show up on, say, erev Rosh Hashana or erev
> Yom Kippur and demand to be sheliach tzibur because he has yahrzeit
> (this is my nightmare; do not say nobody would do this), would I be
> obligated to permit it?
AIUI, the various chiyuvim relate to members of the shul. Outsiders
have NO rights and certainly may not demand any consideration beyond
what the gabbai, as representative of the tzibur, is willing to grant.
Even members's chiyuvim extend only as far as they are merutzim lekahal,
which would exclude this fellow even if he were a member.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <csngr@...>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 15:48:20 -0400
Subject: Aveil as Unwanted Sheliach Tzibur
1 - Key to me from your story is that often some people get their way by
bullying or not asking permision, and we as relatively genteel people
tend to let them have their way to avoid confrontation and then we are
left having second thoughts.
2 - We've had members of other shuls come to our shul when their own
didn't let them daven for the amud. If this is the case, I'd would tell
them that they can join as associated members of our shul, otherwise,
their dispute is with their home shul.
2A - We had a guest who was a chiyuv (as was one of our members, he
(without permission) formed a 2nd minyan in an anti-room. He then
started nusach Sfard -- we daven Ashkenas -- I firmly told him that the
minhag of our shul was Ashkenas, if he wanted to daven nusach Sfard he
need to get permission from our Rabbi and / or daven somewhere else
(perhaps his host's living room)
2B - Very often we have someone come in, a stranger or rare sight at out
shul, and tell us he's a chiyuv -- we gladly let him daven for the amud
-- because he's being mechlich. This applies to "ordinary" mincha /
maariv. Special davening is left to those who know and those who can.
The death of a parent makes you an ovel, not a chazzan.
3 - If ANYONE objects to the shaliach tzibor he must step down. That
sounds a bit strong, but as I understand it, them's the rules. Perhaps
someone can elaborate here re: the relevant halachas.
4 - Know when to say no. Don't be bullied. Simply say that someone
else has already been asked to daven -- or (if that hasn't yet taken
place) that you prefer that plony (someone else) daven.
5 - Where this to happen on Yom Tov, I'd not only not let him daven, but
determine from him if he's a member of another local shul. If so, tell
him to go there!! If not, let him buy seats at your shul. If he can't
afford, that (at our shul) is a private matter between him and the
Rabbi. But presuming this is a person of ordinary means, then don't let
him take advantage of you.
I imagine I'll get "flamed" for being so harsh -- but the fact of the
matter is shuls have bills to pay and freeloaders (people who have the
means but refuse to pay) need to be dealth with.
Carl A. Singer Ph.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 14:41:17 +0100
Subject: Barking dogs
Ira Jacobson wrote:
At 16:57 02-08-05 +0100, Martin Stern stated the following:
The word aqar does not mean 'move' but 'uproot' and, in the
passage in Shabbat 63b, "navach bah kalba veit'aqar veladah
- a dog barked at her and her foetus WAS UPROOTED
i.e. aborted", it'aqar would seem to have a passive rather
than reflexive meaning.
It seems fairly obvious that in this context 'uproot' makes
sense but I cannot see how one can translate the passage if
it means 'move'. Perhaps Ira can explain.
Vav lamed dalet means child or embryo or fetus.
`Ayin qof resh means to move (as here, or example: `aqar et
raglav) or to uproot (as on Shabbat 132b).
In fact, Soncino translates this passage near the top of Shabbat
63b as "The dog barked at her, [whereupon] her child moved [from
its place]." Whether you understand valad as child or fetus, the
meaning that he moved himself is clear.
To me, this exchange of opinions (and I hope Martin and Ira will forgive
me from butting in on a private discussion;-) pretty much knocks the
nail into the coffin of the idea (which I thought was rather nice when
first suggested) that our yeshivas would be more effective if the
students learned Aramaic grammar in support of their study of gemoro.
What I observe is a futile attempt to interpret a passage in the gemoro
based on an obscure point of grammar.
In fact there can be no doubt what the passage means - it refers to a
woman who aborted her unborn child as a result of a dog barking; one
merely has to learn the next few lines to follow the pshat. To make it
even clearer the story also occurs in Bovo Kamo 83a, following a b'raiso
in Loshon hakoidesh which is quite unambiguous: it uses the word hipilo
= she miscarried.
Maybe the tried and tested ways are best after all.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 07:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Brich Shemay
Is one of the issues the line "I bow before you and before your Torah?"
I seem to recall that some have issues with the second half of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 14:07:40 +0100
Subject: Candle Lighting by a Yoldes
Simon Wanderer wrote:
(quoting Immanuel Burton);-
A colleague of mine told me that she has heard of a custom
for a woman NOT to light Shabbos candles on the first Friday
night after giving birth.
Has anyone heard of this custom and its reason?
I am familiar with this custom (I believe it is even mentioned in
'mainstream' halachic literature) and have heard two reasons
ascribed in addition to those discussed. I am writing without the
benefit of sources
etc.
Just to add to Simon's excellent analysis that the source may be found
in Mogen Avrohom 263:6 in the name of Matei Moshe and the Shlo (that the
husband lights on the Friday after childbirth).
[**While on this subject, I have never heard what the minhog is when the
first occasion after childbirth is not a Friday night but a Yontov.]
The alternative custom (that the candles/lights be brought to the mother
to light) is mentioned by Baeir Heiteiv in the name of the K'nesseth
Hag'doilo.
So both customs are perfectly valid.
------
Someone alleged that the custom of adding an additional light after each
child is born is because the mother has 'missed' a candle lighting.
Not only is this not the reason quoted in poskim for the custom, but it
does not even make sense. A woman who forgot to light Shabbos lekht - so
that there were no lights lit for one Shabbos - is indeed enjoined to
make good the lapse with an additional light in future weeks. But a
yoldes does fulfil the mitsvo of candle lighting - through her husband -
so there is not the remotest reason for her to compensate for anything.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 13:36:57 +0300
Subject: Davening for Amud
Based on the Psak of our Rav, a person who has Yohrzeit may be the
Chazan only if he is capable of doing so melodiously. The congregation
does not have to suffer having an incompetent Chazan.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 13:45:45 +0300
Subject: Gabbai's Guide to Yamim Nora'im Prayers
Many years ago I made up a 9 page list (Shacharit and Musaf of the two
days of Rosh Hashanah and the five services of Yom Kippur) of the order
of Davening, for the Gabba'im and Chazanim of our Shul. Wherever the
Aron is opened, the name of the passage involved is bolded for the
Gabbai's convenience.
For years I was unable to pass this on as it was in WordPerfect format.
This year, by courtesy of a company called LionScribe, the file was
converted to Word format. It is based on the Ashkenazic prayer service.
If you are interested in having the file, please drop me a line and I'll
send you the file. I would advise anyone who takes this to go over it
first, to see if there are differences between your Nusach and ours.
As an aside to Chazanim and Gabba'im: I've found it worthwhile, wherever
you will be skipping to a later page, to mark on the first page the
number of the next page to which you will be skipping, and to indicate
on the latter page where exactly the service resumes.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perry Zamek <perryza@...>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 12:46:54 +0200
Subject: Kedushah (was: Visitors in Shule)
Carl Singer asked:
>Also what is halachik implication of yotzei mean ha'klal vs. breaking
>one's minhag. Simple example, if I'm in a nusach sfard shul do I
>QUIETLY respond to the keddusah with my minhag ashkenas or should I say
>the nusach sfard response.
Rav Mordechai Eliyahu ruled that one follows the nusach of the ba'al
tefilah for Kedushah, even if one's own minhag is different (I saw it
quoted some time ago in the Shabbat BeShabbato parsha sheet, and a
friend also mentioned that this was the psak he was given). IIRC, Rav
Ovadiah Yosef ruled that one follows one's own minhag (I think it's
brought down in Yalkut Yosef).
In other words, the question is one of balance: between communal
(minyan) unity and personal tradition.
CYLOR.
With best wishes,
Perry Zamek
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <chips@...>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 09:35:25 -0700
Subject: meaning of `Yotzeir`
last night I found out that `Yotzeir` means making something out of
pre-existing materials. This puzzles me as I thought from the brocha of
`yotzeir ohr u'barei choshech` that `yotzeir` meant making something
totally new, due to the posuk Bereishis 1:3 of "yihe ohr" which to me is
saying that `ohr` was a brand new entity that was not created from
anything.
-rp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <ms151@...>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:15:28 -0400
Subject: RE: Polygamy
> The story of the guy who was bald because his young wife pulled out his
> white hairs, while his old wife pulled the dark ones.
> The tana or amora who married many women in a famine year, so that as wives
> of a kohen, they could eat from truma.
> Sorry I do not know sources for these memories. Maybe (hopefully) someone
> else does.
I was aware of these two sources, but do not believe they are
relevant: (a) the first story is not about a talmid hakham; (b) the
second is about a marriage of convenience for the women in question,
similar to marrying a woman so that she could escape the European
holocaust and the like.
If these are the only examples, I think that we have a
significant statement of Judaism by these gedolim. It is true that the
Mishnah says lo ra'iti aynah ra'ayah, but as the shakh says in hilchot
shehita, in cases of minhagim we do say lo ra'iti ra'ayah. (This
principle of the shakh has application to many very contentious matters
discussed on mail-jewish, but I do not wish to open new lines of
debate.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Prins <prins@...>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 01:43:04 +1000
Subject: Responses to distorting quotes from Talmud
Submissions in v49i38 referred to a site that was said to use selected
quotes from the Talmud to prove all sorts of nasty things about the Jews
and their practices.
The site http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815 claims to be a
response to Talmudic distortion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:28:45 -0400
Subject: Talmudic abuse of women
>IIRC there is some Aggadata about one Amora (I think Rav Pappa) that
>had different wives in different cities that he would travel to.
This is I believe referring to the (in)famous Tannaic saying "Man havis
li l'intu l'chad yoma", who will be my wife for today only. This
passage has been traditionally interpreted as the souce of "Pas b'salo",
having options being a partial fulfillment and thereby reducing the
lusty urges, but by the more radical as the proof source for Talmudic
abuse of women and its being condoned by the rabbis who themselves
abused women.
Easier to believe that it is hyperbole, no? In any case, I think that
it has replaced the references to Jesus as the most misused lines in the
entire Talmud.
Yossi Ginzberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 07:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: WWI Truce
I find this unlikely- there were Jews on all sides, but enough for a
minyan?
There was the famous "Christmas Truce," in which British and German
soldiers sang carols and played football together. Maybe this is a
Jewish adaptation of that story.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 49 Issue 43
