Volume 49 Number 51
Produced: Thu Aug 11 6:38:23 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
an Aramaic answer (2)
[Ari Trachtenberg, Elazar M. Teitz]
Family splitting for summer
[Chana Luntz]
Personal Status / Polygamy
[Martin Stern]
Visitors in shul (3)
[Martin Stern, Martin Stern, Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:58:32 -0400
Subject: Re: an Aramaic answer
Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...> wrote:
> Most schools begin Talmud in either the fifth or sixth grades. Can you
> imagine teaching the grammar of Aramaic at that level?
We don't teach mathematics from first principles either ... but the
person who never learns these principles does not properly understand
the language.
> I have known many talmidei chachamim, including some who are or were
> considered g'dolim by all....I think that dispels
> the notion that formally teaching the language is a necessity for a
> grasp of Talmud.
I am surprised that someone so learned and wise would promote such
specious reasoning. Since very few people formally study Aramaic, one
can become a talmid chacham (relative to the rest of the population)
without doing so. The argument is analogous to saying that the Greeks
accomplished so much without knowning measure theory ... and therefore
one does not need to know measure theory to deeply understand
mathematics.
Best,
Ari Trachtenberg, Boston University
http://people.bu.edu/trachten mailto:<trachten@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:50:18 GMT
Subject: Re: an Aramaic answer
Ari Trachtenberg took issue with my comment, "Most schools begin Talmud
in either the fifth or sixth grades. Can you imagine teaching the
grammar of Aramaic at that level?," saying
We don't teach mathematics from first principles either ... but
the person who never learns these principles does not properly
understand the language.
We don't teach Peano's postulates to fifth- or sixth-graders, nor even
to undergraduate math majors, yet they do understand the language of
mathematics. A knowledge of Aramaic grammar (as opposed to vocabulary)
is not a necessity for Talmud study.
To my further comment, "I have known many talmidei chachamim, including
some who are or were considered g'dolim by all....I think that dispels
the notion that formally teaching the language is a necessity for a
grasp of Talmud," he wrote
I am surprised that someone so learned and wise would promote
such specious reasoning. Since very few people formally study
Aramaic, one can become a talmid chacham (relative to the rest
of the population) without doing so. The argument is analogous
to saying that the Greeks accomplished so much without knowning
measure theory ... and therefore one does not need to know
measure theory to deeply understand mathematics.
I appreciate the compliments, but don't understand the objection to my
reasoning. Not one talmid chacham I know felt or feels the need to
study (or know) Aramaic grammar in order to understand Talmud at the
greatest depth. If not one Ph.D. in mathematics studied number theory,
would I not be correct in assuming that its knowledge is not a
prerequisite for deep mathematical understanding?
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <chana@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:29:54 +0100
Subject: Re: Family splitting for summer
Catching up on mail-jewish:
>Eliezer Wenger <ewenger@...> Writes:
>I'm not denying that there were families that went for the Sholosh
>Regalim, however there was no obligation for them to go as is clearly
>stated in the first Mishna of Chagiga. We find that Penina and Chana
>used to go to Shiloh, but after Shmuel was born Chana stopped going
>until Shmuel was weaned. The only point that I was trying to make was
>that we cannot compare the situation of family splits for vacation
>purposes, to family splits where the purpose is for the husband /
>father to obtain more Yiras Shamayim, which will hopefully make them
>more effective fathers / husbands during the rest of the year as wass
>the situation of Aliyah leregel, Yarchei Kallah or visitng one's Rebbe.
>Those type of family splits were approved by the Torah. Regarding the
>family splits that take place every summer in many locales is something
>which the Rabbanim need to interpret.
It is not as though the concept of splitting up the family for work
related reasons was unknown to Chazal. The Mishna in Kesubos states
(61b):
Talmidim may go out to study torah without permission [from their wives]
for 30 days. Workers - for one week. The conjugal obligation that is
stated in the Torah, healthy men who do not work, every day. Workers,
twice a week, donkey drivers, once a week, camel drivers, once in thirty
days, sailors, one in six months". (Note that a braisa later clarifies
that the twice a week for workers is if they work in the same city, it
is once a week if they work in a different city).
Further down the gemora (on 62b) discusses whether are woman can prevent
her husband from changing from being a donkey driver to a camel driver,
and the whole topic is codified in the Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer siman
76, si'if 5:
A woman can prevent her husband from going out to do business except in
a nearby place so as not to diminish from her conjugal rights and he
cannot go away without her permission (Rema: and if she gives permission
he should not be stringent more than one month away and one month at
home) and similarly she is entitled to prevent him changing from a form
of work where the obligations vis a vis conjugal rights are more
frequent to one where they are less, like if he wishes to change from
being a donkey driver to being a camel driver, or camel driver to being
a sailor, but a talmid chacham may go out without the consent of his
wife for two or three years, and likewise a person of leisure who
becomes a talmid chacham, his wife is not entitled to prevent him (Rema,
and if she gives him permission, a talmid chacham can go out for the
period for which she gives him permission).
Regards
Chana Luntz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:41:52 +0100
Subject: Re: Personal Status / Polygamy
on 11/8/05 10:14 am, <Dagoobster@...> (Chaim Shapiro) wrote:
> Leah asks about personal status laws in regards to a women with two
> husbands emigrating from a country where that behavior is legal. Is
> there such a country?
While it may no longer be legal after the Chinese occupation,
traditionally polyandry was practised in Tibet, usually with one woman
being married to several brothers.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:19:28 +0100
Subject: Re: Visitors in shul
on 11/8/05 9:50 am, Carl Singer <csngr@...> wrote:
> Martin Stern wrote:
>> Perhaps a welcoming notice should be put up as, I believe, is done in
>> Carl's shul which can 'warn' visitors of any unusual 'major' local
>> minhagim. For example, I have suggested that my shul draws visitors'
>> attention to our minhag that only one person says each kaddish and that
>> they should speak to a gabbai if they wish to say one. More minor
>> variations are best left out in order not to overburden visitors.
> We rely on the gabbai to advise a guest schatz of minhagim. But I've
> seen shuls with a spec sheet of sorts (for example, the Chassan will
> repeat the entire Modim, aloud) for the shatz.
This is all very well for a visiting shats. What I had in mind was an
ordinary visitor who might easily find himself in an embarrassing
situation if he inadvertently breached a major local minhag such as
saying kaddish in our shul where only one person says each one.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:26:21 +0100
Subject: Re: Visitors in shul
on 11/8/05 9:50 am, Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...> wrote:
> Jeffrey Kaufman wrote
>
>> I told him that if we wear a hat because of Kavod it is
>> certainly not "kavodik" to look like a fool. I did not go to the amud.
>
> Also, if someone else took the trouble to wear one of these garments and
> I was lacking them, I'd be extremely hesitant about borrowing from
> them. Why is my mitzvah more important than theirs? I'd rather let
> someone else be the chazan. Even if I was in avelus, I'd prefer the
> zechus of letting him have his own hat, over the zechus of leading the
> shul while he wears just a yarmulka.
I think Akiva has missed one important point. While everyone should be
dressed in a dignified manner for shemoneh esreh, there is an additional
factor of kavod hatsibbur as far as the shats is concerned. Therefore
lending the shats one's hat or jacket would involve fulfilling an extra
mitsvah in places where this is the required form of attire and should
not be decried.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:32:29 +0100
Subject: Re: Visitors in shul
on 11/8/05 9:50 am, Michael Kahn <mi_kahn@...> wrote:
> I daven in a yeshiva which does not tolerate anyone who even thinks of
> not following their minhagim in tfilah. In their summer camp many
> "outsiders" are unaware that only the shatz says magen Avos Friday
> night. If someone starts saying it out loud the whole Beis Medrash
> shushes them.
This is hardly the best way to deal with such problems since it involves
embarrassing someone in public. Perhaps a better approach would be if it
were decided that a regular near him whisper that that is not the local
custom. It was to avoid such incidents that I suggested that there
should be a 'Welcome to Visitors' notice prominently displayed in the
entrance hall which would list such local customs so as to avoid such
situations.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 49 Issue 51
