Volume 50 Number 84
Produced: Fri Dec 30 7:04:31 EST 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Beegday Shabbos (Shabbos Clothing) -- was Shtriemel
[Carl A. Singer]
Common Law Marriage
[Marc DVer]
An explanation of "Who did not make me a woman"
[Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
New/Old Berachot (3)
[Ben Katz, Ben Katz, Menashe Elyashiv]
Requiring seperate phone lines
[Jeanette Friedman]
Who does represent Jews? (2)
[Bernard Raab, Israel Caspi]
Who speaks for Carl, Avi and / or Lisa
[Carl Singer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl A. Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 06:39:04 -0500
Subject: Beegday Shabbos (Shabbos Clothing) -- was Shtriemel
Any sources on non-chasidish communities today that wear significantly
different clothing (headgear included?) on Shabbos vs. weekday? It
seems, today, in many communities (for the men) it's the same (or
similar) black suit / black hat seven days per week.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc DVer <mdver@...>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:31:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Common Law Marriage
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the first Mishna of Gitten explain
the 3 ways a man can marry a woman, those being:
1. Kesef (money)
2. Shtarr (Document)
3. Be'ah (marital relations)
If I understand the machlokes correctly, R' Moshe Feinstein holds that
for Be'ah to effect a marriage the act must be done with the specific
intention of effecting the marriage, while R' Heinken holds that Be'ah
done with the intention of continuing a relationship is sufficient to
effect the marriage.
Marc DVer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:45:28 EST
Subject: An explanation of "Who did not make me a woman"
Lisa Liel wrote in MJv50n82:
From: Ben Katz
>>I would like to see the sources for this. I didn't think the
>>beracha "she-asani kirtzono (or betzalmo)" was extant in Rashi's
>>time. I thought it was first introduced in ~ 14 the century (a
>>bit before the time of the Abudraham).
>
>Really? I thought there was a thing that no new brachot were created
>after the close of the Gemara.>>>
I have addressed this issue in MailJewish v29n06 on 14 July 1999:
I would like to add Etzion Avraham [MJ 29.03] and call the attention to
the counter beracha by the women, that is "she'asani kirtzono."
R. Baruch Halevi Epstein in his book Baruch She'amar [page 30] suggests
that women should not say the "she'asani kirtzono" with beracha [beShem
umalchut] since there is a rule, which is brought up by R. Yona to the
Alfasi [Berachot 6] which says: any blessing which is not mentioned in
the Talmud one should not add Shem umalchut to it. Accordingly, since
this berach is nowhere in the Talmud we should instruct the women to
bless only "Baruch ata sheasani kirtzono."
It is evident that this is not followed.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:43:45 -0600
Subject: Re: New/Old Berachot
>From: Lisa Liel <lisa@...>
>From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
> >I would like to see the sources for this. I didn't think the
> >beracha "she-asani kirtzono (or betzalmo)" was extant in Rashi's
> >time. I thought it was first introduced in ~ 14 the century (a
> >bit before the time of the Abudraham).
>
>Really? I thought there was a thing that no new brachot were created
>after the close of the Gemara.
>
>Lisa
That is the common teaching. However, 2 berachot associated with women
clearly have their origins after the close of the gemara: sheasani
kirtzono (or betzalmo) AND lehadlik ner shel shabt
This says a lot (to me) about the religiosity of medieval women, who
clearly davened (and needed something to say when men said shelo
asani isha or its equivalent). Rav Emden's siddur has sheasani
kirtzono without shem and malchut, probably because it is a later
beracha, but this is a minority opinion. Art Scroll has
the beracha with shem and malchut.
The candle lighting beracha was a source of dispute amongst the rishonim
who realized that it was post talmudic, and the regnant [from Roget's
Thesaurus: Most generally existing or encountered at a given time. Mod.]
opinion, followed today, is that women should say the beracha with shem
and malchut because "im lo neveot hayn, benotay neviot hayn" (if the
women [who instituted the beracha] are not prophetesses, they are
[surely] daughters of prophets).
Historically, the candle lighting beracha is interesting for a 2nd
reason - it may have been instituted as an anti-karaitic polemic (not
only is it permissible to have candles burn through shabat, we will also
make a beracha over them!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:13 -0600
Subject: Re: New/Old Berachot
>From: Paul Azous <azous@...>
>In regards to what Ben Katz wrote:
> > I would like to see the sources for this. I didn't think the
> > beracha "she-asani kirtzono (or betzalmo)" was extant in Rashi's time.
> > I thought it was first introduced in ~ 14 the century (a bit before the
> > time of the Abudraham)."
>
>The Tosefta gives a rough version of these three early berachot. A
>pre-Rabbi Meir version of the three berachot is given in the Tosefta
>(Berachos 6:23):
>
> 1- who did not make me a non-Jew (goy)
> 2- who did not make me a woman
> 3- who did not make me a boor (the word used is actually "bur")
> [snip]
>Although the exact formation of the berachot may not have been extant
>during the times of the Gemarot, the ideas certainly were. Thus, Rashi
>and Rambam both had these berachot, pre-dating the Abudruham and Tur by
>centuries.
Mr. Azous appears to have misunderstood my question. I am
aware of the sources for the beracha men say. I was referring
explicitely to the woman's beracha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <elyashm@...>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:04:45 +0200 (IST)
Subject: New/Old Berachot
Some berachot disappeared, some berachot appeared post-talmudic. See zvi
Grunner, Berachot Shenishtaku, Musad Harav Kook, 2003. (Bar Ilan U.
catalog #573527)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <FriedmanJ@...> (Jeanette Friedman)
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:18:13 EST
Subject: Requiring seperate phone lines
I am in receipt of a recording made, ostensibly in Kiryas Yoel, which I
translated into English, that essentially says that if a male makes a
phone call to a house and a woman answers, then it is like the fire of a
menorah that sets the world on fire and is a lewd "schreck" on the
world.
The speaker then exhorts everyone, whether they can afford it or not, to
buy two phone lines, one for nekayvehs and one from zchorim. A female
voice on a answering machine is dismissed as preetzus.
I sent it to my son at www.jewschool.com/secondline.wav
If this is a joke, it is not funny--and belongs in the trash bin along
with people who base their shidduchim on whether or not the shabbos
table cloth is white, the width of the brim of a hat, whether or not a
future MIL gets dressed on Friday night or wears a fancy
bathrobe.....and other inane and stupid reasons to get married.
The world should see this corruption of an innocent act, answering a
phone, as the application of an evil and filthy mind on the community
and the moral bankruptcy of the Jewish leader who made the tape. This
same group prohibits women from driving cars because they will have
sexual affairs with strangers.
THIS IS SICK and it always filters into the rest of the Orthodox
community in one form or another.
Even my chassidic mother is appalled at the way men and boys treat women
and girls today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:37:14 -0500
Subject: RE: Who does represent Jews?
>From: Carl A. Singer
>Having spent good chunks of my time as the only "visibly Jewish" Jew
>(wearing a yarmulke when not in uniform) in a predominantly non-Jewish
>environment (The US Army) well meaning friends (and some less well
>meaning strangers) have often asked me to be the spokesperson for all of
>Jews since the time of Moshe Rabbainu.
Having been, like Carl, the only observant Jew in my workplace together
with many non-observant Jews, my experience was a little different. The
non-observant Jews felt themselves fully qualified to (mis)-interpret
Jewish law to anyone at all, which led to some interesting situations.
For example, our very frum Catholic co-worker was convinced that Jewish
law allowed abortion on demand, which made him quite hostile to Judaism.
When I realized the source of his hostility, I tried to explain that
this is not at all the case, but I came away with the feeling that he
didn't really believe me.
At another time, one of my Jewish co-workers asked me for halachic
guidance: His daughter was flying home for Yom Kippur, but was scheduled
to arrive after nightfall. Otherwise not at all observant, he wondered
about the propriety of picking her up at the airport on Yom Kippur. I
tried to explain to him that the rules which govern such behavior are no
more stringent on Y"K than they are for any "ordinary" Sabbath. This
puzzled him beyond comprehension, and he went off to consult someone
more sensible.
This sort of thing happened all the time to enliven the
workplace--b'shalom--Bernie R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Israel Caspi <icaspi@...>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:07:40 -0500
Subject: Who does represent Jews?
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Carl A. Singer <casinger@...> wrote:
> ...Yes, we have Rabbi's, some of great stature, some otherwise.
> Yes, we have organizations, some broad based and some with narrow focus.
> But NO - we don't have any form of representative governance...
Federations across North America would probably take exception to this
statement and would assert that they are in fact the democratically
elected representatives of the entire Jewish community (at least in
their respective geographic area). Which does not change the fact that
those same Federations frequently take positions that seemingly reflect
politically correct liberal positions rather than Jewish attitudes
(about which the so-called Federation "Leadership" seems to know very
little and seems to assume is the same as any position which may be
taken by the ACLU).
Notwithstanding their claim to representation, Federations with which I
am acquainted almost never reflect the attitudes of the Orthodox
community -- and I sometimes wonder if they care or even know what those
attitudes are.
It is time for those of us in the Orthodox community to let Federations
know that they neither represent nor do they speak for us.
--I. Caspi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <casinger@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:46:36 -0500
Subject: Who speaks for Carl, Avi and / or Lisa
> It is in this sense that I understand Lisa's desire that at least in
> this forum it should be clear that Greenberg does NOT represent the frum
> GL community. Even given the sense that Carl is talking about that
> really no one ever fully represents any given community, here it does
> appear that there may likely be an aspect of fraudulent claims and we
> should be more sensitive to that.
I agree with Avi -- "who speaks for me" is always troubling. Whether a
minority (like Jews) or a minority within a minority .... such as Lisa.
I recall recently that AARP (American Association for Retired Persons?
-- I went to their website to determine what the initials stood for and
it seems they no long use the "long" name) came out strongly on some
political issues and used as its club its large membership -- i.e. We,
AARP, speak on behalf of lots of old folks. My response was that AARP
sells me stuff (magazines, insurance, travel, "old person stuff") and
that they no more speak for me politically than does WAL-MART.
In the past I have felt the same way when a leader of Lubavitch, or O-U
or Agudah cozys up to politicians. To much of the non-Jewish world,
anyone with a black hat and a beard speaks for us all.
Unfortunately, it's not a matter of sensitivity -- a spokesperson for a
minority -- or a minority/minority being sensitive to the fact that what
they say may be construed as the SINGLE TRUE WORD OF G-D. Or as the
opinion of klal Yisroel. I presume that these people know very well
what they are doing when they (pretend to) speak for others and they
relish the opportunity.
Now, speaking for ALL Jews (past, present & future ....) I hereby
proclaim -- have a frelichen Chanukah.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 50 Issue 84
