Volume 51 Number 16
Produced: Sat Feb 4 21:42:14 EST 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Excessive Talking to Women [by Men] (2)
[Daniel Wells, Tzvi Stein]
Idolators and Hindus
[P.V. Viswanath]
Kdamrei inshei(as people say)
[Joel Rich]
Mail-Jewish in the Forward
[Richard Dine]
No Meat during Sheloshim
[Perets Mett]
parental influence etc.
[Leah S. Gordon]
Quotation source
[Emmanuel Ifrah]
Women mohelot
[Daniel Nachman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Wells <wells@...>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:36:20 +0200
Subject: Re: Excessive Talking to Women [by Men]
and the only people I have seen act like you described are certain
chasidim and a handful of rabbis I knew in Bnei Brak.
And what about the multitudes that you do not know in Bnei Brak and
other frum areas in Israel, USA and the UK?
In fact, every time I am at my shul rabbi's Shabbos table, he goes
around and speaks individually to each person at the table, male
and female, paying particular attention to anyone he doesn't know
well, asking them questions about their studies, work, etc., which
obviously goes beyond what is "absolutely necessary".
Excessive can be just a couple of unnecessary words. But non excessive
may be a half hour lecture to girls on things they may need to know
(halacha etc) or talking to them at the Shabbos table to give them
encouragement.
But I doubt any frum rabbi would just strike up a conversation with a
frum lady without an ulterior motive.
All this aside, none of us are perfect, and especially myself in my work
situation. It is not easy to be careful of unnecessary conversation. But
what is important is to be aware that it is not correct.
So it seems that we need to either find ways to interpret the
Mishna in a different way than you have presented,
'We need to find ways to interpret the Mishna'? Thats sounds awfully
close to reform theology. The Mishna is self explanatory as are the the
commentenaries on it. The Talmud, Shulchan Oruch and post-medieval
commentaries also are in consanance. No one has ever justified
unmoderated speech with the opposite gender.
or conclude that my shul rabbi
As I said above, if his his ulterior motive was encouragement,
especially if the girls are Baalot Teshuva, presumably it may be
permitted.
and 99% of the frum people I have ever met are doing aveiras.
Well, a lot of moderately frum people especially in our permissive age
are not cognizant of, or don't care about, gender mixing at social
occassions and as such a precedent is set for 'excessive' speech with
members of the opposite gender.
Daniel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:34:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Excessive Talking to Women [by Men]
and the only people I have seen act like you described are
certain chasidim and a handful of rabbis I knew in Bnei
Brak.
And what about the multitudes that you do not know in Bnei Brak
and other frum areas in Israel, USA and the UK?
I think I owe the fact that I am still frum today to my having moved
away from those people years ago.
But I doubt any frum rabbi would just strike up a conversation
with a frum lady without an ulterior motive.
Would you want a rabbi who never speaks to you without an "ulterior
motive"? I wouldn't and I doubt that ladies would either. But I can't
speak for them, I suppose.
'We need to find ways to interpret the Mishna'? Thats sounds
awfully close to reform theology. The Mishna is self explanatory
as are the the commentenaries on it. The Talmud, Shulchan Oruch
and post-medieval commentaries also are in consanance. No one has
ever justified unmoderated speech with the opposite gender.
Yes, but the limits are highly subjective.
Well, a lot of moderately frum people especially in our permissive
age are not cognizant of, or don't care about, gender mixing at
social occassions and as such a precedent is set for 'excessive'
speech with members of the opposite gender.
As I said, I am glad I am away from the crowd that does not see anything
wrong with interpretations of halacha that conclude that huge swaths of
the frum community are doing major aveiras on a daily basis and only
their small group is "kosher".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: P.V. Viswanath <pvviswanath@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 13:30:49 -0500
Subject: Idolators and Hindus
I. Balbin <isaac@...> writes in 51:10:
My own extensive contact with Hindus indicates that they are not
at all monotheists. Rather, from a range of idols/gods, they each
have their "chosen" god/idol. The reasons for a particular god may
relate to family/location/etc
This is not monotheism in my view. It is choosing one from many.
Furthermore, when you take 10 different Hindus from ten different
locales then you are most likely to have close to 10 different
gods. They are loyal and often exclusive to their god.
The issue is not as simple as Isaac thinks. The problem is in
translation and in what terms are taken to mean by the different
parties. The word "god" is not invested with the same semantic range
for Hindus as for Jews. Can a Hindu read about the ten sefirot and
infer that there is a pantheon of gods in Judaism? Presumably not.
Another interesting aspect of Isaac's posting is his statement regarding
Hindus that "they are not at all monotheists." How did he determine
that some of them were, indeed, monotheists? And, if there are indeed
Hindus who are monotheists, what do we do about the status of the Hindu
temple? Do we take a poll? A global poll or a different poll in each
locale? Or do we look at the Hindu books that discuss the nature of
God?
I would also suggest that Isaac ask his Hindu friends if they believe
that Siva and Vishnu (or the many manifestations of these primary
"deities") are different manifestations of a single incorporeal Essence
or Brahman. Ask them if they believe that their idol is God and whether
the destruction of the idol is the end of their God. I would be
interested in their responses.
Meylekh Viswnath
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 15:58:56 -0500
Subject: Kdamrei inshei(as people say)
The gemara uses this expression quite a few times has anyone written on
the force of these statements(why did the gemara record them)? There
seem to be a number of possibilities:
1.Use as support for a halachik position
2.Reflection of a truth inherent in the briah
3.easy way to remember a halachik position
4.interesting insight with no halachik value
5.halachik statement that you can be medayek from
6.proof that bnai yisrael are bnei nivim(so listen carefully to folk
wisdom)
7.other
Any thoughts would be appreciated
Kt
Joel rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Dine <richard.dine@...>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 06:56:25 -0500
Subject: Mail-Jewish in the Forward
Congratulations to Mail-Jewish for being featured in the "Philologos"
column in this week's Forward. See http://www.forward.com/articles/7310
Richard Dine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:49:20 +0000
Subject: Re: No Meat during Sheloshim
Menashe Elyashiv wrote:
> My father in law came from Morocco, he did not eat meat during
> sheloshim. I asked him what about Shabbat, he said that they ate
> fish. They came to us for the Seder, still in the sheloshim for a
> parent. I told him that on Yom Tov he should eat meat (he did).
In fact, the father-in-law was no longer within the period os shloshim
once Pesach began, unless Erev Pesach was one of the first six days of
the shiva (not clear from the quote).
The rule is that if Yom Tov falls during the shloshim (including the
case when the seventh day of shiva is erev yom tov) then the shiva
automatically comes to an end with the onset of yomtov.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:24:58 -0800
Subject: parental influence etc.
Shoshana replied to me, in part:
>> But Batya, that is much too simplistic. Many times, parents and their
>> children do not see eye-to-eye on every "psak" issue. This is one on
>> which reasonable Orthodox people/sources seem to disagree. So my
>> point stands, and I would not be surprised to see some daughter-in-law
>> rebellion. I hardly think that not wanting to listen to a MIL on this
>> would lead to "no chance of a happy marriage". --Leah
>
>Leah, I think this is very sad, that the idea "Al Titosh Torat Imecha"
>is so easily discarded. Yes, there are issues that are harder to deal
>with, but that's where a good bride councelor and a good sensible rabbi
>could definitely help the couple and the in-laws come to terms with any
>issues that come up.
Shoshana,
I think we must inhabit dramatically different worlds. In my circles,
we count it as a success when the extended family can spend a shabbat
going to the same shul and eating the same kashrut of their food, every
once in a while.
I have never met IRL a family where the newlyweds would seriously sit
down with both sets of parents to plan out what their daily lives and
religious beliefs should be. It sounds kind of suffocating and boring
for both generations, actually, not the opposite of "very sad".
(Also, what happens if e.g. the two sets of parents are not at all of
the same religious outlook...say one set is Reform and the other is
Orthodox, for instance. Or, suppose one of the 'kids' has dramatically
different religious practices from his/her parents.)
I don't really know what you mean by "any issues that come up" but
frankly, I don't see that the MIL gets a vote in what the bride wears,
at her wedding or any other day, unless directly consulted. I think any
MIL who disagrees is really overstepping her role. Not that I would
advocate rudeness on the part of the bride, but a "no thank you; I will
plan my own outfit" is totally appropriate. The inappropriateness is if
the MIL tries to use the groom or Rabbis for leverage.
BTW as a matter of disclosure, my MIL and I frequently trade wardrobe
advice and that is just fine with both of us. But I would never have
asked or taken advice on how/when to cover my hair. And my husband and
I have had almost 12 years of a Thank Gd extremely happy marriage.
--Leah
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Emmanuel Ifrah <emmanuel_ifrah@...>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 06:14:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Quotation source
I did not find anything about Louis XIV and Pascal, however the theory
establishing the Jews as an evidence for the truth of Christian religion
dates back to Augustine and is also present in "Les Pens'es" (ch. XVI,
1671 ed.):
"L'tat o' l'on voit les Juifs est encore une grande preuve de la
Religion. Car c'est une chose 'tonnante de voir ce peuple subsister
depuis tant d'ann'es, et de la voir toujours mis'rable ; 'tant
n'cessaire pour la preuve de J-C, et qu'ils subsistent pour le prouver,
et qu'ils soient mis'rables puisqu'ils l'ont crucifi'. Et quoiqu'il soit
contraire d'tre mis'rable et de subsister, il subsiste n'anmoins
toujours malgr sa mis're."
In a few words, it means that the fact that the Jewish people does still
exist and is maintained in a state of poverty and oppression is the best
evidence that the Christian religion is the true one and they really
crucified JC, etc. The unique purpose of the Jewish people's existence
is to bear witness for this "truth". This is a very classical piece of
the credo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Nachman <lhavdil@...>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:06:09 -0600
Subject: Women mohelot
Here's an interesting article on women becoming mohels (under
Conservative and Reform auspices).
http://tinyurl.com/cc7cs
The author writes:
[...] Yet, unlike rabbis and cantors, there is no halachic
prohibition against female mohalot. Every Orthodox authority
consulted for this story agreed on that point, though most asked
not to be quoted. Jewish law states only that if a Jewish male is
present, it's preferable that he do the brit milah. [...]
D. Nachman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 51 Issue 16