Volume 51 Number 57
Produced: Sun Mar 12 6:13:27 EST 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
10th for minyan
[Anonymous]
Common Mispronunciations
[Russell J Hendel]
Golem of Prague (2)
[Robert Israel, Ben Katz]
Kitzur not halacha (2)
[Michael, Avi Feldblum]
Mispronunciations
[Boruch Merzel]
Shabbos desecrators are idol worshippers?
[David Charlap]
Valentine's Day and New Year's Day (2)
[Shimon Lebowitz, Eitan Fiorino]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anonymous
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:24:26
Subject: 10th for minyan
> Another problem has to do with *us* not being "dan lekaf zechut" on
> the "10th" person. The poster stated that he "pretended to be
> fielding a cellphone call." Do we know this for a fact (that it was
> pretend vs. real)? The poster represents that the "10th" "will not
> count a non-frum Jew" for a minyan. Did the poster have a discussion
> with the "10th" to determine his policy regarding who counts for a
> minyan and who does not? How are we in a position to judge the
> "10th"?
I am the original poster -- I think you're stretching things looking for
something that isn't there.
1 - this 10th in fact told me as much - re: cell phone
2 - again, we had a long discussion afterwards and his position was
quite clear
3 - look back to the original post -- there was no judgement of the
"10th" only a question re: his action and the impact(s) of same.
This was not a case of someone randomly standing in the hallway when we
needed them for the minyan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 22:23:30 -0500
Subject: Common Mispronunciations
Just a quick comment to Hillel's comment about e.g. reading VaAVadTeM
MeHayRah in the recital of the shma. Hillel asserted that one must be
careful NOT to slur the terminal M with the beginning M.
Actually the Minchat Shai on BeChaL LeVaVeChah contradicts this. The
MS(Minchat Shai) suggests three ways of reading.
METHOD 1: TOTAL SEPARATION: VaAVadTeM MeHayRah;
METHOD 2: TOTAL SLUR: VaAVadTeMeHayRah
METHOD 3: SLUR WITH ELONGATION OF JOINING SYLLABLE:
VaAVadTeMMeHayRah (So you read it as one word but elongate the Mem so
that it is the length of two letters).
MS then cites the Rambam (Cited by Hillel) that one must be careful not
to slur the letters.
MS states that METHOD 1 is NOT acceptable because you eliminate the
hyphen or connective cantillation. Method 2 is also not acceptable
because you slur the words. The MS concludes that METHOD 3 is preferred
since you simultaneously, a) create one hyphenated connective-pausal
unit and b) give the appearance of separating the words in terms of
duration.
I read the shma this way. Similarly when leining I read "Mo SheLaymor"
because of the Dagesh. I think the philosophical idea is that we should
READ PHRASES not words...after all the goal is comprehension.
Russell Hendel; http://www.rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Israel <israel@...>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:03:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Golem of Prague
Shnayer Leiman <sid.leiman@...> wrote:
> The March 1, 2006 issue of _Dei'ah Ve-Dibur_ -- a haredi journal --
> includes an essay entitled: "The Golem of Prague -- Fact or Fiction?."
> Adducing evidence from a variety of sources, the essay concludes that
> "it is unclear whether or not the Maharal ever made a golem."
The article (by Binyomin Y. Rabinowitz) can be found online at
<http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/TRM66features.htm>.
> Much of the blame for leading people to think that the Maharal had made
> a golem, the essay suggests, rests with Y.Y. Rosenberg [sic: while all
> the other rabbis mentioned in the essay are entitled "Rav" or "Rabbi,"
> only Y.Y. Rosenberg, who was a distinguished rabbi with ordination from
> the greatest rabbis in Poland, is defrocked], whose 1909 volume on the
> Golem of the Maharal (Sefer Nifla'ot Maharal) is identified as a
> forgery.
I'd rather call it a work of fiction rather than a forgery. The role of
Rabbi Rosenberg in popularizing the story of the Maharal's golem has
been discussed here before, in volume 38 # 28, 34, 36, and 42. You
might also look at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem>.
Robert Israel <israel@...>
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:18:41 -0600
Subject: Re: Golem of Prague
>From: Shnayer Leiman <sid.leiman@...>
>The March 1, 2006 issue of _Dei'ah Ve-Dibur_ -- a haredi journal --
>includes an essay entitled: "The Golem of Prague -- Fact or Fiction?."
>Adducing evidence from a variety of sources, the essay concludes that
>"it is unclear whether or not the Maharal ever made a golem."
>[snip]
>Indeed, one should rely only on literature that is "historically
>reliable."
Prof. Lieman may be too modest to say so, but I am sure that
the article in the hareidi journal relied to a large degree on the
wonderful article written by Dr. Lieman himself on this topic, published
(I think) in Tradition several years back.
Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
e-mail: <bkatz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael <mordechai@...>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:27:24 -0500
Subject: Kitzur not halacha
SBA writes
>While some may consider a Mechalel Shabbos a 'tinok shenishba', does
>that extend as far as making him acceptable for a minyan? [To
>paraphrase the Brisker Rav, "Nebach a Mechalel Shabbos is still a
>Mechalel Shabbos.."]
>
>Check out the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 72.
>The heading of that chapter says it all
> "...one who desecrates Shabbos is is like an Idol-worshipper.."
>
>So should we be so quick in condemning a person who was simply following
>the halacha?
I know of no halachic authority who considers the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch
a practical source of halacha. Ever Rav I know states the Kitzur should
not be used for practical halachic rulings and often confilicts with
actual practical halacha.
It's certainly not some people who consider a person who is Mechalel
Shabbos a tinok shenishba. I know of no modern mainstream authorities
who hold otherwise.
Certainly the OU and NCYI count people who are not shomer shabbos in
minyanim. If Chabad houses waited till they had 10 people walking to
shul, most would have 100 people davening together without a minyan.
Even Charedi organizations such as Aish HaTorah give aliyot to non
Shomer Shabbat Jews and count 10 non shomer shabbat people as a minyan.
Even if one does hold to this opinion that one should not count a non
observant Jew in a minyan, I find it insulting and wrong to state this
person was "...simply following halacha...." I can't imagine any Jew be
unaware that their are many Jews whose normative halachic Jewish
practice is to count all adult male Jews in a minyan. It's insulting
and degrading to act as if this opinion does not exist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:27:24 -0500
Subject: Kitzur not halacha
While I tend to agree with Michael's opinion that we do not pasken
halacha according to the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch in my circles, and
Michael brings a number of sources that do not hold by the
aforementioned Kitzur's position, including some from YU, NCYI, Aish
Hatorah and Chabad, I do not agree with his final paragraph. Since SBA
brought the quote from the Kitzur and refered to the person in the
original posting as "simply following halacha", I think it is fair to
say that there is at least a group of people who hold by a psak that
today a person who is a mechallel shabbat is not counted for a
minyan. Such a person may well know that there are other Jews who hold
by a psak that you may count a non-shabbat observer to a minyan. However
he does not hold by that psak. So if he goes into the room, according to
his psak, there is no minyan and the recitation of any davar
she'bekedusha is invalid. On the other hand, the rest of the people in
the room are of the opinion that his psak is incorrect, and if he stays
out of the room, they are prevented from making a minyan, and there is a
significant probability of insult to the non-shabbat observant
person. Anonymous' question was what is the proper course of action
under those circumstances. I do not think that argueing that the psak of
the "10th" is wrong is a meaningful response to the question.
Avi Feldblum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <BoJoM@...> (Boruch Merzel)
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 14:44:57 EST
Subject: Mispronunciations
Not so much a mispronunciation as a question of dialect:
An elderly Litvak in my shule, some 40 years ago, would daven P'sukei
D'zimra with special kavanah . When he recited the penultimate
Halleluya (T'hilim 149) all the shule could hear him, every morning,
declare, with no little fervor, the 2nd Pasuk, "Yismach Yisroel B'Osov"
("Israel shall rejoice with its Maker") in his very distinct Litvishe
dialect as: "Yismach Yiroel B'Aysov" (Israel shall rejoice with Esau")
Boruch Merzel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Charlap <shamino@...>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 10:35:11 -0500
Subject: Shabbos desecrators are idol worshippers?
SBA wrote:
> While some may consider a Mechalel Shabbos a 'tinok shenishba', does
> that extend as far as making him acceptable for a minyan? [To
> paraphrase the Brisker Rav, "Nebach a Mechalel Shabbos is still a
> Mechalel Shabbos.."]
>
> Check out the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 72.
> The heading of that chapter says it all
> "...one who desecrates Shabbos is is like an Idol-worshipper.."
>
> So should we be so quick in condemning a person who was simply following
> the halacha?
There is what has been written, and then there is the way we conduct our
daily lives.
If the Jewish community at large would strictly follow the line you
quited, then the entire Kiruv movement would not exist. We would tell
all the non-Shabbos-observant Jews that they should just go away and
become Christians, because halacha sees them as no different from Molech
worshippers.
We'd also stop fighting against missionaries, as long as they only try
to convert the non-observant, because clearly, there is no prohibition
against Christians trying to convert idol worshipers.
Is this really the Jewish nation you want to belong to? Where the
community actively hates and punishes everybody whose Shabbos observance
is less than perfect? I sincerely hope not.
-- David
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 22:01:37 +0200
Subject: Re: Valentine's Day and New Year's Day
> But I also think the attempt to show the absurdity of Rabbi
> Rabinovitch's position by comparing Valentine's Day to Molech Day is
> misplaced because the latter involves not only avoda zara but also
> murder.
I am sorry I do not remember the source, but I am pretty sure that I
learnt that children were not murdered in the Molech rite, but were only
passed between two fires.
Hopefully someone else has more details.
Shimon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eitan Fiorino <AFiorino@...>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 11:48:12 -0500
Subject: RE: Valentine's Day and New Year's Day
I won't belabor this more than I already have. Thanks Avi for handling
the majority of the response on my behalf!
> From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
> Eitan Fiorino starts his most recent post with:
>
> > Orrin's position is that wishing a "happy and healthy new year" to
> > someone January 1 is assur.
>
> and uses that as a straw man to show how awful and immoral my position is.
I'm not interested in characterizing your opinion (that saying "happy
new year's day" on January 1 is not permitted) as anything but
unsupported by sources or logic. I have no commentary or even implied
commentary on either its awfulness or morality.
> Eitan is correct, though, that I do not think one may attend a secular
> New Year's Eve party for the reasons I gave, and I defy him to point
> to a single halachic authority who says that one may; Rav Moshe's
> responsum, as I pointed out, does not.
For the record, I did not claim that such attendance is in general
permitted. I will say that I think a lot depends on who is gathering,
what will happen at the gathering, and the reason for the gathering. I
personally would have no objection with getting together with a group of
friends or family on January 1 or December 31st, in the same way I might
on any motzaei shabbat, even if the gathering was referred to as a "New
Year's get together."
> (I do not believe, incidentally, that it is "the worst form of avoda
> zara", a distinction that I guess must be relegated to Valentine's
> Day, even though I have not the foggiest idea why it, in the way it is
> observed now, is avoda zara at all, and in fact will likely continue
> to observe it myself no matter what Rabbi Rabinovitch says. But I
> also think the attempt to show the absurdity of Rabbi Rabinovitch's
> position by comparing Valentine's Day to Molech Day is misplaced
> because the latter involves not only avoda zara but also murder.
Just to clarify: I was not trying to make any reference to the debate
about whether or not observing Valentine's day is the worst form of
avoda zara, the best form, or not avoda zara at all. The point I was
trying to make is that there are indeed some utterances that are
forbidden - offering best wishes to someone about to perform an act of
avoda zara is, as far as I understand, assur because it may lead them to
offer more praise to their idol. I was simply trying to contrast what I
believe the fundamental permissibility of wishing a happy new year with
a "best wishes" utterance that would not be permitted. I chose "molech
day" because there would be no dispute about its nature, in contrast to
for instance Christmas, in which the permissibility of wishing someone a
"Merry Christmas" may hinge on whether or not Christianity is considered
avoda zara.
-Eitan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 51 Issue 57
