Volume 51 Number 59
Produced: Mon Mar 13 6:19:05 EST 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Announcing the Molad (2)
[Shmuel Himelstein, SBA]
Article on the International Day of the Agunah
[Yael Levine]
Can an agunah sue?
[Tzvi Stein]
Common Mispronunciations
[J. B. Gross]
counting mechalel habbos for minyan
[Perets Mett]
Dialects vs. mispronounciation
[Carl A. Singer]
Faith and Heresy by Rabbi Reuven Agushewitz
[Ben Katz]
Kitzur not halacha
[Ira L. Jacobson]
Molech vs. Baal
[David Charlap]
Reading Aloud Of The Ten Sons Of Haman--do we fulfill our obligation (2)
[Russell J Hendel, Avi Feldblum]
Valentine's Day and New Year's Day (2)
[Martin Stern, Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:38:44 +0200
Subject: Announcing the Molad
One of the reasons I've heard for announcing the Molad is to
differentiate ourselves clearly from the Karaites and Samaritans, who
still start Rosh Chodesh when the new moon appears. By announcing the
Molad in advance, we are accepting the calendar laid out by our Sages
and nof relying only on a moon sighting.
In other words, if this is indeed the reason, it has in common the
reason why we are required to have something hot on Shabbat (i.e., to
show we do not accept the Karaite insistence on not having light or heat
on Shabbat - although some Karaite scholars modified these restrictions
somewhat).
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:59:11 +1100
Subject: Announcing the Molad
From: Carl Singer <>
> we announce when Rosh Chodesh is -- important because davening changes,
> certain work is prohibited (washing clothes as an example.)
Washing clothes is prohibited on RC?
> we do NOT announce when we can start / stop saying kiddush levonah --
> which can cause problems -- as Ma'ariv is ending on motzei Shabbos -- a
> frequent time to say kiddush levonah -- people are asking if they can
> say, etc.
That's probably because there are various minhagim on [from] when to say
it. 2/3/7 days, Motzoei Shabbos..
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yael Levine <ylevine@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:28:28 +0200
Subject: Article on the International Day of the Agunah
My article in Hebrew "Hirhurim Likrat Yom ha-Agunah ha-Beinle'umi"
(Reflections on the International Day of the Agunah) was published in
Friday's HaZofe (section: Sofrim u-Sefarim, p. 14). The link to the
article on the website of HaZofe is as follows:
http://www.hazofe.co.il/web/katava6.asp?Modul=24&id=42937&Word=&gilayon=2674&maor=
Yael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <tzvi.stein@...> (Tzvi Stein)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 12:13:07 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Can an agunah sue?
If the dear moderator will indulge a question of civil law that could
potentially have great bearing on Jewish life:
Could any lawyers on the list comment on this thought I had? Would it
not be possible for an agunah to sue her husband in civil court for the
damages he has caused her by depriving her of such a basic right as the
right to remarry? Especially for long-time agunos, it would seem
feasible to come up with a dollar value for each year that she was not
able to date and marry and claim monetery restitution for that damage.
She would *not* be asking to court to compel the husband to give a get.
Rather she would be asking for a judgment that financial compensation is
due from the husband for the damage he has caused her.
Sure one could think of objections, but would it not be worth a try?
Think of all the crazy things that people have sued for
successfully... is this any less crazy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J. B. Gross <yaabetz@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:22:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Common Mispronunciations
My nomination:
"Asheyr" for Asher (Aleph hataf-patah SHin segol Resh), e.g. "asher
anochi" in two places in Shema. Should rhyme with "Err", not "Air".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 12:47:26 +0000
Subject: Re: counting mechalel habbos for minyan
David wrote:
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.
And I ask;
Is this vituperative language necessary?
Exactly which community is it that 'actively hates and punishes
everybody whose Shabbos observance is less than perfect'?
Just because you disagree with someone's understanding of halocho, does
that give you the right to describe him with abusive language?
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl A. Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 06:46:24 -0500
Subject: Dialects vs. mispronounciation
> 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")
I believe we might draw a distinction, difficult as it may be. We had a
gentlemen in our shul (he recently moved away) whose pronunciation of
the brachas for an Aliyah was "elokaynee ... ha-oy-lum" (To me) from him
that was fine -- it reflected the authentic dialect that he grew up with
some 70 years ago in Europe.
The judgmental me would find this same pronunciation improper coming
from a twenty-something who grew up and was educated in a main-stream US
yeshiva.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:52:47 -0600
Subject: Re: Faith and Heresy by Rabbi Reuven Agushewitz
I read Dr. Steiner's article in Torah U-madda and enjoyed it
mightily. Especially amusing were some of the Yiddish equivalents to
the philosophical terms that Dr. Steiner calls to your attention, if you
know a little Yiddish.
It sounds like Rabbi Agushewitz was unique. I personally would love
to read more about him (hint-hint).
Happy Purim to all.
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: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:51:06 +0200
Subject: Re: Kitzur not halacha
Avi Feldblum stated in mail-Jewish Vol. 51 #57 Digest:
While I tend to agree with Michael's opinion that we do not pasken
halacha according to the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch in my circles,
Well, not only the Qitzur Shulhan `Arukh, but also the Mishna Berura,
pasqen that the halakha is not to count such a person in a minyan.
Thus, even if we need not accept the Qitzur as the final word, we still
have the Mishna Berura to contend with.
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,
These are not exactly halakhic sources. I did not see that Michael
brought any pesaq halakha that counters the Mishna Berura. MB 55:46-47
enumerates the types of `aveirot that disqualify one from being counted
in a minyan.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Charlap <shamino@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 12:16:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Molech vs. Baal
Shimon Lebowitz wrote:
> 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.
Molech worship involved passing children through fire:
Melachim 2, chapter 23:
...
10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of
Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to
pass through the fire to Molech.
...
If I remember my Rashi from high school, it mentions that parents would
burn children to Baal, but "merely" pass them through fire to Molech.
-- David
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 22:35:25 -0500
Subject: Reading Aloud Of The Ten Sons Of Haman--do we fulfill our obligation
I was a bit surprised at Alex's posting in which he criticizes my view
that if a typical leiner cannot in one breadth read the 10 names of
haman with proper diction AND stop by all the pauses (vertical lines) in
the 10 names then it is PREFERABLE that the person should lein in
several breaths but enunciate the words properly and pause at all
pauses. (I also indicated my own practice of preparing ....but it
requires enormous lung capacity and not everyone has it).
Alex does point out that the reading of haman's 10 sons in one breadth
is Talmudic (which I omitted). But Alex does not AT ALL address the
issues I present. More specifically suppose Alex met a leiner who before
leining could not read with sufficient volume to be heard with diction
and pauses. What would Alex advise him. To go ahead and read in one
breath? But then the congregation would not fulfill its obligation. I
see no alternative but to advise this person (provided I tested him
right before the megilah leining) to read in several breaths.
Proper dialogue etiquette would require that Alex not only refute what I
say (by citing sources) but also answer the concerns I have.
As to my disagreeing with Rogochover: I in fact use Alex's own
argument...if people do not have megillahs then their reading is invalid
and might lead to not hearing the reading. In passing the difference
between the Rogochover and me is that you can rely on the Psak of the
Rogochover even if you do not know the reason since he is a known
posayk. However in mail jewish we are not discussing psak (final law)
but reasons. Consequently it is circular to argue 'he must have a
reason'. The WHOLE purpose of the discussion is to find that reason
(And if we cant especially and have a strong counter argument we may be
obligated to follow it).
Finally I called the Talmudic edict to read in one breath "obscure"
because the attempt by most people to follow this law leads to not
hearing the megillah and not leining the pauses. I clearly state in my
former posting that what was bothering me was not the lack of reason but
rather the blatant contradiction between practice and theory---such
contradictions are valid considerations when reaching a psak.
I conclude by noting that many people give me complements when I lein
for them (privately or publicly), "thank you Russell...I could finally
hear every word." (This complement comes frequently from women). Alex
should give serious thought to the idea that what he is suggesting is
not implementable in practice.
Happy Purim...and if you are in Baltimore and want to hear a leining
with all 10 of Haman's sons said in one breath and slowly give me a buzz
Russell Jay Hendel; Ph.d. http://www.Rashiyomi.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:35:25
Subject: Reading Aloud Of The Ten Sons Of Haman--do we fulfill our obligation
Russell,
I've re-read Alex's posting and I do not see in it what you are
quoting. Alex quotes two items from your posting which he comments
on. The first is that you refer to the obligation to read the 10 names
of Haman's sons in one breadth as 'obscure'. Alex identifies the source
as Gemara Megillah, and codified in Shulchan Aruch. That does not make
it 'obscure' in my book. Your response above does not seem to have much
relevence to 'obscure'.
The second item Alex responded to was your statement on what the "real"
reason why people read the 10 names along with the person reading the
megilla even though they do not have a kosher megilla. What Alex does
say is that based on the opinion of the Rogatchover Gaon, as quoted by
R' Teitz, there is a halachic reason for doing so, and the basic
presumption is that the reading is proper. So there is a source for the
congregation reading the names in a case where the reading is done
properly.
The issue of what is preferable in a congregation where you do not have
a person capable of reading the megilla properly while saying the 10
names of the sons of Haman in one breath, is not directly touched on by
Alex. The only point of possible reference is the opinion of the Rama
that while it is preferable to read in one breath, it is still valid if
not.
I disagree that proper etiquitte would require Alex to answer any or all
of your concerns. Alex has commented on specific items that you wrote,
and he has no obligation to do other than that.
You continue by saying:
> However in mail jewish we are not discussing psak (final law) but
> reasons. Consequently it is circular to argue 'he must have a reason'.
> The WHOLE purpose of the discussion is to find that reason (And if we
> cant especially and have a strong counter argument we may be obligated
> to follow it).
I disagree with the statement that in mail-jewish we do not discuss
psak. It is fine to do so, and bringing down the psak of a posek is part
of our discussions. The only statement I have made many times is that we
do not use mail-jewish as the source of psak for any individual person /
situation. I do agree that our discussions are enhanced by discussing
reasons for the psak, either based on the writings of the posek himself,
or our own interpretations of the psak. However, it is not circular to
argue "he must have a reason", nor is it circular to argue he likely
knew the reason you are bringing and by paskening differently, does not
find your reason compelling. As I have stated in the past, I strongly
disagree with your last statement quoted above, that if you do not know
the reason for a psak and have your own strong counter arguement, you
may be "obligated" to follow it. You are obligated to follow the psak of
your posek / Rabbi / Moreh Halacha. If you have reached the level of
psak yourself, and the issue was one that is not halacha pesuka, there
may be cases for a few among us that a strong enough counter arguement
may obligate us in practice, but I would view that as very uncommen.
Avi Feldblum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:36:02 +0000
Subject: Re: Valentine's Day and New Year's Day
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 22:01:37 +0200, Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
wrote:
> 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.
Sanhedrin 64a
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:42:18 +0000
Subject: RE: Valentine's Day and New Year's Day
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 11:48:12 -0500, Eitan Fiorino <AFiorino@...>
wrote:
> 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.
I was under the impression that one was always permitted to greet
non-Jews, even idolaters, on their festivals mipnei darkhei shalom, to
further good social relations, or mipnei eivah, to avoid ill-feeling.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 51 Issue 59