Volume 56 Number 31
Produced: Tue Sep 2 5:10:34 EDT 2008
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Haredi haskafa (Science and Halacha)
[Russell J Hendel]
Mail Jewish and Facebook
[Avi Feldblum]
Minhag - Halachah
[Shmuel Himelstein]
A plurality of local customs
[Ben Katz]
Prayer for the Country in UK (3)
[Ben Katz, Janice Gelb, David Ziants]
Ultra-Orthodox hashkafa (2)
[Ben Katz, Joel Rich]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 10:41:48 -0400
Subject: Haredi haskafa (Science and Halacha)
Eric and Mordechai raise the issue of to what extent science determines
halachah.
This is an interesting question and should be discussed. However, a very
important point must be remembered. Not all statements in the Talmud are
literal. Many statements are either legally sanctioned approximations or
symbolic. You can not analyze the science - Torah question without really
knowing the criteria of how to classify a Talmudic statement. I give two
examples.
1) The Talmud based on a verse in Kings of a temple construction with a
diameter of 10 and circumference of 30 infers that the mathematical
constant pie is 3. Some authors have seen this as a "belief" or a
"Sanctioning" of pie as 3. I rather see it as a legally default
approximation. I believe that Hilcoth Mechirah justifies that a) If the
law of the land requires 4 digit accuracy in pie that would be binding in
Jewish commercial activity b) if either of the partiers had stipulated
(Tenai)a value of pie that would be binding. But IN THE ABSENCE OF A LAND
LAW and A STIPULATION then the DEFAULT value of pie is its integer
approximation, 3. So for example if I sold a circular plot of land with
3000 square feet I would by default have committed myself to a circular
plot with radius 1000 (Which would give the buyer 3142 square feet of
land)
2) I wrote an article "Genesis one speaks about the creation of Prophecy
not the creation of the world" which you can find on the world wide web
at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/gen-1.htm In that article I show that the
creation of the world in 7 days is not a scientific fact but a
symbolically intended fact. Genesis 1 is not describing how the
(physical) world was created but rather how the (spiritual) world was
created. In other words something did happen 6000 years ago; but it was
not the creation of the universe, the solar system or man. Rather what
happened 6000 years ago is that the 1st prophecy happened. It was the
unique point in time in which for the first time a human experienced a
prophetic revelation from God.
In defending this thesis I bring many midrashim rishonim and acharonim.
While some rishonim say similar things (e.g. Ramban believed that Adam
was "Superior" to other people who were already around) my contribution
is to SPECIFICALLY IDENTiFY the superiority of Adam with the possession
of prophetic insight. (I also cite and defend grammatically the view in
the Midrash that there were other people before Adam)
Now my point here is the following: Some people DO THINK that Gen 1 is
describing a physicial fact. In fact it isnt (I give very specific
criteria when to avoid interpreting a text literally and interpret it
symbolically based on acharonim).
I believe these two approaches (approximation and symbolism) answer most
if not all questions about science and halacha. I encourage such
discussions but caution about proper use of the two most prevalant
defenses.
Finally one discussant brought in the psak not to sign ones name in Latin
Letters. Is this misguided science? Or rather is it use of Rabbinic
authority to accomplish communal goals. Does anyone really think that the
posayk in question believed that his basis was scientific.
Dr. Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:41:32 -0400
Subject: Mail Jewish and Facebook
Several years ago, I do not remember when, we had discussed the
possibility of creating a web area where people could upload a picture
and maybe fill out something about themselves, so that we could have a
visual / greater context for the conversations on the list. Facebook may
have been around, but was definitely not as commonly used as now. I'd
like to thank David Curwin for starting the Facebook group, I think this
will satisfy that old idea that we were never able to implement. I'm
looking forward to "meeting" a number of you there.
Avi Feldblum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:18:53 +0300
Subject: Minhag - Halachah
I fully sympathize with the Yeshiva student from Holland who was told to
forsake his Minhag regarding the time to wait between meat and milk.
Part of this problem is that what Ashkenazim practice has become
enshrined as THE Halachah, and any divergence from it is seen as
blasphemy.
I've been going through "A Treasury of Sephardic Laws and Customs" by
Rabbi Herbert C. Dobrinsky, and wonder how many of us would recognize
the following as being "Halachic":
"Many a Syrian lad observes his Bar Mitzvah around the age of twelve and
six months." (p. 30)
"The custom of Morocco [was] that a child was considered of age to be
educated in the putting on of Tefillin when he was ten or eleven, at
which time he was taught to put on the Tefillin with a Bracha." (p. 33)
... "In some communities, the boy would be counted for a Minyan from
that time on, even if he was only eleven or twelve years old." (p. 34)
The Syrian custom is for the Kiddushin not to be with a ring, but with a
silver coin, and the text recited is "Harei at mekudeshet li bekaspa
Haden." (p. 44) (That eliminates the discussion of whether the ring is
worth a perutah!)
Among Syrian Jews, "the men are often buried in a separate section from
the women in the cemetery. They are placed in the next available grave
..." (p. 72)
Among Moroccan Jews, a glass with a lit candle was kept burning
throughout the entire year of mourning. (p. 83) The same is true for
Judeo-Spanish Jews. (p. 93)
We (Ashkenazim) always thought that one says Kaddish for 11 months for
one's parents and for 30 days for others for whom one must mourn. Note,
then, the following:
Among Moroccan Jews, Kaddish for parents is said for 10 months and a
day. (p. 87) Some, though, only say it for 8 or 9 months. (p. 86) Among
Judeo-Spanish Jews, Kaddish is said for 11 months and a day for ALL
those for whom one must say Kaddish. (p. 93) This would include parents,
siblings, children, and spouse. Also, since Kaddish is said only for 11
months, there is a month's break and then a further month of
Kaddish. (p. 93)
Syrian Jews have Birkat Kohanim daily, but the Kohanim do not have their
hands washed by Levi'im. They rely on their hand washing in the morning.
They do not remove their shoes before Birkat Kohanim. Only on Yom Kippur
at Neilah do they remove their shoes and have Levi'im wash their
hands. (p. 169)
Among Moroccan Jews, once the Kohen/Levi/Yisrael have been called on
Shabbat morning for Aliyot, Kohanim may again be called to for any
Aliyah from Revi'i on. When a Kohen is called for one of these Aliyot,
it is stressed that he is being called then "even though he is a Kohen."
(p. 181)
Among Moroccan Jews, many congregations do not have Chazarat HaShatz at
Mussaf on Shabbat. (p. 234)
This is but a limited sampling of what I've come across.
The more I read about the different customs, the more do I realize how
non-monolithic we are.
Shmuel Himelstein
P.S. There is a mention in the book - I forget where - about a certain
synagogue where the Baal Keriyah could be fined if he made any errors in
the Torah reading! I suppose that could only apply if he was a paid
employee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <BKatz@...>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 02:54:49 -0500
Subject: RE: A plurality of local customs
> From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
> I was reading an interview of Rabbi Marc Angel in a recent edition of
> the Jewish Press.
> ...
> I wanted to hear opinions / discussion not re: any specific minhag or
> custom that differs - but regarding how we as a diverse observant
> community might best go forward with the understanding that there is
> (often?) more than one "correct" minhag.
This gets into the whole mimetic vs text tradition issue of
Rabbi Dr. Aharon Soloveichik. Do you look up in abook what to do, or do
you mimic the behavior of the observant community around you? The
shulchan aruch could only codify behaviors it was familiar with at the
time. It could not speak of customs with which it was unfamiliar, or
customs yet to develop.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <BKatz@...>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 02:54:49 -0500
Subject: Prayer for the Country in UK
If you look at Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sack's new siddur, her
mentions the royal family by name. I have also seen old Ryussian sidurm
that mention the caer by name.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Prayer for the Country in UK
Dr. Howard Berlin <w3hb@...> wrote:
> As many times as I have been in the UK, I have, sad to say, never been
> to shabbat services in London. Does anyone know if the prayer for the
> country mentions the Queen (Elizabeth II) by name?
It does, or at least it did when I was at services in Glasgow in
1999. Not only did it mention the Queen, the siddur named the entire
royal family. I always wondered what happened when Charles and Diana got
divorced -- did shuls paste over the names with a new set? I look
forward to hearing from actual UK residents.
-- Janice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:31:38 +0300
Subject: Re: Prayer for the Country in UK
Although I haven't lived in the UK for more than 25 years, from my
memory and my visits they do so and mention all members of the British
Royal Family.
Each visit seems to oscillate between "Charles Prince of Wales" ,"Prince
and Princess of Wales", etc. depending on divorces, deaths etc. within
this monarchy.
It is interesting to note that the standard prayer as used by the United
Synagogue (Orthodox) in England starts with the traditional "hanotain
teshua lamalachim" but omits "hapotzeh et david avdo meherev raa"
(tehillim 144) which was in the E. European versions. I guess that
suggesting the queen needs to be saved from "evil swords" is not within
British etiquette...
David Ziants
Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <BKatz@...>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 02:54:49 -0500
Subject: Ultra-Orthodox hashkafa
> From: Eric Grosser <ericgrosser@...>
>
> I'd like to put a big hashkafic question on table by giving a specific
> example. My question is, to what degree is Haredi haskafa, if I may use
> this term, based on misinformation, be it
> historical/linguistic/scientific, as opposed to an underlying world
> view? As an example, in one of the Hatam Sofer's tshuvot, he condems
> the practice of signing one's name in Latin letters, even on ordinary
> documents. This is part of a larger struggle on the part of many
> Hungarian rabbis in the 1800's to prevent the displacement of Yiddish to
> German. "In my opinion the ancients were also well versed in the
> vernacular but intentionally corrupted the language German into Yiddish,
> because of the eighteen measures." (11th day of the Omer 1839) (EH
> 2,12) The 18 measures is taken from the Yerushalmi masechet Shabbat and
> includes "on their language" which was interpreted as a probition
> against speaking the language of idolators.
>
> QUESTION: Linguistically, I am convinced that it can be proven as a fact
> that Yiddish dervies from a particular variety of 13th century German
> and at no point did Jews decide to INTENTIONALLY corrupt German. Given
> that the Hatam Sofer were to have been convinced of this by a historical
> linguist, to what decree would he be forced to "change" his hashkafa and
> be open to Jews speaking the languages of the idolators? The biggest
> irony is that Yiddish derives from 13th century German, meaning, Yiddish
> originally WAS a language of idolators which is how we have Yiddish
> today. If the Hatam Sofer were to have realized this linguistic fact,
> would this have affected his hashkafa, and if so, how? I'd like to open
> the discussion on this topic by finding other examples and developing a
> kind of model for analyizing this aspect of Ultra-Orthodox hashkafa.
This is another famous debate - can historical facts decisively
end a machloket. I would argue yes. There is an interesting letter
from the Ramban at the end of Chavel's Hebrew edition of the Ramban on
the Chumash (which Chavel did not translate in his English version)
where Ramban argues that Rashi was correct in his commentary (with which
Ramban in his Torah commentary initially disagreed) based on a coin
written in what seems in paleo-Hebrew that Ramban found after he made
aliyah (after his debate with Pablo Christiani)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:10:55 -0400
Subject: Ultra-Orthodox hashkafa
> QUESTION: Linguistically, I am convinced that it can be proven as a fact
> that Yiddish dervies from a particular variety of 13th century German
> and at no point did Jews decide to INTENTIONALLY corrupt German. Given
> that the Hatam Sofer were to have been convinced of this by a historical
> linguist, to what decree would he be forced to "change" his hashkafa and
> be open to Jews speaking the languages of the idolators? The biggest
> irony is that Yiddish derives from 13th century German, meaning, Yiddish
> originally WAS a language of idolators which is how we have Yiddish
> today. If the Hatam Sofer were to have realized this linguistic fact,
> would this have affected his hashkafa, and if so, how?
Answer aiui is your question may be of historical interest but of no
practical import - the fact that "the hashgacha" kept this fact from him
was so that the psak, which now stands independently of the reasoning,
should be as is.
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 56 Issue 31