Volume 58 Number 55
Produced: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 10:36:15 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Mystical and spiritual influences on Halacha
[Ben Katz]
"Egalitarian Orthodox" (Partnership) Minyanim (2)
[Orrin Tilevitz Wendy Baker]
Accommodating women who wish to say kaddish.
[Carl Singer]
Capital "O" for orthodox, orthodoxy
[Martin Stern]
Conservative Judaism and "Biblical criticism"
[Martin Stern]
Innovations (3)
[Martin Stern Orrin Tilevitz Menashe Elyashiv]
Women Rabbis
[Carl Singer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <BKatz@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 4,2010 at 09:01 PM
Subject: Mystical and spiritual influences on Halacha
Mark Steiner <marksa@...> (MJ.58 #49):
> I'm afraid that I'm rather confused by Dr. Katz' philosophy.
> Today (4 August), he writes:
>> The oft-quoted Rashi cited by Mr. Tzohar leads to an untenable
>> position for us empiricists.
> But on 24 February he wrote:
>> As a Maimonidean and a rationalist, please permit me this short rant.
>> As an amateur logician, please permit me to say that, since empiricism
>> is incompatible with rationalism, and Maimonides was arguably a rationalist,
>> it follows that -- since I don't suspect Dr. Katz of harboring inconsistent
>> beliefs -- that Dr. Katz has abandoned Maimonides' philosophy in less than
>> six months after embracing it. I can only bemoan his defection.
I am not sure I understand Dr. Steiner's comment re empiricism being
incompatible with rationalism. Please rest assured that I remain a staunch
Maimonidean.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 8,2010 at 12:01 AM
Subject: "Egalitarian Orthodox" (Partnership) Minyanim
I would very much like to be able to duchen, but as a levite I may not do so. I
find it emotionally upsetting and unfulfilling to have kohanim who don't know as
much as I do, and who can't sing as well as I do, duchen while I just stand
there. It's even more demeaning for me to have to wash their hands. It seems to
me that society has changed enough that this sort of class distinction is
unwarranted. When I did some research, I came across a tosafot in Shabbat 118b
that suggests that a non-kohen can indeed duchen, and the only problem is the
blessing. I'd willingly forego the blessing as long as I can do that Spock thing
with my hands. But when I went to my rabbi, he laughed at me. Can someone help?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wendy Baker <wbaker@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 8,2010 at 10:01 AM
Subject: "Egalitarian Orthodox" (Partnership) Minyanim
David I. Cohen wrote (MJ 58#54):
> I have no experience with partnership minyanim. However, I do know of women
> who decided to say kaddish for a parent and came to a minyan at least once a
> day to say kaddish (from the women's section).
>
> Maybe I was not clear enough in my previous post. I, too, have
> known a few women who were meticulous in minyan attendance in order to say
> kaddish during their year of aveilut. I am not commenting on them at all, or
> in any way denigrating women who do not do so. What I meant to convey was
> the sense that men have an obligation to attend minyan every day. While
> those advocating women's participation in Jewish communal prayer to the
> extent possible (e.g. leading kabbalat shabbat, getting aliyot etc.) do not
> also advocate for women voluntarily taking upon themselves the obligation of
> daily public prayer.
Men attend morning minyan not only because of their obligation to pray
each morning, preferably in a minyan, but to help make a minyan so those
obligated to say Kaddish in a minyan have one. Were a woman to accept an
obligation to not only daven the entire shacharit , but to do so in a
minyan, she would still not be helping those who need a minyan to say
Kaddish. I wonder how many men, if not feeling the need to help others,
would be attending every day, without fail. Voluntarily taking on an
obligation, but still not "counting" seems, to me, at least, to be of a
higher order than someone accepting his given responsibilty while getting
the satisfaction of helping others at the same time.
Wendy Baker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 8,2010 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Accommodating women who wish to say kaddish.
There are women who wish to say kaddish upon the death of a relative. They
attend minyanim in order to do so.
A year or so ago one of our (female) neighbors began saying kaddish (from
the women's section and quietly so as not to be heard in the men's section.)
When there were no men in attendance who were obliged to say kaddish, one of
the men would say kaddish to facilitate her saying kaddish (rather than
minyan advancing to the next part of davening without "pausing" for
kaddish) without embarrassment.
These seemed a reasonable accommodation -- and seems halachically acceptable.
I'm wondering what other congregations do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 8,2010 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Capital "O" for orthodox, orthodoxy
Batya Medad <ybmedad@...> wrote (MJ 58#54):
> When you refer to "Orthodox Judaism" or "Orthodoxy" it sounds like a
> separate religion from mainstream Judaism. That's problematic if you
> believe that it's the real thing and that Reform, Conservative,
> Reconstructionist etc have separated themselves from mainstream Judaism
> developing into separate religions.
I am inclined to agree with everything Batya writes and prefer the term
"Torah Judaism" to Orthodoxy. The latter was originally invented by the
early Reform movement in Germany as an abusive label for those who adhered
to the "old religion" and rejected its attempt to remould it in the "spirit
of the times". However it has now become accepted and I think, on balance, it
is not worth quibbling over it as if it were a capital offence.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 8,2010 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Conservative Judaism and "Biblical criticism"
Frank Silbermann <frank_silbermann@...> wrote (MJ 58#49):
> I was told, in the context of the "who is a Jew?" issue, that the main
> objection to the Conservative movement is not any specific halachic ruling but
> rather the teaching of "Biblical criticism" (ideas that the Torah was
> assembled from the writings of four authors rather than dictated by G-d to
> Moses).
To which Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...> responded (MJ 58#51):
> Please note that the above is not a fundamental tenet of Conservative Judaism.
> An especially important point to make is that although individual respected
> rabbis of the Conservative movement might hold various opinions on this
> matter, the movement itself does not have an official position on
> this issue to my knowledge, and most Conservative Jews are likely unaware of
> the scholarship in this area.
Janice's last statement is undoubtedly correct since the Conservative
movement's expansion after WW2 was essentially sociologically, rather than
theologically, driven. Jews moving out of the older urban areas of Jewish
residence to the suburbs found that the assumption of their new respectable
non-Jewish neighbours was that one was a member of some church so they set
up synagogues in response. Their perception was that Orthodoxy was to
"foreign" and Reform to "unjewish" so they opted for Conservatism as
something in between without bothering too much about its principles. It was
in response to this unexpected expansion, which meant members were now
living over much larger areas than previously, that the movement came out
with its ruling that to drive to shul on Shabbat was allowed.
I am not so sure whether her other claim is really valid. Though individual
rabbis of the Conservative movement might hold various opinions on this
matter, the vast majority would not accept the Maimonidean formulation of
the doctrine of "Torah min Hashamayim" and be more inclined to the Bible
Critical view of the text despite the famous aphorism of Solomon Schechter,
essentially the movement's founder, that "Higher Criticism is Higher
Antisemitism".
In reality, it is the tacit acceptance of Biblical Criticism that has
enabled the movement to take the rather cavalier approach to halachah
mentioned by Orrin Tilevitz (MJ 58#51).
Much of the Torah shebe'al peh depends on use of exegetical principles such
as, for example, gezeirah shavah [two words in different places linking
different subjects] or semukhim [two apparently unrelated topics being in
juxtaposed verses], in which case the resulting halachah is considered
d'oraita [as if explicitly stated in the text]. If the text is a mosaic of
material from various sources, as postulated by the Higher Criticism, these
resulting halachot are undermined, allowing a much greater "flexibility" in
making changes or, as Ben Katz described (MJ 58#53) it:
> The Conservative movement believes in halachic evolution - that the process
> of halachic innovation should not be frozen in time.
In particular this allowed what I described in an earlier posting as their
ultimate fall-back modus operandi (MJ 58#53) in changing halachah:
> (5) where none of these produces the desired result, they have recourse to
> arguing that changed social conditions necessitate a change in practice e.g.
> allowing driving to shul on Shabbat since most members live too far away to
> be able to walk.
Thus I consider that acceptance, whether tacit or explicit, of the results
of Higher Criticism is the essential point at issue between the Conservative
movement and Orthodoxy or, as I would rather call it, Torah Judaism,
whatever the actual practices of individual adherents of either might be. In
view of this discussion, it would appear that what Frank was told is absolutely
correct.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 8,2010 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Innovations
Michael Rogovin <mrogovin118@...> wrote (MJ 58 #54):
> Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 58#53):
>
>> I don't have the time to address each of these, but the practice of
>> sermons being delivered in the vernacular is about 2000 years old. Pick up
>> any volume of the Talmud and see for yourself.
>
> In Talmudic times, they interrupted davening between Torah reading and
> Musaf to deliver a sermon in the vernacular on the parsha or other
> topical issue? Since this was an innovation of Reform temples that
> migrated into orthodox services (mostly Young Israels) and I believe
> was heavily criticized by Eastern European rabbaim, I find it
> surprising that it was a practice that was in continuous use for 2000
> years.
Michael is correct as regards the timing of vernacular sermons but that was
not what Orrin wrote about. However, vernacular sermons were delivered in
Talmudic times but usually after minchah on Shabbat and formed the basis of
the Midrashic literature.
Their institution on Shabbat morning was a slight innovation but was justified
because it enabled the rabbi to get his message over to a much larger audience
than came in the afternoons. In particular it reached the women who, by and
large, only came in the mornings.
I believe that the main objection to the newer practice was that the
chatsi-kaddish before Mussaf was being said directly after it and not after some
Scriptural verses.
In the synagogue from which I was expelled for upholding its traditions, we used
to have a sermon occasionally, usually on Shabbat Mevarachin, in which case we
postponed Ashrei until after it to avoid that problem, a practice I believe that
was common in Orthodox synagogues in Germany.
>> While the tunes are different, Yemenite kabbalat shabbat services are
>> effectively Carlebach-type -- everybody sings the entire thing, together,
>> to what seems to me to be the same tune. Kabbalat shabbat is part of long
>> tradition of adding pieces to the services -- look at piyutim.
In German Orthodox synagogues there was something similar. The Tehillim [Psalms]
were said antiphonally [alternative verses by chazan and congregation] with a
well known nigun [tune] and Lecha Dodi was sung in unison often to a special
nigun specific to the time of year (Channukah, Sefirah, Three Weeks, Shabbat
Chazon etc.).
> Not everyone agrees that piyutim should be added.
Many go back to the time of the Geonim, over 1500 years ago, though their
recital was a matter of dispute between the latter, in Bavel, and the
congregations following the customs of Erets Yisrael. Their recital was
widespread in Ashkenazi circles until quite recently, and even Sefardim did so
at one time, so such a long standing tradition does exist.
> In any case, Kabbalat Shabbat as a fixed part of Maariv [Friday evening
> service] is only a few hundred years old. Hasidim did not like the status
> ante and sought to make the service more meaningful to them. I am sure there
> was similar opposition to them and their innovations, but it must have
> struck a chord with enough people that it outlasted the opposition.
Kabbalat Shabbat became popular and widespread very soon after it was
introduced by the followers of the Arizal about 400 years ago and was not a
Hasidic innovation. In any case, it is difficult to argue that the recital
of a few chapters of Psalms and a piyut between minchah and ma'ariv could be
considered objectionable except by those who want to get home earlier for
their Shabbat meal.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 8,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Innovations
Mitchell Rogovin wrote (MJ 58#54):
> Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 58#53):
>> I don't have the time to address each of these, but the practice of
>> sermons being delivered in the vernacular is about 2000 years old. Pick up
>> any volume of the Talmud and see for yourself.
> In Talmudic times, they interrupted davening between Torah reading and
> Musaf to deliver a sermon in the vernacular on the parsha or other
> topical issue?
I didn't write anything about interrupting davening for sermons in the
vernacular, which in Talmudic times was Aramaic. In Eastern Europe AFIK they
interrupted davening after shachrit for a kiddush, or some people did. A sermon
instead is not a particular serious innovation.
> Not everyone agrees that piyutim should be added.
Not everybody, but the practice stuck.
> Innovation requires a valid purpose and a halachicly valid rationale. It does
> not require as a prerequisite a consensus ruling of any rabbinical organization
> or a majority of rabbis (though that would certainly help)
I don't disagree on either of these. But I think that purpose must be more than
"I don't like the status quo", particular when the innovation is something that
conventional reasoning would is affirmatively NOT done. Kabbalat shabbat,
additional prayers and a sermon are neither of these things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 8,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Innovations
Michael Rogovin wrote (MJ 58/54):
> In Talmudic times, they interrupted davening between Torah reading and
> Musaf to deliver a sermon in the vernacular on the parsha or other
> topical issue? SInce this was an innovation of Reform temples that
> migrated into orthodox services (mostly Young Israels) and I believe
> was heavily criticized by Eastern European rabbaim, I find it
> surprising that it was a practice that was in continuous use for 2000
> years.
But in Israel, where the was a 3 or 3 1/2 year Torah reading cycle, even
with translating the reading into Aramaic, the services were shorter. That
it the source of the many Midrashim, Rabbis speaking about the Parasha.
Also, I assume that they spoke in the afternoon. The yeshiva world sermon
after Kabbalat Shabbat seems new, as in older times the Friday night
prayers ended early. I myself do not like it. To our good luck, most of
our congregation goes to the early Shabbat minyan. The summer time
speaking usually falls on - me - and I finish in less than 10 minutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 8,2010 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Women Rabbis
This discussion reflects both halachic and social elements -- as might be
expected.
In about 1985 we had a family join our (Orthodox) synagogue after leaving
the Conservative movement. They had attended sessions that a special committee
of the JTS (Jewish Theological Seminary - the Conservative movement's seminary)
had regarding the ordination of women and left the Conservative movement because
- to paraphrase them - they felt the decision to allow it was based on social,
not halachic, reasoning.
The above is second hand and not verified -- but reflects today's situation
within some corners of Torah Observant Judaism. We have observant women of
learning and religious fervor (this is not new) who seek other forms of
expression. And as with any group there those within certain visible groups
who are not observant, learned, ....
Halacha does not exist in a social vacuum - does it?
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 58 Issue 55
