Volume 58 Number 66
Produced: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:37:25 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Administravia
[Mal-Jewish team]
Daf yomi
[<suekane@...>]
Not a sin to be an agunah?
[Jeanette Friedman]
Ordination of women
[Leah S.R. Gordon]
Superminyan
[Leah S.R. Gordon]
Wedding invitations (3)
[Akiva Miller Joseph Kaplan SBA]
When a mechizah becomes obligatory (2)
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz Stuart Pilichowski]
Women saying Kaddish
[Elazar M. Teitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mal-Jewish team
Date: Thu, Aug 12,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Administravia
It would be helpful if members did not make submissions covering more than
one topic but rather sent each one separately.
Also it would make their submissions easier to process if everyone adhered to
the following format for citations, as Carl wrote (MJ58#59):
Plony wrote (MJ 58#52):
> In reply to Almony who wrote (MJ 58#50):
>> (quote within quote, all lines beginning >>)
> (quote, all lines beginning >)
This helps to make it clear to readers precisely what is a quote and what
quoted in each quote.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <suekane@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 12,2010 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Daf yomi
As someone who read the Steinsaltz daf yomi in English, on my cell
phone, I am probably in the lowest realm of Torah learning.
However, it is the level that is appropriate for me given that I
(a) need to work for a living and
(b) have no formal training in Talmud study.
While minimal, this effort is better than nothing, which was what I
was doing before I clicked "sign up" on the Steinsaltz webpage. I
have found it a significant enhancement to my own limited knowledge.
I do, in fact, remember and retain most of what I read.
As an analogy: I have a friend who has a very hard time remembering
new pieces of historical information. I always remember new
information in this area. We are equally intelligent and neither of
us is better than the other at remembering things like where we put
our keys.
After some discussion, I realized that this difference was due to the
fact that I had studied world history extensively in college and that
I have a strong internal "framework" into which I place new
information. If I learn some odd detail about colonial Africa, I know
exactly where to put that information. She doesn't. It is very
difficult to retain details when they don't contribue to any larger
whole.
I don't see daf yomi as "real" Talmud study, but rather as the
necessary introduction I need as someone with little formal
background. I am simply building an architecture into which I can
place future knowledge.
I know that each page of Talmud contains far more background,
information, wide discussion and history than one can hope to get in a
short English translation. But this is only a problem if I announce
that I have "learned" this page or that I will never need to revisit it.
To the contrary, I feel that I know a bit more than I did yesterday
and that the *next* time someone discusses this concept or teaches me
this page, I will perhaps be able to fully follow *that* discussion.
This is like learning a language -- the first three times you hear a
new word you won't retain it, but those three times are necessary for
you to retain it the fourth time.
To my mind, daf yomi was a brilliant invention that makes the Talmud
much more accessible to the average bear of little brain, like myself.
As long as we all understand that this is just the first dip of one
toe into the waters, I don't see any drawbacks to this method.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeanette Friedman <FriedmanJ@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 12,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Not a sin to be an agunah?
Mordechai Horowitz wrote (MJ 58#64):
> There is no sin in either being an agunah or being unemployed (and
> my opinion of Kollel is very different that of the community at large)
You're right. It's not a sin to be an agunah. Agunah equals victim of
blackmail, extortion, racketeering, unlawful imprisonment and enslavement.
Creating Agunot is the sin, and exonerating the rabbis and the recalcitrant
bastards who do it is a crime against humanity.
Not a sin to be an agunah? Really? How nice.
Jeanette Friedman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S.R. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 12,2010 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Ordination of women
> David Tzohar wrote (MJ 58#60):
> R' Herschel Schter (IMHO, the real) Rosh Yeshiva of YU showed us the way
> in his courageous stand against the ordination of women saying that this is
> a life or death question. IMHO this view against innovations whose source
> is change in societal conditions (in this case the impact of feminism on
> Western society) is the correct one.
Whether or not you support ordaining men, or ordaining women, or both, or
neither, please refrain from using loaded terminology like "...his
courageous stand against...[something many MJers support]"
By the way, I feel like there's been a fifty-year time warp; what are you
talking about, "the impact of feminism on Western society," as though we're
a couple of loony wild women trying to do something outrageous: Let me be
quite clear, feminism, i.e. the idea that women are humans too, is here to
stay. It is not a weird/bad influence that "we men" can ignore, nor some
recent innovation.
Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S.R. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 12,2010 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Superminyan
Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...> wrote (MJ 58#63):
> When this thread started someone (Leah Gordon, maybe) said that partnership
> minyanim wait for 10 women and 10 men to daven. If they have 10 men, how
> long do they wait for the women? Past the zman? What happens if 10 women
> never show? Does everybody leave? Daven privately? Either answer would seem
> to be problematic halachically.
It was not I who said that, though it is commonly the practice of
Partnership Minyanim to "wait" for 10/10. What that means in practice
varies by congregation.
In ours, we had a psak from our minyan Rav that just as you suggest, we
"cannot wait" past zman, and have to do davening based on 10 men or not,
regardless of the count of women. This was very, very controversial in our
community.
There was a large contingent of people who felt that it undermines any idea
of "waiting" at all, if you go ahead with just the count of men; others felt
that this was absolutely clear according to the Orthodox halakha, and must
be decided so. Yet others felt that we could avoid the problem by taking
different interpretations (e.g. chabad) for making zmanim late enough to
avoid the question. One group believed that it is a social problem, and
that any shul worth its salt should get the 10/10 by zman with no issue. In
fact, this last group has a point; the wait-not-wait issue has not come up
in practice yet.
--Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 12,2010 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Wedding invitations
On the practice of omitting the names of the couple's mothers from wedding
invitations, Martin Stern wrote (MJ 58#65):
> There is an even more obnoxious custom in certain chassidic circles
> to omit the name of the bride as well. I was told that this is
> because of the fear that mentioning a female name might arouse the
> passions of males who might be led to sinful thoughts or even
> actions! This is nonsense.
Do you think it is impossible for this to happen? My fear is that some of these
men live lives which are so sheltered that their passions might indeed be
aroused by the sight of a woman's name. If so, then rather than being nonsense,
it would be very very sad.
But my preferred guess is that the above is *not* the reason for this practice.
Tznius - modesty - is not only about hiding one's body to avoid arousing
passions. In its fuller sense, tznius is about stepping out of the limelight,
and not being the focus of attention. This perspective makes it simpler to
understand why some women might not want their named publicized.
> However their custom may have Biblical precedent. As is well known,
> many of our wedding customs are derived from the way Lavan behaved.
Yes, indeed. Please allow me to note that although we know who Rachel and Leah's
father was, the Torah does *not* give us the name of their mother. Ditto for
many other women, such as the wives of Noach and Potiphar.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Kaplan <penkap@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 12,2010 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Wedding invitations
Fay Berger <JuniperViv@...> wrote (MJ 58#64):
> Many wedding invitations leave off the names of the mothers of the bride
> and groom. They print the father's name "V'raayato". Why has this become
> customary?"
My completely unscientific impression of this is that when I was getting
married (many decades ago), all invitations had veraayato; today, there are
many more invitations that have the mothers' names. IOW, it is my impression
that this is becoming LESS customary.
Joseph Kaplan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 12,2010 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Wedding invitations
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 58#65):
> There is an even more obnoxious custom in certain chassidic circles to omit
> the name of the bride as well.
I have seen hundreds of 'chassidic' wedding invitations and NEVER seen one
without the bride's name. Not even when it is the daughter of a rebbe.
Have you actually seen such an invitation or just 'heard about it'?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 12,2010 at 12:01 PM
Subject: When a mechizah becomes obligatory
Elanit Z Rothschild Jakabovics <ezrothschild@...> wrote (MJ 58#65):
> Stuart Pilchowski wrote (MJ 58#62):
>
>> Am I missing something? My weekday morning minyan and shabbat afternoon
>> minyan has no mechitza because women never attend. Is my bet knesset not
>> kosher?
>
> Although I do not know the makeup of your shul and your community, shouldn't
> it be common practice in Modern Orthodox synagogues these days to have a
> mechitzahso that if a woman showed up, she would feel welcome to pray with
> you as opposedto not having a space in which to daven and feeling
> unwelcome/unwanted?
That would depend on the building and the space being used for the
beit knesset. We have a "Jewish Chapel" on a military base which we use
for Shacharit every work day morning. Because of the size of the room
and the set up, we cannot have a permanent mechitza. For a while the
base had a Jewish Chaplain and his wife would come to Shacharit on
Monday and Thursday so we would set up a mechitzah for her. During the
winter we would have Mincha during the lunch hour and would use the
mechitza then as well.
When having a lunch, we would use the mechitza to screen off the Aron Kodesh.
There are also shuls which require the amount of space to be changed,
sometimes for almost every minyon. For example, Friday night would be
packed on the men's side and empty on the women's side. Usually this
is because the men from three or more different Shacharit minyonim
come and almost no women come. For Shabat Shacharit, many women come
and the men are distributed to different minyonim. The point Mr.
Pilchowski was making was that women did not come during the week, so
a mechitza would not have been needed. If a woman had come, then they
would, of course, have had to set up the mechitza.
Sabba - ' " - Hillel
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Pilichowski <stupillow@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 12,2010 at 12:01 PM
Subject: When a mechizah becomes obligatory
Elanit Z Rothschild Jakabovics <ezrothschild@...> wrote (MJ 58#65):
>Stuart Pilchowski wrote (MJ 58#62):
>> Am I missing something? My weekday morning minyan and shabbat afternoon
>> minyan has no mechitza because women never attend. Is my bet knesset not
>> kosher?
> Although I do not know the makeup of your shul and your community, shouldn't it
> be common practice in Modern Orthodox synagogues these days to have a mechitzah
> so that if a woman showed up, she would feel welcome to pray with you as
> opposed to not having a space in which to daven and feeling unwelcome/unwanted?
I agree - generally speaking. However, in our small, Israeli community, the
women have NEVER shown up for minyan Shabbat afternoon in the seven years I've
been a member.
It would only take less than a minute to pull out the mechitza and the
individual would feel just fine and not "unwelcome/unwanted" were a woman to
drop in from Mars.
Stuart Pilichowski
Mevaseret Zion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 12,2010 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Women saying Kaddish
Dr. Russell Handel has written a long explication, partly intended as a
rejoinder to what I wrote about his original comments. I don't care to rebut his
comments point by point, but lest silence be accepted as concession, I find it
necessary to say that in my opinion virtually every sentence of his statement is
either incorrect or irrelevant to the question being discussed.
I will limit my remarks to two errors of fact. First, he writes that "The
Kaddish (instituted during the crusades to deal with people suddenly orphaned)
is a beautiful RESPONSE TO DEATH."
This is simply not so. The Kaddish has been with us for more than two
millennia. It is a "davar shebik'dusha" [a sanctified matter], which is why it
requires a minyan for it to be said; no prayer was given that status after
Talmudic times. What is of later origin is _not_ the Kaddish itself; it is the
saying of it by mourners which is a more modern development. Indeed, where
there are no mourners, it is said by someone else, because it is a public, not a
private, obligation. It is a merit for the departed if his/her son enables the
congregation to fulfill its obligation; therefore, mourners (and those observing
a parent's yahrzeit) serve as shaliach tzibbur [prayer leader]. Not everyone is
capable of leading services, and in any event, there can only be one leader,
which is why the kaddish is a means of sharing the z'chus [merit].
The connection with the Crusades, if there is one (and it is far from certain;
Teimanim, too, say the Kaddish, and to the best of my knowledge there were no
crusades in Yemen), is that there was a multitude of pre-bar mitzva orphans, who
-- even if capable -- are ineligible to lead services. They were therefore
given a kaddish to say. Indeed, I believe that in its first mention in
siddurim, the instructions read "Here the lad says Kaddish."
It should be pointed out, by the way, that there are several varieties of
Kaddish; two of them, which are integral parts of the service (the half-kaddish
which marks the transition between parts of the service, and the full Kaddish
which follows the principal prayer (the Amidah, or by its popular name, the
shmone-esrei) is always said exclusively by the leader. It is only the Kaddish
which follows the non-essential parts, such as the Shir shel Yom [literally,
"song of the day," which was sung by the Levi'im at the daily sacrifices], which
was added to the morning prayers about 500 years ago, that the mourners say the
Kaddish.
Secondly, to say that Kaddish "is a beautiful RESPONSE TO DEATH," in Dr.
Hendel's words, is simply not so. Of course, if one translates the Kaddish as
he did, it might be so construed, but his translation is very wide of the mark.
He wrote:
> A rough translation of the Kaddish is:
> May God's name be magnified whether in this world (of Death) or in the future
> world when He will be King (and death will be devoured) WHETHER in my lifetime
> **or** the life of the Jewish people, hopefully soon....
The actual wording is, "May His Great Name be magnified and sanctified in the
world He created according to His will, and He impose His monarchy, in your
lifetimes and your days [referring to the members of the congregation
present--EMT], AND in the lifetimes of all the House of Israel, speedily and
soon." (According to one interpretation, "according to His will" modifies "may
His Name be sanctified," not "the world He created.") There is neither mentiom
nor intimation of death or of a future world; only the future of this world is
referred to, when death will still be part of human experience. It is,
essentially, a prayer for the restoration of Hashem's glory with the coming of
Moshiach and the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash.
There _is_ one Kaddish which mentions death. It is the Kaddish said at a
burial, which starts "May His Great Name be magnified and exalted in the world
which He will, in the future, renew, and will resurrect the dead and elevate
them to eternal life." The ordinary Kaddish, however, nowhere mentions nor even
hints at these matters, and mistranslating does not make it so.
EMT
____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 2000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c6448aa293e467cccfst03vuc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 58 Issue 66
