Volume 58 Number 82
Produced: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 03:43:22 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Following the latest version (4)
[Michael Rogovin Harry Weiss Akiva Miller Avraham Walfish]
Shaliach Tzibur Practices
[Elie Rosenfeld]
Slurs
[Yisrael Medad]
To the males of this list - A woman's status as a Jew (2)
[Carl Singer Akiva Miller]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Rogovin <mrogovin118@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 18,2010 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Following the latest version
Martin Stern wrote in 58:80
> > [Leah Gordon]
> > Pretty clearly the translation sticks in a number of prohibitions that are
> > imaginary, unless the Hebrew edition is somehow not to be trusted.
>
> This is a slur on the author for which Leah should apologise.
Of course I speak only for myself, but while I would have phrased it
differently from Leah, there is truth to the fact that English
editions of many halachic works, including this one, are in general
more machmir (stringent) than the Hebrew original. In my opinion it is
not because it is a later edition, but rather because it is intended
for a different audience that is less educated and less able to
evaluate differences of opinion among the Rabbis who are cited,
usually in footnotes (which are almost always omitted or if included,
not translated). As with English-language law review articles and
legal texts, you have to know the differences among courts and even
individual judges to be able to evaluate the relative worth of an
opinion. Just because a famous judge opines something does not mean
that it is an opinion that can be generally followed by other courts
(and withstand appeal). Same with halacha.
Nonetheless, these English translations, while useful, do leave the
reader with the impression that the normative halacha is stricter than
might be applicable in their situation and so they should consult with
their LOR/personal halachic authority. My Rabbi at the time permitted
the use of a dishwasher on Shabbat that was mechanical (no LEDs or
electronic controls) and could be put on a timer so that it went on at
night when no one would hear it. He was not (apparently) concerned
with the heating of water and the purpose was to wash dishes to be
used for the Shabbat lunch meal. We ended up never using the timer and
our current DWs are electronic and a timer would erase any
programming, so we can't and we manage. OTOH, IIRC, he did not like
the idea of putting an electric (non-adjustable) hot plate on a timer
to go off overnight and go on in the morning, which I think Shmirat
Shabbat permits (and would be of more use to me now), so there you
have it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 18,2010 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Following the latest version
Martin Stern <md.stern@...> says in MJ 58#80:
in response to Leah S.R. Gordon <leah@...> wrote (MJ 58 #79):
>> My first suggestion would be if possible to consult an earlier edition, in
>> Hebrew. I have found astounding differences between the two ...
> Generally speaking we always assume that the later edition of any halachic
> work is more authoritative since the author will have had the opportunity to
> consult other works that had not been available previously and revised his
> work in their light.
The case of Shmirat Shabbat changes in well known. Between the first Hebrew
and second Hebrew many leniencies were removed from the main text and put into
footnotes. Many of those were the views of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach
zt'l. When the English translation appeared it only translated the main text
and not the footnotes. The rumors are that much of this was done due to
political pressure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 18,2010 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Following the latest version
Responding to a comment about the English edition of Shemirat Shabbat
Kehilchatah, Leah S. R. Gordon (MJ 58:79) wrote (in the thread titled
"Dishwashers"):
> My first suggestion would be if possible to consult an earlier
> edition, in Hebrew. I have found astounding differences between
> the two (one that comes to mind is the permissibility/not of using
> nail polish to stop a run in one's stocking on shabbat). Pretty
> clearly the translation sticks in a number of prohibitions that
> are imaginary, unless the Hebrew edition is somehow not to be
> trusted. So maybe this is one of them.
I suspect you are referring to paragraph 15:73, which reads as follows: (Note
that according to http://www.learnenglish.de/mistakes/USvsBrEnglish.html, the
words in parentheses are the British equivalent of the American word preceding it.)
> 73. a. One may not apply soap to runs (ladders) in nylon
> stockings to prevent them from spreading further.
> b. It is also preferable to refrain from using nail
> polish (varnish) for this purpose.
I don't know why Leah considers this to be a change from the Hebrew edition. The
Hebrew version of that paragraph, regarding soap, says "ayn lasim" (Do not put),
while regarding nail polish it says, "Tov l'himanea" (It is good to refrain). If
someone has other ways to translate these words, I'd like to see it, because to
me, the Hebrew and English published versions sound awfully similar.
OH! I just figured it out! It seems to me that Leah was not looking at the
second Hebrew edition, published in 5739 (1979). I think she was looking at the
*first* Hebrew edition, published 5725 (1965). Paragraph 14:55 there says
(translated by me):
> It is permissible to put (mutar lasim) liquid polish on nylon
> stockings where the run is, in order to prevent the tear from
> spreading. But to use soap for this purpose is forbidden (assur).
It seems to me that Rav Neuwirth (the author) changed his mind between these two
editions. Regarding soap, he seems to be slightly more lenient, going from
"assur - forbidden" to "ayn - don't". But regarding nail polish, he is clearly
stricter, going from "mutar - permissible" to "tov l'himanea - it is good to
refrain".
To understand the reason why he changed his mind, one should carefully study the
footnotes in the Hebrew editions. I would point out that the footnote for this
paragraph in the 1965 edition is 17 words long. In the 1979 edition, his notes
take up more than 11 *lines*, explaining the nuances of his decision.
In any case, it seems clear that the version published in English is not a
product of the translator's imagination, but accurately reflects the intention
of the author's second Hebrew version.
Rav Neuwirth completed a third edition of this work just a few months ago. I saw
it in a store last week, but did not purchase it. If any listmembers have it and
would like to share what he now says, I'm sure the readership would like to hear it.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avraham Walfish <rawalfish@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 19,2010 at 01:01 AM
Subject: Following the latest version
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 58#80):
> Leah S.R. Gordon <leah@...> wrote (MJ 58 #79):
>> In Mail.Jewish vol. 58 #76 Immanuel Burton writes:
>>> According to the English edition of Shemirath Shabbath Ke-hilkhatah (volume
>>> 1, chapter 12, paragraph 35) ...
>> My first suggestion would be if possible to consult an earlier edition, in
>> Hebrew. I have found astounding differences between the two ...
>
> Generally speaking we always assume that the later edition of any halachic
> work is more authoritative since the author will have had the opportunity
> to consult other works that had not been available previously and revised his
> work in their light.
Martin's observation certainly was true in times when rabbanim were free to
rule both leniently and stringently according to their understanding. In a
generation such as ours, where - in the so-called "Torah world" -
*humrot*are applauded and *kulot *lambasted (and sometimes worse - leading
poskim have been physically beaten for - to take one example of several -
permitting an autopsy), a lenient-leaning earlier version is probably a better
reflection of the true opinion of a *posek* than a stringent-leaning later
version. This is an open secret regarding *Shemirat Shabbat Kehilkhata.*
>> Pretty clearly the translation sticks in a number of prohibitions
>> that are imaginary, unless the Hebrew edition is somehow not to be trusted.
> This is a slur on the author for which Leah should apologise.
Based on my above comment - I think not!
Avie Walfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elie Rosenfeld <rosenfeld.elie@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 18,2010 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Shaliach Tzibur Practices
I've been wondering about the following set of practices/customs by the
shaliach tzibur [prayer leader], each of which is typically done in one of
two ways:
1) Blessing of "ga'al yisroel" before Amidah of shacharis:
A) End of blessing not said aloud, to avoid a the congregation answering
"amen" which would interrupt between "geulah" and "tefilah"
B) End of blessing said aloud
2) Insertion in 2nd blessing of Amidah during rainy season:
A) Last word pronounced "gashem"
B) Last word pronounced "geshem"
3) The paragraph of "Modim" during the repetition of Amidah:
A) Shaliach tzibur recites in a semi-undertone until the last several
words, while congregation recites "Modim d'rabannan"
B) Shaliach tzibur recites entire Modim aloud
4) Ends of blessings in the musaf Amidah of Rosh Chodesh and Yom Tovim:
A) Sung to usual nusach [tune] for those holidays
B) Tune is truncated at the ends of blessings, presumably to avoid the
congregation's answering "amen" before the blessing is fully complete.
My question is not about the details behind each specific alternate
practice, but rather I'm wondering if the following observation of mine is
correct. Namely, that until recent years, the standard practice in
Ashkenazic shuls was Option A in each of the above. However, within the
past 20 or 30 years, Option B in each case has become increasingly
prevalent.
If others have noticed the same, to what can this shift be attributed? Does
it simply relate to the increasing ubiquity of the Artscroll siddur, which
seems to side with practice B (at least for items 1-3)? Is there a
broader religious/sociological shift at play? Or am I perhaps generalizing
too much based on the handful of shuls I am familiar with? Your
observations and insights are appreciated!
Elie Rosenfeld - <rosenfeld.elie@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 18,2010 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Slurs
Martin Stern wrote in Vol. 58 No. 80 after quoting Leah S.R. Gordon
writing:
>> Pretty clearly the translation sticks in a number of prohibitions
>> that are imaginary, unless the Hebrew edition is somehow not to be
>> trusted.
> This is a slur on the author for which Leah should apologise.
Or, I would presume support with a quotation or reference, otherwise
there may be another semi-slur slipping about.
Yisrael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 18,2010 at 02:01 PM
Subject: To the males of this list - A woman's status as a Jew
Marilyn Tomsky (MJ58#79) discusses the status of a woman in today's
society as follows:
> Suppose the shoe was on the other foot - would you be that compliant with
> the little you receive as a woman? The second rate status? The guilt implied
> because of a woman (Eve and the apple from the Tree of Knowledge) way, way
> back in time - if it did happen. That was one woman in countless generations
> of women since. The talk of 'get her pregnant all the time' - 'we need lots
> of kids.' Until her life is nothing compared to cries of endless babies and
> kids and their needs and demands. Have you spent one day - less alone day
> after day with children? How would you feel being used like an animal for
> breeding? Would you accept all that? I doubt it. That is - inhuman.
She is certainly entitled to her views and, of course, her self perception
and self image.
But as someone who's been happily married for 33 years (My wife has a
high tolerance threshold - of me) and having had in-depth discussions with
her (less so with my mother, daughters in law, and others) they seem to hold
different viewpoints:
(1) None question the Torah vis a vis Eve.
(2) They see their role as elevated and having children as a blessing - "get
her pregnant all the time" is outside their ken -- and "being used like an
animal for breeding?" is beyond the pale.
(3) Yes, there have been frustrations with crying children -- as I recall
teething tests patience of both parents - and yes, both of us have been up
all night with a sick child. But Mom spent the night sleeping on the couch
in the hospital, Dad stayed home with the other child (at the time there
were only 2). Raising children is a shared responsibility -- admittedly at
times unequally shared (I find my sons change many more diapers than I did
-- good for them!) And inequalities are the things that are worked out in a
successful marriage.
Women, like men, come in all shapes and sizes (figuratively) and their
status and roles vary. Some are the "bread winners", many are nurturers,
some fit into "traditional" moulds, (whatever that means) and some explore
boundaries.
This past Sunday our youngest grandchild, now 6 months old, somehow
projected carrot "mush" all over the kitchen ceiling. (If you can survive
parenthood, being a grandparent is really enjoyable.) I can see how on a
sweltering hot day, with the dishwasher broken, and a pot overflowing on the
stove and one scraped knee and a new shirt irreparably torn -- one can get
frustrated -- but there are limits.
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 18,2010 at 09:01 PM
Subject: To the males of this list - A woman's status as a Jew
Marilyn Tomsky asked (MJ 58:79):
> Suppose the shoe was on the other foot - would you be that
> compliant with the little you receive as a woman? The second
> rate status?
I concede that in shul, there is precious little for the women other than to
watch and listen and pray -- and that in too many shuls the watching and
listening is difficult or impossible.
But my status is not totally first-rate either. I've never gotten the first (or
even the second!) aliyah of the Torah reading, and I never felt cheated out of
it, because I know that it isn't mine. I'm not even in the running. I've never
won an Oscar(R) either.
It's true that I've gotten other aliyahs, though, so maybe that doesn't count.
You could call the others a consolation prize or something, I suppose.
But I've never been able to go to the front of the shul and bless the
congregation, either. And there's no consolation prize for that one. And lest
anyone say something like "That's only on Yom Tov! It's not day after day all
year long!", let me say that I had the privilege to live in Eretz Yisrael for
five years, where it IS done every day, all year long.
But I never felt jealous of the kohanim. I'll confess to being curious what it
is like to give the blessings. But that's very different than feeling second-class.
> The guilt implied because of a woman (Eve and the apple from the
> Tree of Knowledge) way, way back in time - if it did happen. That
> was one woman in countless generations of women since.
I wish I had a response to this one. Why don't people understand that HaShem had
no reaction when only *she* ate? It was only when *he* ate too, that HaShem
decided to punish *both*. Yet one of the reasons for women lighting Shabbos
candles is because *she* "extinguished" the light of the world. I wish I knew
why there isn't some corresponding thing for the men. I wish I could help on
this one. Sorry.
> The talk of 'get her pregnant all the time' - 'we need lots of
> kids.' Until her life is nothing compared to cries of endless
> babies and kids and their needs and demands.
Maybe you need a different community. I never hear this kind of stuff where I live.
> Have you spent one day - less alone day after day with children?
Occasionally, yes. It's not easy. And every time I did so, it just made me want
to do more and more to shoulder more and more of this job.
> How would you feel being used like an animal for breeding? Would
> you accept all that? I doubt it. That is - inhuman.
No, I would never accept that. And I wish you wouldn't either. Unfortunately, I
do not know the details of who makes you feel that way, or how they do it, so I
can't offer any suggestions at this time.
Akiva Miller
Elizabeth NJ
____________________________________________________________
Notre Dame Certificates
100% Online Programs in Negotiation Leadership and Mgmt. Enroll Today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4c6c78848558078ad77st04vuc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 58 Issue 82
