Volume 58 Number 92
Produced: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 05:32:58 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Marmorish Shule (Green Road Synagogue - Cleveland, Ohio)
[Carl Singer]
Not seeing a doctor
[Daniel Wiener]
Pikuach Nefesh and the Munkatcher Rebbe
[Daniel Cohn]
Shaliach Tzibur Practices
[David Ziants]
To the males of this list - A woman's status as a Jew (3)
[Avraham Walfish Avraham Walfish Ira L. Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Sat, Aug 21,2010 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
Alan Rubin <alan@...> wrote (MJ 58#90):
> Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz wrote (MJ 58#88):
>
>> There are those who say that the Judean Revolts actually led to the eventual
>> downfall of the Roman Empire by forcing withdrawal of legions from the other
>> borders in order to put down the revolts.
>
> So do they say that the revolts in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE caused
> the fall of the Western Empire in the 5th century or the Eastern
> Empire in the 15th!?
Not a direct connection. Just that the beginning of the centuries long
process that ended with the final fall began at that time with the
initial withdrawal of legions from the fringes of the empire to put
down the revolts.
--
Sabba - ' " - Hillel
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Sat, Aug 21,2010 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Marmorish Shule (Green Road Synagogue - Cleveland, Ohio)
Cleveland's Green Road Synagogue has a web site:
www.greenroadsynagogue.org
Their full name today is: BEIT HA'KNESSET SHEARIT HA'PLAITAH B'NAI YACOV,
KEHILLAT MARMORSH
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Wiener <wiener2@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 22,2010 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Not seeing a doctor
I know a young baal teshuva who became a Breslover. He refuses to see a doctor
nor would he allow his children to see one on instructions from his rebbe. All
he needs is Emuna. I asked about severe Diabetes or other diseases and he
responded in kind that it was what rebbe Nachman wrote. I asked higher ups in
Breslov who told me it was nonsense. however, he continues on that derech.
Dr Dan Wiener
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Cohn <4danielcohn@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 22,2010 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Pikuach Nefesh and the Munkatcher Rebbe
To my question (MJ 58#80):
"I must also say I don't understand another of Jeanette's
statements, namely "why did Orthodox Jews hijack a secular movement and make
it theirs"? How did exactly Orthodox Jews "hijack" the Zionist movement?
Even though the Zionist movement was driven by the secular majority,
Orthodox Jews were part of it from its inception. What is exactly the
definition of hijacking?
And also, clearly the Orthodox Jews that joined the Zionist movement
were not aligned with those for which being a Zionist is a curse, so why
muddle the waters by deliberately blurring the difference between
anti-Zionist and Zionist Orthodox Jews?"
Jeanette answers (MJ 58#81):
> As for the statement of Orthodox Jews hijacking the secular Zionist
> movement, frankly I learned that from none other than the late great Rabbi
> Arthur Hertzberg, a very good man and brilliant scholar."
Now is this an answer? What I say is correct because such and such said it
too? I don't consider my question answered at all, especially the second
part regarding the deliberate confusion between Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews
and Orthodox Religious Zionists.
Daniel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Sat, Aug 21,2010 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Shaliach Tzibur Practices
In reply to Elie Rosenberg's posting (MJ 58#83), there are some other similar
things, that I can think of, to add to his list:-
- The shabbat morning d'rasha is made immediately after haphtara rather
than after sepher tora is put away. (DZ1)
- In chutz la'aretz [= outside of Israel] at kabbalat shabbat [=Friday
night service at start of Shabbat] the Israeli custom of singing yedid
nephesh is done. (DZ2)
- The person who reads haphtara stands at side of bima, rather than at
front (not really shaliach tzibur but same principle). (DZ3)
- Standing rather than stay sitting for modim d'rabbanan even when there
are no kohanim that went up to the duchen [stage at front of shul]. (DZ4)
- The person who holds the sepher tora stays seated rather than stands,
whilst the congregation stands for the prayers for the State of Israel,
etc. (DZ5)
- Adding the word "Ve'arah" in the kaddish derabbanan. (DZ6)
- Using the rendering "b'omer" rather than "l'omer" in the b'racha for
counting the omer. (DZ7)
Some of these things have already in the past, individually, been
discussed on this list, but I don't think there is harm in further
discussion.
I think that practices can be divided up into two types:
a) The willingness and trend to do everything in the best possible way.
Thus it is now understood that if part of the shaliach tzibur's modim is
said quietly (ER3, i.e #3 in Elie Rosenfeld's posting), than part of
chazara"t hashatz [repetition of the amida] is not heard. Similar to act
in a way so the congregation do not answer "amen" too early (ER4). There
is a trend also to adopt the tune in kaddish on Yamim Norayim [Rosh
HaShanna and Yom Kippur] so that congregation actually answer "amen" and
"barich hu" rather than sing along with sha"tz
b) A trend to reject an establishment which has values that are old
fashioned and has nothing really to do with Torah, and to prove that
Torah practice can be flexible and out of the box. I am referring to a
kind of rebellion against the (British Orthodox) United Synagogue which
did (and still does) things in an archaic way - considers it local
"minhag" [custom] - but are not always comfortable for young people who
learnt a bit more Torah. For example, the trend to move over to saying
"morid hageshem" rather than "morid hagashem" (ER2) may have been taken
on by a younger generation as dafka ["We want to be different"] even if
the reasons for the nuances in the practice are not really understood.
With this, from visits to the UK over the last 30 years, I have noticed
that singing yedid nephesh has now caught on as a standard practice and
this is now being printed in their siddurim.
Some of the "new" practices, I myself adopted over the years, mainly
because I made aliya [came to Israel] at an early age and felt more
comfortable with these. I still insist on standing at the front of the
bima when saying haphtara even though that it has become so established
that the gabbai [administrator of the congregation] in the local new
shul told me explicitly that one should stand at the side so as not to
have back to sepher torah. I still say "morid hagashem" because this is
what is printed in Siddur Rinat Yisra'el.
I have never really used Art Scroll Siddur.
A trend that I can think of that seams to go against the "cheimisher"
[the "old country" - typically referring to Eastern Europe] way of doing
things and is prevalent in almost all Ashkenazi shuls my neighbourhood
as well as other places:-
At mish'berach l'cholim [prayer for the sick typically said towards end
of Torah reading on Shabbat] - rather than the gabai [who typically says
the prayer] reads all the names from a list out aloud and people come up
to him with their own names of sick, those who need are expected to say
the names of their sick people, themselves, at the appropriate place -
with only the body of the prayer being read aloud.
David Ziants
Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avraham Walfish <rawalfish@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 22,2010 at 04:01 AM
Subject: To the males of this list - A woman's status as a Jew
Akiva Miller wrote (MJ 58#90):
> How do these women feel about these things? Are they, or are they not,
> quietly relieved about not having these obligations? As for those women who
> have voluntarily chosen to take these obligations upon themselves, how do they
> feel when it is difficult to do so? Do they feel as bad about it as the men do
> (or as the men *ought* to), or do they quietly say, "Well, at least it's not a
> real obligation."
>
> Let's get a little science-fictiony for a moment: How many women would be
> willing to trade this world for one where they are fully equal to the men
> in shul, but they also have to daven three times a day, on a specific
> schedule, properly with a minyan, even when it is rainy or snowy, or when one
> is at work, or on a Shabbos afternoon when one would rather hang out with
> friends?
He quotes Eitan Fiorino who wrote (MJ 58:87):
>>I would, however, venture to guess that many woman have instead thought
>> to themselves "well, another guy who doesn't get it; just doesn't
>> get it at all." I'd be willing to put my assumption to a "show of
>> hands" among the female M-J readership (or any other sample for that
>> matter)
and comments:
> Believe it or not, I agree with you. I just don't get it at all. (Neither
> do my wife or daughter, by the way.) But I am willing and eager to learn.
If you want to be "science-fictiony", why not take into account a few more
relevant factors, such as household responsibilities? I suspect that not a
few women would be happy to go to minyan every day, even when inconvenient,
rather than staying home to get the kids up and out for school. My children
today are grown, but when I run out in the evening to my dafyomi leaving my
wife babysitting for a house full of grandchildren (thank God*, ken yirbu*!),
I have the distinct impression that she doesn't feel she got the better part
of the deal... :)
But as far as I'm concerned, Akiva's thought experiment misses the point for
a more fundamental reason. Rights and responsibilities are not symmetrical.
Take a simple example. The extent to which the halakhah requires men to go
to minyan has been debated by poskim (and in previous discussions on MJ),
but the incontrovertible fact is that not all men see themselves as
duty-bound to come regularly to minyan. Rarely if ever, have I seen that men
who do not come to minyan regularly during the week are deprived of
synagogue honors when they do come nor would I suggest that there should be
correlation between rights and responsibilites, but this cannot be done on the
basis of equivalence or symmetry. Not everyone assumes equal responsibilities
and not everyone is accorded equal honors, and it would be neither workable nor
morally warranted to try to work out equations which assign levels of honors
based on degrees of responsibility. If someone assumes a reasonable degree of
responsibility for the community and the shul, they should be entitled to
honors. Hence - women who are willing and prepared to assume whatever
responsibility for the community and the shul appropriate for them are
entitled to feel deprived when they are denied the right to participate and
to receive honors. Insofar as the denial of participation is
halakhically-mandated, then halakhically-observant men can do no more than
empathize. Insofar as the halakhah allows wiggle room (which I believe it
does), then this empathy can and should be given practical expression.
Finally - the feelings of your wife and daughter and legitimate, perhaps
admirable. But neither they nor you should challenge the legitimacy of
different feelings by different women. Turn your thought experiment around -
if you and other men were offered the option of legitimately foregoing
minyan and minchah (for which women may be obligated) at the expense of
losing the right to lead services and receive aliyot, would all men
universally accept the proposal? Wouldn't different men react differently
to such a deal? Mutatis mutandi, different women are entitled to feel
differently about their current synagogue status.
Avie Walfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avraham Walfish <rawalfish@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 22,2010 at 04:01 AM
Subject: To the males of this list - A woman's status as a Jew
Jeanette wrote (MJ 58#91):
> For a decent Jewish world, things need to change in order to be fair and
> compassionate. And you should excuse me, Ira, but you are not my posek,
> and like I said, if you don't love yourself, how you gonna love anyone else?
>
> Judaism is about charity, kindness and compassion. Read what the Rambam
> says about Moshiach. He resides in us.
> And when you create a Chillul Hashem by chaining women and calling them
> sinners, by treating women generally as second class citizens, by forcing
> marriages, by training generations of welfare cases, by ignoring mental
> illness and putting a taboo on it while people in the uniform embezzle, commit
> sex crimes without blinking, cheat on their spouses, mess around with
> schechita, etc. etc. they can read all about it, first thing every morning on
> the web and in their dead tree editions.
Jeanette, there are many ills that need correction in the Orthodox Jewish
world, and I have found many of your postings to be eloquent and passionate
presentations of important issues and concerns. But I cannot relate to your
characterization of the Hillul Hashem that "you" have created as anything
but a carricature - a grotesque exaggeration of certain features, leaving
out other counter-balancing features. Your posting here is neither charitable
nor compassionate. It will do nothing to convince the unconvinced, and even
those sympathetic to your viewpoint will take your comments more seriously if
you add a bit of nuance (and charity).
Avie Walfish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Sun, Aug 22,2010 at 04:01 AM
Subject: To the males of this list - A woman's status as a Jew
Jeanette Friedman stated the following (MJ V58 #91):
> I had been "effectively" banned by having most of the posts I
> sent to the list rejected for my "tone." After more than 15 years
> on this list, I must say that the last year has been particularly
> instructive on how the chumrah of the month club also acts as a
> censor program when they don't like what they see or hear.
I note that Jeanette's tone has not changed; only the moderators have
changed. And not only the tone.
> And you should excuse me, Ira, but you are not my posek, and like I
> said, if you don't love yourself, how you gonna love anyone else?
I don't excuse you, Jeanette, but I must say that as unpleasant as
your tone is in MJ, it is far less objectionable than what you have
written about me to your off-list friends. Again, not only the
tone. Also the "facts."
But to the points:
1. I am of course not Jeanette's poseq. But, certainly, since
she admitted years ago on MJ that she no longer observes the mitzvot,
how could she have any posek?
2. While Jeanette is free to translate any passuq as she sees
fit, she should be aware that no one of any standing has ever used
her fanciful translation, as far as I know. Perhaps, instead of
being sarcastic, Jeanette could indicate where her fanciful
translation has appeared previously (but not in her own emails
please). If I am wrong, please show me how and where.
> And when you create a Chillul Hashem by chaining women
I think it would be fair to say that everyone here sympathizes with
Jeanette's unfortunate experience in marriage to a wife-beater, but
we do not let that experience shape our entire world view. It is
understandable, perhaps, how someone who has lived through this just
might make this the basis for her daily life.
> . . . you ought to ask yourself why -- and why in every sector of
> Judaism, excepting the Orthodox world, women are becoming more
> involved in every single aspect of the system -- save the top
> levels. There is still a glass ceiling and they cannot break it.
> That's because the closer they get to see how the decision making,
> power structure and establishment work, in all denominations and
> sub-denominations, non-profit and political decision making groups
> like UJA AIPAC, Norpac, etc. the more they speak up about how it
> needs to be repaired.
One begins to see how Jeanette's unfortunate experience with her
ex-husband had shaped her belief that only women are good, and only
men are evil. Again, I sympathize with her, although I cannot accept her bias.
> Women are seen by such men as threats. We are dangerous. We are
> Liliths, Witches!
How this ever got past the moderators beats me!!!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 58 Issue 92