Volume 59 Number 97
Produced: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 05:44:30 EST
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
"Misod chachamim unevonim ..."
[Martin Stern]
Adon Olam
[Yisrael Medad]
Bameh Madlikin
[Baruch J. Schwartz]
Help with Research on Davening
[Steven Scher]
Important Times Article on Homosexuality (4)
[Lisa Liel Norman Miller R E Sternglantz Bernard Raab]
Mesirah and familial sexual abuse
[Orrin Tilevitz]
Mourning a Nefel or NeoNatal Death
[Josh Backon]
Terms Of Endearment
[Jeanette Friedman]
Torat HaMelech
[Yisrael Medad]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 6,2011 at 05:01 AM
Subject: "Misod chachamim unevonim ..."
In many communities, piyutim are recited during davening on the four special
Shabbatot starting with Parashat Shekalim (as well as on Yamim Tovim).
The piyut in shacharit always begins with an introductory paragraph "Misod
chachamim unevonim ..." which is essentially a reshut, a request by the
sheliach tsibbur for permission to introduce piyutim (presumably this would
give those opposed to their recital the opportunity to object and have them
omitted). Those added in mussaf generally do not have this introduction
because, I would suppose, having obtained communal agreement at shacharit,
it can be assumed that there would be no objection then.
In some communities, the rather long piyutim in shacharit are omitted while
the much shorter one in mussaf is said. This year it occurred to me that
this might be problematic since the sheliach tsibbur had not asked for
permission to say them. Can anyone shed light on this matter?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Fri, Feb 25,2011 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Adon Olam
In MJ 59#96, Adon Olam is textually analyzed.
Ever since I learned about the final hours of two underground fighters, Meir
Feinstein of the Irgun and Moshe Barazani of the Lechi, who sang Adon Olam with
Rabbi Yaakov Goldman shortly before they took their own lives so as to cheat the
British of hanging Jews on the gallows in Jerusalem, that prayer-poem bears more
to spiritual contemplation.
See: http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac14.htm
http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2007/04/olmerts-speech-at-ceremony-marking.html
Yisrael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Baruch J. Schwartz <schwrtz@...>
Date: Sun, Feb 27,2011 at 01:01 AM
Subject: Bameh Madlikin
In our shul (Rimon Central Synagogue, Efrat -- Nusah Ashkenaz), the hazzan
stands at the bimah for Kabbalat Shabbat and then moves to the amud for Arvit.
Recently someone asked: is there a preference as to whether he should remain at
the bimah while saying Bameh Madlikin (which we say before Barchu) or move to
the amud to say it. Anyone with any information on this?
Baruch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steven Scher <sjscher@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 2,2011 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Help with Research on Davening
We are writing you from the Psychology Department at Eastern Illinois University
in Charleston, IL. to ask for help with a study of the effects of prayer among
Orthodox Jews.
There has been considerable research looking at the connection between prayer
and both physical and psychological health. However, these findings have all
been based on research using at best a very small number of Jewish participants
(and an even smaller number of Shomrei Mitzvot). Because of this, the findings
do not accurately show how Jewish prayer works.
We hope to rectify this deficit. As part of the Masters Thesis research for
Charles Coleman, we are studying the nature and effects of prayer among Orthodox
Jews. We hope to identify how ritual prayer impacts the lives of Jews.
For this project to be successful, however, we need Orthodox Jewish Men to
complete a survey for us. For most participants, the survey will ask about your
prayer habits, and will also ask about your current health and well-being. (Some
participants will be directed to another survey that is limited to information
about the Siddur).
We expect the survey to take no more than 20 minutes. Of course, your
participation is voluntary, and if you begin the survey and find that you do not
want to continue, you are free to stop. All of your responses will be completely
anonymous.
We hope you will agree to participate. It will be a great help to us, and we
think it will also be a benefit to Judaism. If you are willing to participate,
please click on this link: http://eiu.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9QqzwU9zDIPksNm .
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us at the
email addresses below.
Thanks Again. BShalom.
Charles Coleman, Graduate Student, Psychology, Eastern Illinois University
(<ctcoleman@...>).
Steven J. Scher, PhD, Professor of Psychology, Eastern Illinois University
(<sjscher@...>).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lisa Liel <lisa@...>
Date: Thu, Feb 24,2011 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Important Times Article on Homosexuality
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011, Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
wrote (v59n96):
> About 2 months ago (12/16/2010) I read a New York Times article on
> the introduction of "civil unions" in France.
I don't think it's accurate to call this an article on
homosexuality. Furthermore, I was under the impression that this
topic had been declared off-limits here. Personally, I'm getting
tired of one person who appears to have an axe to grind about
homosexuality (aside from any halakhic issues) raising it over and over.
> The civil unions (PACS) were
> introduced primarily for gays. However, ten years later, the law has
> had an unintended side effect: Many male-female couples are using
> "civil unions." In fact, the majority of civil unions are now
> between men and women. The article notes, "It remains unclear
> whether the idea of a civil union has responded to a shift in social
> attitudes or caused one."
And this is bad? Government should not be involved in the marriage
business. Kiddushin and nesuin are fundamentally religious
categories. The same is true of marriage in the various religions of
the world. More than any other people, we as Jews know how fun it
can be when the government meddles in religious issues. I don't know
whether France has separation between religion and state like the US
does, but it should. I think we should all hope that civil unions
become the norm in the US as well. If the government feels the need
to distinguish between family units and non-family units, that seems
like an equitable way of dealing with it, without mixing the
religious and civil issues.
> I bring this article up because I have concerns about where we will
> be 10 years from now with gay issues. I strongly feel that we aren't
> looking where we are going.
Is there anything about gay issues that you *don't* have concerns
about? Mail Jewish shouldn't be a place for people to display
un-halakhic feelings about other groups of people.
> I believe the current norms being proposed will lead to a serious
> destruction of Judaism from within. I believe that more religious
> teenagers will opt for a gay approach. After all why shouldn't they:
> Take 100 teenagers, and a fair percentage of them will have some
> form of severe rejection from a member of the opposite sex. If it is
> "known" that religious gays exist and are tolerated, these rejected
> teenagers may decide to go in that direction (that is, become gay)
> rather than "grow up" (that is learn to deal with members of the opposite
> sex).
This is simply offensive. Not to mention the fact that it is utterly
divorced from reality. People do not "choose to be gay." Rejection
by a member of the opposite sex has never, to the best of my
knowledge, *ever* resulted in the rejected person "switching
teams." And the implication that gay people are immature is nothing
but a slur. It has no basis in Judaism. Not in halakha, and not in
cultural norms. It's one individual's personal prejudices, and I
object to them being aired on this list.
> There are assumptions in my argument. I am assuming that gayness can
> be induced environmentally. In fact I am assuming that female
> rejection coupled with social acceptance can increase gayness. Is
> this assumption so unwarranted? No one has proved the opposite: that
> gayness is hard wired (they claim it is so, but no one has found the genes).
You've made a false statement. The claim that gayness is hardwired
is not the opposite of the claim that gayness can be induced
environmentally. It most certainly is not the opposite of the absurd
claim that rejection by members of the opposite sex can increase
gayness. That is more than unwarranted. It is delusional.
> I have an easy remedy to this expected problem.
> (A) Any act that the Bible declares to be sinful is subject to
> repentance in both deed and attitude - Judaism's belief is that
> attitudes can be totally changed.
If you're implying that homosexuality is an "attitude," I think you'd
have to start by attempting to support that extraordinary claim.
> (B) A clear, strong statement that every synagogue must have a
> written policy on how sinners, even though they are accepted, should
> be stigmatized - maybe they can't get aliyoth (calling to the
> Torah), or maybe they can't be cantors, or maybe they can't serve on
> boards or as Rabbis, or maybe they can't be honored. But I want
> simultaneity of both acceptance and stigmatism.
And apparently, the whole Jewish world should be concerned with what
you want. I think the use of "I want" is very telling.
> (C) A clear, unequivocal affirmation that Orthodox Judaism has the
> right and obligation to preserve linguistic terms reflecting its
> serious values. The word "couple" (an English term) as well as the
> word "husband and wife" refer to statuses whose violation could
> carry a death penalty. Under no circumstances (no exceptions) should
> we tolerate any usage of these terms to situations where violation
> of the status does not carry a death penalty. Two women living
> together are not a couple and not a husband and wife.
Patently untrue. Two women living together as a couple are
absolutely a couple. Yes, two women who happen to be roommates are
not a couple, but that's not what you're talking about, is
it? Personally, I don't like the words "husband" or "wife" being
used in the context of same-sex couples. But to suggest that a
couple isn't a couple because you disapprove of the couple is a bit
solipsistic.
For the record, I've never, ever heard of a lesbian couple referring
to themselves as husband and wife. Never.
> If one has an affair with one of them that person has not committed
> adultery. Our children have a right to grow up in an environment
> where the terminology we use reflects serious values.
Not adultery, certainly. But then, it also isn't adultery if a
married man has an affair with a single woman. I don't see you
railing against the common usage of "adultery" for that.
> Respectfully
> Russell Jay Hendel; PhD ASA http://www.Rashiyomi.com;
I think that ending a missive like this one with the word
"Respectfully" verges on geneivat daat. Is this really what
Mail-Jewish has become? A soapbox for hatred that barely even
pretends to be based in halakha? Shame on whoever put this message through.
With all due respect,
Lisa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Norman Miller <nm1921@...>
Date: Thu, Feb 24,2011 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Important Times Article on Homosexuality
Russell Hendel, Ph.D. worries (MJ 59#96) that liberalization of norms
concerning homosexuality will produce "a serious destruction of
Judaism from within" and proposes among other things that
homosexual congregants be "stigmatized" in some manner. This
assumes that liberalization produces "new" homosexuals, not
simply those who are already out plus those still closeted. He
offers no evidence nor, as far as I know, is there such evidence.
Furthermore, without some sort of informed estimate of the
number of gays involved, it is impossible to talk of "serious
destruction." In any case, stigmatizing gay members of the
congregation will drive most of them out, and I don't see how
that strengthens Judaism. Stigmatizing functions more to satisfy
the rather violent sentiments we usually try to hide even from
ourselves.
Noyekh Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R E Sternglantz <resternglantz@...>
Date: Fri, Feb 25,2011 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Important Times Article on Homosexuality
In MJ 59#96, Russell J Hendel wrote:
> About 2 months ago (12/16/2010) I read a New York Times article on the
> introduction of "civil unions" in France. The civil unions (PACS) were
> introduced primarily for gays. However, ten years later, the law has had
> an unintended side effect: Many male-female couples are using "civil
> unions." In fact, the majority of civil unions are now between men and
> women. The article notes, "It remains unclear whether the idea of a civil
> union has responded to a shift in social attitudes or caused one."
Putting aside for the moment the fact that the rest of Dr. Hendel's post has
only the vaguest relationship to this article, he completely misrepresents not
only the facts in but the tone of the piece, which can be read in its entirety
here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/europe/16france.html?pagewanted=all
The point of the article is not that the effect was *unintended* (and somehow
unwanted and dangerous), but rather that it was *unexpected*. Indeed, even the
Catholic Church in France concedes that civil unions pose no real threat to the
institution of marriage.
Dr. Hendel then turns to "where we are going":
> I bring this article up because I have concerns about where we will be 10
> years from now with gay issues. I strongly feel that we aren't looking
> where we are going. I believe the current norms being proposed will lead
> to a serious destruction of Judaism from within. I believe that more
> religious teenagers will opt for a gay approach. After all why shouldn't
> they: Take 100 teenagers, and a fair percentage of them will have some
> form of severe rejection from a member of the opposite sex. If it is
> "known" that religious gays exist and are tolerated, these rejected
> teenagers may decide to go in that direction (that is, become gay) rather
> than "grow up" (that is learn to deal with members of the opposite sex).
> Thus, I expect a sizable number of frum teenagers to end up gay (who would
> not have ended up gay had these norms of tolerance not been advocated).
For about three decades, I've been hearing an analogous and equally non-reality-
based argument about why unmarried adults shouldn't be treated with full adult
status in certain frum communities: if we treat you like a full member of the
community, if we make it comfortable to be single, we will be saying that we
approve of being single, and young members of the community will see being
single as an option and will choose it over marriage, because marriage and
children are hard work and tie you down and everyone would really prefer to be
single and happy-go-lucky.
I've wanted to say this for years, and I thank Dr. Hendel for giving me the
opportunity. Get the memo: for a frum person, for whom sexual conduct is
strictly mediated by halacha, being single is never a viable, fun, easy option
(presuming an adult with an adult's drives). People attracted to the opposite
sex want to be married. People not attracted to the opposite sex but attracted
to people of the same sex seek ways of living a full life within halacha.
I'm not going to try to address Dr. Hendel's deeply misinformed and dangerous
notions about the roots of homosexuality and sexual desire altogether, other
than to label his "beliefs" as science fiction. That he has been allowed to use
M-J as a forum not only for these "beliefs" but for his recommendations based on
these beliefs makes me mostly sad.
Ruth Sternglantz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Fri, Feb 25,2011 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Important Times Article on Homosexuality
Russell J Hendel wrote (MJ 59#96):
> There are assumptions in my argument. I am assuming that gayness can be
> induced environmentally. In fact I am assuming that female rejection
> coupled with social acceptance can increase gayness. Is this assumption
> so unwarranted? No one has proved the opposite: that gayness is hard
> wired (they claim it is so, but no one has found the genes). Many complex
> preferences can be influenced by environment - why not sexual
> preferences? Even if some gayness is hard wired, can we rule out that
> environment can also influence? Do we have to wait for a proof?
It seems that many of our co-religionists are under the impression that gayness
is some sort of voluntary choice. I find this incomprehensible, since whenever I
hear this in conversation, I ask the person if he or she could have, at any time
in the past, or could now, "switch sides." The inevitable response is "Oh no not
me, but some others might be able to." Nobody who has ever really known a gay
person would make the mistake of thinking that it is a voluntary choice. It is
also evidence of a startling lack of sensitivity to think that it would be a
preferred lifestyle, or that gays are generally unattractive to the opposite
gender. Anyone with a modicum of wordliness would understand the absurdity of
this position. How to reconcile this with our understanding of the Torah I leave
to the more learned among us.
Bernie R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Sat, Feb 26,2011 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Mesirah and familial sexual abuse
An article in the current issue of The Jewish Week,
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new_york/abuse_case_tests_ohels_adherence_report
ing_laws
and a book that came out several months ago, "Hush" by the anonymous
Eishes Chayil, raise the issue of mesirah (turning Jews over to
non-Jewish authority) in the context of familial sexual abuse. In the
former, the social service organization Ohel is asserting, publicly,
that the ban on mesirah trumps its obligations under New York's
reporting law, thus further raising the issue of dina demalchuta dina
(secular law is binding as halacha). The case in Jewish Week, and the
principal case in "Hush," is heterosexual. I am curious what list
members, particular those who lean to the right, think of these issues
in this context, in particular because predictable voices from the Orthodox right
have asserted, in online discussion of "Hush," that these issues should be dealt
with solely within the Orthodox community.
For those of you who have not read it, "Hush" is a thinly-fictionalized
autobiographical account by, apparently, a member of a large, unnamed
Borough Park Chassidic sect. It is a magnificent, remarkable book with
Hitchockian elements; warm, funny scenes including one of a bunch of
highly sheltered Chassidic girls gathered in a basement poring over
Oprah; and whose author has a finely developed sense of the absurd. And
outrage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Josh Backon <backon@...>
Date: Sat, Feb 19,2011 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Mourning a Nefel or NeoNatal Death
Rabbi Jeffrey Saks asked (MJ 59#95):
> I am interested in interesting in locating material (aside from the
> sparse treatment in the halakhic codes) on mourning a miscarriage or
> neo-natal death.
Regarding neo-natal death (within 30 days of birth): the sugya is discussed
in the gemara (Shabbat 135b-136a) and in Yevamot 80b re: definition of nefel
and in Shulchan Aruch YD 374:8 ("tinok kol sheloshim yom") and in the
Aruch Hashulchan YD 374 #17 [safek avelut l'kula]. However, the Chochmat
Adam Klal 161:6 is machmir (that if the infant is completely formed,
there is avelut).
Miscarriage: I have never heard of avelut for a miscarriage. By
definition a miscarriage is a nefel. See the excellent paper from the halachic
journal ASSIA: http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/assia/pagim-2.htm .
Josh Backon
<backon@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeanette Friedman <FriedmanJ@...>
Date: Thu, Feb 24,2011 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Terms Of Endearment
I cannot even begin to catalogue the misogyny in the posting Terms Of Endearment
(MJ 59#96) which is not funny and is seriously demeaning to women.
Jeanette Friedman, EIC
The Wordsmithy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sat, Feb 19,2011 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Torat HaMelech
Martin Stern requested (MJ 59#95) information on Torat HaMelech. It can be found at:
http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2009/11/that-new-lets-kill-goy-book.html
http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2009/11/rabbi-yisrael-rosens-response-to-torat.html
http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2010/02/on-torat-hamelech.html
Yisrael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 59 Issue 97