Volume 60 Number 62
Produced: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:47:15 EST
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
As the ship turns
[Carl Singer]
I guess it won't end yet - the saga of Beit Shemesh
[Martin Stern]
Men Listening to Women Singing (was Women Singing)
[Michael Rogovin]
Profiling at the airport? (2)
[AnonymousV60n62 Martin Stern]
Segolate nouns (2)
[Perets Mett Michael Poppers]
The plague of boils
[Richard Steinberger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Mon, Jan 23,2012 at 09:01 AM
Subject: As the ship turns
While on a one-week cruise, finding mizrach was quite easy as the television
monitors noted the ship's heading and one can adjust to face East. On
Shabbos there was a monitor outside the conference room that we had
reserved. Logic tells me that once you've established mizrach, you maintain it
for the duration of davening -- regardless of any changes in the ship's
direction. I set the chairs and tables accordingly. Just wondering if
that's halachically sound.
I imagine the folks on the "Monsey bus" - who have a Minyan onboard - have a
similar, but not identical, situation in that they know a priori their route
and could, since much of their trip is Southbound, face to the left, thus
East for much of their trip, etc. What do they do? And why?
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, Jan 19,2012 at 04:01 PM
Subject: I guess it won't end yet - the saga of Beit Shemesh
Shmuel Himelstein wrote (MJ 60#61):
> It seems that there are no limits to what one must go to in looking for
> tzniut - modesty.
> .....
> Don't women know that their place is in the home, except for the monthly
> Mikveh visit?
This only applies if they are not pregnant, rachmana litslan [G-d forbid -- Mod.]!
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Rogovin <mrogovin118@...>
Date: Thu, Jan 19,2012 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Men Listening to Women Singing (was Women Singing)
(Forgive me for the length of this response....)
In replies to my MJ 60#60 post about the soldiers walking out on women's
singing being a chumrah, there were two responses (one published in MJ 60#61)
which I would like to quote:
-- Gershon Dubin wrote: Many rabbis, including the chief rabbi of Israel
and the head of the Bnei Akiva movement...[hold that walking out to avoid
women singing] is not a "sexual chumra" but a halacha as interpreted by
those rabbis and (correctly) by those soldiers.
-- In a similar vein, a M-J listmember wrote me privately: With all due respect,
you are making statements which might well be YOUR opinion - or even the
opinion of your Rav - without appreciating that others may well totally
disagree with that opinion, and hold that what you consider a Chumra, is
actually base Halochoh.
Well, WADR to both listmembers, the argument could just as logically be written
the other way. That is, if it is valid to say that while I was incorrectly
claiming my opinion was normative and theirs was a chumrah, it is equally
valid to say that their claim (that their opinion is base halacha and my
opinion is a kula) is incorrect. What is good for the goose is good for the
gander.
IMHO, what we have is a halacha that is vague and undefined, such that it
is subject to interpretation and must be weighed against other halachot
and meta-halachic values that have halachic implications. Regardless of
whether the normative halacha is strict or lenient, being machmir
(stringent) on kol isha means that one is being makil (lenient) on other
halachot, such as not insulting someone or bringing yahadut (Jewish
obervance) into disrepute (by adding fuel to the arguments by the seculars
that the religious are misogynist, hateful, harmful to army
discipline due to insubordination, etc.). The fact that there are other
considerations that one could cite means that one could just as easily
choose to be machmir on those and makil on kol isha, where a kula exists.
There have been many significant poskim (the Sridei Eish, Rav Henkin, among
others) who have suggested a more lenient approach when the circumstances
call for it. (OTOH, if a women singer was singing something deliberately
suggestive, the soldiers might have a better halachic case for being
machmir.)
Furthermore, it is interesting that on an issue of ervah (sexual
immodesty), the soldiers and their rabbis have chosen to make an issue of
women's voices as opposed to, say, married-women soldiers whose hair is
uncovered. It seems to me that this is an equivalent area of ervah (for which
there are leniencies and strictures). Will soldiers refuse to salute or
otherwise deal with women soldiers who are immodestly attired according to
the soldiers? Some say that the situation of a woman in pants is not modest.
Will they behave toward women soldiers in such a manner? Why make such a fuss
over kol isha now? They listen to the radio and hear women singers (on buses,
etc.) -- will they demand that Egged stop playing the radio, too?
Religious Zionists and their rabbis have been serving in the Army for 6
decades and women have sung at public events many, many times. Suddenly
this is an issue, when it never was before. The religious zionist community
is being influenced by the increased hareidization of Judaism and is
afraid of appearing liberal compared to the right wing leadership and
political parties. This IS a hareidi issue, even if it is within the RZ
camp.
Michael Rogovin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: AnonymousV60n62 <DoNotReply_V60n62@...>
Date: Mon, Jan 23,2012 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Profiling at the airport?
My wife and I flew from Newark, New Jersey to Fort Lauderdale, Florida and
back. She frequently travels wearing a tichel (scarf head covering) as opposed to
a sheitel (wig). We had no problems with security on the way out (by the way, my
wife was wearing an ankle-length skirt).
Coming back, after she went through the metal detector without any problems,
she was not cleared but told to wait. She stood just beyond the detector for
approximately ten minutes (they were running short-handed, apparently) until a
female TSA agent came over to pat her down (in public) -- I noticed that
the first thing this agent did was pat down her tichel. She continued with hips,
calves, etc. My wife was wearing a mid-calf-length skirt at the time (it is hot
in Florida).
The agent told my wife that she was selected because she was wearing a long
skirt. This seems incongruous given the number of other women wearing ankle-
length sun dresses, etc., who were not stopped.
I'm wondering if others have had similar experiences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Jan 23,2012 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Profiling at the airport?
Re the above-noted post by Anonymous:
This listmember's wife was lucky to only be patted down. A couple of years
ago in Barcelona, Spain, my wife was forced by the security officials to remove
her tichel in public. Since then, she always wears a sheitel for air journeys.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett00@...>
Date: Thu, Jan 19,2012 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Segolate nouns
Michael Poppers (MJ 60#61) wrote:
> -2- A class of segolate words may or may not feature a qamatz at a significant
> pause in the verse -- grammarians call this class QITL because* the first segol
> changes to a chiriq in the possessive form -- while re the other segolate words,
> called QATL because the first segol changes to a patach in the possessive form,
> the segol will change to a qamatz in the pausal form. "Teven" belongs to the
> QITL class.
I don't think the two features are always connected. For example, melech (of the
QATL class) does not have a pausal form. Shekel (QITL) does have a pausal form.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Poppers <MPoppers@...>
Date: Thu, Jan 19,2012 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Segolate nouns
In this digest, Perets Mett responds:
> melech (of the QATL class) does not have a pausal form
Every rule has its exceptions (and so does the rule that every rule has its
exceptions :)).
You are correct in noting that "melech" is an exception to the QATL-class rule
(and there is one more exception, noted in
<http://groups.google.com/group/leining/msg/8098273516e9c127?dmode=source>
[and that Leining-group message's thread is one of the Google results I referred
to in my MJ 60#61 submission]).
> Shekel (QITL) does have a pausal form
As I mentioned in MJ 60#61, QITL-class nouns may or may not feature a qamatz in
the pausal form, i.e. there is no rule re them.
All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Steinberger <richardlouis@...>
Date: Sat, Jan 21,2012 at 02:01 PM
Subject: The plague of boils
The Gemora in Kesubos (77b) explains that there are 24 different forms of
Shechin (boils). The Midrash in Vayera explains that Avimelech contracted the
worst form called Rosson. Does any one know what the other 23 forms are?
Richard Steinberger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 60 Issue 62
