Volume 61 Number 14 
      Produced: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:29:56 EDT

Subjects Discussed In This Issue:

Accommodating both women and men in shul (2)
    [Martin Stern  Daniel Cohn]
Benching gomel 
    [Martin Stern]
Chasan getting maftir at the aufruf 
    [Chaim Casper]
Cherem D'Rabbenu Gershom (2)
    [Isaac Balbin  Menashe Elyashiv]
Davenning in a loud voice 
    [Martin Stern]
Meat after Tisha B'Av (2)
    [Isaac Balbin  Menashe Elyashiv]
No Tachanun at a Wedding (2)
    [Yisrael Medad  Chaim Casper]
Praying in a loud voice 
    [Carl Singer]


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 15,2012 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Accommodating both women and men in shul

Leah S. R. Gordon wrote (MJ 61#13):

> I would suggest to Mr. Stern that women as well may be justified by having
> to leave early for work.  (It happens that I write this at 5:30am local
> time, just ahead of the sun, when indeed I am on my way out to work.)
> Yet I agree that it is unfortunate that more women and men do not come to
> shul every day.  Since fewer women attend, that is extra unfortunate.

Women do not have any obligation to participate in public prayer and, by and
large, most only do so on Shabbat and Yom Tov. Even those who are punctilious to
daven shacharit and minchah every day usually do so at home even if they could,
without any great inconvenience, attend shul. They, therefore, have no need
to have a 'reason' for not attending, unlike men who do have the obligation
but may be excused by extenuating circumstances. Of course women should be
welcomed should they come but it is unrealistic to expect shuls to make
permanent arrangements for what is a very rare occurrence.

Martin Stern

From: Daniel Cohn  <4danielcohn@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 16,2012 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Accommodating both women and men in shul

Leah Gordon wrote (MJ 61#13):

> I would suggest to Mr. Stern that women as well may be justified by having
> to leave early for work.  (It happens that I write this at 5:30am local
> time, just ahead of the sun, when indeed I am on my way out to work.)

I think Leah is missing (or ignoring) Martin's motivation for making this
distinction between men and women, this being that men's obligation to
daven shacharit is clearly stronger than that of women. Therefore men not
showing up for minyan is more unfortunate than women doing same, so that's
why Martin sought to justify men and not women.



From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 16,2012 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Benching gomel

This (Thursday) morning we had a troop of people come up one after the other
to bench gomel, delaying the davenning interminably. IMHO it would be much
better if the gabbai would call out before the first one that he would be
doing so in order to be motsi (exempt) everyone else present and not permit
this tircha detzibbura. What do others think?

Martin Stern


From: Chaim Casper <surfflorist@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 15,2012 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Chasan getting maftir at the aufruf

Joseph Kaplan commented (MJ 61#13) on my post (MJ 61#12) regarding the
order of hiyuvim for aliyot (the pecking order for who gets an aliyah).
I quoted the Mishneh Brurah who ruled that "[a] husband whose wife is in
shul for the first time after giving birth" is a hiyuv to receive an
aliyah.  I then clarified the Mishneh Brurah's position by adding that
"the husband can then say 'Birkat Hagomel' on her (his wife's) behalf".

Joseph's questioned "is whether he (the husband) is still a chiyuv if, as
is often the case in my shul and many others, the mother is the one who
makes the gomel."

Given his druthers, the Mishneh Brurah would rather 

A) the husband say the gomel at a minyan or 

B) the wife say it in front of ten men (and not during a davening).   

I suggest that he would not be happy with the new mother saying gomel during

This difference plays out in our contemporary philosophies of
Orthodox/Torah Judaism.    The Haredim would as a rule opt for the
husband to say Gomel for the wife while the Modernists would countenance
the wife saying it during davening (there are exceptions, for sure, but I
believe this would be the general rule).   The question is where would
the Centrists stand on the issue.  On one hand they would want to stretch
the halakhah to its logical conclusion like the Modernists while on the
other, they would insist like the Haredim on there being a precedent.  
To decide what to do in practice would fall to a community by community
consensus (with the guidance of its rabbi).

B'virkat Torah,
Chaim Casper
North Miami Beach, FL


From: Isaac Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 16,2012 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Cherem D'Rabbenu Gershom

Martin Stern wrote (MJ 61#13):

> Isaac Balbin wrote (MJ 61#12):
>> It couldn't have applied to Australia. He didn't know it existed and there
>> were no Jews there at that time.
> This is not true since the Cherem D'Rabbenu Gershom would apply to
> communities set up in Australia by Jews who came from ones where it had
> already been accepted.

You are right, but how exactly does this work. You come to country X
as a Sefardi, and then daven in an Ashkenazi Shule, and your Rabbi is
Ashkenazi. Over time, you adopt Ashkenazi practices, such as not
eating rice on Pesach etc. Do you come under the Cherem D'Rabbenu

The same is true vice-versa.

Whilst some established regions, such as in Europe could have been
considered a community as one in which all accepted R' Gershom, when they
move to a new region the implication is that a melting pot of
different hanhagos (practices) and strictures congeal somehow?

Would an Ashkenazi who went to live in Morroco, and discovered that polygamy was
permitted de jure, have to stick to R' Gershom or would R' Gershom allow him to
follow the Minhag HaMakom?

From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 16,2012 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Cherem D'Rabbenu Gershom

Gilad J. Gevaryahu wrote (MJ 61#12):

> I always thought that the cherem of Rabbenue Gershom against polygamy
> reflected the Christian society norms in western Europe, where he lived,
> and that only one wife allowed to a man, whereas it never took hold in
> Muslim countries where the norm was polygamy.

In high school class, that what was said. Also, that the Torah ideal is 
the husband and wife normal family. However, the Torah did not make this 
a 100% rule, it left the option open for rare cases that would need more 
than 1 wife:

- after a war, shortage of men
- the king, who marries more women because of political or diplomatic 

- the barren wife. who would rather having a co-wife, than being divorced


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 15,2012 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Davenning in a loud voice

Joel Rich wrote (MJ 61#13):

> Martin Stern wrote (MJ 61#12):
>> I have noticed that many people get carried away with their tefillot and
>> thereby seem ignore this. I have not found a source for this practice but
>> perhaps someone can provide the reasoning that might justify such disturbing
>> behaviour.
> Just wait till the daf gets to 24b in a few weeks. The following objection was
> cited: 'One who says the Tefillah so that it can be heard is of the small of
> faith; he who raises his voice in praying is of the false prophets'.

Tefillah there refers specifically to the shemoneh esrei. I was using the
term more generally to include psukei dezimra etc. when some people DO get
carried away and daven far too loudly.

Martin Stern


From: Isaac Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 16,2012 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Meat after Tisha B'Av

Martin Stern wrote (MJ 61#12):

> Isaac Balbin wrote (MJ 61#11):
>> Now, I'm happily oblivious about Aveylus, but is there a Din that says the
>> Avel shouldn't eat meat after Shiva?
> AFAIK the answer is no but the aveilut on Tisha B'av might be compared to
> aninut (the mourning period prior to the funeral) rather than aveilut (after 
> the funeral). In that case, continuing some of the stringencies after it may 
> have some foundation. While I do not recall whether the ban on eating meat by 
> an onein does continue, he certainly does not put on tefillin even after the
> funeral (if on the same day as the death).

I don't comprehend. If it has to do with Aninus, then we already put on T'fillin
at Mincha!

>> There is also good reason to be lenient:
>> 1. it is already pushed off and

> This might be analogous to the position of an onein when the funeral is not
> on the day of death but this requires further research.

I don't see the connection. Here we have a disagreement Tanoim (early
decisors) whether there is even a fast at all. We say there is, but we
also agree that it's "lighter" in stringency because it's not the
actual day. The day of burial is the day of burial. What is pushed

>> 2. the meat we eat isn't Simcha D'Orayso (biblical happiness) given that this
>> refers to the meat of Korbanos (sacrifices).

> I think this is not relevant in view of my analogy above.

It is relevant in that when Aaron was an Onen (mourning period before
his sons were buried) he derived the law that he should not eat from
the Korbanos (sacrifices). Why? Because one has to be in a state of
Simcha (happiness) and he could not be. Hence he ate no meat.

Following this line of logic, one can understand not eating meat on a
normal fast of Tisha B'Av after it goes out, because the
mourning/sadness continued into the 10th. But this year, there was no
more mourning sadness after the fast went out as it was the 11th. Are
we somehow compensating for losing a day because of Shabbos Chazon. I
think not.

>> Finally, why do we make Havdalla on wine when they could have been consistent
>> and suggested using a substitute (chamar medinah)

> This argument is not valid since it is normally preferable to use wine for
> havdalah, rather than chamar medinah, whereas there is no special reason
> to eat meat specifically at any time (other than on Yom Tov).

I disagree. In the first instance (lechatchila) one should look to
having wine, however, in this case it's a B'Dieved already (second
best, if you will) and we know that in a B'Dieved there is simply
NOTHING wrong with using chamar medinah!  Halacha uses these devices
when the situation requires it, and this would seem to be a perfect
situation to use it. Why? If you assume you still can't have meat and
wine, then don't use wine for havdala. But then you go and drink wine,
but you stick to no meat. Explain?

From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 16,2012 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Meat after Tisha B'Av

Yisrael Medad wrote (MJ 61#09):

> it's not that healthy to eat meat after a fast in any case.

Why not. After Yom Kippur, we warm up the leftovers from the pre-fast 
meal.  What is good before a fast, is good for after the fast. My wife's 
menu: vegetable soup, rice, cooked vegetables, chicken. 


From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 15,2012 at 06:01 PM
Subject: No Tachanun at a Wedding

Harlan Braude writes (MJ 61#13) that a Rabbi has ruled that only the minyan at
which the participants of the simcha are present is exempted from reciting tachanun.

I checked the Ishei Yisrael compendium. Chapter 25 deals with the subject
and briefly:

(21) even if the chatan is only in the synagogue but not a part of the
minyan, still tachanun is not said;

(22) if he leaves the minyan before tachanun, some say yes, some say no.

(23) in the case of a brit, during the prayer before the milah no tachanun
but there are loads of footnotes there that go this way and that.

Yisrael Medad

From: Chaim Casper <surfflorist@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 15,2012 at 07:01 PM
Subject: No Tachanun at a Wedding

Harlan Braude in MJ 61#13 mentioned:

> [t]he shul I frequent is a sort of mini minyan factory morning, afternoon and 
> evening. The Rabbi of the shul ruled that only the minyan at which the
> participants of the simcha are present is exempted from reciting tachanun. I
> don't know the sources he relied upon for his ruling.

The reason for the ruling is that the halakhah is clear: we skip tahanun
if the father, sandek and/or mohel is present (see the Mishneh Brurah
131:22) even if the brit milah will be in another location (ibid).   We
also skip the tahanun if only the baby is there in the room with the
daveners (Mishneh Brurah 131:25).   I also remember someone once quoting
me R` Ovadia Yosef who rules we do not say tahanun anywhere in the shul
if there will be a brit milah anywhere on the premises, even if the milah
will be at a later/different minyan than the one I am at and even if none of the
participants (father, sandek, mohel or baby) will be at my minyan. 

We skip tahanun if the hatan is present (the RaM"A 131:4 which was
mentioned in Carl Singer's original post).   But Carl's question was what
is the halakhah if the hatan is not at that tefillah: do we or do say
tahanun?   That is a mahloket (dispute).  The RaM"A says yes (ibid) while
the Mishneh Brurah says no (131:21). 

B'virkat Torah,
Chaim Casper
North Miam Beach


From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 15,2012 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Praying in a loud voice

I believe these discussions have taken two threads:

Thread 1 -- we have someone who prays loudly -- throughout the davening --
sometimes such people may also be said to enunciate fastidiously -- and
sometimes such people may not be davening in synchronization with the
minyan -- I believe I mentioned in a post several weeks ago how disturbing
it is to have someone who starts before or after the kehillah davening so
loudly as to be overheard.

Thread 2 -- regards responses such as "amen" or "Y'hay shmay rabbah ..."
(pardon the transliteration)   -- there are some who respond in a booming
voice -- others (frequently young boys who are clever enough to know it
gets attention) -- who respond a millisecond AFTER everyone else has
responded:  The kehillah says "amen" and then a moment later another voice
is heard saying "amen" -- etc.

I look both these threads through a single lens  -- to wit -- if the
behavior of a single individual is disturbing to many others, should such
behavior be tolerated?

Carl Singer


End of Volume 61 Issue 14