Volume 61 Number 19
Produced: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:22:15 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Accommodating both women and men in shul
[Martin Stern]
An unusual form?
[Martin Stern]
Arkaot shel Akum (2)
[Chaim Casper Martin Stern]
Benching gomel
[Martin Stern]
Is Chabad Lubavitch?
[Yisrael Medad]
Kashrus Of Canned Tuna
[Immanuel Burton]
Siyum Sources
[Joel Rich]
Taking advantage of an obvious mistake
[Carl Singer]
Tircha detzibbura (was Benching gomel)
[Menashe Elyashiv]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 23,2012 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Accommodating both women and men in shul
Barak Greenfield wrote (MJ 61#18):
> Ben Katz wrote (MJ 61#17):
>
>> There is no "obligation" for men to daven with a minyan either. The Shulchan
>> Aruch uses the word "yishtadel" (he should try) not chayav (obliged). Once 10
>> men get together, then there are some chiyuvim that the congregation has (eg
>> kedushah, reading Torah Mon and Thurs, etc.)
>
> This was discussed in MJ 49:85. "Yishtadel" means he must try, not just that
> it's a nice thing and that if ten men happen to get together then certain
> things are performed. See later on in siman 90, in seif 16, where the Shulchan
> Aruch gives an example of how far one must go to "try" to pray with a minyan:
> if he's traveling, and comes to a city without a minyan where he's thinking of
> spending the night, but there's a city that has a minyan up to four mil
> farther ahead, or one mil out of the way, he must go to that city. A mil is
> 2000 amos, so this means he must be willing to continue traveling about 2.5
> miles further than he had intended, or over half a mile out of his way (on
> foot, over the unpaved roads of that time!), to pray with a minyan. (Sometimes
> a mil is used in the sense of kedei hiluch mil, or the time it takes to travel
> that distance, which is considered anywhere between 18 and 24 minutes, so that
> would mean 18-24 min out of his way or 72-96 minutes further along.) See
> Mishnah Berurah 52 where he says that this means that if someone lives within
> a mil of a minyan he must go, and considers this seif to be a rebuke of those
> who, in his words, are too lazy to go to shul.
Clearly this only applies to men and women are not obligated in any way to
seek out a minyan, so Ben's objection does not detract from the force of my
original statement (MJ 61#14):
> 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: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 22,2012 at 06:01 PM
Subject: An unusual form?
Michael Poppers wrote (MJ 61#18):
> In MJ 61#17, Martin Stern asked:
>> Has anyone any explanation for the form "kehayom hazeh" (Nehemiah 9:10) that
>> we say every morning -- is there any significance in its use rather than the
>> more common "kayom hazeh"?
> See RaShY on Gen 39:11.
As far as I can see, Rashi is not commenting on "kehayom" as opposed to
"kayom" but, rather, why it says "kehayom hazeh" instead of "bayom hahu",
which is what one would have expected there.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Casper <surfflorist@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 22,2012 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Arkaot shel Akum
Josh Backon (MJ 61#18) and Martin Stern (MJ 61#17) discussed Rabbi Ovadia
Yosef's ruling that "that anyone who sends their children to a secular school or
turns to the civil courts system instead of the religious courts for legal
redress cannot lead prayers services in synagogue" and that "there is no doubt
all the judges in the secular court system are ineligible as witnesses, you
can't take them to a wedding to sign on a marriage certificate, it is
forbidden... someone who does so... it is as if there was no were no wedding ...
[and] added that anyone who uses such witnesses at his wedding subsequently
engages in illicit sexual relations when he sleeps with his wife because the
witness, and thus the marriage, is invalid."
Martin had posted an article in the Jerusalem Post that expressed Rabbi Ovadia
Yosef's position that the state courts in Israel are Arkaot shel Akum (Courts of
Idolaters) (if you haven't read the article yet, you should:
www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=281853).
Josh answered that this "is based on a gemara in Gittin 88b and codified as
halakhah in Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 26:1. Also see the Arukh haShulhan CM
26 #1 who deems anyone who uses gentile courts as "rasha gamur" [completely
wicked]. The Arukh haShulhan was written 120 years ago."
I have tremendous difficulties with R` Yosef's position and Josh's explanation.
The courts in Israel are not idolatrous courts nor are they gentile courts.
They are courts run by mostly Jews who are applying laws that were
legislated by a parliament that is overwhelmingly Jewish and that quite often
(if not all the time) had input from Orthodox scholars as to the halakhah as it
applies to a particular subject. True, they are not batei din run by dati or
haredi rabbis. But on the other hand, they are not idolaters. Some judges
are dati (Jewish observant), others are hiloni (secular) and some are anti-dati
(and, of course, there are a small minority of Moslem and Christian judges which
according to the RaMBa"M, the Meiri, and Yehudah Halevi are not idolaters).
One example: the issue of moser (informing on a Jew to the civil authorities so
that he will be arrested, brought before a non-Jewish court and theoretically
imprisoned, tortured or put to death by that court). Rabbi Michael Broyde has
argued vociferously (e.g. http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/mesiralaw2.html) that the
courts of the United States are not Arkaot shel Akum that would prevent one Jew
from reporting criminal activity of another Jew (e.g. pedophilia). Because the
U.S. courts are fair, objective tribunals where the punishment is reasonably
tied to the crime, one would not violate mesirah if one went to the police with
a criminal complaint.
How much more so would this apply to Israel, the reishit z'mihat g'eulatenu
("the first flower of our redemption" as depicted in the Prayer for the State of
Israel many of recite in shul on Shabbat)? A police complaint against Anshei
Sodom (the men of Sodom were accused by Hazal's reading of B'reishit of wanting
to rape the two angels that had come to Sodom to save Lot and his family) will
be treated fairly. There will be no torture and no "lock 'em up and throw away
the key" approach to the prosecution. And, in case of improper police actions,
there is always the back up of the police chain of command, internal affairs,
judicial review, legislative oversight, media investigation, and public opinion
that will right most wrongs. (One could argue this is more oversight and backup
than one finds in any beit din system in the world today.) And the overwhelming
majority of people involved in this process are Jews. How can they be called
idolaters and gentile? Not dati, maybe. But definitely not goyish.
In a perfect world, all Jews would go to bet din for all civil and criminal
adjudication. But Israel is not perfect. A majority of Israelis will not go
to beit din. (See, for example Rabbi Hershel Shachter shlit"a's complaint that
frum/dati people don't use beis din here in the United States:
http://www.vosizneias.com/92931/2011/10/11/new-york-in-exclusive-ami-magzine-
intreview-noted-rabbi-schachter-slams-set-up-of-rabbinical-court-system/). But
they do go to a court run predominantly by Jews in the expectation they
will get a fair and honest day in court. And that deserves our support and
gratitude, not the name-calling of Arkaot shel Akum.
Chaim Casper
North Miami Beach, FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 23,2012 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Arkaot shel Akum
Josh Backon wrote (MJ 61#18):
>
> Martin Stern (MJ 61#17) asked about Arkaot shel Akum:
>
>> The Jerusalem Post reports that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has ruled "that anyone
>> who sends their children to a secular school or turns to the civil courts
>> system instead of the religious courts for legal redress cannot lead prayers
>> services in synagogue" and that "there is no doubt all the judges in the
>> secular court system are ineligible as witnesses, you can't take them to a
>> wedding to sign on a marriage certificate, it is forbidden... someone who
>> does so... it is as if there was no were no wedding ... [and] added that
>> anyone who uses such witnesses at his wedding subsequently engages in
>> illicit sexual relations when he sleeps with his wife because the witness,
>> and thus the marriage, is invalid".
>
> This is based on a gemara in Gittin 88b and codified as halacha in Shulchan
> Aruch Choshen Mishpat 26:1. Also see the Aruch haShulchan CM 26 #1 who
> deems anyone who uses gentile courts as "rasha gamur" [completely wicked].
> The Aruch Hashulchan was written 120 years ago.
Perhaps I should not have headed my submission "Arkaot shel Akum" since what
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef was talking about was secular Israeli courts. The
discussion should really be as to whether the latter are also considered
Arkaot shel Akum for these purposes. I think Keith Bierman (MJ 61#18)
appreciated this, but his response was more emotional / nationalistic than a
consideration of the halachic principles involved.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 23,2012 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Benching gomel
Joel Rich wrote (MJ 61#18):
> Martin Stern wrote (MJ 61#14):
>> 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?
>
> The Chashukei Chemed (R' Yitzchak Zylberstein - son in law of R' Elyashav z"l)
> in his commentary on Masechet Berachot says it would be an issue unless it is
> obvious that the folks are being exempted (e.g. they stand by the bima when it
> is being said).
Does he consider it insufficient for the gabbai to announce that the person
would be exempting all those who wished to be exempted from benching gomel?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 22,2012 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Is Chabad Lubavitch?
While Cooper highlights the split-offs and break-offs, as was usual with
almost all Hassidic courts/dynasties, his main point of Chabad vs.
Lubavitch is not that impressive. After the 6th Rebbe wrote the
history/chronicles, combined with Beit haRebbe and Miflefet Chabad, the two
books unique in their semi-academic history nature, their supposed differences
basically disappeared. As for Aaron of Starosselje, I suggest "Seeker of Unity"
by a Rabbi excommunicated by the English Jewish Orthodoxy.
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 22,2012 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Kashrus Of Canned Tuna
Thank you to everyone who responded to my posting about canned tuna and
bishul akum.
Has anyone seen any sources relating to what my question actually was,
i.e. why does bishul akum apply to tuna in the first place, given that
the prohibition of bishul akum does not apply to foods that can be eaten
raw and that tuna is eaten raw in a type of sushi? If bishul akum
doesn't apply on account of this, then surely the issues of the method
of cooking (steaming) and whether it's fit to be served to a king are
irrelevant?
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 23,2012 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Siyum Sources
In the booklet from the siyum hashas R' A Z Ginzberg states: "Throughout the
Talmud and Midrash are numerous references to the timeless custom of making a
siyum when completing the Talmud or even just a talmud tractate."
He then goes on to quote Shabbat 118b where Abaye says - "bring (chazinah?) me a
young scholar who completed a tractate, and I will make a festive holiday for
all the Rabbis." He then quotes various rishonim who seek a source for the
practice of making a siyum (page 50 of the booklet).
Questions:
1. I found the "numerous references" quote surprising since the Abaye one is
the only direct one I know of in the Talmud and even there it is in the "teiti
li (may I be rewarded?)" category - i.e. it was beyond the normal practice?
2. "Chazinah" is usually translated as I see -- is the "bring me" a usual
translation as well?
KT
Joel RIch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Wed, Aug 22,2012 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Taking advantage of an obvious mistake
As many may be aware, due to human error El Al posted erroneous ticket prices on
their website. Word spread quickly and many people bought up these tickets.
According to one newspaper article between 5,000 & 8,000 tickets were thus sold.
There are several fundamental halachik questions that come to mind:
1- May you take advantage of an obvious error?
2- Do you have a obligation to notify the merchant?
3- Are you permitted to tell others so that they, too, can take advantage ....?
For the sake of simplicity, let's forget about El Al and make this a generic
merchant who due to some error is unaware that (say) a $500 item is ringing up
at only $50.
And when we're through with the halachik discussion -- what of the social
implications. And what if your child were present and fully aware of what is
transpiring.
Carl
Carl A. Singer, PhD
Colonel U.S. Army (retired)
973-685-5022
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Thu, Aug 23,2012 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Tircha detzibbura (was Benching gomel)
If possible, one could wait until Shabbat if he does not want to rely on
someone's bracha. On weekdays, if someone asks to say hagomel, I announce that
he will say it for whoever wants to rely on him.
I personally do not say hagomel for in-Israel travelling, because some
hold that if you travel near any inhabited places, this is not included in
the 72 minutes. So I use other people's bracha.
OTOH, we have a set time for starting Shaharit (Hodu 20 minutes before
sunrise) but no set time for finishing. That means that on Mondays etc. we
finish later. Whoever is in a rush to catch a bus, or to get home because
his wife has to leave, finishes Shaharit on the way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 61 Issue 19