Volume 61 Number 69
Produced: Fri, 01 Mar 13 10:14:11 -0500
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Chalav Yisroel
[Martin Stern]
Davening from the Bima instead of the Amud? (5)
[Steven Oppenheimer Chaim Casper Orrin Tilevitz Martin Stern David Ziants]
Do norms of modest attire change? (2)
[Chaim Aharon David Tzohar]
Is the Torah true? (2)
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz Meir Shinnar]
Reading sepher tora in front of bars where aron is locked
[Menashe Elyashiv]
Tu BShvat custom -how many fruits?
[Yisrael Medad]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, Feb 28,2013 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Chalav Yisroel
This extract from the Weekly Halacha Discussion for Parshat Beshallach by
Rabbi Doniel Neustadt should, like many previous ones that I have drawn to
the attention of MJ members, be controversial.
Q: Which stringency is more important to observe: the stringency of eating
only chalav Yisroel products or the stringency of eating only pas Yisroel
products?
A: Eating only chalav yisroel products and avoiding chalav stam is more
important. Pas palter, as opposed to pas Yisroel, which is baked by a Jew,
refers to bread and other baked goods that are kosher but were baked in a
non-Jewish bakery. Pas palter is permitted to be eaten according to the
Shulchan Aruch and most major poskim. While it is certainly meritorious to
partake of pas Yisroel only, it is only a chumra, above and beyond the
strict letter of the law. The permissibility of drinking chalav stam on the
other hand, which is milk that was milked by non-Jews without Jewish
supervision but under government regulation, is a subject hotly debated
among the poskim. While there are prominent poskim who allow drinking chalav
stam in the United States and one is permitted to rely on their ruling, the
vast majority of the poskim do not agree with this leniency. According to
the majority opinion therefore, chalav stam is not merely a chumra but is
strictly forbidden.
Q: Whats a more important stringency: to avoid chadash or chalav stam?
A: Avoiding chalav stam is more important, even though chadash is a biblical
prohibition while chalav akum is not. Whether or not chadash is forbidden
nowadays, when the fields are owned by non-Jews and we are not dwelling in
Eretz Yisroel, is a long-standing dispute among the early authorities, with
no clear consensus reached. On the contrary, most European Jews did not
consider chadash to be a problem, as it became customary to follow the more
lenient opinions concerning chadash nowadays. Those who are lenient in
chadash therefore are following a well established tradition, based on the
opinion of early, classic poskim. The leniency to drink chalav stam on the
other hand is different. There is no long-standing tradition to permit it,
as chalav stam was not available in Europe. It was always assumed and
accepted by all poskim that unless a Jew was present at the milking, the
milk is forbidden to drink. It was only recently, in the United States,
where some prominent poskim ruled that we may rely on government regulation
to permit milk that was not supervised by a Jew. This controversial ruling
does not have the same halachic power as a ruling based on a centuries-old
tradition and thus it is a more important stringency to keep.
-----
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steven Oppenheimer <steven.oppenheimer@...>
Date: Wed, Feb 27,2013 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Davening from the Bima instead of the Amud?
Baruch Schwartz (MJ 61#68) asks about the permissibility of the Shat"z davening from the Bima instead of
the Amud in a Shul where the custom has always been to daven in front of the Amud. This issue is
discussed by Rav Moshe Feinstein, z"l who writes that moving the place of the Shat"z from the Amud to the
Bima is to be discouraged especially if the custom has been for the Shat"z to stand before the Amud.
However, if it is truly difficult to hear the Shat"z because the number of daveners is so large, and if
davening from the Bima would allow the congregants to hear, then it would be permissible to allow the
Shat"z to move.
Barring that need, however, the place of the Shat"z should not be moved from standing before the Amud
as that has been the custom for generations.
See Responsa Iggerot Moshe O. Ch. 2:28 and 3:10
--
Steven Oppenheimer, D.M.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Casper <surfflorist@...>
Date: Wed, Feb 27,2013 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Davening from the Bima instead of the Amud?
Baruch J. Schwartz (MJ 61 #68) said "I imagine that there is no actual prohibition in this" in response to the
moving of the shaliah zibbur's (reader's) shtender (stand from which the shaliah zibbur leads) from the
front to the Torah reading table in the middle of the room. It has been my experience through my travels
that many synagogues use the reading table in the middle of the sanctuary on Shabbat and Yom Tov, even
though that location may be the highest spot in the synagogue. The pasuk/sentence, "MiMa'amakim
k'ratikha Kah ("Out of the depths I called to God" [Psalms 130])...." does not apply on Shabbat, a day when
we are supposed to forget our daily concerns. (I have been told though I have never been able to verify
one way or the other that the reader's amud in the Breuer's community is dug into the floor--it is literally
the lowest point in the room so that reader is calling out from the depths per the pasuk.) Thus, what
would the issur (prohibition) be?
On the other hand, the reverse (i.e. moving the table from which the Torah is read to the front of the
room) would be a problem. Many of the poskim (deciders of halakhah) rule that the reader's table must be
in the middle of the room (or at least the middle of the men's section). There are individual heterim
(permissive rulings) that allow it, but I believe the large majority hold that reading table must be in the
middle. They say that Rav Moshe Feinstein, tz"l, would not daven in a room where the reading table was
in the front. Here in North Miami Beach, I had to go against 30+ years of the reading table being up front
in order to move the reading table to the middle. There were some murmurings in the beginning, but B"H,
everyone has now accepted this.
B'virkat Torah,
Chaim Casper
North Miami Beach, FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Thu, Feb 28,2013 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Davening from the Bima instead of the Amud?
Baruch Schwartz asks (MJ 61#68) about the minhag of davening from the Amud and layning from the bima,
and changing that minhag to doing everything from the bima because people supposedly can't hear.
Here is my experience with the shuls in which I've spent the most amount of my time over the past 50
years:
1. In the main sanctuary of the shul I grew up in, davening was from the amud EXCEPT (1) kabbalat
shabbat (until barchu), (2) musaf, and (3) shachrit, musaf and maariv on yamim noraim were from the bima
at the center of the shul.
2. In the beit midrash of that same shul, davening was from the amud except the baal musaf began at the
bima.
3. In Old Broadway Synagogue in Manhattan, there is no amud. Everything happens at the bima (which is
raised and in the front of the shul).
4. In the shul I've davened for the last 25 years, all davening is from the amud except (1) the baal musaf
begins at the bima and (2) shachrit, musaf and maariv on yamim noraim are at the bima.
Like Martin Stern, I take a dim view of changing a shul's minhag unless there is a good reason.
Accommodating people who don't want to move to the front is not one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, Feb 28,2013 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Davening from the Bima instead of the Amud?
In reply to Baruch Schwartz (MJ 61#68):
The custom among the Spanish and Portuguese community in London is for the
chazan to stand on the bimah which is placed at the rear of the synagogue.
The Orthodox (United Synagogue) English Ashkenazim did the same but had the
bimah in the middle. Under Reform influence some of their synagogues were
constructed with the bimah in the front but this has been rectified
post-WW2.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Fri, Mar 1,2013 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Davening from the Bima instead of the Amud?
In reply to Baruch Schwartz (MJ 61#68):
Without being an expert on the halachic aspects, I am able to give a number of observations.
Ashkenazi minhag has generally been from the amud - "min hammaakim karaticha h'" [I call you - H' -
from the depths] . Some shuls even slope downwards.
Sephardi minhag has generally been from the bima that doubles up for desk for k. hatora. Being high
up gives more honour. See some of the shuls in Tz'fat.
In Israel, there are some "hybrid" shuls that give both options - e.g. in bus station in Jm.
I grew up in the (Orthodox) United Synagogue in the UK, and the chazan was at the bima. I guess they
modeled themselves after the (Spanish and Portuguese) Sephardim who came to England before the
Ashkenazim. Also this practice is more conducive to an opera show <smile> . Despite that, I would not
be surprised if some of the "alternative" minyanim in these shuls follow the "frumer" practice of having
the shatz at the front. (Just a guess - I do not know for definite - maybe someone can confirm or refute
my guess.)
In Israel, where Birkat HaKohanim ought to be done every day (apart from perhaps in the Galil [North
part of the country], having sha"tz on bima makes a bit of a challenge if he is a Cohen. My own shul
tried it for a week or so on Shabbat, but ran into difficulties when they asked a Kohen to do a tephilla.
So they stopped. In another place, where this is the fixed custom for shatz to be on bima, everyone
crowded to the back during the blessing, when shatz was Kohen.
I understand that there are some sephardi shuls in hu"l (outside Israel) where birkat hakohanim is every
shabbat. I read somewhere that the kohen makes himself "invisible" under Tallit. Because of the
importance of Birkat HaKohanim in Israel - I don't see how that can be a solution. A sephardi work
colleague told me that in his shul, they do not allow a Kohen to be shatz.
With all this, there is the issue of is it permissible to change established custom one way or the other.
David Ziants
<dziants@...>
Maaleh Adumim, Israel
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Aharon <chaim.mat@...>
Date: Thu, Feb 28,2013 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Do norms of modest attire change?
Re: Rav Brody's claim quoted by Martin Stern (MJ 61#68) that "the vast majority of
late-20th century Orthodox decisors, ... believe that biblical norms mandate
a married woman to cover her hair [yet some] asserted that this practice
was dependent on contemporary norms of dress [so that] once modest women in
general society no longer covered their hair, then modest Jewish women
could follow suit because uncovered hair was no longer deemed provocative."
Might Rav Brody (or anyone else) be able to please give chapter/verse
regarding who this "some asserted" are? IOW, the name of the Rav/posek (or
non-posek), when, and in which sefer (so that we can investigate his
sources) such a claim was made (asserted)?
I am referring specifically to his claim about hair covering.
Kol Tuv,
Chaim Aharon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Tzohar <davidtzohar@...>
Date: Thu, Feb 28,2013 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Do norms of modest attire change?
I have commented in the past on the halachic relativism of R' Brody
which I reject. I must agree with R'Aviner that the rules of modest
dress are absolute and do not change according to the standards of
modesty of the surrounding culture. Just as Jewish women living in
Moslem countries are not required to wear a veil, women who live in
countries where uncovered hair is not considered provocative still
must cover their hair, a practice that has its source in the
Gemara.The discourse on modesty seems somewhat obsessive but this is
I believe a reaction to the immodesty of western culture.
David Tzohar
http://tzoharlateivahebrew.blogspot.com/
http://tzoharlateiva.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Wed, Feb 27,2013 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Is the Torah true?
Martin Stern <md.stern@...> wrote (MJ 61#68):
> This article by one of the leaders of the Masorti movement in Israel, Reuven
> Hammer, appeared in his regular Tradition Today column in the Va'eira issue
> (11 Jan.) of the Magazine of the Jerusalem Post.
>
> http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Judaism/Article.aspx?id=299141
>
>
> He then goes on to say
>
>> the Torah is best understood when seen against the background of the
>> religious beliefs of other civilizations of its time that it vigorously
>> refuted. The account of creation in the opening chapters of Genesis, for
>> example, must be read as a denial of all the creation stories of ancient
>> Mesopotamia and Egypt stories in which creation is a struggle between
>> various divinities and primordial monsters.
> i.e. the Torah is the work of a particular time and place and not addressed
> to all people, in effect a human composition rather than Divine revelation.
>
> While one might agree with him to some extent that
>
>> a denial of all the creation stories of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt stories
>> in which creation is a struggle between various divinities and primordial
>> monsters
>> ... is much more important than the question of how long it took to create
>> the world, which is a question best left to science to try to answer.
> it is the underlying assumption that the Torah is essentially unreliable
> rather than that we may be deficient in our ability to understand it which
> is the 'hidden agenda' that, I think, underlies the difference between
> Orthodoxy and the Masorti/Conservative theology.
The problem with this approach is that it actually denies the logical
implications of "Yesh Maiayin" (Creation from nothing) which is a
fundamental tenet of the Torah. Once creation is accepted, there is no
way that "science" (which depends on physical evidence) can make any
statement about the "true" age of the universe. As I explain in Breishis
- Creationism and Evolutionism
<http://sabbahillel.blogspot.com/2011/10/breishis-creationism-and-evolutionism.html>
there is no way we can "prove" that the world was created 5 seconds or
5,000, or 5 billion years ago. Since creation (as explained in the
Torah) was of a fully mature universe ("fruit trees bearing fruit",
mushrooms growing on dead trees, Adam with a navel, etc) the physical
evidence that existed one second after creation would have been the same
had creation taken place eons earlier. It is only the fact that the
Torah tells us when creation occurred that would allow us to make any
statements about the age of the universe.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
<SabbaHillel@...>
http://sabbahillel.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meir Shinnar <chidekel@...>
Date: Wed, Feb 27,2013 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Is the Torah true?
Martin Stern <md.stern@...> wrote (MJ 61#68):
> This article by one of the leaders of the Masorti movement in Israel, Reuven
> Hammer, appeared in his regular Tradition Today column in the Va'eira issue
> (11 Jan.) of the Magazine of the Jerusalem Post.
>
> http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Judaism/Article.aspx?id=299141
> In view of recent comments on the movement in our digests, this might
> clarify its difference from Orthodoxy and form a basis for discussion.
>> In this belief I follow the path of my teacher, Abraham Joshua Heschel, and my
>> teacher and colleague, Louis Jacobs, both of whom pursued truth fearlessly
>> and did not hesitate to teach the Torah as the Divine book of eternal truths
>> while simultaneously seeking scientific and historical truth elsewhere.
> i.e. the Torah is the work of a particular time and place and not addressed
> to all people, in effect a human composition rather than Divine revelation
> it is the underlying assumption that the Torah is essentially unreliable
> rather than that we may be deficient in our ability to understand it which
> is the 'hidden agenda' that, I think, underlies the difference between
> Orthodoxy and the Masorti/Conservative theology.
I think one has to be careful, as while the Reuven Hammer may have meant
what RM Stern thinks he does, that is not explicit in his writing.
Further, there are two very separate issues - as indicated by the two
different quotes, because they reflect very different issues.
1) Torah being addressed to a particular time. The first quote could be
understood in the light of dibra hatora bilshon bne adam (torah speaks in
the language of man), and in the Rambam's understanding of ta'amei
hamitzvot as reflecting that the mitzvot, even though eternally binding,
were given in a particular fashion because of issues particular to the
Jewish nation at the time of its giving.
It does not necessarily reflect a view of Human versus divine composition -
the heart of the torah min hashamayim issue - although, as he cites Louis
Jacobs -I suspect he also believes in that....
2) Reliability of the Torah. Here one has to be very careful in defining
one's terms. The Orthodox approach that I grew up with is best summarized
by a statement of Yeshayahu Leibowitz z"l - lo yarad Hashem al Har Sinai
lelamed et Bnei Yisrael astrophysica - Hashem did not descent on Mount Sinai
to teach Israel astrophysics.
This isn't a statement that the Torah is false or unreliable - but the
intent of the Torah is NOT to teach us scientific facts - and when we think
it does we are misunderstanding and misrepresenting the essence of Torah.
It isn't that the science or facts of the Torah are unreliable - it is
that the Torah properly understood is not trying to teach science...
What the original writer actually thinks - ie, whether he views the Torah
as essentially unreliable as a human composition reflecting the biases and
limited knowledge of its authors, as RM Stern thinks, or more in line that
the scientific part of the Torah is meant to be understood allegorically,
is not clear. RM Stern may well be right about what he actually thinks -
but the text cited is not proof
Meir Shinnar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Thu, Feb 28,2013 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Reading sepher tora in front of bars where aron is locked
In reply to the query from David Ziants (MJ 61#68):
On fast days, we have one minyan, close to sunset so that we also have
birkat kohanim. Once, some tried to have a minha gedola minyan, but found
the aron locked. So they read the Torah looking thru the bars of the
internal door. I was not sure that the reader really saw the whole text ,
if he did not, the olim may have said a bracha levatala.
Saying the pesukim before and after - is like when having a sefer tora
waiting on the table for any reason.
One says kaddish twice on a fast day just like Shabbat minha. The first
because of Ashrey, the second because of the Tora reading
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Thu, Feb 28,2013 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Tu BShvat custom -how many fruits?
As to Stuart Wise's comment (MJ 61#68) responding to David Ziants (MJ 61#67):
> Given that Jewry was located mostly in Europe for a few centuries, where would they
> have gotten such a number of fruit in the middle of the winter? Even in Israel, 30 would
> be an astounding number.
I would proffer that have the fruits eaten in contemporary Israel come from
outside the country anyway.
I will admit to possessing a few Tu B'shvat 'handbooks' and indeed, over
the years, the amount of edibles has increased.
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 61 Issue 69