Volume 61 Number 79
Produced: Sun, 28 Apr 13 05:03:35 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Don't Blame Women for Not Going to Shul
[Martin Stern]
Frumming (2)
[Keith Bierman Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
HaKedoshah or HaGedushah? (3)
[Sammy Finkelman Menashe Elyashiv Meir Possenheimer]
Haredi newspapers
[Sammy Finkelman]
Kitniot revisited
[Martin Stern]
Metzitzah BePeh
[Sammy Finkelman]
Pesach as a personal name (2)
[Gilad J. Gevaryahu Abraham Lebowitz]
Selling chametz
[Elazar M. Teitz]
Tefillah / Bet haknesset (was Don't Blame Women for Not Going to Shul)
[Stuart Pilichowski]
The Sharansky compromise (2)
[Ari Trachtenberg Wendy Baker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Apr 24,2013 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Don't Blame Women for Not Going to Shul
Chaim Casper wrote (MJ 61#78):
> I found the blog post below [on the subject of why women don't come to
> (Orthodox) shuls and what can we do to get them to come] very interesting.
>
> http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/dont-blame-women-for-not-going-to-shul/
>
> The author, R` Eliyahu Fink (he is the rabbi of the Pacific Jewish Center, a
> synagogue in Venice, CA), points out that women do not participate in
> synagogue worship in any great number or intensity because they are excluded
> from an active role due to halakhah and Orthodox custom; ...
This may be a factor but I think the main reason why women by and large did
not attend synagogue in earlier times was that they were far too busy
looking after their small children and other domestic affairs. Those not yet
married were probably busy helping their mothers in this. By the time the
children were all old enough, they probably preferred to rest at home - in
the days before labour-saving domestic devices they were probably exhausted
by the end of the week.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith Bierman <khbkhb@...>
Date: Wed, Apr 24,2013 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Frumming
In MJ 61#78 I wrote:
> David Makowsky (MJ 61#77) wrote:
>> In MJ 61#76, Menashe Elyashiv wrote:
>>> But they sometimes miss "correcting" the news ... they wrote the PM
>>> of South Korea's full name
>>
>> I am guessing they did not know that person is a female.
>
> Since the leader of Korea is male, I don't see why they should treat him
> any differently than they did, according to their principles.
>
> Kim is a common male name in Korea.
I mistook "South" for "North". My apologies. The OP is correct that the
South Korean President (Park, not Kim) is female.
Keith Bierman
<khbkhb@...>
kbiermank AIM
303 997 2749
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Thu, Apr 25,2013 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Frumming
>> In MJ 61#76, Menashe Elyashiv wrote:
>>
>>> That is correct...I receive all 4 (!) haredi newspapers (my library
>>> subscribes to them for research)...
>>> But they sometimes miss "correcting" the news ... they wrote the PM
>>> of South Korea's full name
>>
> David Makowsky (MJ 61#77) wrote:
>>> I am guessing they did not know that person is a female.
>
Keith Bierman wrote (MJ 61#78):
> Since the leader of Korea is male, I don't see why they should treat him
> any differently than they did, according to their principles.
> Kim is a common male name in Korea.
You are thinking of the leader of North Korea Kim Jong Un.
The president of South Korea is Park Geun-hye
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Geun-hye>
as is the Prime Minister, Jung Hong-won
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jung_Hong-won>.
In any case, the "first name" is actually the family name. For example, in
Korea, your name would be written as Bierman Keith. Thus, the leader of North
Korea is referred to as Mr. Kim, while the President of South Korea would be
referred to as President (or Mrs) Park.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
<SabbaHillel@...>
http://sabbahillel.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Wed, Apr 24,2013 at 07:01 PM
Subject: HaKedoshah or HaGedushah?
Yisrael Medad (MJ 61#78) wrote:
> My daughter researched it and her wedding bencher 2002 was printed with
> g'dusha. I sent it off to Prof. Moshe Halamish who wrote a scholarly
> article on it:
> http://tinyurl.com/cd8x9kh
This does not look accessible to the general public. Could Yisrael summarize it
for us?
Also, when he wrote (MJ 36#97) that he once had a copy of some handwritten
medieval text which actually said "gedosha" but when it came time to prepare the
wedding Birchon gift for the guests, he couldn't find the source. Did he mean he
couldn't find out where it had been taken from, or he couldn't find the copy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Thu, Apr 25,2013 at 10:01 AM
Subject: HaKedoshah or HaGedushah?
Hagedushah does seem logical. However, the Sefardi nusah is hamelaya v'harehava,
haashera v'hapetuha. No mention of holy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meir Possenheimer <meirpos@...>
Date: Fri, Apr 26,2013 at 07:01 AM
Subject: HaKedoshah or HaGedushah?
I recollect Rav Yehoshua Neuwirth during a shiur in Yeshivat Kol Torah
nearly fifty years ago stating a preference for the latter.
Meir Possenheimer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Fri, Apr 26,2013 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Haredi newspapers
In MJ 61#76, Menashe Elyashiv wrote:
>
>> That is correct...I receive all 4 (!) haredi newspapers (my library
>> subscribes to them for research). A female soldier who killed a terrorist
>> becomes a soldier, a policewoman becomes a citizen, Kafar Habad or
>> anything Habad is changed in Yated Ne'eman, the attack in Yeshivat Mercaz
>> Harav took place in a Jerusalem building. In obituaries of rabbis, some
>> years are missing because he taught in a dati leumi or habad yeshiva,
>> etc. ...
This doesn't seem to be quite the case with the English language Yated
Ne'eman, published in the United States, at least as it applies to Chabad.
Although it never mentioned a word about Nehemya Weberman, and it avoids
any kind of mention or implication that a man and a woman, Jew or non-Jew,
could be - I think the word is intimate - without being married (treating
the matter like the framers of the original United States Constitution treated
the subject of slavery) and it kind of gives half truths on some issues, like
what exactly someone who was convicted probably really did, even if some things
were wrong with the case, it often has almost exhaustive coverage of major news
events and commentary that you can't get other places, so it's quite good in
some ways.
The MbP coverage also strikes me as half truths - but just that, half truths,
and incomplete facts, not outright lies, and you have to read between the
lines. And with Torah it often won't reveal there may be other opinions.
Anyway, this week I saw on page 149:
"Rabbi Shmuel Posner of Commonwealth Avenue, who has been the Rabbi of
Chabad of Greater Boston since he moved with his wife, Chana and family in
1985, described the uplifting Shabbos after the lockdown ... Sometimes we
can have up to 75 college students - there are many colleges near the
Chabad house - on Friday nights.."
Incidentally, they ran two strong attack articles, after the Rabbi Michael
Broyde affair, but published a letter to the editor from Rabbi Gil Student this
week. He and Rabbi Harry Maryles had been attacked en passant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Apr 24,2013 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Kitniot revisited
Abe Lebowitz wrote (MJ 61#78):
>
> In reference to an article by Rabbi Daniel Sperber, Martin Stern wrote (MJ
> 61#77):
>
>> However, his carelessness in transliteration makes me suspicious that he may
>> be equally cavalier in other matters. Can anyone shed any light on this?
>
> I live in Israel and read the Jerusalem Post fairly regularly. Many articles
> seem to be received in Hebrew and translated by Post staff. This sometimes
> results in translations and transliterations which can range from the humorous
> to the absurd. Before suggesting that a scholar of Prof. Sperber's caliber of
> "being cavalier" perhaps Mr. Stern should consider alternative possibilities.
This did occur to me but, since Prof. Sperber comes from England and is
fluent in English, I don't think it is at all likely that he would have
written the article for the Jerusalem Post in Hebrew and then had someone
else translate it. I suppose it is possible that it appeared in some other
paper or journal in Hebrew and was translated but this is highly unlikely
since there was no attribution attached (which one would normally expect as
a courtesy if not because of copyright considerations). In any case, if this
had been the case, I would have assumed that he would have checked it before
it was published.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Wed, Apr 24,2013 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Metzitzah BePeh
Steven Oppenheimer wrote (MJ 61#78)
> Sammy Finkelman (MJ 61#77) suggests that the infants who have contracted
> Herpes Simplex infections most likely contracted the illness from friends
> or relatives who came in contact with the infants.
No, I didn't say that. I quoted that from some place which discussed how
usually it might be spread.
> He suggests that the friends or relatives may kiss the infants and that is the
> mode of transmission.
Actually, I believe doctors may be *assuming* such contact took place,
because it is hard to prove it didn't, and it's more scary to believe that
less direct contact could do it.
I said:"Now we must understand, kissing is only a presumption. Getting
close to he baby or things the baby puts in its mouth may be enough."
I think there are some studies of infections in hospitals that show that
much less close contact than commonly or previously thought is enough to
spread infections.
> Mr. Finkelman posits that this is far more likely an explanation than the
> suggestion that it is the mohel who infected the infant.
No, I didn't say that either, and I didn't say that the mohel did not
infect the baby. What I said was, or what I meant, is that a mohel
infected with herpes could infect the baby whether or not he did MbP. Even if he
did a circumcision without MbP, he could still do it.
And I said the odds would not be raised very much by MbP, as compared to
the same mohel with the same infection doing a bris without MbP, and that MbP
was probably much more a mode of infection from the baby to the mohel than the
mohel to the baby. WHICH WAY are the bodily fluids going? I asked.
> I would ask Mr. Finkelman to suggest how the babies developed *herpetic
> lesions on their genitals*. I do not believe that family friends are
> kissing the infants in that area.
Not from kissing - but from an exposed wound and a nearby infected
person who touches something that touches the baby. Doesn't the very
article you cite say:
"Nosocomial transmission in nurseries has been
documented.<http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/114/2/e259.full#ref-9>"
Are the doctors and the nurses in the hospital doing MbP? Is somebody
kissing the baby there??
I said: (correcting typos) "Once he [the mohel] has it, [herpes] it's probably
enough just to touch him or to touch something he touches to transmit it to the
baby, but - and they may be right here again - if the mohel takes some kind of
anti-viral product that could be prevented".
But I thought for a mohel, with a much more robust immune system than the
baby, to *catch* herpes, he might very well need to do MbP. To transmit to
another baby, a lot less.
Reference 9 there is to Hammerberg O, Watts J, Chernesky M, Luchsinger I, Rawls
W. An outbreak of herpes simplex virus type 1 in an intensive care nursery.
Pediatr Infect Dis J.1983;2 :290- 294
Is that because of MbP?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gilad J. Gevaryahu <gevaryahu@...>
Date: Wed, Apr 24,2013 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Pesach as a personal name
In reply to Stuart Pilichowski (MJ 61#78):
The name Pesach and Pessi and its female counterpart Pesil or Pessi are names
related to the Holiday of Pessach. Initially they were given to boys who were
born on Passover and sometimes also to boys who were born of Pessach Sheni
(today!). Alexander Beider in his book on Hebrew given names suggest that it was
first used amongst the Jews in the 13th century, but unfortunately he did not
give his source. This name is not limited to the Jews. Christian also gave the
name of this holiday to their children like Pasquale, or Pascal to commemorate
their Pessach/Pascha/Easter. Both Judaism and Christianity are defining their
religion to a great extent on this holiday, and hence the parallel of naming
children after this holiday is not surprising. Note further that the name Nisan
or Nisn for boys born in the month when Pessach occurs is related. The naming of
Nisan or Nisn is dated by Beider to the 15th century. Until recently boys were
not named after the Jewish month of the year other than Nisan/Nisn. Sivan, in my
view, is a later addition.
Gilad Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Abraham Lebowitz <asaac76@...>
Date: Thu, Apr 25,2013 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Pesach as a personal name
Stuart Pilichowski (MJ 61#78) wonders about Pesach being turned into a personal
name.
Could this have been under Italian influence where Pasqua (= Pesach), the
Italian name for Easter, becomes the personal name Pasquale? Or maybe it
was the other way around as Pasqua itself, of course, results from the
Hebrew influence on Italian. Another example of which is in the Italian
for Saturday, Sabato, clearly adopted from Shabbat and not from the names
of pagan deities.
Abe Lebowitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Sun, Apr 21,2013 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Selling chametz
Eli Turkel wrote (MJ 61#78):
> Rabbi Teitz wrote (MJ 61#77):
>> Shortly after the end of the chag, the rabbi repurchases the chametz by
>> returning the amount of the deposit. He stipulates that if, during the
>> eight-and-a-half days during which the non-Jew owned the chametz, it
>> appreciated in value, the non-Jew forgives the amount due him. If, on the
>> other hand, it has depreciated in value, so that the non-Jew owes the amount
>> of depreciation to those purchasers who are getting back less value than they
>> sold, we forgive that difference to him.
> Why would any rational non-Jew forgive the appreciation in value (assuming
> it is substantial). Doesn't this make the contract into a farce
(a) At the time of repurchase, it is not yet determined what change in value, if
any, has occurred, since the evaluation of what was sold is not scheduled until
the day after Pesach, and it never takes place because of the repurchase.
(b) If _all_ the sold chametz appreciated in value, forgiving the appreciation
would be irrational. However, the non-Jew has purchased the chametz of dozens,
if not hundreds, of Jews. While some people's chametz may have gone up in
value, there could be more which has gone down. The prudent course is to forgo
any potential profit in order to avoid a potentially greater loss.
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Pilichowski <stupillow@...>
Date: Wed, Apr 24,2013 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Tefillah / Bet haknesset (was Don't Blame Women for Not Going to Shul)
In response to Chaim Casper (MJ 61#78):
Many people use the bet haknesset as a social club because they don't understand
the tefillot. They use their time to socialize rather than simply mouth words;
they haven't the foggiest notion what they're saying or reading.
In Israel when you get to shul on shabbat there's a rush to get the parasha
sheets . . . . at least you won't be talking to your buddies and cause
disruption; at least you're learning something and you won't sit in shul bored
to death. The advance of Carlbach minyanim encourages more singing, but does it
add meaning? Singing doesn't equal understanding or "spirituality."
I've always felt that Rabbis should use their sermons to discuss / explain the
tefillot rather than talk about parashat hashavuah or current events. There's
such an abundance of parasha books out there . . . but books on tefillah? Books
that hit home?
Stuart P
Mevaseret
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Wed, Apr 24,2013 at 11:01 AM
Subject: The Sharansky compromise
This is bound to be a very heated discussion ... so I'll be brief.
> Chaim Casper wrote (MJ 61#78):
>
> I have read some heated personal discussions about the proposal. The
> people in favor of the proposal say that the alternative to rejecting the
> proposal is a forced Israeli government solution that would be worse from
> our perspective (I say "our" because I assume everyone reading this post
> is Orthodox).
One should not assume that all the readers of the mailing list are Orthodox
or even traditional - it is only safe to assume that they are interested in
the traditional interpretation of our religion and are willing to forgo
discussions about whether this is appropriate or not.
> The people against the proposal say that this is part of a slippery
> slope; in other words, the first of many compromises that will undermine
> our (i.e. the Orthodox) best interests.
Maybe, but I find it highly disturbing with what has become of the Kotel, a
symbol of our religion which has been elevated to almost sacrilegious
proportions. We must be especially vigilant with an object in front of which we
pray that we keep in mind that, in the end, it is an inanimate wall of stone.
Best,
-Ari
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wendy Baker <wbaker@...>
Date: Wed, Apr 24,2013 at 04:01 PM
Subject: The Sharansky compromise
Chaim Caspar wrote (MJ 61#78):
> I have read some heated personal discussions about the proposal. The
> people in favor of the proposal say that the alternative to rejecting the
> proposal is a forced Israeli government solution that would be worse from
> our perspective (I say "our" because I assume everyone reading this post
> is Orthodox). The WOTW include Orthodox women (Anat Hoffman,
> notwithstanding) who approach the tefilot from an Orthodox perspective (i.e.
> the tallitot they wear are bigdei nashim [tallesim specifically made for
> women], they don't say any d'varim she'bik'dushah [i.e. Borekhu and Kaddish],
> etc.); they should be entitled to a place to daven at the Wall. The Kotel is
> central to all Jews and as such should be made available to all Jews. The
> Israeli Supreme Court has already ruled that Robinson's Arch can be used by
> the WOTW so Sharansky's proposal merely codifies what is law in Israel.
>
> The people against the proposal say that this is part of a slippery
> slope; in other words, the first of many compromises that will undermine
> our (i.e. the Orthodox) best interests. Quoting Rav Mordechai Gifter,
..... The proposal will enshrine the "Christianizaiton" of the
> Kotel (Rav Joseph Dov Halevi Soloveitchk, zt"l, called mixed seating the
> "Christianization" of the synagogue).
As an active participant in my shul's Women's Tefillah Group for over 40
years, I am quite sympathetic to women having a similar group at the Kotel
as it was 20 or so years ago when first attempted and then greeted with
dirty diapers and other disgusting things thrown at the group. It
is no wonder that it has become a more aggressive group as time has passed.
My basic question is, should the Kotel, a strong symbol of our past (and
hoped for future when Moshiach comes) and a source of pride and sadness
for all Jews, be an Orthodox synagogue at all times? In addition, should
it be constantly set up limiting women by decreasing the size of the
womens' section as well as raising the height of the Mehitza. When I was
there in 1990, during the Sheloshim for my Mother, I managed to say
Kaddish for her by joining a family Bar Mitzvah service that was held right
along the Mehitza so the women of the family cold participate or listen
and pray. When it was time for Kaddish I said it with the mourners of the
group and no one interfered and I was replied to as I was saying it with
the group. I would not have expected a "private " response from a strange
group. This has now become more difficult to do with the higher Mehitza,
etc.
I view of the universal importance fof hte Kotel to all Jews, should it
actually be a Synagogue of any group of Jews or should it be a space that
can be used (with arrangements of portable Mehitzas, etc) by all Jewish
groups? Should it be permissible for tourist or school groups of young
people to have a "Kumsitz" with acoustic guitar? Should it only be
available to people dressed to meet the standards of an Orthodox synagogue
during service times. Women may well come to Orthodox shuls in the US in
slacks, etc on weekdays for various activities including setting up for
programs, running food and clothing drives, even exercise classes:-)
Some of you may regard my ideas as the culmination of the "slippery
slope", you are worried about, but the increasing hold by Haredi leaders
on the Kotel makes it a very unwelcoming place to many Jews who wish to
view and experience this great part of our national and religious past (and
hopefully, our future). It is something to think about.
Wendy Baker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 61 Issue 79