Volume 62 Number 93
Produced: Wed, 29 Jun 16 22:58:56 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Birchat Kohanim
[Joel Rich]
Gemara narrative
[Joel Rich]
Hashgachah question
[Orrin Tilevitz]
Homosexuality
[Martin Stern]
Minchat Chinuch
[Joel Rich]
Some thoughts on An'im Zemirot
[Rose Landowne]
Tachanun after Shavuot
[Martin Stern]
Technical vs Broad approach to Religious Questions
[Harlan Braude]
Why were people angry/offended? (frum teenager performance)
[Rabbi Meir Wise]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 26,2016 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Birchat Kohanim
How would you analyze the amount of "bother" you should go to in Eretz Yisrael
to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to get birchat hakohanim?
Differentiate between the mitzvah and the benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on
the machloket (difference of opinion) as to whether the mitzvah is on the
kohanim alone to bless the people or on every individual Jew to be blessed?
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 19,2016 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Gemara narrative
When you are learning gemara and you come to an argument where the hava
amina [initial assumption] seems strange (e.g. Makot 14a where the gemara first
assumes the Rabbanan learn a halacha from lchaleik yatzat [separate reference
was to differentiate] and ask where does R' Yitzchak learn it from. The Gemara
answers from a different pasuk and then asks why don't the Rabbanan learn it
from there. The answer is ein hachi name [they could have learned it from there
indeed]?! So why does the Gemara record the whole misattribution of reason, and
how did the Rabbanan know/not know what the correct source was?
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Thu, Jun 16,2016 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Hashgachah question
In an email I recently saw, a restaurant manager reported a surprise visit from
a mashgiach who noticed a bottle of white balsamic wine vinegar which he said
was "problematic", but told the manager that he could finish up the bottle and
order one from a better source next time. Could this statement possibly be
acceptable? (The kashrus agency involved is itself problematic, for other reasons.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 10,2016 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Homosexuality
Dr Russell Jay Hendel wrote (MJ 62#92):
> I inadvertently overlooked the 4th prohibition (probably because I was writing
> from memory). They are:
>
> i) passing children through fire
>
> ii) male homosexual relations
>
> iii) male bestiality
>
> iv) female bestiality.
>
> Although this was an error, my basic thesis remains the same. All 4
> prohibitions are rare in the sense that you don't expect the majority of
> society to be engaged in them. I might therefore, not expect destruction of
> the land because of the sins of the minority. Therefore the Torah informs us
> that these abominations would merit destruction of the land even if done by a
> minority.
Might I add that Dr Hendel's last comment might be a consequence of the
general rule of "Kol Yisrael areivim zeh bazeh [All Jews are mutually
responsible for one another]" (Shevuot 39a). If a Jewish polity does not
protest at such practices, then all its members are, to some extent, guilty
of them [mesayei'a le'overei aveirah] and thereby precipitate the
punishment. Perhaps this might give cause for concern that Judd Yadid, a
writer and editor at Haaretz, could put on its website the following:
"Considered the gay-friendliest country in the Middle East, Israel offers
LGBT tourists a smorgasbord of experiences. From the carnal to the cultural,
a veritable rainbow trail increasingly stretches the length and breadth of
this tiny yet tantalizingly diverse country..."
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/travel/gay-tel-aviv/1.576146
In the wake of the Orlando atrocity, it is necessary to point out that the Torah
only proscribes specific activities and not "being homosexual" per se. The
capital punishment for them can only be carried out by a properly constituted
court of fully ordsined judges, which we do not have nowadays, and, then, only
if those performing the acts had been warned by two witnesses of their
culpability and the precise punishment entailed.
In practice, this meant that it could hardly ever be carried out - and private
vigilante acts are certainly prohibited. However, this does not mean that
homosexual behaviour should be condoned, merely that, for technical reasons, it
cannot be punished by human courts and must be left to the Beit Din shel Ma'alah
[heavenly tribunal].
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Tue, Jun 14,2016 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Minchat Chinuch
I've been leading a group studying the Minchat Chinuch. It's quite interesting
trying to figure out why he dives into some topics in detail and others he says
would be too long, or this isn't the place to discuss detail or he's "not
holding" in it right now. Makes me wonder how many halachic authors have a
conscious, programmatic approach versus a subconscious approach or no unifying
theme.
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rose Landowne <Roselandow@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 10,2016 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Some thoughts on An'im Zemirot
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 62#92):
> The problem with "leading responsively in Av Harachamim and Ashray" is that
> some element of chanting might be involved (or a more militant woman might be
> tempted to push the boundary).
I have heard Rabbi Saul Berman state that a woman chanting does not fall under
the category of prohibited singing.
Rose Landowne
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Jun 28,2016 at 12:01 AM
Subject: Tachanun after Shavuot
The original minhag of Ashkenazim was to omit tachanun only on Isru Chag [the
day after Shavuot] which was in Temple times referred to as Yom Tavoach [day of
slaughtering] because of the large number of festival offerings slaughtered on it.
Some people, however, have a minhag not to say tachanun during the whole week
after Shavuot which they say is based on the fact that those who had not brought
their olat re'iyah [festival offering] on Yom Tov itself had seven days of
tashlumin [catch up time]. This year Shavuot fell on Sunday so the seventh day
would have been on the following Shabbat when private korbanot could not be
brought.
Does that mean that they should have said Tzidkatekha tzedek, whose recital is
linked to tachanun, at minchah on Shabbat this year? If not, is this a case of
mishum lo plug [not acting differently in special circumstances]?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harlan Braude <hbraude@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 10,2016 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Technical vs Broad approach to Religious Questions
Dr Russell Jay Hendel wrote (MJ 62#92):
> What bothers me is not so much whether I am right or wrong but the lack of
> sympathy of other discussants to voicing opinions on the broader issue
> involved here. Instead the discussion has become legal and technical [...]
> This is not the only time on mail-jewish when a thread gets involved in
> legalism and avoids broader and higher consequences.
> I believe this point of view deserves consideration in its own right.
It's incumbent on one posing a question to make clear the kind of response being
solicited. Otherwise, people respond in the manner they approach the issue or
craft a response according to their assumptions about the inquirer: the more
heavily technical, researched and jargoned the response, the higher the level
of respect for the inquirer - um, no disrespect intended with this non-technical,
non-researched and jargon-free response).
More generally speaking, although I believe that most people view their own
opinions and points of view favorably, they're not at all confident that others
will agree. So, they put a concerted effort into bringing support from as large
an arsenal of unimpeachable sources as they can find on short notice that can
fit into a few paragraphs to buttress their arguments (I bring no sources here
since I'm confident that everyone will agree... right?...hello? (sigh)) .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rabbi Meir Wise <Meirhwise@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 10,2016 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Why were people angry/offended? (frum teenager performance)
In response to Leah Gordon's comment (MJ 62#92) on the girls Dor yeshorim rap. I
understand that the girls asked for it NOT to be uploaded. They understood that
it would be a breach of tzeniut but somebody went against their wishes.
Rabbi Meir Wise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 62 Issue 93
