Volume 63 Number 14
Produced: Thu, 08 Dec 16 16:17:34 -0500
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Davening at the Amud
[Carl A. Singer]
Genuine converts
[Martin Stern]
Hotsa'at Sefer Torah (2)
[Yisrael Medad Joel Rich]
Jared Kushner
[Bill Coleman]
Man-made halachah? (was Egalitarian minyanim)
[Leah S. R. Gordon]
Talking in shul
[Martin Stern]
Women in shul on weekdays (was Egalitarian minyanim) (3)
[Sholom Parnes Joseph Kaplan Bill Coleman]
Yom Kippur Risk/Reward
[Joel Rich]
Yom Kippur Thought
[Joel Rich]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl A. Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 6,2016 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Davening at the Amud
Robert Schoenfeld wrote (MJ 63#12):
> A person who takes me shopping every week is in charge of the weekday minyan.
> Just this week he ran into a problem. Usually one of the members who is avel
> davens but this week someone who is in sheloshim but not a shul member came
> and was allowed to daven. The Rabbi and the shul president complained because
> this person is not a shul member and was even called a schnorer. Was my friend
> right to allow him to daven?
And by what right do we refer to someone as a "schnorer" (even if his actions
may earn him that epithet? Does name calling somehow contribute to the decision
of who should daven (or who should have davened)
Another point -- without clear policy in place one is left to ad-hoc decisions
-- the Rabbi not always being present, etc. That's life. We learn from these
instances and then go forward with -- an "if we had to do it over again we would
have ...."
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Dec 4,2016 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Genuine converts
David Tzohar wrote (MJ 63#12):
> I think that there are two different groups that have to be taken into
> account.
>
> One is the group of non-Jews from all over the world who are interested in
> learning about Judaism and are thus potential converts...
>
> The other group is the hundreds of thousands of people, mostly from the former
> Soviet Union who are "zera Yisrael" who are descended from a Jewish father or
> grandfather...
> IMHO these potential Jews should be treated differently.
I must disagree with David on this distinction. IMHO this concept of "zera
Yisrael" is totally unfounded. While I have considerable sympathy for these
people who mistakenly think they are Jewish, they are still halachically
non-Jews and require giyur kehalachah [proper conversion], and not just
"giyur lechumra". The latter applies only to those who are almost certainly
Jewish and only go through the conversion procedure to remove any possible
doubts - not to what, from the context, seems mean "giyur lekula" where a
blind eye is turned to a lack of Torah adherence and mitzvah observance.
The whole problem is the way the Law of Return was phrased and the way the
Jewish Agency officials implemented it in the former Soviet Union. While it
might have been a humanitarian gesture to help those non-Jews who were in
danger of racial persecution because of their Jewish ancestry, it should
have been made clear to them that this did not imply that Israel would
consider them to be Jews. There is a suspicion that they were encouraged by
secular factions to immigrate as a demographic counterbalance to the high
birth rate of the chareidim which the latter feared more than anything else.
Incidentally, the same problem could arise if there were large scale
immigration from the USA by members of the Reform movement, many of whom may
be descended from its female converts or even simply recognised as Jews
under its patrilinearity principle. The same might apply, though perhaps to
a slightly lesser extent, to members of the Conservative movement.
At most, the fact that they have been misled by secular elements, might be
used as a mitigating factor and waive the requirement to point out to them
that "Jews are liable to persecution and they might therefore do better
remaining non-Jews".
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Sun, Dec 4,2016 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Hotsa'at Sefer Torah
Regarding Martin Stern's observations at MJ 63#12 and considerations on the
custom of a certain Yeshiva when removing the Sefer Torah from the Ark,
specifically, bringing the Torah scroll down to the Shatz at the Amud instead of
the Shatz ascending to receive the Sefer, just two short comments:
1) When noting "established customs", perhaps one should be aware that there are
other established customs. As I am not sure whether there is a Halachic source
that defines the process, and if one is a guest at the synagogue, and more so,
one has raised objections that have been brushed aside, it is time to give up or
pray somewhere else where one feels more comfortable.
2) As for the direction preference, from the description, it is not clear to me
if the Shatz ascends to his left because that is where the Ark opener is
standing or he ascends to his left and then crosses over to the right where the
Ark opener is standing. The principle that I am aware of is to go the shortest
distance so it depends where the Sefer is. For example, on Rosh Chodesh
Channukah that falls on a Shabbat, three Sifrei Torah are removed from the Ark
and it could be that the first one removed, which is to be taken by the Shatz,
is now being held at the far left. The Shatz, IMHO, would not be in error if he
ascended to his left.
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Sun, Dec 4,2016 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Hotsa'at Sefer Torah
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 63#12):
> On Shabbat and Yom Tov, I daven in a yeshiva and have noticed that they seem
> to be ignoring what I thought were established customs regarding Hotsa'at
> Sefer Torah.
Does the shatz bow with the sefer torah (what I usually see) or bow but raise
the sefer torah (see Mishna Brura on Orach Chaim 134:13)?
Members might also find this piece of interest:
http://gt.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5761/shelech.html
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Coleman <wbcoleman@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 6,2016 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Jared Kushner
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 63#13):
> Carl A. Singer wrote (MJ 63#12):
>
>> I don't know Jared Kushner nonetheless I found the recent thread troubling.
>> In general terms -- I feel it is inappropriate to discuss the religiosity of
>> *any* given *lay* individual in this forum.
>
> While I have some sympathy with Carl's reservations, I allowed this
> discussion to proceed (wearing my moderator hat) because I felt that the
> current emphasis on male head covering (as opposed to that by married women
> which is much more halachically required) needed airing.
>
> Furthermore I did not consider Jared Kushner to be just "*any* given *lay*
> individual" in view of his being very much in the public eye and presented
> in the media as a representative Orthodox Jew.
I am acquainted with a member of the state legislature who is an Orthodox Jew.
He normally does not wear a kippah when performing his official functions;
however, I have never failed to see him wear one in other circumstances. In
particular, I see him in the supermarket frequently. I have also seen him in his
office when not acting as a state legislator. I've never asked him why he does
this, but I am hardpressed to understand how anyone could challenge his
religious status. [I think we have now exhausted this topic - MOD]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. R. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 6,2016 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Man-made halachah? (was Egalitarian minyanim)
Isaac Balbin wrote (MJ 63#13):
> In response to Leah S. R. Gordon (MJ 63#12):
>
> I do not know where Leah got her information from but it wasn't the Torah
> Shebe'al Peh which manfully (sic) determined that a minyan is made up of men.
> Torah Shebe'al Peh is not an invention but a transmission of the meaning of
> Torah Shebiksav and is from Sinai. No woman is excluded from davening with or
> without kavonoh, but to imply this is a *man* invented rule, is at worst
> apikorsus (heresy) and at best Am Horatzus and guided by the pseudo-religion
> of Egalitarianism. Little wonder that some men and women consider the
> majority of these women to be led more by Western sensibilities of equality
> (viz Feminism) than the immutable Masoretic Torah with its pre-ordained
> ancient task-based responsibilities.
>
> May I pose a counter-question: How many women from these movements ask their
> husbands to equally perform Mitzvas Hafrashas Challah?
1. I find it unconvincing for you to claim that it wasn't men who made the
decisions in the Torah Sheb'al Peh. Obviously, it was, as few to no women
(Bruria?) were involved on the record.
The divine pre-ordaining of TS"P in concept, does not mean that each
decision was made by Hashem unrelated to the men doing the interpreting.
This should not threaten you religiously (this threatened feeling is my
interpretation of your name-calling). The lively historical debates
and body of halakhic discussion are precisely predicated on the fact that
*men* are deciding such issues.
2. My husband, and many men in my community, take challah on a regular
basis. My husband probably does so twice a week when he bakes bread, and I
would guess that here in the Cambridge, MA community, this is more the rule
than the exception. Not sure where you're going with that one.
Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Dec 5,2016 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Talking in shul
I saw this article "Stop the Prayers!" on the Jewish Press website and thought
it might generate some discussion:
http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/halacha-hashkafa/stop-the-prayers/2016/12/05/
Basically the author decries the way too many people treat their shul as some
sort of clubhouse where the shatz is at most tolerated for his interruption of
their conversations, reminding me of the satyrical poster displayed in some
shul's on Purim which read:
"Assur lehitpallel besh'at hadibbur [It is forbidden to pray during conversation
time]!"
His "solution" of either expelling the persistent chatterers or, alternatively,
that those who really wish to daven should secede and form a minyan in another
room, might seem a bit extreme. What do other mail-jewish members think?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sholom Parnes <sholomjparnes@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 6,2016 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Women in shul on weekdays (was Egalitarian minyanim)
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 63#13):
> Obviously it is not practical for women with small children to leave the
> house two or three times a day and I certainly did not have them in mind.
> But the same would apply to single fathers and nobody would hold it against
> them if they davenned at home - so it is not a matter of gender per se but,
> rather, a conflict of responsibilities. Before I retired, I often had to
> daven minchah without a minyan in the winter because it was simply not
> possible to get away to where minyanim were held at the times they davenned.
>
> However, there is no prohibition on women without other prior commitments
> attending on ordinary weekdays. However, this does not explain (excuse?) the
> almost total non-attendance on ordinary weekdays of
>
> 1. unmarried girls,
>
> 2. "newly weds" who have as yet no children (OK I agree that pregnancy
> itself might be a valid reason but then so would illness in either sex),
>
> 3. older women whose children have left home or are old enough to to look
> after themselves (and also go to shul?).
>
> The fact is that, by and large, they do not - Partnership Minyanim meet only
> on Shabbat and other special days (Women of the Wall meet only on Rosh
> Chodesh) - suggests an element of cherry picking.
>
> Even on a parent's yahrzeit, when men who do not bother to come to shul the
> rest of the year make a special effort to attend, it is almost unheard of
> for women, outside certain German Jewish circles, to come.
We have a female neighbor who attends our 6:00am weekday minyan quite often.
Yes, her children are older and either out of the house or able to get
themselves out in the morning without maternal (parental) help. I asked her why
she attends the minyan, was she saying kaddish etc?
Her answer was that she finds davening with kavanah simpler to do in shul than
at home where there are numerous distractions.
After a number of months she said that she really appreciates the men that
attend minyan *every* day. She had never realized what an effort this is.
Sholom J Parnes
Hamelech David 65/3
Efrat 90435 ISRAEL
972-2-993-2227
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Kaplan <penkap@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 6,2016 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Women in shul on weekdays (was Egalitarian minyanim)
Martin Stern notes (MJ 63#13):
> Even on a parent's yahrzeit, when men who do not bother to come to shul the
> rest of the year make a special effort to attend, it is almost unheard of for
> women, outside certain German Jewish circles, to come.
It is certainly heard of in many MO shuls in the NY area (probably in other
areas as well, but I'm only familiar with NY).
Of course, part of the reason that other shuls may not get a larger attendance
of women on their parents' yahrtzeit is the poor way that many (not all) shuls
(including, unfortunately, some MO ones) treat women who come to shul when it's
not Shabbat; e.g., having no ezrat nashim thus requiring them to stand in
hallways, having men usurp the ezrat nashim, having many men refuse to answer
amen when those women commemorating a yahrtzeit say kaddish etc. etc. (Things
appear to be getting better but not fast enough.)
It would be helpful, I think, if those pointing fingers at women for not coming
to shul when it's not Shabbat, would also point fingers at this inhospitality.
Joseph Kaplan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Coleman <wbcoleman@...>
Date: Tue, Dec 6,2016 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Women in shul on weekdays (was Egalitarian minyanim)
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 63#13):
> Leah S. R. Gordon wrote (MJ 63#12):
>> ...
>> It's very unclear to me why he feels the need to make such an unkind side
>> remark about the purported low kavanah of women in Partnership Minyanim or
>> the Women of the Wall. He is talking about me. I have a high level of
>> kavana and spirituality. And it is not for him to judge my kavanah in any
>> case; that is for Hashem only.
>
> It is equally unclear to me how Leah comes to construe my remarks as
> referring to "low kavanah of women". What I was pointing out was that it is
> extremely unusual for women to come to weekday tefillot - not the kavanah of
> women in general when they attend. I certainly would not wish to judge leah
> personally - from reading her much valued contributions to Mail-Jewish, I am
> sure that she takes davennning very seriously.
He is misquoting Leah. She did not refer to "low kavanah of women", as he
says, but rather "low kavanah of women in Partnership Minyanim or the Women
of the Wall". I could be mistaken, but Martin Stern's posts give the
impression that he is personally unacquainted with such women. I know a few
of them, including women who daven three times a day, either in a shul or
in private, and who wear tallis and tefillin every day. I neither endorse
nor criticize what they do, but I take complete exception to assertions
that they are insincere or that they are simply engaging in politics.
He also wrote:
> Obviously it is not practical for women with small children to leave the
> house two or three times a day and I certainly did not have them in mind.
> But the same would apply to single fathers and nobody would hold it against
> them if they davenned at home - so it is not a matter of gender per se but,
> rather, a conflict of responsibilities. Before I retired, I often had to
> daven minchah without a minyan in the winter because it was simply not
> possible to get away to where minyanim were held at the times they davenned.
>
> However, there is no prohibition on women without other prior commitments
> attending on ordinary weekdays. However, this does not explain (excuse?) the
> almost total non-attendance on ordinary weekdays of [other classes of women].
I have to say that Orthodox shuls which I have attended range from extreme
hostility to women attending to what I would call reluctant tolerance. Some
have no mechitza set up for daily services, some put the women in a
separate room, some don't have a separate room. I belong to a shul which
has a perfectly good ezras nashim but, more often than not, women who show
up are faced with men who have already set up shop there. As an aside, I'll
add that while the rabbi has paskened that women may recite kaddish, there
are sometimes men present who growl and kvetch when they do. It's a simple
fact that men are encouraged to attend and made to feel welcome, while
women are not. It is pretty rich to hear women being criticized for not
showing up regularly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Thu, Dec 8,2016 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Yom Kippur Risk/Reward
Over Yom Kippur I got to thinking about the Mishna in Yoma concerning whether an
alternate Cohen Gadol or wife is chosen. What are the factors to be considered?
The more I thought about it, the more I realized this question was a subset of a
more general issue of how Chazal viewed risk/reward tradeoffs.
So what were some of the tradeoffs that the commentaries read into the different
Talmudic cases of whether we are concerned for mortality? Some ideas that
occurred to me were:
1. What time period are we concerned about? (exposure period) [Zman merubeh or
zman muat-long or short exposure period]
2. What's at stake - kapparat klal Yisrael [atonement for the nation] versus
mitzvah b'alma [an ordinary mitzvah]
3. How do we evaluate alternative scenarios - replace kohain gadol versus using
an unmarried one
4. Is the risk truly random? - Mortality as a random variable versus
punishment/destiny
5. Is there a materiality threshold or do we need worry about the perfect storm
(ruin theory)?
6. Is the risk to an individual or a group?
7. Is the risk predictable? Is it sudden onset?
Thoughts?
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Thu, Dec 8,2016 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Yom Kippur Thought
Once upon a Neilah teary,
While I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a sin of forgotten yore,
As I read the Art Scroll lists
I wondered only this
And nothing more?
(Apologies to Edgar Allen Poe)
When you look at the backup lists to the ashamnu's and al cheit's, you may
notice a lot of thought issues (e.g., thinking haughtily). While it would be
great to change oneself to never have a bad thought, are we required to ask
forgiveness for something we haven't acted on?
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 63 Issue 14