Volume 63 Number 19
Produced: Tue, 03 Jan 17 01:33:06 -0500
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Another significant occurrence of fifteen?
[Martin Stern]
Exactly six consecutive days of Leining?
[Asher Samuels]
Genuine Converts (2)
[Martin Stern Yisrael Medad]
Lighting Hanukah candles Motzei Shabbat Kodesh (2)
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz Martin Stern]
Making a living off Torah
[Martin Stern]
Referring Customer to Someon Else's Restroom
[Orrin Tilevitz]
Sheitlach and Avoda Zara (2)
[Martin Stern Isaac Balbin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, Dec 30,2016 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Another significant occurrence of fifteen?
In previous postings, I have drawn attention to the apparently significant
occurrence of fifteen in our liturgy (MJ 63#06, 62#36,34,32,30 et al.) as
indicating a rise in sanctity. This morning, Rosh Chodesh Tevet, I noticed yet
another one.
The korbanot mussaf for Roshei Chodoshim and Regalim (apart from Succot where 70
bull are brought over the first 7 days of the festival on behalf of the 70
non-Jewish nations and one is brought on Shemini Atzerret specifically for Klal
Yisrael (Suc. 55b)) consist of two bulls, one ram and seven sheep.
With each of them there is a corresponding minchah [flour offering], varying in
amount for the various animals: three esronim for each bull, two esronim for
each ram and one isaron for each sheep - and this is mentioned in the mussaf amidah.
A wine offering is also brought, also varying in amount with the corresponding
animal: half a hin for each bull, a third of a hin for each ram and a quarter
of a hin for each sheep, but these are not specified in the mussaf amidah - only
saying "wine according to its oblation [quantity]".
That the one set of quantities should be mentioned but not the other (nor that
of the quantity of oil mixed into each type of minchah) seemed to indicate that
the amounts of flour were much more significant than the wine or oil.
A possible explanation that occurred to me today was that the total amount of
flour was fifteen esronim - three per bull totalling six, two per ram and one
per sheep totalling seven - and this was an indication of the raised sanctity of
these days.
Coincidence, or a significant allusion inserted by Chazal into their composition
of tefillat mussaf?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Asher Samuels <asher.samuels@...>
Date: Mon, Jan 2,2017 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Exactly six consecutive days of Leining?
This morning we are finishing ten consecutive days of leining (Shabbat +
eight days of Hanukkah + Monday). When I was trying to figure out if this
is a record, I calculated other long streaks:
11 Days - Erev Sukkot is on a Monday + nine days of Sukkot/Shmini
Atzeret/Simchat Torah in Chu"l + Thursday
10 - Erev Sukkot is on a Monday in Israel, or Sukkot on Thursday in Chu"l
9 - Sukkot in Chu"l (otherwise)
8 - Pesach in Chu"l, Pesach in Israel with the first day on Shabbat or Motzei
Shabbat
7 - Pesach in Israel (otherwise)
I was able to come up with five days (Rosh Hashanah on Thursday and Friday
+ Shabbat + Tzom Gedalia delayed to Sunday + Mon day), but exactly six days
is a gap.
Is there a possible arrangement for six days?
--
Asher Samuels
<asher.samuels@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, Dec 29,2016 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Genuine Converts
Yisrael Medad wrote (MJ 63#18):
> A woman has undergone non-Orthodox conversion, has been married now for 10
> years and is also a mother. Realizing her conversion is not recognized she
> undergoes an Orthodox conversion.
>
> Would anyone dissallow the conversion based on an "obvious" presumption that
> she is only undergoing the conversion for "non-genuine" reasons, i.e., rather
> for love of her children and husband.
As in all such cases, it is impossible to make a judgement on the 'facts' as
outlined by Yisrael without clarifying the details of lady's situation. If she
is prepared to follow a Torah lifestyle then the "obvious" ulterior motive does
not necessarily disqualify her. However, if she shows no intention to do so,
then following the technicalities of the conversion process would be pure farce
and have no halachic effect, leaving her as non-Jewish as before.
A similar situation occurs where a prospective convert admits to wishing to
marry a Jew. Even the London Beth Din, which is notoriously strict in these
matters, is prepared to consider the possibility if both the applicant and the
prospective spouse show that they intend to set up an observant home. Hakol
be'einei hadayan - the Rav has to assess each case on its merits using his own
judgement as regards the situation in front of him.
There is a legal maxim that "Hard cases make bad law" and this certainly applies
here.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Sat, Dec 31,2016 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Genuine Converts
In discussing the matter of converts and how 'genuine' they are with a Rav, he
pointed to the Rambam's opinion in the Mishneh Torah, Hichot Issurei Bi'ah,
13:15,17, from which I quote with minor edits:
"15 ... Nevertheless, there were many people who converted in the presence of
hedyotot [unqualified people] during the era of David and Solomon. The Supreme
Sanhedrin would view them with skepticism. Since they immersed themselves, they
would not reject them, but they would not draw them close until they saw what
the outcome would be ...
17 When a court did not check a [potential] convert's background and did not
inform him of the mitzvot and the punishment for [the failure to observe] the
mitzvot and he circumcised himself and immersed in the presence of three
ordinary people, he is a convert. Even if it is discovered that he converted for
an ulterior motive, since he circumcised himself and converted, he has departed
from the category of gentiles and we view him with skepticism until his
righteousness is revealed."
Lechatchilah [In the first instance], converts who seek to convert for ulterior
motives are not to be accepted. But, according to the Rambam, if they do, even
by a court of unqualified people, or when a court even did not check if the
conversion process was for an ulterior motive, he becomes Jewish [Bedi'avad],
even if suspect. Suspicion, especially that based on information that is gossip
or not first-hand, does not disallow the conversion.
--
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Thu, Dec 29,2016 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Lighting Hanukah candles Motzei Shabbat Kodesh
Haim Snyder wrote (MJ 63#18):
> This year we will light Hanukah candles on Motzei Shabbat Kodesh twice.
>
> There are 2 opinions on which comes first, making Havdala on the cup or
> lighting Hanukah lights.
>
> Those who decide on the basis of "tadir veeino tadir, tadir kodem" [more
> frequent and less frequent, the more frequent comes first] will make
> havdala first and then light the Hanukah candles. However, the Vilna Gaon
> stated that this rule only applies when there is no other basis for the
> decision. In the case under discussion, he made the following distinction:
> one has until Tuesday morning to make havdala but the time for lighting
> Hanukah candles is, at the very latest, until midnight. Therefore, lighting
> Channuka candles should take precedence because it is more urgent.
Another factor would be that one should make havdalah before performing melacha,
even though one can wait. This is analogous to not eating or drinking before
havdalah. Mishna Brurah 299:1
<http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Berurah.299.1?lang=he-en>
This is one of the reasons that I was taught for lighting Chanuka candles in
shul before saying havdalah, while saying havdalah upon arriving at home before
lighting Chanukah candles.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
<SabbaHillel@...>
http://sabbahillel.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sat, Dec 31,2016 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Lighting Hanukah candles Motzei Shabbat Kodesh
Haim Snyder wrote (MJ 63#18):
> This year we will light Hanukah candles on Motzei Shabbat Kodesh twice.
>
> There are 2 opinions on which comes first, making Havdala on the cup or
> lighting Hanukah lights.
>
> Those who decide on the basis of "tadir veeino tadir, tadir kodem" [more
> frequent and less frequent, the more frequent comes first] will make havdala
> first and then light the Hanukah candles. However, the Vilna Gaon stated that
> this rule only applies when there is no other basis for the decision. In the
> case under discussion, he made the following distinction: one has until
> Tuesday morning to make havdala but the time for lighting Hanukah candles is,
> at the very latest, until midnight. Therefore, lighting Channuka candles
> should take precedence because it is more urgent.
IMHO this is a misinterpretation of the Vilna Gaon's opinion. It is more
likely that he is talking about a case where, for some reason, one is
delayed and it is almost the end-time for lighting the Chanukah lights. If
there is ample time for both, this concern does not arise so why should the
rule of "tadir veeino tadir, tadir kodem" not apply?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, Dec 29,2016 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Making a living off Torah
Ari Trachtenberg wrote (MJ 63#18):
> Eli Turkel wrote (MJ 63#17):
>
>> It is simply not feasible for almost anybody to make a living, especially
>> through manual labor, and on the side be a full time rav or rebbe. ...
>> A top flight rav or rebbe is a full time position, not to
>> speak of the effort of getting to that level of knowledge.
>
> Rambam seemed to do ok in his level of knowledge, and, indeed, many of the
> rabbis in the Talmud were known through their (prosaic) occupations.
>
> Perhaps our expectations of a rav are the problem ... that we expect our
> rabbis to be poskim, social workers, psychologists, community builders,
> visitors of the sick, etc. ... essentially quintessential super-Jews. Perhaps
> there is a communal and religious toll in such expectations.
This is the crucial difference between present-day reality and the situation
of the rabbis in the Talmud or the Rishonim - we expect so much more of our
communal rabbis, leaving them little time to further their own learning, let
alone to make a living independently.
This expectation is perhaps illustrated by the story of the shul president who
complained at a board meeting that he often passed the rabbi's house in the
early hours of the morning and saw that the light was on in his study. Since the
shul paid the electricity bill as part of the rebbi's salary, he felt that this
was an abuse of shul funds. One of his colleagues suggested that the rabbi might
have been learning since during the day he was too busy with his communal
responsibilities. The president dismissed this explanation of the rabbi's
'profligacy' with shul funds as it had employed him on the understanding that he
was fully qualified and therefore did not need to learn more!
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Mon, Jan 2,2017 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Referring Customer to Someon Else's Restroom
A Manhattan food establishment, which has reputable kashrut supervision, does
primarily a catering and takeout business but has a few tables in the back to
sit down. It does not serve fast food: one could order a respectable four-course
dinner. Nonetheless, it has no restroom for customers. If asked, the workers say
it has no restroom at all, but that does not seem possible, and I remember using
a restroom there in past years. It seems to be in compliance with NYC law, which
requires a restroom only if the establishment has seats for 20 or more patrons
(this place does not).
Halacha may be a different matter. Again if asked by a patron (not merely a
visitor who has come in to use a restroom), the workers say to use the restroom
in a Starbucks around the corner. While one can argue that Starbucks accepts the
idea of non-paying customers using its restrooms, it does not seem possible
either that Starbucks contemplates local eating establishments using its
restrooms as their restrooms. See this article in the NY Times. Starbucks Mutiny
Exposes New Yorks Reliance on Chains Toilets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/nyregion/starbucks-mutiny-exposes-new-yorks-reliance-on-chains-toilets.html
So here are my questions:
1. Assuming that it is halachically permissible for one to use a Starbucks
restroom without paying for anything in a time of need, is it permissible to
plan to eat dinner at this restaurant with the prior intention of using the
Starbucks restroom?
2. Is it halachically permissible for this restaurant, as part of its business
model, to refer customers to the Starbucks restroom?
3. If the answer to the second question is "no", is this something that should
be brought to attention of the kashrut supervising authority? While kashrut
agencies have been known to disclaim interest in violation of halacha that is
not tied directly to food, in practice they apply this lack of interest
selectively. See, e.g., the Glatt Yacht controversy. Is Dancing Kosher? Jews
Struggle to Define Orthodoxy.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/28/nyregion/is-dancing-kosher-jews-struggle-to-define-orthodoxy.html?pagewanted=all
(On our recent visit to this restaurant, we ordered lunch, then inquired about a
restroom, and walked out when we were told there was none. I then emailed the
restaurant using the contact address on the website, but received no response. I
have not yet contacted the kashrut supervisor.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, Dec 29,2016 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Sheitlach and Avoda Zara
Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 63#18):
> Those interested in the 2004 controversy over sheitlach made from hair
> supposedly derived from Hindu tonsure ceremonies and in historical, economic,
> and sociological aspects of sheitel wearing in general might wish to read Emma
> Tarlo, "The Secret Lives of Hair" (Onworld Books 2016), particularly the
> chapters entitled "Tonsure", "Idolatry", and "Sheitel".
>
> The author, an anthropology professor at Goldsmiths at the University of
> London, is respectful towards religion, both Hindu and Orthodox Jewish, but is
> strongly biased in favor of fact.
The last comment is unfortunate in that it might be understood to mean that
others who might dispute her conclusions are liable to distort reality in so
doing.
> Among her insights: sheitel wearing originated several hundred years ago as a
> rebellion by women wishing to follow the latest secular fashions and was
> initially opposed by the rabbis;
This is undoubtedly true - there was considerable opposition initially and
only later were sheitlach grudgingly accepted. Many rabbis opposing the
innovation left instructions that their descendants should not be lenient in
the matter, at the very least by avoiding human hair sheitlach. Present day
'fancy' ones would seem to go against the spirit of tzeniut [modesty] even
if they cover a woman's hair completely and are, therefore, not definitely
prohibited. Many rabbis in the more chareidi world decry them but, even in
more 'modern' circles, there is some disquiet, especially amongst Sefardi
posekim in particular R. Ovadiah Yossef z"l.
> rabbis attempting to certify sheitel manufacture depend on the manufacturers
> to tell them where the hair comes from;
This would seem to be the only way to find out. However, if they suspect
that the latter may be misleading them, they should withhold certification.
Only "meisi'ach lefi tumo [unsolicited statements made unaware of the
halachic purpose of the enquiry]" can really be used.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Isaac Balbin <isaac.balbin@...>
Date: Thu, Dec 29,2016 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Sheitlach and Avoda Zara
Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 63#18):
> Those interested in the 2004 controversy over sheitlach made from hair
> supposedly derived from Hindu tonsure ceremonies and in historical, economic,
> and sociological aspects of sheitel wearing in general might wish to read
> Emma Tarlo, "The Secret Lives of Hair" (Onworld Books 2016), particularly the
> chapters entitled "Tonsure", "Idolatry", and "Sheitel".
I researched this issue back then because over a period of twenty years I had
University students who spoke Mesiach Lefi Toomom (casual independent
commentary) about all that goes on in Tirrupati. I also travelled the length and
breadth of India for about 10 years before and during when this issue arose. I
ended up giving a Shiur Klolli on the issue and am absolutely convinced it is
not Avoda Zoro but a 'hechsher' towards approaching the doll which represents a
deity.
Ultimately when I asked them why different states focussed on different dolls,
they said it was the emphasis in a given state ... eg the doll of education, but
there was one supreme being above all these dolls. Anthropology to me is not
relevant to Psak Din NOW. It's what they do that matters and how they think NOW.
As to Sheitels it wouldn't matter to me if they were derived from a desire to
have a horse-like mane. What matters is that it is an existential device (not
withstanding Chacham Ovadya Yosef's objection to them) which covers Ervah and
many women are comfortable with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 63 Issue 19
