Mr. and Mrs. is Chukat HaGoyim (the way of the gentiles)
in...@rambam.biz
women.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3486904,00.html
"A hyphenated last name for women undermines family values," head of
the Zomet institute Rabbi Yisrael Rozen writes in an article to be
published in the Shabbat Beshabbato leaflet this weekend..."
Specfically it made we realize that according to halacha, there is NO
Mr. and Mrs., and a married woman is NEVER known by her husband's
name.
She is named Plonit bat Ploni (her father) in schul when they take the
Torah out, and she keeps exacty that name her entire life.
The only halachic indications a Jewish women is married are:
1. She has a kosher ketubah with her and her husband's name on it.
2. She covers her head in public and observes other modes of tznius
conduct reserved for married women. And that's pretty much it.
Of course there's "dina malchuta dina", the law of the kingdom is the
law. In civil matters, which marriage certainly is.
Still, this business of Jewish women being known as Mrs. is a very
recent development.
I wonder if the reason a lot of Jewish women are staying single is
because they subconsciously don't want to be a Mrs.?
Simcha
maxine in ri
> The following article made me think about the names we call Jewish
> women.
>
> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3486904,00.html
>
> "A hyphenated last name for women undermines family values," head of
> the Zomet institute Rabbi Yisrael Rozen writes in an article to be
> published in the Shabbat Beshabbato leaflet this weekend..."
>
> Specfically it made we realize that according to halacha, there is NO
> Mr. and Mrs., and a married woman is NEVER known by her husband's
> name.
>
> She is named Plonit bat Ploni (her father) in schul when they take the
> Torah out, and she keeps exacty that name her entire life.
And the husband is Onan ben Yehoshua his whole life as well.
> The only halachic indications a Jewish women is married are:
> 1. She has a kosher ketubah with her and her husband's name on it.
> 2. She covers her head in public and observes other modes of tznius
> conduct reserved for married women. And that's pretty much it.
Which is one more way of telling than with her husband, who only has a
ketubah.
> Of course there's "dina malchuta dina", the law of the kingdom is the
> law. In civil matters, which marriage certainly is.
>
> Still, this business of Jewish women being known as Mrs. is a very
> recent development.
>
> I wonder if the reason a lot of Jewish women are staying single is
> because they subconsciously don't want to be a Mrs.?
>
> Simcha
Faulty logic. Why would being called "Mistress" be a barrier? Plenty
of women these days are keeping their birth names (i.e. their father's
name) after marriage, with none of the hypehn mishegos.
maxine in ri
cindys
<in...@rambam.biz> wrote in message
news:85661cb3-c242-46b3...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> The following article made me think about the names we call Jewish
> women.
>
> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3486904,00.html
>
>"A hyphenated last name for women undermines family values," head of the
>Zomet institute Rabbi Yisrael Rozen writes in an article to be published in
>the Shabbat Beshabbato leaflet this weekend.
Sure, just look how my kids' family values have been undermined because of
this....oops...I didn't hyphenate. I didn't change my name at all.
>In his article, Rozen maintains that the custom of preserving the woman's
>maiden name alongside the husband's name creates "a slippery slope" that
>could lead to giving different surnames to the children in the family.
I think someone should break the news to R' Rozen that this isn't exactly a
new phenomenon. IIRC, women have been opting to keep their own names since
at least the 1970s. I remember making this decision back in 1975, that I
would never change my name.
>"I don't consider myself a full-fledged conservative, but I completely
>object to feminism when it hurts family values, and it does!" Rozen states.
Which family values exactly?
>"It is clear to me that a hyphenated name for married woman is just the
>beginning of the process. There are already women who keep their maiden
>name alone,
Chas v'shalom!
>as if saying, 'Marriage is only a secondary aspect of life,' 'Who needs to
>know that I'm married,' and 'This is an invasion of privacy.'"
This ideology, says the rabbi, "Is wrapped up in nice words to appear as
egalitarianism and a preservation of personal identity."
>And the problem with preservation of personal identity is?
'Family should have one head of family'
>Rozen claims that he sympathizes with women's desire to preserve a link to
>their familial heritage, and the need of career women to maintain their
>reputation, but adds that the trend is founded on "a feminist message which
>strays from the patriarchal tradition and makes a statement that women are
>not the husband's property."
Exactly right. I have strayed from the patriarchal tradition, and I am not
my husband's property.
>However, he says that the harm done to family values is evident. "The
>tradition and heritage of a family unit includes the role of head of the
>family. Those who give up this component take part in the trend of
>shattering family values."
Yes, he's stated this several times, but he fails to explain how the family
values are being "shattered."
>The right thing, Rozen concludes, would be to "return to family tradition
>in which each woman has her first name and each family has its one, and
>only, name."
If the whole family needs to have the same name, then perhaps the husband
could change his last name to his wife's last name. Then R' Rozen could
sleep at night, with the security of knowing that all the family values will
remain intact.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
correction:
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:47744152$0$7131$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
cindys
"maxine in ri" <wee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b1bbb5d-d2c3-4311...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
snip
>Plenty of women these days are keeping their birth names (i.e. their
>father's name) after marriage, with none of the hyphen mishegos.
--------
I agree, and women have been keeping our birth names (with or without the
hyphen) since the 1970s. I would venture a guess that most frum women are
probably not hyphenating or keeping their birth names (at least not the ones
that I know), and the rest of us couldn't care less about R' Rozen's opinion
on the subject, so I can't help but wonder who is his target audience.
Although I must admit, I would be most interested in hearing him explain
exactly how my family has been "harmed" by my keeping my name and which of
the "family values" I have "shattered."
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Shlomo Argamon
> "maxine in ri" <weed...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:2b1bbb5d-d2c3-4311...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
I don't see what this fuss is about. Last names in and of themselves
are hhukat hagoyim. So who cares what anyone who chooses to use them
(and go straight to the Valley of Hinnom :-) does?
Shlomo Shraga ben Moshe Meir
fla...@verizon.net
On 27-Dec-2007, in...@rambam.biz wrote:
> The following article made me think about the names we call Jewish
> women.
>
> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3486904,00.html
>
> "A hyphenated last name for women undermines family values," head of
> the Zomet institute Rabbi Yisrael Rozen writes in an article to be
> published in the Shabbat Beshabbato leaflet this weekend..."
>
> Specfically it made we realize that according to halacha, there is NO
> Mr. and Mrs., and a married woman is NEVER known by her husband's
> name.
heehee. Love it.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 27-Dec-2007, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> "maxine in ri" <wee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2b1bbb5d-d2c3-4311...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
> snip
>
> >Plenty of women these days are keeping their birth names (i.e. their
> >father's name) after marriage, with none of the hyphen mishegos.
> --------
> I agree, and women have been keeping our birth names (with or without the
> hyphen) since the 1970s.
In Amreica, since 1852, to be exact.
I can see where a hundred & fifty year old practice is new to
some, but I do try to be as patient & polite as possible with them...
> I would venture a guess that most frum women are
> probably not hyphenating or keeping their birth names (at least not the
> ones
> that I know), and the rest of us couldn't care less about R' Rozen's
> opinion
> on the subject, so I can't help but wonder who is his target audience.
> Although I must admit, I would be most interested in hearing him explain
> exactly how my family has been "harmed" by my keeping my name and which of
> the "family values" I have "shattered."
Some as mine, I guess...
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 27-Dec-2007, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> I remember making this decision back in 1975, that I
> would never change my name.
ha-ha - beat you by at least 3 years.
At least, I do remember the relief when "MS" magazine
came out - 1972.
As a little girl, I lived in terror that I would fall in love
with someone with a stupid name. :-)
Susan
Micha Berger
> I don't see what this fuss is about. Last names in and of themselves
> are hhukat hagoyim. So who cares what anyone who chooses to use them
> (and go straight to the Valley of Hinnom :-) does?
My bar mitzvah parashah is Pinechas. The parashah posed two distinct
challenges not found in many other parshios. The second one, in textual
order, is that the portion on sacrifices has many verses that are nearly
identical. You could have 5 words the same, to the same trop, and then
the verses end differently. Since I remember this kind of thing using
a sliding window of the recent text to remember the next word, it was a
challenge keeping all thse similar but different cases apart. (Not Sukkos;
the almost perfectly identical list of mussaf offerings, differing only
by a couple of conjugations in the whole list and a decreasing number
of cows was easy.)
The first problem is that the second aliyah is a list of family names
for each tribe. These are all the founder's name, a son or grandson of
the father of the tribe, almost always conjugated with an "-i" at the end.
And yes, a woman would join her husband's family in this system. And
so, a woman in the Judges period who married a Falu'i became a Falu'i.
Sometime between that era and the Babylonian exile (after the First
Temple), we lost family identity. Tribal identity, except for most kohanim
and leviim, was lost at the end of the First Temple, so perhaps that's
when this was lost as well.
Skip forward a couple of millenia. "Rashi" is short for Rav Shelomo
Yitzchaqi, or in English, "Rabbi Solomon Isaacson". Was his father's
name Isaac? If so, why isn't he called "ben Yitzchaq", like everyone
else? It would appear to be a family name, as in the "-i" suffix in
the Torah -- "Isaacson" rather than "Isaac's son".
Much later in history, our ancestors resisted taking on surnames because
it was chukat hagoyim -- gentile rites. In some areas, to the point where
the gov't finally imposed meaningless ones on us: Klein (short), Gross
(big), Weiss (white), Schwartz (black), Blau (blue), Gruen (Green), Roth
(Red), etc... There are stories where the congregation was taken to shul
and divided into four, one group in each corner. Klein, Gross, Weiss,
Schwartz (Big, Little, White, Black).
But given that there is biblical precedent to using surnames based on
male lineage, I'm not sure I see their objection.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507
cindys
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fl297i$hn4$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
I loved that magazine. I still have the poster they were selling at the time
which pictured Golda Meir and the caption which read: "But can she type?"
Women keeping their own names has become so commonplace that whenever I hear
of a couple getting married and the bride actually changes her name, I'm
always a little taken aback, but then again, these are young brides in the
frum community. I think it's different for 25+-year-old women in the secular
community. I spent 10+ years of my time going to college, and the day I was
able to put "Dr." in front of my name was my (until that point) greatest
achievement. There was no way I was going to trade that in for anything. But
isn't that the real issue here? It seems to me that the good R' Rozen's real
objection is not that women are keeping their own names but rather that we
actually take pride in our careers and accomplishments. He stated flat-out
that a woman's greatest source of pride *should be* being an appendage to
her husband. When I was reading his words, I felt like I had gone to sleep
and awaked back in the 1950s.
I own two editions of the local Rochester Hadassah Cookbook. The first one
was published sometime in the early 1960s. The second one was published in
the 1970s. One thing I always found so interesting was the manner in which
the contributors were listed. In the 1960s cookbook, the list of
contributors reads:
We would like to thank the following women for helping to make this cookbook
possible:
Mrs. Samuel Bernstein
Mrs. Henry Cohen
Mrs. Arnold Green
Mrs. Max Sandberg
etc.
As a little girl, I would look at the list and I would think to myself:
"Don't these women have names anymore? When you get married, do you just
lose yourself and become an extension of your husband?" So, imagine how
happy I was when the list in the1970s cookbook read more like this:
June Blumenstein
Bea Cooperman
Linda Kimmelman
Sonia Levy
etc.
What a difference a generation makes!
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Don Levey
>
> I own two editions of the local Rochester Hadassah Cookbook. The first one
> was published sometime in the early 1960s. The second one was published in
> the 1970s. One thing I always found so interesting was the manner in which
> the contributors were listed. In the 1960s cookbook, the list of
> contributors reads:
>
> We would like to thank the following women for helping to make this cookbook
> possible:
>
> Mrs. Samuel Bernstein
> Mrs. Henry Cohen
> Mrs. Arnold Green
> Mrs. Max Sandberg
> etc.
>
> As a little girl, I would look at the list and I would think to myself:
> "Don't these women have names anymore? When you get married, do you just
> lose yourself and become an extension of your husband?"
A number of years ago, I attended the wedding of a co-worker, with some
other colleagues. During the reception, the band leader introduced the
couple as "Mr and Mrs Paul Dimano". I turned to my colleague next to
me and said to her: "Wow! She took his first name too!" I got hit for
that...
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to sal...@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
Adelle
"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
news:m3ir2i3...@dauphin.the-leveys.us...
Gee! I thought that was clever *and* funny! Then again, I kept my last name
as well.
In 1988, we were getting married near my parents house in Queens (we live in
Massachusetts). We went to the Queens County courthouse in Kew Gardens to
apply for our marriage license. It was toward the end of the day. When I
filled out the form, I did not fill out the change of name portion on the
back. The 'counter' clerk asked why and Doug said, "We're each keeping our
own names." I was so proud of him.
Then the stupid 'typing' clerk types up the license WITH a name change. She
told us she did it anyway because every one does, she thought I had just
missed it. We had her re-type it. She wasn't happy. Awwww. I was blown away
that in 1988, keeping one's name was still so rare in Queens. [Then we went
across the street to Pastrami King to pick up stuff for dinner (Miss that
place so much!)]
Adelle
cindys
LOVE IT!
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
"Adelle" <adNOs...@SPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:0f-dnYsmy-WLi-ja...@comcast.com...
I'm beginning to wonder if any of the SCJM women changed to their husbands'
names. Wouldn't R' Rozen disapprove of all of us! Our family values are all
shattered! The sky is falling!
>
> In 1988, we were getting married near my parents house in Queens (we live
> in Massachusetts). We went to the Queens County courthouse in Kew Gardens
> to apply for our marriage license. It was toward the end of the day. When
> I filled out the form, I did not fill out the change of name portion on
> the back. The 'counter' clerk asked why and Doug said, "We're each keeping
> our own names." I was so proud of him.
>
> Then the stupid 'typing' clerk types up the license WITH a name change.
> She told us she did it anyway because every one does, she thought I had
> just missed it. We had her re-type it. She wasn't happy. Awwww. I was
> blown away that in 1988, keeping one's name was still so rare in Queens.
I know what you mean. Would you believe my sister-in-law actually started an
argument about this with me at our wedding reception!!!? She started
congratulating me on being "Mrs. So and So." When I told her I was still
"Dr. S," she got very upset and started carrying on. [Ironically, 10 years
later, when her two daughters got married (a year apart), neither of them
changed to their husband's names either.] The morning after our wedding, I
received a phone call from my mother-in-law (of blessed memory) telling me
that my husband's cousin so-and-so (who had come all the way from Chicago!)
was very upset that I wasn't changing my name. That was a fabrication
because I phoned this cousin and she told me that not only was she *not*
upset but that she didn't use her husband's name either. My husband's other
sister hyphenated her name. My sister never changed her name either. A
couple of weeks ago, I was making a shivah call, and a woman at the house
asked me why I hadn't changed my name? I answered "I think the better
question is -- Why would I change it?"
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
>
> A number of years ago, I attended the wedding of a co-worker, with some
> other colleagues. During the reception, the band leader introduced the
> couple as "Mr and Mrs Paul Dimano". I turned to my colleague next to
> me and said to her: "Wow! She took his first name too!" I got hit for
> that...
Here's a good one... does this ring a bell with anyone? When I was growing
up, my mother had a bunch of department store credit cards (although back
then, a credit card was called a"charge-a-plate.") The name on the front of
her card read: "Mrs. [fill in my father's full name]." And if she needed to
phone a store for some reason, she would say "This is Mrs. [fill in my
father's full name] calling." What a trip down memory lane.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
fla...@verizon.net
I would have thrown you a kiss.
Susan
Eliyahu
> "Adelle" <adNOsta...@SPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:0f-dnYsmy-WLi-ja...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Don Levey" <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
> >news:m3ir2i3...@dauphin.the-leveys.us...
principles of names in civil law in most of the US is that a person
has the right to call himself by any name he (or she) chooses as long
as it isn't being done for fraudulent or illegal purposes. A person
may need to go through a legal change-of-name procedure if the name is
going to be used on official documents or identification, but for
other purposes, a person can become the Creedmoor Gaon, Phinnias T.
Quackenbush, John Jones, or anything else he likes. (Which is why I'm
able to use my Society for Creative Anachronism name on occasion as
"Rabbi Moishe di Sabato Delli Rossi", a 16th Century Venetian Jew,
without having committed a crime by doing so.) There's also the issue
of using one's Jewish name and civil name at different times. As a
Notary Public, I'm required to use my civil name when notarizing
documents.
At the same time, I would note that different surnames for married
couples can sometimes cause confusion about who goes with whom when
introductions are being made or membership rosters are being
compiled.
Eliyahu
Don Levey
> "Adelle" <adNOs...@SPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:0f-dnYsmy-WLi-ja...@comcast.com...
> >..
> >
> > Gee! I thought that was clever *and* funny! Then again, I kept my last
> > name as well.
>
> I'm beginning to wonder if any of the SCJM women changed to their husbands'
> names. Wouldn't R' Rozen disapprove of all of us! Our family values are all
> shattered! The sky is falling!
>
Amusingly, though, my wife took my (last) name when we married. She
kept her first name, though. :-)
cindys
"Eliyahu" <lro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d669d00-f7b8-412f...@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
snip
> While I'm not sure it has an halachic counterpart, one of the basic
> principles of names in civil law in most of the US is that a person
> has the right to call himself by any name he (or she) chooses as long
> as it isn't being done for fraudulent or illegal purposes. A person
> may need to go through a legal change-of-name procedure if the name is
> going to be used on official documents or identification, but for
> other purposes, a person can become the Creedmoor Gaon, Phinnias T.
> Quackenbush, John Jones, or anything else he likes. (Which is why I'm
> able to use my Society for Creative Anachronism name on occasion as
> "Rabbi Moishe di Sabato Delli Rossi", a 16th Century Venetian Jew,
> without having committed a crime by doing so.) There's also the issue
> of using one's Jewish name and civil name at different times. As a
> Notary Public, I'm required to use my civil name when notarizing
> documents.
As I understand the law, when a person gets married, that's the one and only
time she (or he) can legally change her name by merely signing on the
proverbial dotted line. At any other time in life, a legal change-of-name
procedure is somewhat of an ordeal and involves time, a lot of paperwork,
and a sum of money.
>
> At the same time, I would note that different surnames for married
> couples can sometimes cause confusion about who goes with whom when
> introductions are being made or membership rosters are being
> compiled.
Married women retaining their own names has become commonplace. I don't
think anyone finds this confusing any more. A common method for doing
membership rosters is the following format:
Last Name Husband's Name Wife's Name
Smith Robert Mary
Doe John Ann Jones
It's easy.
Another benefit of not changing my name is that I didn't have to change the
name on my driver's license or my credit cards or my accounts or any other
legal documents. I have a friend who changed her name when she got married,
then she got divorced and changed it back. She said she would never go
through all that hassle again and that if she ever remarried, she would keep
her own name.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
>> "Adelle" <adNOs...@SPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:0f-dnYsmy-WLi-ja...@comcast.com...
>> >..
>> >
>> > Gee! I thought that was clever *and* funny! Then again, I kept my last
>> > name as well.
>>
>> I'm beginning to wonder if any of the SCJM women changed to their
>> husbands'
>> names. Wouldn't R' Rozen disapprove of all of us! Our family values are
>> all
>> shattered! The sky is falling!
>>
>
> Amusingly, though, my wife took my (last) name when we married. She
> kept her first name, though. :-)
Yes, sometimes it happens that way :-) Does this mean your family values are
intact? (I have heard of women who take their husband's last names, but use
"Ms." followed by their own first names as in: Ms. Mary Doe marries Mr. Mr.
Robert Smith and then becomes Ms. Mary Smith.)
I think it is absolutely true that one should keep one's personal life
private and separate from one's professional life. Yes, that is a reason for
using "Ms." or "Dr." rather than "Mrs." professionally. R' Rozen claims
women who keep their own names are saying: 'Who needs to know that I'm
married,' and 'This is an invasion of privacy.'" And I say: That's exactly
right, R' Rozen. It is an invasion of privacy. Why does the clerk in the
supermarket need to know if I'm married or not? Why does the teller at the
bank need to know? Why is it necessary for a doctor's patients or an
attorney's clients to know that she is married ? In what way does someone's
marital status impact on her ability to do her job? And FTR, frum men often
don't wear wedding rings. Why is that? Are they trying to keep their marital
status a secret? Perhaps, the next time I hire a male lawyer or accountant
or roof repairman, I should ask him if he's married because I have a right
to know what is his marital status and without a doubt his marital status
will have a huge impact on the way he does his job. Right.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Don Levey
> "Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
> news:m3bq8a4...@dauphin.the-leveys.us...
> > "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
> >
> >> "Adelle" <adNOs...@SPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:0f-dnYsmy-WLi-ja...@comcast.com...
> >> >..
> >> >
> >> > Gee! I thought that was clever *and* funny! Then again, I kept my last
> >> > name as well.
> >>
> >> I'm beginning to wonder if any of the SCJM women changed to their
> >> husbands'
> >> names. Wouldn't R' Rozen disapprove of all of us! Our family values are
> >> all
> >> shattered! The sky is falling!
> >>
> >
> > Amusingly, though, my wife took my (last) name when we married. She
> > kept her first name, though. :-)
> -----
> Yes, sometimes it happens that way :-) Does this mean your family values are
> intact?
>
One night, a year or two ago, my wife and I were watching the news when
word of the MA Supreme Judial Court decision on same-sex marriage came
over the air. I turned to her and said: "Oh dear, I think our marriage
is threatened."
We have a family, and value it, but somehow I don't think we have much
of what some people think of when they use the term "family values."
Tim Meushaw
> Married women retaining their own names has become commonplace. I don't
> think anyone finds this confusing any more. A common method for doing
> membership rosters is the following format:
>
> Last Name Husband's Name Wife's Name
> Smith Robert Mary
> Doe John Ann Jones
Shouldn't those names under "Wife's Name" be "Mrs. Robert" and "Mrs.
John," respectively? :-)
> Another benefit of not changing my name is that I didn't have to change the
> name on my driver's license or my credit cards or my accounts or any other
> legal documents. I have a friend who changed her name when she got married,
> then she got divorced and changed it back. She said she would never go
> through all that hassle again and that if she ever remarried, she would keep
> her own name.
Or people could do like one guy in our shul did; one Katz married another
Katz, so no name changing!
Tim
--
Timothy A. Meushaw
meu...@pobox.com
fla...@verizon.net
I cannot begin to tell you how much those idiots tick me off when they do
that.
>
> I think it is absolutely true that one should keep one's personal life
> private and separate from one's professional life. Yes, that is a reason
> for
> using "Ms." or "Dr." rather than "Mrs." professionally. R' Rozen claims
> women who keep their own names are saying: 'Who needs to know that I'm
> married,' and 'This is an invasion of privacy.'" And I say: That's
> exactly
> right, R' Rozen. It is an invasion of privacy. Why does the clerk in the
> supermarket need to know if I'm married or not? Why does the teller at the
> bank need to know? Why is it necessary for a doctor's patients or an
> attorney's clients to know that she is married ? In what way does
> someone's
> marital status impact on her ability to do her job? And FTR, frum men
> often
> don't wear wedding rings.
WHAT??
Susan
Susan S
<cst...@rochester.rr.com>:
[snip]
>I know what you mean. Would you believe my sister-in-law actually started an
>argument about this with me at our wedding reception!!!? She started
>congratulating me on being "Mrs. So and So." When I told her I was still
>"Dr. S," she got very upset and started carrying on. [Ironically, 10 years
>later, when her two daughters got married (a year apart), neither of them
>changed to their husband's names either.] The morning after our wedding, I
>received a phone call from my mother-in-law (of blessed memory) telling me
>that my husband's cousin so-and-so (who had come all the way from Chicago!)
>was very upset that I wasn't changing my name. That was a fabrication
>because I phoned this cousin and she told me that not only was she *not*
>upset but that she didn't use her husband's name either. My husband's other
>sister hyphenated her name. My sister never changed her name either. A
>couple of weeks ago, I was making a shivah call, and a woman at the house
>asked me why I hadn't changed my name? I answered "I think the better
>question is -- Why would I change it?"
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
>
Among my female cousins, one marrying into my family changed her last
name and one first cousin changed her last name when she got married.
That's it.
Susan Silberstein
Susan S
<cst...@rochester.rr.com>:
>
Just like Cindy, I have the name I was given at birth. My husband knew
my intention to do this before we were married and was not dismayed; I
am not his property. The world did not shatter and Jewish values
remained intact throughout the universe (AFAIK).
Susan Silberstein
Susan S
<lro...@gmail.com>:
[snip]
>While I'm not sure it has an halachic counterpart, one of the basic
>principles of names in civil law in most of the US is that a person
>has the right to call himself by any name he (or she) chooses as long
>as it isn't being done for fraudulent or illegal purposes. A person
>may need to go through a legal change-of-name procedure if the name is
>going to be used on official documents or identification, but for
>other purposes, a person can become the Creedmoor Gaon, Phinnias T.
>Quackenbush, John Jones, or anything else he likes. (Which is why I'm
>able to use my Society for Creative Anachronism name on occasion as
>"Rabbi Moishe di Sabato Delli Rossi", a 16th Century Venetian Jew,
>without having committed a crime by doing so.) There's also the issue
>of using one's Jewish name and civil name at different times. As a
>Notary Public, I'm required to use my civil name when notarizing
>documents.
>
>At the same time, I would note that different surnames for married
>couples can sometimes cause confusion about who goes with whom when
>introductions are being made or membership rosters are being
>compiled.
>
It's not that confusing. I can say, "Hi, I'm Xena, the Warrior Princess
and this is my husband, Hercules."
Susan Silberstein
Don Levey
> On 28-Dec-2007, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > And FTR, frum men often don't wear wedding rings.
>
> WHAT??
>
In some circles, wedding rings are considered "women's clothing" and
thus would view men as being prohibited from wearing them. There may
be other reasons also.
Don Levey
It's been a very long time since I've gone to those sorts of parties... :-)
Tim Meushaw
> fla...@verizon.net writes:
>
>> On 28-Dec-2007, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> > And FTR, frum men often don't wear wedding rings.
>>
>> WHAT??
>>
> In some circles, wedding rings are considered "women's clothing" and
> thus would view men as being prohibited from wearing them. There may
> be other reasons also.
I presumed it was because under the chuppah, usually the groom gave the
bride a gold ring, but she didn't give him one in return, so traditionally
she'd be the only one to own one. Today it's more common to see both
wearing one, but as a ballpark figure I'd guess it's only 50% in our shul.
Shavua tov,
Don Levey
I know a couple of BT families who were given the reasoning I gave
above by their rabbis. The men, eager to fit in, have ceased to wear
their rings.
cindys
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fl4ssh$lbg$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
>>And FTR, frum men
>> often
>> don't wear wedding rings.
>
> WHAT??
You do not see "double-ring ceremonies" amongst torah-observant Jews because
the way a Jewish marriage is effected is that the chosson (groom) gives the
kallah (bride) something worth at least a perutah (NOT that she should give
him something). She accepts the gift (the ring), and he says "With this
ring, you are my wife in accordance with the law of Moses and Israel." Were
she to give him a ring and say "With this ring, you are my husband in
accordance with the law of Moses and Israel," the entire proceeding becomes
halachically null and void. Sometimes, the kallah may give the chosson a
ring after the ceremony but generally, she is more inclined to present him
with a set of Shas (talmud). I don't think the idea of the chosson receiving
or wearing a wedding ring is even on the radar of most frum couples. I will
even gander to guess that were he to wear a ring, he would incur the
disapproval of his peers as this would be considered chukas goyim.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:477442ef$0$7226$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> I think someone should break the news to R' Rozen that this isn't exactly
>> a new phenomenon. IIRC, women have been opting to keep their own names
>> since at least the 1970s. I remember making this decision back in 1975,
>> that I would never change my name.
-------------------
Okay, after discussion with my neighbor, this is apparently a brand-new
phenomenon *in Israel.* She said it is only recently that Israeli women have
started keeping their own names. But at any rate, now that they are opting
to do so, I suspect the trend will continue, and family values will remain
intact, despite R' Rozen's predictions of doom.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Harry Weiss
I never wore a ring, nor do the vast majority of my male realtives. (Of
course due to large family size the Chassidishe relatives alone would be
the vast majority.)
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
fla...@verizon.net
On 29-Dec-2007, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:fl4ssh$lbg$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> >>And FTR, frum men
> >> often
> >> don't wear wedding rings.
> >
> > WHAT??
> ------------
> You do not see "double-ring ceremonies"
Oh, I knew that - but I figured he could still wear one!
Isn't he also supposed to be proud to be married?
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 29-Dec-2007, Susan S <otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >At the same time, I would note that different surnames for married
> >couples can sometimes cause confusion about who goes with whom when
> >introductions are being made or membership rosters are being
> >compiled.
> >
>
> It's not that confusing. I can say, "Hi, I'm Xena, the Warrior Princess
> and this is my husband, Hercules."
Oh, do you LARP, too?
And the separate last name thing makes it extremely
easy to weed out the telemarketers.
Susan
meir b.
> On 28-Dec-2007, "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
FTR, frum men
> > often
> > don't wear wedding rings.
>
> WHAT??
In the synagogues I attend, right-leaning Modern Orthodox ones,
both ring-wearers and non-wearers are common.
As for adopting the husband's surname, the overwhelmng majority
do. I can only think of three who did not, one of them my daughter-in-
law. However, most of the professionals maintain their maiden name in
the business world.
Meir
TT Arvind
> As I understand the law, when a person gets married, that's the one and only
> time she (or he) can legally change her name by merely signing on the
> proverbial dotted line. At any other time in life, a legal change-of-name
> procedure is somewhat of an ordeal and involves time, a lot of paperwork,
> and a sum of money.
It depends very much on where you are. In England, it is a simple
matter of signing a statutory declaration (which you can type up
yourself at home) and having it sworn and notarised before a
magistrate's clerk or solicitor. A copy of this declaration together
with your birth certificate is usually sufficient to have your name
changed on most documents (driving license, etc.).
Secular law aside, I would be interested to know whether it is at all
possible to change one's name from the perspective of halakah, if one
does not like the Hebrew name one was given.
cindys
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fl7nk4$vfv$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
>
> On 29-Dec-2007, Susan S <otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> >At the same time, I would note that different surnames for married
>> >couples can sometimes cause confusion about who goes with whom when
>> >introductions are being made or membership rosters are being
>> >compiled.
>> >
>>
>> It's not that confusing. I can say, "Hi, I'm Xena, the Warrior Princess
>> and this is my husband, Hercules."
>
> Oh, do you LARP, too?
What's that?
>
> And the separate last name thing makes it extremely
> easy to weed out the telemarketers.
>
Whenever a telemarketer phoned and asked for "Mrs. So-and-So," I was always
tempted to give the person my mother-in-law's phone number.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> The following article made me think about the names we call Jewish
> women.
>
> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3486904,00.html
>
> "A hyphenated last name for women undermines family values," head of
> the Zomet institute Rabbi Yisrael Rozen writes in an article to be
>
> Specfically it made we realize that according to halacha, there is NO
> Mr. and Mrs., and a married woman is NEVER known by her husband's
> name.
How in the _world_ did you come to such a conclusion from that
article? Quite the contrary, he writes; "The right thing, Rozen
concludes, would be to "return to family tradition in which each
woman has her first name and each family has its one, and only,
name."
That is precisley what Mrs. means "wife of". _One_ family name.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>> >>And FTR, frum men often don't wear wedding rings.
>> >
>> > WHAT??
>> ------------
>> You do not see "double-ring ceremonies"
>
> Oh, I knew that - but I figured he could still wear one!
> Isn't he also supposed to be proud to be married?
That's what the tallis does.
snip
>> Were
>> she to give him a ring and say "With this ring, you are my husband in
>> accordance with the law of Moses and Israel," the entire proceeding
>> becomes
>> halachically null and void. Sometimes, the kallah may give the chosson a
>> ring after the ceremony but generally, she is more inclined to present him
>> with a set of Shas (talmud). I don't think the idea of the chosson
>> receiving
>> or wearing a wedding ring is even on the radar of most frum couples. I
>> will
>> even gander to guess that were he to wear a ring, he would incur the
>> disapproval of his peers as this would be considered chukas goyim.
Very possible.
Micha Berger
> I know a couple of BT families who were given the reasoning I gave
> above by their rabbis. The men, eager to fit in, have ceased to wear
> their rings.
I gave up my ring when moving to a neighborhood where the norm was to
follow that halachic stance -- rings are for women, and thus wearing
one is prohibited.
At some point, I put on enough weight that it wouldn't fit anyway.
Once that weight came off, I was so proud of being able to wear it
again, I am wearing it despite local norm. Kind of strange combination
with a black frock on Shabbos, but not the strangest thing I do.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln
in...@rambam.biz
I think you can be Xena Warrior Princess wife of Hercules. As long as
you're Xena bat Shlomo and he's Hercules ben David?
Thanks for the informative and entertaining responses. This almost
makes me want to stop writing lashon hara about Keheilat Ahavat Kesef
(where Joe Lieberman, he should live and be well, got the 3rd aliyah
at the hashkama minyan yesterday). Note I said "almost".
In retrospect, seems to me that Rabbi Rozen is guilty of being
deceptive, of "lo titen michshol" (don't put a stumbling block...).
The "sin" (though it may not be one) of a women hyphenating her last
name is that SHE'S DOING CHUKAT HA'GOYIM TIMES TWO. Taking two goyishe
last names. NOT that she refuses to take her husband's name. Just my
take.
As Moshe S. mentioned, a man, at least among Ashkenazim, announces
he's married by wearing a tallit in schul. A woman by coverng her head
and going to the mikvah.
As Cindy mentioned, the business of "Mrs. Rivky Goldstein" in
publications seems like an aberration. Designed to convey, "Oh, how
pious and proper" when it's really nothing of the kind.
Micha with his Pinchas drash reminded me that my name is Simcha Leib
Moshe ben Pinyeh. NOT Pinchas. Some gabbaim want to call me to the
bimah as ben Pinchas, and I have to correct them. My father's actual
name is Pinyeh, and his father's actual name was Yankel. Not a rare
name in Grodno. Simcha
D.M. Procida
> It depends very much on where you are. In England, it is a simple
> matter of signing a statutory declaration (which you can type up
> yourself at home) and having it sworn and notarised before a
> magistrate's clerk or solicitor.
This is incorrect. In England and Wales, all you need to do to chnge
your name is to start using the new one.
(People do speak of "changing their name by Deed Poll", but this is a
kind of folk-legal notion that has grown up (like that of "common-law
wife").)
Daniele
Henry Goodman
"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:1i9yc3e.1ussd141geym6oN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...
> TT Arvind <ttar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It depends very much on where you are. In England, it is a simple
> > matter of signing a statutory declaration (which you can type up
> > yourself at home) and having it sworn and notarised before a
> > magistrate's clerk or solicitor.
>
> This is incorrect. In England and Wales, all you need to do to chnge
> your name is to start using the new one.
>
bodies that would have to be informed.
e.g. Income tax authorities
National Insurance number
Local council
Electoral Role
National health number
Driving Licence
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
D.M. Procida
> > This is incorrect. In England and Wales, all you need to do to chnge
> > your name is to start using the new one.
> >
> I find that difficult to believe. There are all sorts of official
> bodies that would have to be informed.
> e.g. Income tax authorities
> National Insurance number
> Local council
> Electoral Role
> National health number
> Driving Licence
Well yes, of course you'd have to inform them, if you wanted documents
etc. from them in your new name.
But there are no legal hoops for you to jump through - you just tell
them: this is my new name (in practice some of them are likely to be
somewhat jobsworth about it, but that's nothing to do with the law).
I don't know whether English law allows one to use more than one name at
a time - I think it does, but I suspect that one's difficulties with
things like banks would increase exponentially with the number of names.
Daniele
fla...@verizon.net
On 30-Dec-2007, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:fl7nk4$vfv$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> >
> > On 29-Dec-2007, Susan S <otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >At the same time, I would note that different surnames for married
> >> >couples can sometimes cause confusion about who goes with whom when
> >> >introductions are being made or membership rosters are being
> >> >compiled.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It's not that confusing. I can say, "Hi, I'm Xena, the Warrior Princess
> >> and this is my husband, Hercules."
> >
> > Oh, do you LARP, too?
>
> What's that?
Live Action Role Playing.
> >
> > And the separate last name thing makes it extremely
> > easy to weed out the telemarketers.
> >
> Whenever a telemarketer phoned and asked for "Mrs. So-and-So," I was
> always
> tempted to give the person my mother-in-law's phone number.
My father-in-law has given me permission to say "Mrs.[his last name}?
She's dead!"" & by "his permission", I mean that the last "Mrs. [his last
name]" was his mother, & I certainly didn;t want to be disrespectful.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 30-Dec-2007, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net writes:
> > "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >> <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >> >Somebody pointed out:
> >
> >> >>And FTR, frum men often don't wear wedding rings.
> >> >
> >> > WHAT??
> >> ------------
> >> You do not see "double-ring ceremonies"
> >
> > Oh, I knew that - but I figured he could still wear one!
> > Isn't he also supposed to be proud to be married?
>
> That's what the tallis does.
All day?
Susan
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>
>> I know a couple of BT families who were given the reasoning I gave
>> above by their rabbis. The men, eager to fit in, have ceased to
>> wear their rings.
>
> I gave up my ring when moving to a neighborhood where the norm was
> to follow that halachic stance -- rings are for women, and thus
> wearing one is prohibited.
>
> At some point, I put on enough weight that it wouldn't fit anyway.
>
> Once that weight came off, I was so proud of being able to wear it
> again, I am wearing it despite local norm.
But didn't you say above that neighborhood norm renders the ring
"prohibited"?
> Kind of strange combination with a black frock on Shabbos, but not
> the strangest thing I do.
LOL. When you put on a shtreimel...
Micha Berger
>> Once that weight came off, I was so proud of being able to wear it
>> again, I am wearing it despite local norm.
> But didn't you say above that neighborhood norm renders the ring
> "prohibited"?
No, I said the neighborhood norm is to consider ring wearing prohibited.
People seeing my ring are simply going to think "Nebich, that Micha is
showing his MO roots again..."
>> Kind of strange combination with a black frock on Shabbos, but not
>> the strangest thing I do.
> LOL. When you put on a shtreimel...
No likely. The kapote (frock) is blazingly Litvish; it's a flat fabric, no
gartl (belt)... I wear it with a flat-topped hoich-kapl (high yarmulka).
But to get back to the subject line... I wear it with a tie. Anachronistic,
I know, but if the whole point is to help me remember my rebbe as a role
model, and he wore a tie...
Is a tie "chuqas hagoyim"? How is fashion exempt? And once you explain
how a not-religiously-meaningful practice like fashion is exempt, would
your explanation cover the use of surnames?
I noticed, though, that no one commented on my argument that there is a
biblical precedent for using family names, and not only that, for a
woman to take on her husband's.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Fiona Abrahami
"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote
> Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>> > This is incorrect. In England and Wales, all you need to do to chnge
>> > your name is to start using the new one.
>> >
>> I find that difficult to believe. There are all sorts of official
>> bodies that would have to be informed.
>> e.g. Income tax authorities
>> National Insurance number
>> Local council
>> Electoral Role
>> National health number
>> Driving Licence
>
> Well yes, of course you'd have to inform them, if you wanted documents
> etc. from them in your new name.
>
> But there are no legal hoops for you to jump through - you just tell
> them: this is my new name (in practice some of them are likely to be
> somewhat jobsworth about it, but that's nothing to do with the law).
Clearly you have never been through the process, while yes, under English
law you are entitled to use any name you wish, if you want that name
officially recognised you will have to perform a statutory declaration and
provide a notarised copy of the statutory declaration document when
requested by government departments (who may also demand proof of identity
in the old name). While you can argue that government employees requesting
such documentation are just being "jobsworths" and that the law doesn't
require it, the fact is, internal government procedures *do* require it. And
although you could challenge such requirements in court, it would be a waste
of time, money, and effort.
Fiona
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) writes:
>
>>> Once that weight came off, I was so proud of being able to wear it
>>> again, I am wearing it despite local norm.
>
>> But didn't you say above that neighborhood norm renders the ring
>> "prohibited"?
>
> No, I said the neighborhood norm is to consider ring wearing
> prohibited.
You snipped it, so I can't see my mistake.
> People seeing my ring are simply going to think "Nebich, that
> Micha is showing his MO roots again..."
LOL.
>>> Kind of strange combination with a black frock on Shabbos, but
>>> not the strangest thing I do.
>
>> LOL. When you put on a shtreimel...
>
> No likely.
I didn't think so, hence the elipses.
> The kapote (frock) is blazingly Litvish; it's a flat fabric, no
> gartl (belt)... I wear it with a flat-topped hoich-kapl (high
> yarmulka).
Can we see a picture?
> But to get back to the subject line... I wear it with a tie.
> Anachronistic, I know, but if the whole point is to help me
> remember my rebbe as a role model, and he wore a tie...
Is that the whole point?
> Is a tie "chuqas hagoyim"?
I doubt it.
> How is fashion exempt?
Who said it is?
> And once you explain how a not-religiously-meaningful practice like
> fashion is exempt, would your explanation cover the use of surnames?
I didn't explain it. But I think an important word here is "chuqas"
a "rule".
> I noticed, though, that no one commented on my argument that there
> is a biblical precedent for using family names, and not only that,
> for a woman to take on her husband's.
This is SCJM, serious arguments get ignored. :-(
> Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward
> mi...@aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back.
> http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous
I _like_ that sig!
mm
<wee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if the reason a lot of Jewish women are staying single is
>> because they subconsciously don't want to be a Mrs.?
>>
>> Simcha
>
>Faulty logic. Why would being called "Mistress" be a barrier? Plenty
>of women these days are keeping their birth names (i.e. their father's
>name) after marriage, with none of the hypehn mishegos.
I don't like the hyphens either. They make me feel like it's one word
and I have to say the whole thing in one breath. Jane
Fenstermacher-Warshawsky. It's too hard to say, and it wears me out.
And because of word-wrap, it leaves lots of blank space on the
previous line.
OTOH, there are plenty of outstanding women going back many many years
with a middle name and last name. Cornelia Otis Skinner, Elizabeth
Barrett Browning, the woman that the part of the Baltimore-Washington
parkway is named after (whose name I alternately forget and remember),
Helen Gahagan Douglas, Harriet Beecher Stowe, my mother (who must
remain nameless to preserve my anonymity**), Gladys Noone Spellman
(she is the Parkway person. I knew I would think of it. She was a
Congressman for a while, probably from Maryland. The sign facing south
at the south end of that part of the parkway says, but I don't
rememeber.) Ivy Baker Priest (l'havdil), Jackie Joiner Kirsey,
Florence Griffith Joiner, When you read these names, you don't have
to run, to rush through the last two, because they are not connected
by a hyphen.
Also, with a hyphen, you never know how the name is listed in the
phone book. And it takes up a second line when both names are used.
That wastes paper.
**But one way you could find out who my mother is, and maybe even who
I am, is to check out all the Jewish cemeteries in the country until
you find the woman who has five names listed in the English part. Her
first name, her father's last name, her first husband (who died)'s
last name, my father (who died)'s last name, her last husband's last
name. She gave me two specific instructions about her matseva
(monument) that her date of death AND birth be on it, and that all of
those names be on it. Because she loved each husband and was proud of
each of them.
She didn't want her own middle name listed, because she never liked
it, but I put it in the Hebrew part, about which she hadn't
complained. It's Pesha. Oops, another clue by which you could track
me down.
It occurs to me that many women have been widowed and remarried and
yet only once or twice have I seen even two last names on a stone, and
that seems like a mistake to me. Someone is getting short shrift.
>maxine in ri
mm
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"maxine in ri" <wee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2b1bbb5d-d2c3-4311...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
>snip
>
>>Plenty of women these days are keeping their birth names (i.e. their
>>father's name) after marriage, with none of the hyphen mishegos.
>--------
>I agree, and women have been keeping our birth names (with or without the
>hyphen) since the 1970s.
Much longer than that. See my reply to Maxine, which is far far from
complete.
P&M
>I would venture a guess that most frum women are
>probably not hyphenating or keeping their birth names (at least not the ones
>that I know), and the rest of us couldn't care less about R' Rozen's opinion
>on the subject, so I can't help but wonder who is his target audience.
>Although I must admit, I would be most interested in hearing him explain
>exactly how my family has been "harmed" by my keeping my name and which of
>the "family values" I have "shattered."
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
>
mm
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
><in...@rambam.biz> wrote in message
>news:85661cb3-c242-46b3...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> The following article made me think about the names we call Jewish
>> women.
>>
>> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3486904,00.html
>>
>
>>"A hyphenated last name for women undermines family values," head of the
>>Zomet institute Rabbi Yisrael Rozen writes in an article to be published in
>>the Shabbat Beshabbato leaflet this weekend.
>
>Sure, just look how my kids' family values have been undermined because of
>this....oops...I didn't hyphenate. I didn't change my name at all.
A problem with this can be, as one other person in this group can say,
is that onlookers need some indication that the parties are married,
or, in this day when so many unmarried people live together and even
have children, they might think that she is not married.
As to alternative indications, not all women, even not all religious
women, cover their hair, and when it is cold enough out, everyone
covers their hair. Email and journal and newspaper articles don't
show wedding rings or covered hair.
Tim Meushaw
> fla...@verizon.net writes:
>> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>> <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> >Somebody pointed out:
>>
>>> >>And FTR, frum men often don't wear wedding rings.
>>> >
>>> > WHAT??
>>> ------------
>>> You do not see "double-ring ceremonies"
>>
>> Oh, I knew that - but I figured he could still wear one!
>> Isn't he also supposed to be proud to be married?
>
> That's what the tallis does.
For half the frum world, sure... what about the other half that starts
at or before bar mitzvah?
Tim
--
Timothy A. Meushaw
meu...@pobox.com
Eliyahu
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> >> Once that weight came off, I was so proud of being able to wear it
> >> again, I am wearing it despite local norm.
> > But didn't you say above that neighborhood norm renders the ring
> > "prohibited"?
>
> No, I said the neighborhood norm is to consider ring wearing prohibited.
> People seeing my ring are simply going to think "Nebich, that Micha is
> showing his MO roots again..."
>
> >> Kind of strange combination with a black frock on Shabbos, but not
> >> the strangest thing I do.
> > LOL. When you put on a shtreimel...
>
> No likely. The kapote (frock) is blazingly Litvish; it's a flat fabric, no
> gartl (belt)... I wear it with a flat-topped hoich-kapl (high yarmulka).
>
> But to get back to the subject line... I wear it with a tie. Anachronistic,
> I know, but if the whole point is to help me remember my rebbe as a role
> model, and he wore a tie...
My Chabad rabbi also wears a tie. Curiously, his brother-in-law, also
a Chabad rabbi, was out here to assist with high holy days services,
and he does not wear a tie. Perhaps it's just an individual choice?
>
> Is a tie "chuqas hagoyim"? How is fashion exempt?
Well, we have to wear _something_, and unless we dress like our
ancestors in biblical times, whatever we wear is likely to be somehow
chugas hagoyim. In fact, can we even be sure that the clothing of
biblical days was different from that of non-Jews? Given the number of
Jews in the garment industry, perhaps the opposite argument can be
made -- that the goyim are dressing like Jews? We know without any
doubt that Levis were a Jewish invention...
Eliyahu
in...@rambam.biz
Anachronistic, I know, but if the whole point is to help me remember
my rebbe as a role model, and he wore a tie...
Is a tie "chuqas hagoyim"? How is fashion exempt? And once you explain
how a not-religiously-meaningful practice like fashion is exempt,
would your explanation cover the use of surnames?
I noticed, though, that no one commented on my argument that there is
a biblical precedent for using family names, and not only that, for a
woman to take on her husband's. Tir'u baTov!
----------------------
The "rebbes" I've learned from also wear neckties. But is there not a
good chance that they do it to go along with their rich suburban
Jewish goyim donor congregants who like to wear them (I call them
goyim because they drive to schul on Shabbat, which makes them goyim
by halacha)?
I've read that Rav Kook stated that a necktie serves absolutely no
useful purpose, doesn't hold up anything, doesn't provide warmth, gets
in the way when you eat... It's true, regarding hilchot Shabbat, that
you can unknot it with one hand if you're dextrous. I can see wearing
one to work. if your chosen profession absolutely requires it. But on
Shabbat? Nah. Plus I hate wearing ties.
Another good argument for Jews NOT using patrilineal surnames is that
it encourages Jews ignorant of halacha to claim that someone with a
Jewish father, but not a Jewish mother, is a Jew.
Having a Jewish last name, being a Schwartz or a Goldstein, does not
make you a Jew according to accepted halacha. Another good reason for
Jews to ignore goyishe last names as much as possible. Simcha
Harry Weiss
> Meir
One person I know uses eithe Dr. Jane Doe or Mrs. Jane Buck. If someone
says Dr. Buck, she will say that is her husband.
Harry Weiss
> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
> >
> > I own two editions of the local Rochester Hadassah Cookbook. The first one
> > was published sometime in the early 1960s. The second one was published in
> > the 1970s. One thing I always found so interesting was the manner in which
> > the contributors were listed. In the 1960s cookbook, the list of
> > contributors reads:
> >
> > We would like to thank the following women for helping to make this cookbook
> > possible:
> >
> > Mrs. Samuel Bernstein
> > Mrs. Henry Cohen
> > Mrs. Arnold Green
> > Mrs. Max Sandberg
> > etc.
> >
> > As a little girl, I would look at the list and I would think to myself:
> > "Don't these women have names anymore? When you get married, do you just
> > lose yourself and become an extension of your husband?"
> A number of years ago, I attended the wedding of a co-worker, with some
> other colleagues. During the reception, the band leader introduced the
> couple as "Mr and Mrs Paul Dimano". I turned to my colleague next to
> me and said to her: "Wow! She took his first name too!" I got hit for
> that...
> --
> Don Levey If knowledge is power,
> Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
> NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to sal...@the-leveys.us
> will be used to tune the blocking lists.
You should get involved in the Chassidishe communities. You can read a
wedding announcement about Chayim Yankel the son of x and the grandson of
x marrying the duaghter o y (No name given for her) Than of course it
will say y is the son in law of t, (not that the kallah's mother was the
daughter of t.
Wedding invitations are signed as horei H... Moshe Yosher vRayato,.
The parents of the groom (or brid) Moshe Yosher and His wife.
You will see women referred to a Rebbetzin so and so. No first names.
Eliyahu
> But to get back to the subject line... I wear it with a tie.
> Anachronistic, I know, but if the whole point is to help me remember
> my rebbe as a role model, and he wore a tie...
>
> Is a tie "chuqas hagoyim"? How is fashion exempt? And once you explain
> how a not-religiously-meaningful practice like fashion is exempt,
> would your explanation cover the use of surnames?
>
> I noticed, though, that no one commented on my argument that there is
> a biblical precedent for using family names, and not only that, for a
> woman to take on her husband's. Tir'u baTov!
>
> ----------------------
>
> The "rebbes" I've learned from also wear neckties. But is there not a
> good chance that they do it to go along with their rich suburban
> Jewish goyim donor congregants who like to wear them (I call them
> goyim because they drive to schul on Shabbat, which makes them goyim
> by halacha)?
No, it doesn't. It only makes them Jews who are violating a couple
mitzvot. If we can come up with a few mitzvot that you aren't
observing properly, is it okay if we call you a goy? I didn't think
so... And remember... God hasn't appointed any of us to be his
accountants, tallying up the number of halachic violations anyone
commits and ranking them on a scale. For all we know, driving to shul
could rank waaaaay below something that seems pretty minor to most of
us.
>
> I've read that Rav Kook stated that a necktie serves absolutely no
> useful purpose, doesn't hold up anything, doesn't provide warmth, gets
> in the way when you eat...
Neither do the lapels on a sports coat, the buttons on the sleeves,
the stripes on striped fabrics, the fringe along the sides of the
tallis, the pattern on my wife's dress, the collar on a dress shirt,
or a dozen other things in common use among observant Jews. As my
wife just pointed out to me, not everything we wear needs to be
designed and made for strictly utilitarian purposes.
>It's true, regarding hilchot Shabbat, that
> you can unknot it with one hand if you're dextrous.
You can also just loosen it and lift it off over your head if you're
not.
>
> Another good argument for Jews NOT using patrilineal surnames is that
> it encourages Jews ignorant of halacha to claim that someone with a
> Jewish father, but not a Jewish mother, is a Jew.
>
Anyone who uses a last name to decide who is a Jew is ignorant of
halacha anyhow, especially since there are so many non-Jews with
"Jewish" names. In any case, no one is going to suddenly decide to
drop their family surname and use something else in hopes of
recapturing something from the past.
Eliyahu
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
snip
> Having a Jewish last name, being a Schwartz or a Goldstein, does not
> make you a Jew according to accepted halacha. Another good reason for
> Jews to ignore goyishe last names as much as possible. Simcha
Is that why you sign your posts with just your first name?
in...@rambam.biz
No, it's because my name is Simcha Rubin, and I don't want to be
confused with the late Sassover Rebbe of the same name.
http://www.yarzheit.com/SassoverRebbe.htm
Happy chukat ha'goyim New Year. Simcha
Dvora L
point -
before moving to florida - i suffered from te delusion that all of
florida was filled with jews --
i longed for a jewish friend when i came hhere -
so in our developement there is a phone book for residents -- not very
far down the road from me - there is listed =
miriam goldman !!!!
So I call - i am so lonely i have no shame any longer in saying -- hello
- my name is dvora and i have recently moved into this neighborhood,
I saw your name in our book and thought as a fellow Jew you might not
mind having a cup of tea - and telling me about the Jewish community
here ?
Oh yes - my name - she said -- well - i am a very devout seventh day
adventist - you are welcome to cone to our church - she was nice - but
-- other than that - i can not help you ----
and my fruuitless search has continued -- I guess only areas like
greater miami are filled with Jews --
but like a lighthouse by the sea - I do have the Chabbad ---
To change the subject to your TAXES -- my house value has gone down - my
taxes have gone up - naturally --
could you tell your story of your taxes please -= I do not mean to pry -
but in this housing market i am sure severak of us in the usa have the
same problem and have lost our battle.
******
Be safe and well :-) .... DVORA
Eliyahu
> eliyahu - petrtaining to the jewish names issue - I will prove your
> point -
>
> before moving to florida - i suffered from te delusion that all of
> florida was filled with jews --
> i longed for a jewish friend when i came hhere -
>
> so in our developement there is a phone book for residents -- not very
> far down the road from me - there is listed =
>
> miriam goldman !!!!
>
> So I call - i am so lonely i have no shame any longer in saying -- hello
> - my name is dvora and i have recently moved into this neighborhood,
>
> I saw your name in our book and thought as a fellow Jew you might not
> mind having a cup of tea - and telling me about the Jewish community
> here ?
>
> Oh yes - my name - she said -- well - i am a very devout seventh day
> adventist - you are welcome to cone to our church - she was nice - but
> -- other than that - i can not help you ----
>
> and my fruuitless search has continued -- I guess only areas like
> greater miami are filled with Jews --
> but like a lighthouse by the sea - I do have the Chabbad ---
Probably the best way to meet Jews there would be to contact the
nearest synagogue.
>
> To change the subject to your TAXES -- my house value has gone down - my
> taxes have gone up - naturally --
>
> could you tell your story of your taxes please -= I do not mean to pry -
> but in this housing market i am sure severak of us in the usa have the
> same problem and have lost our battle.
>
Since it's off topic, I'll respond to that privately.
Eliyahu
fla...@verizon.net
On 31-Dec-2007, in...@rambam.biz wrote:
> (I call them
> goyim because they drive to schul on Shabbat, which makes them goyim
> by halacha)?
The only thing that can "make" people "goyim by halacha"
is for them to have been born such, & never converted to
Judaism.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 31-Dec-2007, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:33:39 +0000 (UTC), "cindys"
> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><in...@rambam.biz> wrote in message
> >news:85661cb3-c242-46b3...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >> The following article made me think about the names we call Jewish
> >> women.
> >>
> >> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3486904,00.html
> >>
> >
> >>"A hyphenated last name for women undermines family values," head of the
> >>
> >>Zomet institute Rabbi Yisrael Rozen writes in an article to be published
> >>in
> >>the Shabbat Beshabbato leaflet this weekend.
> >
> >Sure, just look how my kids' family values have been undermined because
> >of
> >this....oops...I didn't hyphenate. I didn't change my name at all.
>
> A problem with this can be, as one other person in this group can say,
> is that onlookers need some indication that the parties are married,
> or, in this day when so many unmarried people live together and even
> have children, they might think that she is not married.
Brushing aside the need to judge favorably, all the women I know
who have kept our own names wear wedding rings.
>
> As to alternative indications, not all women, even not all religious
> women, cover their hair, and when it is cold enough out, everyone
> covers their hair. Email and journal and newspaper articles don't
> show wedding rings or covered hair.
And when it's necessary for someone in e-mail, etc., to let people
know one is married, each person will do that. By your logic, men
should also change their names & have a special little "married
honorific" to use, so people can know if *they* are married just by
glancing at their names.
Susan
Eliyahu
> Is that why you sign your posts with just your first name? Moshe
> "Rabbenu" Schorr...
>
> No, it's because my name is Simcha Rubin, and I don't want to be
> confused with the late Sassover Rebbe of the same name.
>
knowledge, there's not a single dead person posting on the entire
Usenet.
Eliyahu
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Is that why you sign your posts with just your first name? Moshe
> "Rabbenu" Schorr...
Simcha, can I ask a favor? Don't change my name, please.
> No, it's because my name is Simcha Rubin, and I don't want to be
> confused with the late Sassover Rebbe of the same name.
Do you think people will really make such a mistake?
> http://www.yarzheit.com/SassoverRebbe.htm
Wow, great site, thanks. Are you related in any way? Now that you
mention it, I remember there was a Rabbi Rubin on Ocean Parkway and
Ave. N in brooklyn. Do you know it there is any connection?
yaco...@aol.com
I presume you have not seen soc.culture.elvis
Jacko
in...@rambam.biz
to have been born such, & never converted to Judaism. Susan
----------------------
If you publicly violate Shabbat, and are witnessed doing so, as when
you drive and get out of a car on Saturday, I believe you are
halachically considered to be a gentile, and are not eligible to be
counted in a minyan.
Ask Jacko if this is true. Simcha
fla...@verizon.net
On 2-Jan-2008, in...@rambam.biz wrote:
The latter is truem, the former is not.
"Cut off from the people" does not mean "no longer a Jew."
To perform tshuvah, you do NOT - indeed, CANNOT "convert back".
>
> Ask Jacko if this is true. Simcha
I don't need to ask him, I know that it's not true.
Susan
Eliyahu
And it's still not true. If it were so, BT's would have to undergo
conversion since most, if not all, of them have been witnessed driving
on Shabbat before returning to observant Judaism.
Asking Jacko wouldn't make it any more true even if he agreed with
you. He's not a posek, and (if you haven't already noticed) many of
his opinions are at odds with those of virtually all other Jews here
including the two or three Orthodox rabbis who post to the newsgroup.
Eliyahu
yaco...@aol.com
> > If you publicly violate Shabbat, and are witnessed doing so, as when
> > you drive and get out of a car on Saturday, I believe you are
> > halachically considered to be a gentile, and are not eligible to be
> > counted in a minyan.
> And it's still not true. If it were so, BT's would have to undergo
> conversion since most, if not all, of them have been witnessed driving
> on Shabbat before returning to observant Judaism.
You ASSUME what "it" is. Are you sure you have a basis fo rthat
assumption?
> Asking Jacko wouldn't make it any more true even if he agreed with
> you. He's not a posek, and (if you haven't already noticed) many of
> his opinions are at odds with those of virtually all other Jews here
> including the two or three Orthodox rabbis who post to the newsgroup.
>
> Eliyahu
And here is a perfect example of why I am at odds with most of you.
The statement is a *legal** one. To wit: "halachically considered to
be a gentile."
Everyone here jumped off on their own ideas of what that means. Why
not consult the actual halakha? "Hare hu kegoy lekhol dabar"
Ask yourselves what that means FIRST, why don't you? Then and only
then decide if it is true. BTW, it appears in the Talmud and most
codes, so it seems to be "true."
What it means precisely is another required inquiry.
I doubt that truth is the sole domain of an Ashkenazi "poseq", but i
am sure that is at odds with many of you as well.
Why is it so hard to face the fact that we are not a Papist group?
That a regular educated Israelite can and should know the Law?
Eliyahu -- is it your position that every issue in Judaism must be
decided by a "keeper of truth" an authority figure, what you call a
poseq?
Should I -- as a Jew -- ask a "poseq" if I need to pee?
meir b.
The Talmud states that one who is an apostate with regard to
Shabbat is though he is an apostate for the entire Torah. The Rambam
states that one who violates Shabbat intentionally and publicly is
akin to an idolator, and both are considered like a non-Jew. Eliyahu
is correct that he does not lose his Jewishness, in the sense that his
teshuva does not require conversion, and his act of kiddushin is a
binding one, requiring a get to undo; were he in fact not Jewish, he
would be halachically incapable of entering into a valid marriage with
a Jewish woman. If he is a kohein, and his wife is not one of those
prohibited to marry kohanim, his sons will be kohanim. Unlike a non-
Jew, whose cohabiting with a Jewish woman renders her unfit to marry a
kohein, that would not be true of a mechalel Shabbat.
However, he is like a non-Jew in that his shechitta is invalid.
The wine that he touches is as though it was touched by a non-Jew, and
may not be drunk. He is not counted towards a minyan. He is "like a
non-Jew." He does not become a non-Jew.
Meir
yaco...@aol.com
> Asking Jacko wouldn't make it any more true even if he agreed with
> you.
Asking me would obtain a source for what the Law says about it, and a
verifcation if the Law says such a thing.
I do not answer questions of halakha with a naked opinion. I do not
have such opinions.
> He's not a posek, and (if you haven't already noticed) many of
> his opinions are at odds with those of virtually all other Jews here
> including the two or three Orthodox rabbis who post to the newsgroup.
So? If you mean to say that this rabbi is not an Orthodox Ashkenazi,
fine. You are correct. But Judaism is not Orthodox Rabbi-ism.
> Eliyahu
fla...@verizon.net
On 3-Jan-2008, yaco...@aol.com wrote:
> On Jan 3, 9:21 am, Eliyahu <lro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If you publicly violate Shabbat, and are witnessed doing so, as when
> > > you drive and get out of a car on Saturday, I believe you are
> > > halachically considered to be a gentile, and are not eligible to be
> > > counted in a minyan.
>
>
> > And it's still not true. If it were so, BT's would have to undergo
> > conversion since most, if not all, of them have been witnessed driving
> > on Shabbat before returning to observant Judaism.
>
> You ASSUME what "it" is. Are you sure you have a basis fo rthat
> assumption?
Ye,s it's called "Torah."
it's also called "knowledge of how Judaism works in the
real world, as opposed to someone's Usenet fantasies."
HTH.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 3-Jan-2008, "meir b." <mei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 9:21 am, Eliyahu <lro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 7:11 pm, i...@rambam.biz wrote:
> >
> > > The only thing that can "make" people "goyim by halacha" is for them
> > > to have been born such, & never converted to Judaism. Susan
> >
> > > ----------------------
> >
> > > If you publicly violate Shabbat, and are witnessed doing so, as when
> > > you drive and get out of a car on Saturday, I believe you are
> > > halachically considered to be a gentile, and are not eligible to be
> > > counted in a minyan.
> >
> > > Ask Jacko if this is true. Simcha
> >
> > And it's still not true. If it were so, BT's would have to undergo
> > conversion since most, if not all, of them have been witnessed driving
> > on Shabbat before returning to observant Judaism.
> >
> > Asking Jacko wouldn't make it any more true even if he agreed with
> > you. He's not a posek, and (if you haven't already noticed) many of
> > his opinions are at odds with those of virtually all other Jews here
> > including the two or three Orthodox rabbis who post to the newsgroup.
>
> The Talmud states that one who is an apostate with regard to
> Shabbat is though he is an apostate for the entire Torah. The Rambam
> states that one who violates Shabbat intentionally and publicly is
> akin to an idolator, and both are considered like a non-Jew.
yes, LIKE - for purposes of interaction with other Jews.
Not "AS a non-Jew" in toto."
> Eliyahu
> is correct that he does not lose his Jewishness,
Exactly the point.
Susan
yaco...@aol.com
> Meir
Thank you for an educated, well written, reasoned and informative
response.
Jacko
Abe Kohen
> The only thing that can "make" people "goyim by halacha" is for them
> to have been born such, & never converted to Judaism. Susan
>
> ----------------------
>
> If you publicly violate Shabbat, and are witnessed doing so, as when
> you drive and get out of a car on Saturday, I believe you are
First show me the halacha against driving a car on Shabbat, Daf and Shura.
Second, how do you know s/he isn't a hatzala driver or medic on the way to
an emergency?
> halachically considered to be a gentile, and are not eligible to be
> counted in a minyan.
I've given the quote here before from the Shu"t regarding calling someone up
to the Torah.
Best,
Abe
01-03-2008
R'foo-ah shlay-ma to all victims of Islamofascist terror
yaco...@aol.com
> > > And it's still not true. If it were so, BT's would have to undergo
> > > conversion since most, if not all, of them have been witnessed driving
> > > on Shabbat before returning to observant Judaism.
>
> > You ASSUME what "it" is. Are you sure you have a basis fo rthat
> > assumption?
> Ye,s it's called "Torah."
I see no analysis in your words. Do you even understand my question?
What is "it" in the OP's statement? Just answer me, simply and
directly.
Do not project subjective assumptions.
> it's also called "knowledge of how Judaism works in the
> real world, as opposed to someone's Usenet fantasies."
How does it work? How does the Rabbinic maxim "he is as a gentile for
all things" operate in the real world. The real world of genuine
halakha?
Please tell me, with precision.
> HTH.
It is a buzz word and an analphabetic response. To me that is of no
help and no use.
> Susan
Jacko
in...@rambam.biz
the phrase "hu k'goi b'chol davar" (he is as a gentile in all things),
referring to one who is mechallel Shabbat in public, occurs in the
Talmud? Shabbat? Another masechta?
I first actually read this in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. It's probably
one of the best kept secrets of the Jewish religion. Among Jews.
Simcha
fla...@verizon.net
On 4-Jan-2008, yaco...@aol.com wrote:
> On Jan 3, 8:14 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > > And it's still not true. If it were so, BT's would have to undergo
> > > > conversion since most, if not all, of them have been witnessed
> > > > driving
> > > > on Shabbat before returning to observant Judaism.
> >
> > > You ASSUME what "it" is. Are you sure you have a basis fo rthat
> > > assumption?
>
> > Ye,s it's called "Torah."
>
> I see no analysis in your words. Do you even understand my question?
This is descending to the laughable, so I'm just going to drop it.
Susan
Micha Berger
> And it's still not true. If it were so, BT's would have to undergo
> conversion since most, if not all, of them have been witnessed driving
> on Shabbat before returning to observant Judaism.
Rav Saadia Gaon got this question on an agunah issue. A woman's Shabbos
violating husband skipped town without giving her a get. In short, he
says there are two kinds of sanctity: that which is a product of birth,
and that which is a product of action. Unfortunately, it's the former
which defines Jewishness for marriage, and the poor girl was stuck.
In English, perhaps we can say it's a distinction between who is Jewish,
and who is a believer in Judaism. When it comes to Jewish ritual, you
want fellow observant Jews, or at least Jews who are ashamed of their
lapses in observance. And that would include minyan. But when it comes
to status, it's inherent in the person.
Someone who violates Shabbos in public can not be counted toward a minyan.
According to Rav Moshe Feinstein, this does not mean someone who was
raised not to believe Shabbos observance is mandatory, but rather only
a rebel. By common practice, it is clear that Lubavitch rule similarly.
The Satmar Rav and many others would only count people who tries to
observe Shabbos as O teaches toward a minyan -- regardless of reason.
Someone who joins another faith community is still Jewish, even though
they obviously don't believe in Judaism. However, if they go that far and
still want to return -- e.g. a former j4j who wants to join a minyan --
we require miqvah before fully counting them "one of us" again.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
cindys
<in...@rambam.biz> wrote in message
news:dee8c579-e3a3-4d9f...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Generally speaking, the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (KSA) is like the Reader's
Digest version of the Shulchan Aruch, (the book of Jewish law which is many
volumes in length and depending on which version you have will include a
considerable amount of commentary). The KSA takes large quantities of
material and condenses it down into a small one or two-volume set. There are
a number of different versions of the KSA, each of which reflects the
particular interpretation of its author. You probably have the R' Ganzfried
version, which is known for being very strict. R' Ganzfried comes from the
Hungarian tradition. The KSA is a good starting point, but nobody should
assume that whatever he reads therein is the final, iron-clad halacha. A
person should always CHLRA.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Eliyahu
not as a "mini-conversion" which would suggest that they had somehow
stopped being a Jew.
Rather, they had become an apostate and are coming back home.
Eliyahu
Abe Kohen
>
> Someone who violates Shabbos in public can not be counted toward a minyan.
> According to Rav Moshe Feinstein, this does not mean someone who was
> raised not to believe Shabbos observance is mandatory, but rather only
> a rebel. By common practice, it is clear that Lubavitch rule similarly.
Yep. That's great in places with large Jewish populations. Try getting an O
minyan in the financial district of SF on a Shabbat morning during the
Xmas/New Year Week, and see who gets counted. (No, I did not go there this
year, but I'd gone there twice in the last decade - with the same results).
Also see who Lubavitch shluchim count as Jews for a minyan in their far
flung outposts.
I cannot access the Bar Ilan Responsa CD right now, but there were shu"t
indicating otherwise than your piskei halacha above.
Best,
Abe
01-06-2008
in...@rambam.biz
---------------
And the Shulchan Aruch is like the Reader's Digest version of the
Talmud.
An interesting example of censorship. My Friend Charlie the Rich
Dermatologist and I were studying "Stealing from the Goyim".
Rabbi Avrohom Davis's edition of the Kitzur, which apparently comes
from Lakewood, N.J., on p. 1143 says that if you own somebody money
and don't want to pay them, if that somebody is a Jew, you're
forbidden to tell them "lech va'shuv, lech va'shuv" (go and come back
later). But then it says "eino asur ba'goi", it's not forbidden to
tell a GENTILE to go and come back later.
That entire passage with "eino asur ba'goi" has been edited out of the
1961 edition of the Kitzur by the Hebrew Publishing Company. Guess the
editors didn't want to offend. Simcha
------------------
"What's the correct way? Look around you in schul. It's what no one is
doing". Rabbi Bagel
http://jewgle.us/bagel/ "Rabbi Bagel Says"
Micha Berger
> "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote
>> Someone who violates Shabbos in public can not be counted toward a minyan.
>> According to Rav Moshe Feinstein, this does not mean someone who was
>> raised not to believe Shabbos observance is mandatory, but rather only
>> a rebel. By common practice, it is clear that Lubavitch rule similarly.
> Yep. That's great in places with large Jewish populations. Try getting an O
> minyan in the financial district of SF on a Shabbat morning during the
> Xmas/New Year Week, and see who gets counted...
Wouldn't the ruling cited above make it /more/ easy to count the typical
non-observant Jew?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
in...@rambam.biz
shu"t indicating otherwise than your piskei halacha above. Best,
--------------------
Here on the Connecticut gold coast in the greater Keheilat Ahavat
Kesef diocese, l'havdil, I have only seen one case of a guy who was
not counted in a minyan.
He was shvartzeh named Tom. Sweet guy, a gentile, always wore a suit.
He was working on his conversion. The rich ballebatim who blackballed
him parked their Audis right next to the schul every Shabbat. He (Tom)
used to ask me questions about chumash with Rashi. Not that I could
answer them. Simcha
-------------------
"What's the quickest way to get rid of a Jew? Ask him for a favor".
Eliyahu
> I cannot access the Bar Ilan Responsa CD right now, but there were
> shu"t indicating otherwise than your piskei halacha above. Best,
> Abe ...
> --------------------
> Here on the Connecticut gold coast in the greater Keheilat Ahavat
> Kesef diocese, l'havdil, I have only seen one case of a guy who was
> not counted in a minyan.
>
> He was shvartzeh named Tom. Sweet guy, a gentile, always wore a suit.
> He was working on his conversion. The rich ballebatim who blackballed
> him parked their Audis right next to the schul every Shabbat. He (Tom)
> used to ask me questions about chumash with Rashi. Not that I could
> answer them. Simcha
>
and couldn't yet be counted in a minyan, no matter how nice he was and
how much everyone liked him.
Eliyahu
mm
>
>On 31-Dec-2007, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:33:39 +0000 (UTC), "cindys"
>> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><in...@rambam.biz> wrote in message
>> >news:85661cb3-c242-46b3...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> >> The following article made me think about the names we call Jewish
>> >> women.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3486904,00.html
>> >>
>> >
>> >>"A hyphenated last name for women undermines family values," head of the
>> >>
>> >>Zomet institute Rabbi Yisrael Rozen writes in an article to be published
>> >>in
>> >>the Shabbat Beshabbato leaflet this weekend.
>> >
>> >Sure, just look how my kids' family values have been undermined because
>> >of
>> >this....oops...I didn't hyphenate. I didn't change my name at all.
>>
>> A problem with this can be, as one other person in this group can say,
>> is that onlookers need some indication that the parties are married,
>> or, in this day when so many unmarried people live together and even
>> have children, they might think that she is not married.
I didn't post this without having thought about it first.
>Brushing aside the need to judge favorably,
Some people have that need and some people don't. As to the
requirement to judge in a certain way, it's expressed in Pirkei Avot
that we should judge everyone favorably, but in Torah (Lev. 19?) it
says to judge each person according to his merit. And that is taken
to mean iirc or maybe better-put, roughly, that a person who is known
to be righteous should be judged favorably even when it looks like he
is doing something wrong, and a person who is known to be unrighteous
may be judged negatively even when it appears he is doing something
right (I especially may have phrased this second half incorrectly)
IIUC Pirkei Avot is good or pleasing advice, but the Torah is the law.
So there is apparently no requirement to judge someone who is known to
be unrighteous favorably. And what about all the people in the
middle, who aren't always righteous and who can't be called
unrighteous.
So, are we only concerned about the righteous people, or the ones who
are not unrighteous? What about the person who isn't clearly
righteous or who even might be unrighteous, but is still married to
the person s/he is sleeping with. If the woman doesn't wear a ring,
those who meet her may conclude she is not married when she is. Even
unrighteous people have an interest in being and may want to be be
judged favorably when that is the accurate judgement.
Also, not everyone is a Jew, and non-Jews have no requirement to judge
anyone favorably, afaik, and in most cases no one to remind them that
maybe they would want to do so.
And also, not every Jew does what he is supposed to.
For example, in order for a person to get any benefit from any level
of requirement or desire or need to judge someone favorably, it has to
occur to the onlooker that there is another possibilty, that it is
possible the two are married even when they have different last names.
Even this year, that won't occur to everyone. Immigrants from some
countries, people one meets when traveling, and I would venture to say
plenty of people in the USA, such as many black hat and Hassidic Jews
would, despite the opening premise of this thread as described in the
subject line, just assume that two people with different last names
are not married to each other. I'll bet you that every married couple
they know socially, every Hassidic or black hat married couple they
know, share the same last name. If they spend 70 to 99% with such
people and if afaithey know, every other married person they ever met
has the same last name as hir spouse, how would it ever occur to them
that some married couples don't have the same last names?
And WHY do you think it isn't judging someone favorably when one
thinks that she or he is not married**? If they are having sex with
each other, I gather that is some sort of transgression if they are
not married, but where did I say they were having sex with each other?
Most other times there is no moral advantage to being married. They
could be sitting on a park bench feeding the pigeons. Why would it be
not judging favorably to conclude that two people who have different
last names and are feeding the pigeons are not married?
If someone watching, an onlooker, had a great apartment for rent to a
married couple (it only has one bedroom), or a great job designed for
a married couple, and he didn't tell the two people feeding the
pigeons about it, what has he done wrong?
**Although I saved this last point for the end of this section, and
didn't include it in all my prior paragraphs, it applies throughout.
>all the women I know
>who have kept our own names wear wedding rings.
But you can't see wedding rings on the phone, on the internet, by
mail, by email, or on the radio. You can't see them if the woman is
wearning gloves, or if her hands are in her pockets, or if they are by
her side in a crowded room. And those who wear a ring often take it
off to do work, to work around machines or electricity, to wash
dishes, etc.
And all the women you know are not all such women. I was not
addressing you or your friends specifically in my prior posts.
Also, I had a girl friend whose best friend wore a ring on her ring
finger. It wasn't a gold band, it was only wood, but it seemed like
the kind of ring a couple in the 60's and even today might buy for the
bride if they had no money, or just as a show of anti-materialism,
etc. Anyhow I thought she was married when she wasn't. When I
learned she was single, I advised her to stop wearing the ring on her
left hand. She did, and three months later she was engaged to be
married.
IIUC some widows don't stop wearing their ring as they did when their
husbands were alive.
For both of these reasons, since I met the girl with the wood ring, I
don't assume someone with a ring on the wedding finger is married,
even if I know about the ring.
>> As to alternative indications, not all women, even not all religious
>> women, cover their hair, and when it is cold enough out, everyone
>> covers their hair. Email and journal and newspaper articles don't
>> show wedding rings or covered hair.
>
>And when it's necessary for someone in e-mail, etc., to let people
>know one is married, each person will do that.
They will? There are so many scenarios, how will she even know when
it is necessary?
>By your logic, men
>should also change their names & have a special little "married
>honorific" to use, so people can know if *they* are married just by
>glancing at their names.
My logic doesn't lead to that at all. Not with the word "should". I
never said what women should do either. I made no recommendations in
my post. Please don't "elaborate" on what I said, even by a
non-analogous analogy.
Let's look at what I did say, copied from higher up:
>> A problem with this can be, as one other person in this group can say,
>> is that onlookers need some indication that the parties are married,
I refer here to both parties.
>> or, in this day when so many unmarried people live together and even
>> have children, they might think that she is not married.
She is the one the onlookers are looking at. Of course, if they think
she is not married to anyone, they will think that he is not married
to her. That is what follows from my logic.
This can be a problem ("A problem with this can be...") but people
face problems all the time. For the most part, it is up to the people
with problems** to figure out how to solve them. **Or their mothers.
:) But failure to solve them does't mean the problems disappear.
Where I went to college, female faculty and staff in the Faculty and
Staff Directory were listed as Mrs. if they were married. I don't
remember what abbreviation was used for male faculty and staff but I
know there was an asterisk if they were married. I thought this was a
good thing. I thought that even more so the following year when I
decided to fix my mother up with a professor and their marital
statuses were listed in the faculty directory. So I didn't have to
waste my time on married men.
>Susan
mm
wrote:
>
>Let's look at what I did say, copied from higher up:
>>> A problem with this can be, as one other person in this group can say,
>>> is that onlookers need some indication that the parties are married,
>
>I refer here to both parties.
>
>>> or, in this day when so many unmarried people live together and even
>>> have children, they might think that she is not married.
>
>She is the one the onlookers are looking at. Of course, if they think
>she is not married to anyone, they will think that he is not married
>to her. That is what follows from my logic.
I should have said, "Of course, if they think she is not married to
him, they will think that he is not married to her."
fla...@verizon.net
We're not talking people's desires.
> As to the
> requirement to judge in a certain way, it's expressed in Pirkei Avot
> that we should judge everyone favorably, but in Torah (Lev. 19?) it
> says to judge each person according to his merit.
& what has a name to do w/merit??
> And that is taken
> to mean iirc or maybe better-put, roughly, that a person who is known
> to be righteous should be judged favorably even when it looks like he
> is doing something wrong, and a person who is known to be unrighteous
> may be judged negatively even when it appears he is doing something
> right (I especially may have phrased this second half incorrectly)
>
Same question.
> IIUC Pirkei Avot is good or pleasing advice, but the Torah is the law.
> So there is apparently no requirement to judge someone who is known to
> be unrighteous favorably. And what about all the people in the
> middle, who aren't always righteous and who can't be called
> unrighteous.
>
> So, are we only concerned about the righteous people, or the ones who
> are not unrighteous?
I didn;t realize we could differentiate on the basis of a name.
> What about the person who isn't clearly
> righteous or who even might be unrighteous, but is still married to
> the person s/he is sleeping with. If the woman doesn't wear a ring,
> those who meet her may conclude she is not married when she is.
Same w/the men & yet no one has said anything about this.
> Even
> unrighteous people have an interest in being and may want to be be
> judged favorably when that is the accurate judgement.
Which is pretty much whay I said what I did.
>
> Also, not everyone is a Jew, and non-Jews have no requirement to judge
> anyone favorably, afaik, and in most cases no one to remind them that
> maybe they would want to do so.
>
> And also, not every Jew does what he is supposed to.
Then we don't even need to have this conversation.
Susan
Harry Weiss
> Generally speaking, the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (KSA) is like the
> Reader's Digest version of the Shulchan Aruch...Cindy
> ---------------
> And the Shulchan Aruch is like the Reader's Digest version of the
> Talmud.
Actually the RIF would be the REader's Diegest version.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
cindys
<in...@rambam.biz> wrote in message
news:10ea378f-c763-45f3...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Generally speaking, the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (KSA) is like the
> Reader's Digest version of the Shulchan Aruch...Cindy
> ---------------
>
> And the Shulchan Aruch is like the Reader's Digest version of the
> Talmud.
No, it's not.
>
> An interesting example of censorship. My Friend Charlie the Rich
> Dermatologist and I were studying "Stealing from the Goyim".
The above statement is inflammatory. There is no such thing as a chapter
entitled "Stealing from the Goyim." (sic) but when you use quotation marks,
it suggests that there is. And when some people read this, they won't
understand that this is a lame attempt at trying to be funny. They will take
it literally. This is the sort of thing that appears on SCJ unmoderated
every day of the week, but the people who are posting it aren't Jews.
>
> Rabbi Avrohom Davis's edition of the Kitzur, which apparently comes
> from Lakewood, N.J., on p. 1143 says that if you own somebody money
> and don't want to pay them, if that somebody is a Jew, you're
> forbidden to tell them "lech va'shuv, lech va'shuv" (go and come back
> later). But then it says "eino asur ba'goi", it's not forbidden to
> tell a GENTILE to go and come back later.
>
> That entire passage with "eino asur ba'goi" has been edited out of the
> 1961 edition of the Kitzur by the Hebrew Publishing Company. Guess the
> editors didn't want to offend. Simcha
As I explained, there are different versions of the KSA. Just because
something appears in one version and not another version doesn't mean that
something was "edited out" of the second version. There is no such thing as
a "standard version" of the KSA.
FTR, when there is a halachic difference between the way Jews are treated
versus gentiles in a given situation, it's usually because we are more
stringent regarding Jews, not that we are more callous when it comes to
gentiles.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Carole Langer
I've followed a number of your posts and forgive me if I'm wrong, but you
seem to spend a lot of time estabilshing your "Jewishness" and Jewish
credentials.
Can you explain to me why you are so defensive please?
I've only recently discovered I'm technically Jewish, but have no idea about
the religion, culture or history of the Jewish people.
A couple of the posters have given me links to further reading I can do, but
I would appreciate commencing dialogue with you.
Carole.
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fm2mim$87t$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
Abe Kohen
> Susan
>
> I've followed a number of your posts and forgive me if I'm wrong, but you
> seem to spend a lot of time estabilshing your "Jewishness" and Jewish
> credentials.
>
> Can you explain to me why you are so defensive please?
>
> I've only recently discovered I'm technically Jewish, but have no idea
about
> the religion, culture or history of the Jewish people.
>
> A couple of the posters have given me links to further reading I can do,
but
> I would appreciate commencing dialogue with you.
>
> Carole.
Susan does not owe you any explanation. Defensive or otherwise.
Shavua Tov,
Abe
01-12-2008
cindys
"Abe Kohen" <ako...@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:fmc351$86j$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> "Carole Langer" <"....langer.luksh"@gmail.com....> wrote
>> Susan
>>
>> I've followed a number of your posts and forgive me if I'm wrong, but you
>> seem to spend a lot of time estabilshing your "Jewishness" and Jewish
>> credentials.
>>
>> Can you explain to me why you are so defensive please?
>>
>> I've only recently discovered I'm technically Jewish, but have no idea
> about
>> the religion, culture or history of the Jewish people.
>>
>> A couple of the posters have given me links to further reading I can do,
> but
>> I would appreciate commencing dialogue with you.
>>
>> Carole.
>
> Susan does not owe you any explanation. Defensive or otherwise.
I have never noticed that Susan seems defensive. But Carole is free to ask
if she wants. Susan doesn't have to answer if she doesn't want to.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
fla...@verizon.net
That'll be the day I'm "defensive".
All I can think of is that she's making it up
because she doesn't like what I say.
Jewish credentials?
What the hell are those?
(& if she means the other Susan, I say "DITTO!")
Susan