Chicago Mezuzah case revived
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
If a condo has a rule which prohibits decorative items from being
displayed in the hallways of the building, why would a Jew observant
of the traditions of the Mezuzah choose to live there?
Besides, given that mostly likely everyone in this building was not
only a democrat but generally liberal, this seems to be a case of
leftwing anti semitism. It is typical of what we in democrat
neighborhoods in Chicago.
Don Levey
>
> Besides, given that mostly likely everyone in this building was not
> only a democrat but generally liberal, this seems to be a case of
> leftwing anti semitism. It is typical of what we in democrat
> neighborhoods in Chicago.
Do you have any evidence at all for this scurrilous accusation, or is it
another in your "people who think differently from me must be evil" parade?
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
Patty
> Shmaryahu b. Chanoch wrote:
>
> > Besides, given that mostly likely everyone in this building was not
> > only a democrat but generally liberal, this seems to be a case of
> > leftwing anti semitism. It is typical of what we in democrat
> > neighborhoods in Chicago.
>
> Do you have any evidence at all for this scurrilous accusation, or is it
> another in your "people who think differently from me must be evil" parade?
>
> --
> Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
> (email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
> GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
B. (Susan, don't breathe your yogurt this time)
mm
<omeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1882674,chicago-mezuzah-case-revived-111309.article
>If a condo has a rule which prohibits decorative items from being
>displayed in the hallways of the building, why would a Jew observant
>of the traditions of the Mezuzah choose to live there?
Because he didn't know about it.
My n'hood has a fairly extensive set of covenants and HOA rules,
which I knew nothing about until the closing.
Some other people who live here haven't even gotten a copy at the
closing, I guess that happens if they don't buy title insurance and
maybe even if they do.
>
>Besides, given that mostly likely everyone in this building was not
>only a democrat but generally liberal,
More nonsense. You know nothing about the building. Read what
Frishhotz said and then explain why you think he is a Democrat and a
liberal. There is nothing iberal about him. No other person in the
building is described.
> this seems to be a case of
>leftwing anti semitism.
More nonsense. Read what Frishhotz said and then explain why you
think he is leftwing. No other person in the building is described.
>It is typical of what we in democrat
>neighborhoods in Chicago.
Which is it? Are you so ignorant you don't know the name of the name
of the political party Democrats belong to, and don't how the
adjective is spelled? Or are you basically a snotty 8-year old who
tries to name-call?
You know as long as you post this way, you embarrass sensible
conservatives.
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
mm
<Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>Shmaryahu b. Chanoch wrote:
>>
>> Besides, given that mostly likely everyone in this building was not
>> only a democrat but generally liberal, this seems to be a case of
>> leftwing anti semitism. It is typical of what we in democrat
>> neighborhoods in Chicago.
>
>Do you have any evidence at all for this scurrilous accusation, or is it
>another in your "people who think differently from me must be evil" parade?
And how coud you forget his notion that "People who are evil must be
Democrats."
Micha Berger
> If a condo has a rule which prohibits decorative items from being
> displayed in the hallways of the building, why would a Jew observant
> of the traditions of the Mezuzah choose to live there?
A side issue we discussed a while ago when a similar case came up...
I do not think that the man is halachically obligated to hang one in
this situation. According to my rebbe, R' Dovid Lifshitz's, guidelines,
someone who lacks control over whether or not he is permitted to hang a
mezuzah on a doorway doesn't have enough baalus (ROUGHLY: ownership) to
obligate him in hanging one.
In contrast, a rentor doesn't own anything, but if he has the power to
decide to hand a mezuzah on his doorway, he is obligated to do so.
That said, were the building rules unambiguous, and just happen to cover
this situation, or was their antisemitism involved in enforcing them in
this case?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht
mm
Berger) wrote:
>Shmaryahu b. Chanoch <omeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1882674,chicago-mezuzah-case-revived-111309.article
>> If a condo has a rule which prohibits decorative items from being
>> displayed in the hallways of the building, why would a Jew observant
>> of the traditions of the Mezuzah choose to live there?
>
>A side issue we discussed a while ago when a similar case came up...
>I do not think that the man is halachically obligated to hang one in
>this situation. According to my rebbe, R' Dovid Lifshitz's, guidelines,
>someone who lacks control over whether or not he is permitted to hang a
>mezuzah on a doorway doesn't have enough baalus (ROUGHLY: ownership) to
>obligate him in hanging one.
>
>In contrast, a rentor doesn't own anything, but if he has the power to
>decide to hand a mezuzah on his doorway, he is obligated to do so.
I think I remember that discussion. What if he thinks he has the
power to hang it NOT according to the rules, but thinks there would be
an objection from the landlord if he hung it properly?
Is there any point to hanging it incorrectly?
In this case the choice was to hang it not on the frame but on the
door itself, which could be done without damaging the door.
>That said, were the building rules unambiguous, and just happen to cover
>this situation, or was their antisemitism involved in enforcing them in
>this case?
At least one of those times, they removed the mezuzah and left a coat
rack and something else in the hallway. If the coat rack was only
there for a short time, I think this would be less significant.
If they had left the coat rack and the other thing when they were
there the first time, I think that would have been more significant.
>Tir'u baTov!
>-Micha
--
Meir
Micha Berger
>>someone who lacks control over whether or not he is permitted to hang a
>>mezuzah on a doorway doesn't have enough baalus (ROUGHLY: ownership) to
>>obligate him in hanging one.
>>In contrast, a rentor doesn't own anything, but if he has the power to
>>decide to hand a mezuzah on his doorway, he is obligated to do so.
> I think I remember that discussion. What if he thinks he has the
> power to hang it NOT according to the rules, but thinks there would be
> an objection from the landlord if he hung it properly?
I would just be guessing. CYLR.
The question is how much control is the cut-off. Also, how far from the
doorframe. I'm not sure that using the inside of the door frame is all
that much worse.
> Is there any point to hanging it incorrectly?
Not halachically. And if he isn't obligated, it would be like wearing a
mezuzah -- the doorway in question doesn't require one any more than
your neck.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"
lee
>
> >A side issue we discussed a while ago when a similar case came up...
> >I do not think that the man is halachically obligated to hang one in
> >this situation. According to my rebbe, R' Dovid Lifshitz's, guidelines,
> >someone who lacks control over whether or not he is permitted to hang a
> >mezuzah on a doorway doesn't have enough baalus (ROUGHLY: ownership) to
> >obligate him in hanging one.
>
rather too sensible to me.
Ken Bloom
>> Is there any point to hanging it incorrectly?
>
> Not halachically. And if he isn't obligated, it would be like wearing a
> mezuzah -- the doorway in question doesn't require one any more than
> your neck.
Nevertheless, we have a custom to hang mezuzot at syagogues even though
it's not halachically required because nobody lives there.
--
Chanoch (Ken) Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
Micha Berger
>>> Is there any point to hanging it incorrectly?
>> Not halachically. And if he isn't obligated, it would be like wearing a
>> mezuzah -- the doorway in question doesn't require one any more than
>> your neck.
> Nevertheless, we have a custom to hang mezuzot at syagogues even though
> it's not halachically required because nobody lives there.
I'm not sure it's a formal custom, in the sense of the bindingness of
minhag. Just that people feel a need to have a mezuzah on a Jewish room.
I have been in shuls that don't hang one, although I admit that it's rare.
Not sure that kind of emotion is particularly different than wearing a
mezuzah as a necklace.
Speaking of the mezuzah on the shul, I have a pet peeve about
that. Historically, there are TWO laws that make a house Jewish -- a
mezuzah and a railing. You are obligated to put up a ma'akah, a railing or
bannister on any surface that someone could walk on that has a 10 tefach
(roughly 2-1/2', or 3/4 m) drop at the edge.
Even if no one would actually go there. Safety is its own law. This is
about developing a mentality of concern for others' safety. As one can
see from the fact that the law only applies to privately owned homes,
and not synagogues. BTW, unlike mezuzah, the landlord, not the tenant,
is financially responsible for putting up the railing.
Notice how many shuls have a duchan (a front platform in front of the ark)
that is well above that height, but no railing.
How is it that we can't think of a Jewish space without a mezuzah, some
nod to the man-G-d mitzvah, but don't have similar problems with the
lack of a ma'akah? Do we forget to place interpersonal mitzvos equally
central to our emotional attachment to Judaism?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya
mm
Berger) wrote:
>Ken Bloom <kbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Is there any point to hanging it incorrectly?
>
>>> Not halachically. And if he isn't obligated, it would be like wearing a
>>> mezuzah -- the doorway in question doesn't require one any more than
>>> your neck.
>
>> Nevertheless, we have a custom to hang mezuzot at syagogues even though
>> it's not halachically required because nobody lives there.
>
>I'm not sure it's a formal custom, in the sense of the bindingness of
>minhag. Just that people feel a need to have a mezuzah on a Jewish room.
>I have been in shuls that don't hang one, although I admit that it's rare.
>
>Not sure that kind of emotion is particularly different than wearing a
>mezuzah as a necklace.
>
>
>Speaking of the mezuzah on the shul, I have a pet peeve about
>that. Historically, there are TWO laws that make a house Jewish -- a
>mezuzah and a railing. You are obligated to put up a ma'akah, a railing or
>bannister on any surface that someone could walk on that has a 10 tefach
>(roughly 2-1/2', or 3/4 m) drop at the edge.
>
>Even if no one would actually go there. Safety is its own law. This is
>about developing a mentality of concern for others' safety. As one can
>see from the fact that the law only applies to privately owned homes,
>and not synagogues.
You've confused me. If it is about "others' safety", wouldn't it be
more likly to apply to shuls, which get more others than do most
private homes? At least I think they do.
>BTW, unlike mezuzah, the landlord, not the tenant,
>is financially responsible for putting up the railing.
>
>Notice how many shuls have a duchan (a front platform in front of the ark)
>that is well above that height, but no railing.
>
>How is it that we can't think of a Jewish space without a mezuzah, some
>nod to the man-G-d mitzvah, but don't have similar problems with the
>lack of a ma'akah? Do we forget to place interpersonal mitzvos equally
>central to our emotional attachment to Judaism?
I wouldn't be that hard on anyone; I wouldn't draw that relationship.
With no law that requires it, I think people would only think of it if
someone had fallen off. I haven't been everywhere at the same time,
but I don't know of anyone who has fallen off.
>Tir'u baTov!
>-Micha
--
Meir
Micha Berger
>>Even if no one would actually go there. Safety is its own law. This is
>>about developing a mentality of concern for others' safety. As one can
>>see from the fact that the law only applies to privately owned homes,
>>and not synagogues.
>
> You've confused me. If it is about "others' safety", wouldn't it be
> more likly to apply to shuls, which get more others than do most
> private homes? At least I think they do.
As I wrote, it's not about safety. There is a different prohibition
about causing risk to others. This is an excercise in developing a
safety-oriented mentality. Someone shouldn't own something that could be
dangerous, even if happens to be in a place where no one would actually
be in danger.
The obligation is tied to the owner, not the building, because this is
one step beyond guaranteeing safety; it's about the owner being trained
to value safety. And since the shul is a common space, the law doesn't
apply.
Assuming the chance of anyone falling off the duchan is minimal, there
is no safety issue.
...
>>How is it that we can't think of a Jewish space without a mezuzah, some
>>nod to the man-G-d mitzvah, but don't have similar problems with the
>>lack of a ma'akah? Do we forget to place interpersonal mitzvos equally
>>central to our emotional attachment to Judaism?
> I wouldn't be that hard on anyone; I wouldn't draw that relationship.
> With no law that requires it, I think people would only think of it if
> someone had fallen off. I haven't been everywhere at the same time,
> but I don't know of anyone who has fallen off.
The same is said of the mezuzah. There is no obligation. But people do
think of it immediately. We think of mezuzah as more emblamatic of
Judaism than the railing.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
lee
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:12:25 +0000 (UTC), mi...@aishdas.org (Micha
> Berger) said:
>
> >mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Is there any point to hanging it incorrectly?
>
> >Not halachically. And if he isn't obligated, it would be like wearing a
> >mezuzah -- the doorway in question doesn't require one any more than
> >your neck.
>
> almost every single doorpost, including garages and other spaces not
> "meant for decent human habitation"?
> --
> Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Memberwww.reason.com-- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
I thought that was the instruction all door posts including garden
gates etc
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Nov-2009, Patty <paj...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 4:05�pm, Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> > Shmaryahu b. Chanoch wrote:
> >
> > > Besides, given that mostly likely everyone in this building was not
> > > only a democrat but generally liberal, this seems to be a case of
> > > leftwing anti semitism. �It is typical of what we in democrat
> > > neighborhoods in Chicago.
> >
> > Do you have any evidence at all for this scurrilous accusation, or is it
> > another in your "people who think differently from me must be evil"
> > parade?
> >
>
> B. (Susan, don't breathe your yogurt this time)
(Me??)
Susan
mm
<ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:12:25 +0000 (UTC), mi...@aishdas.org (Micha
>Berger) said:
>
>>mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>> Is there any point to hanging it incorrectly?
>>
>>Not halachically. And if he isn't obligated, it would be like wearing a
>>mezuzah -- the doorway in question doesn't require one any more than
>>your neck.
>
>What do you make of the current popular practice to hang mezuzot on
>almost every single doorpost, including garages and other spaces not
>"meant for decent human habitation"?
I was at a catering hall in Lakewood and there was a mezuza on the
ladies' room but not on the men's room doorpost.
I concluded that the "ladies' room" was a suite, with some sort of
lounge first and the bathroom next. So I think iiuc then it would be
required.
Dvora
Re: Chicago Mezuzah case revived
Group: soc.culture.jewish.moderated Date: Wed, Nov 18, 2009, 12:07pm
(EST+5) From: NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com (mm)
TOLD ???
-
I HAVE ONLY TWO - ONE ON OUR DOOR ENERING THE HOUSE -- ONE ON THE
BEDROOM DOOR --
-
ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO BE ON EVERY DOOR - EVEN ONES NOT USED ?
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
Be Safe and Well --- Dvora
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Ken Bloom <kbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) writes:
>>>Somebody asked:
>
>>>> Is there any point to hanging it incorrectly?
>
>>> Not halachically. And if he isn't obligated, it would be like
>>> wearing a mezuzah -- the doorway in question doesn't require
>>> one any more than your neck.
>
>> Nevertheless, we have a custom to hang mezuzot at syagogues even
>> though it's not halachically required because nobody lives there.
>
> I'm not sure it's a formal custom, in the sense of the bindingness
> of minhag. Just that people feel a need to have a mezuzah on a
> Jewish room. I have been in shuls that don't hang one, although
> I admit that it's rare.
>
> Not sure that kind of emotion is particularly different than
> wearing a mezuzah as a necklace.
Sure it is. It's in the same _place_ even if tha place does not
require a mezuzah. _Nobody's_ neck needs a mezuzah.
>
> Speaking of the mezuzah on the shul, I have a pet peeve about
> that. Historically, there are TWO laws that make a house Jewish -- a
> mezuzah and a railing. You are obligated to put up a ma'akah, a railing or
> bannister on any surface that someone could walk on that has a 10 tefach
> (roughly 2-1/2', or 3/4 m) drop at the edge.
>
> Even if no one would actually go there. Safety is its own law. This is
> about developing a mentality of concern for others' safety. As one can
> see from the fact that the law only applies to privately owned homes,
> and not synagogues. BTW, unlike mezuzah, the landlord, not the tenant,
> is financially responsible for putting up the railing.
>
> Notice how many shuls have a duchan (a front platform in front of the ark)
> that is well above that height, but no railing.
I never made a survey, but sitting here and trying to recall, I think
all that I go to have a railing. But I won't swear to it.
> How is it that we can't think of a Jewish space without a mezuzah,
> some nod to the man-G-d mitzvah, but don't have similar problems
> with the lack of a ma'akah? Do we forget to place interpersonal
> mitzvos equally central to our emotional attachment to Judaism?
Your question is rhetorical and I fear the answer is "yes". But this
is not the "best" example. For whatever reason, people think of
ma'akah in the context of "outdoors", a roof or a porch. Sure they
have a banister on a staircase, but I doubt if anyone connects that
with the mitzvah of ma'akah.
I recall seeing an Arab house, with an outside staircase and no
banister. It struck me as odd. Even if they don't have a mitzvah,
aren't they worried about someone getting hurt?
--
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.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
snip
>>>How is it that we can't think of a Jewish space without a mezuzah, some
>>>nod to the man-G-d mitzvah, but don't have similar problems with the
>>>lack of a ma'akah? Do we forget to place interpersonal mitzvos equally
>>>central to our emotional attachment to Judaism?
>
>> I wouldn't be that hard on anyone; I wouldn't draw that relationship.
>> With no law that requires it, I think people would only think of it if
>> someone had fallen off. I haven't been everywhere at the same time,
>> but I don't know of anyone who has fallen off.
>
> The same is said of the mezuzah. There is no obligation. But people
> do think of it immediately. We think of mezuzah as more emblamatic
> of Judaism than the railing.
Of course! Only Judaism rerquires mezuzahs!
Micha Berger
>> The same is said of the mezuzah. There is no obligation. But people
>> do think of it immediately. We think of mezuzah as more emblamatic
>> of Judaism than the railing.
> Of course! Only Judaism rerquires mezuzahs!
But that doesn't make it more central. We'll collapse Judaism into a set
of rituals if we continue down that road!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
mm
Yes, actually. on every doorway.
Except, not on closet doorways, only to rooms one can live in. I
don't know what happens if you're rich and your closet is as big as a
bedroom.
And not on bathrooms doorways. I forget how it is phrased why not.
Of course until recently "bathrooms" were outdoors. The White House
didn't get an indoor bathroom until about 1850. My mother didn't get
one until about 1918.
It's not the bathtub or shower, of course, that is the problem. It's
the toilet.
One's not allowed to take a holy book, or I think anything with G-d's
name in it, into the bathroom. These days, many residential
bathrooms in the US, homes and especially motels, are built with a
toilet room which is separate from the room with the sink and the tub.
This enables someone to use the toilet while someone else uses the
sink. I would guess that the room with the sink and tub needs a
mezuza, but I don't really know nuthin'.
I started but don't think I finished an artcle in an orthodox journal
on contemporary halacha, which tried to see how well it could make a
case that since many bathrooms are so nice these days, and many are
very clean (cleaner than my kitchen is.) maybe the rules could be
changed for them.
The first house I lived in was built around 1935, and the bathroom was
as big as a bedroom. For 50 years most bathrooms were converted
bedrooms, but my house was built that way. I don't know when it
occured to them that they could build a new house with a tiny
bathroom.
I"m not sure if the doorway to the stairway to the basement or attic
needs a mezuza. Maybe not if the area is mpt livable, totally
unfinished, no floor in the attic or no walls or heat in the basement,
but I'm just guessing.
Don Levey
>
> I recall seeing an Arab house, with an outside staircase and no
> banister. It struck me as odd. Even if they don't have a mitzvah,
> aren't they worried about someone getting hurt?
>
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
lee
> I recall seeing an Arab house, with an outside staircase and no
> banister. It struck me as odd. Even if they don't have a mitzvah,
> aren't they worried about someone getting hurt?
I thought it was just rooftop spaces, is it stairs as well?.
Reminds me of when we went to Masada but werent allowed to stay
overnight as you could previously, because some idiot had gone to take
a leak over the edge & gotten blown off
fla...@verizon.net
On 19-Nov-2009, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> >
> > I recall seeing an Arab house, with an outside staircase and no
> > banister. It struck me as odd. Even if they don't have a mitzvah,
> > aren't they worried about someone getting hurt?
> >
> Um, this is too-rich ground for even me to plough.
Me, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Susan
lee
> on contemporary halacha, which tried to see how well it could make a
> case that since many bathrooms are so nice these days, and many are
> very clean (cleaner than my kitchen is.)
Hopefully an exaggeration.
mm
wrote:
The Sh'ma says "And you shall write them upon the [door**] posts of
your house, and on your gates." For me who doesn't know much, this
raises a quesion, are there different rules for doorposts and gates?
What if the gate led only to the garage, nowhere else. Or to the
outhouse? Would it need a mezuzah or not?
**Actually the Davka translation just says posts. Is this right? Are
there other mezuzot that are posts but aren't doorposts.
mm
wrote:
>> I started but don't think I finished an artcle in an orthodox journal
Hope is a wonderful thing. It may be one of the things that makes us
different from other animals.
Micha Berger
> Reminds me of when we went to Masada but werent allowed to stay
Yes, maaqah includes bannisters, although I guess not until the third
step or so, since the drop has to be 10 tefachaim (30" or so).
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and
http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
WHo is going down a road? The question is an "emblem" of Judaism.
So you use something that is visual and is unique to Judaism like a
mezuzah or a chanukia or a pair of Tablets.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Shalomf...@webtv.net (Dvora) wrote:
CYLOR
> And not on bathrooms doorways. I forget how it is phrased why not.
> Of course until recently "bathrooms" were outdoors. The White House
> didn't get an indoor bathroom until about 1850. My mother didn't get
> one until about 1918.
>
> It's not the bathtub or shower, of course, that is the problem. It's
> the toilet.
No. The bathtub or shower could also be a problem. They're used for
bathing and showering (no surprise about that) which are not
considered "polite" activities. That's why you lock the door.
> One's not allowed to take a holy book, or I think anything with G-d's
> name in it, into the bathroom. These days, many residential
> bathrooms in the US, homes and especially motels, are built with a
> toilet room which is separate from the room with the sink and the tub.
> This enables someone to use the toilet while someone else uses the
> sink. I would guess that the room with the sink and tub needs a
> mezuza, but I don't really know nuthin'.
Not needed, as above.
Micha Berger
>> But that doesn't make it more central. We'll collapse Judaism into
>> a set of rituals if we continue down that road!
>
> WHo is going down a road? The question is an "emblem" of Judaism.
> So you use something that is visual and is unique to Judaism like a
> mezuzah or a chanukia or a pair of Tablets.
I don't think people hand a mezuzah on their shul doorway as an emblem
of Judaism. A synagogue doesn't need another emblem. And it's not, IMHO,
the psychology of the decision. It's more just "of course a *shul* would
have a mezuzah!" I'm lamenting the lack of "of course a *shul* would
have a maaqah (railing)!" I would conclude that this shows a
ritual-centered view of Judaism, rather than one that remembers that
"proper behavior in this world [among other people] comes before Torah."
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>
>>> But that doesn't make it more central. We'll collapse Judaism
>>> into a set of rituals if we continue down that road!
>>
>> WHo is going down a road? The question is an "emblem" of Judaism.
>> So you use something that is visual and is unique to Judaism like
>> a mezuzah or a chanukia or a pair of Tablets.
>
> I don't think people hand a mezuzah on their shul doorway as an emblem
> of Judaism. A synagogue doesn't need another emblem. And it's not, IMHO,
> the psychology of the decision. It's more just "of course a *shul* would
> have a mezuzah!" I'm lamenting the lack of "of course a *shul* would
> have a maaqah (railing)!" I would conclude that this shows a
> ritual-centered view of Judaism, rather than one that remembers that
> "proper behavior in this world [among other people] comes before Torah."
And I think you're reading too much into it. First of all, many shuls
_do_ have a railing. Secondly, I suspect that most people think
"roof" when they think "maaqah".
mm
>
>> It's not the bathtub or shower, of course, that is the problem. It's
>> the toilet.
>
>No. The bathtub or shower could also be a problem. They're used for
>bathing and showering (no surprise about that) which are not
>considered "polite" activities. That's why you lock the door.
My mother taught us not to lock the door to the bathroom. If you fall
in the tub, it's harder and slower for someone to get in to help. We
just shut it.
>> One's not allowed to take a holy book, or I think anything with G-d's
>> name in it, into the bathroom. These days, many residential
>> bathrooms in the US, homes and especially motels, are built with a
>> toilet room which is separate from the room with the sink and the tub.
>> This enables someone to use the toilet while someone else uses the
>> sink. I would guess that the room with the sink and tub needs a
>> mezuza, but I don't really know nuthin'.
>
>Not needed, as above.
So what happened when the toilet was down the hall, but people bathed
in the kitchen? Like in tenements.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:32:30 +0000 (UTC), mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
>>> It's not the bathtub or shower, of course, that is the problem. It's
>>> the toilet.
>>
>>No. The bathtub or shower could also be a problem. They're used for
>>bathing and showering (no surprise about that) which are not
>>considered "polite" activities. That's why you lock the door.
>
> My mother taught us not to lock the door to the bathroom. If you fall
> in the tub, it's harder and slower for someone to get in to help. We
> just shut it.
And you shut it because...?
>>> One's not allowed to take a holy book, or I think anything with G-d's
>>> name in it, into the bathroom. These days, many residential
>>> bathrooms in the US, homes and especially motels, are built with a
>>> toilet room which is separate from the room with the sink and the tub.
>>> This enables someone to use the toilet while someone else uses the
>>> sink. I would guess that the room with the sink and tub needs a
>>> mezuza, but I don't really know nuthin'.
>>
>>Not needed, as above.
>
> So what happened when the toilet was down the hall, but people bathed
> in the kitchen? Like in tenements.
I would assume you consider the main use of the room. CYLOR.
mm
>mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:32:30 +0000 (UTC), mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>
>>>> It's not the bathtub or shower, of course, that is the problem. It's
>>>> the toilet.
>>>
>>>No. The bathtub or shower could also be a problem. They're used for
>>>bathing and showering (no surprise about that) which are not
>>>considered "polite" activities. That's why you lock the door.
>>
>> My mother taught us not to lock the door to the bathroom. If you fall
>> in the tub, it's harder and slower for someone to get in to help. We
>> just shut it.
>
>And you shut it because...?
Like you said. I wasn't objecting to the rest of your paragraph.
Only locking the bathroom door, which I see as a safety issue.
>
>>>> One's not allowed to take a holy book, or I think anything with G-d's
>>>> name in it, into the bathroom. These days, many residential
>>>> bathrooms in the US, homes and especially motels, are built with a
>>>> toilet room which is separate from the room with the sink and the tub.
>>>> This enables someone to use the toilet while someone else uses the
>>>> sink. I would guess that the room with the sink and tub needs a
>>>> mezuza, but I don't really know nuthin'.
>>>
>>>Not needed, as above.
>>
>> So what happened when the toilet was down the hall, but people bathed
>> in the kitchen? Like in tenements.
>
>I would assume you consider the main use of the room. CYLOR.
Okay, at least before I move into the tenement. I think they only
bathed once a week then so the main use was probably cooking.
For years it was against the law in NYC to take a bath. Because it
was so hard to heat the water, one person would use the same bathwater
the other person had used and it spread some diseases. I suspect
people did it anyhow for some years.
When I got to NY in 1971, I had a friend there already with a bathtub
mounted in the kitchen iirc. A step up from a portable galvanized
tub. I think a toilet had been put in each apartment too, but maybe
it was down the hall. In the East Village. 6th St. and 2nd Avenue.
sheldonlg
I grew up in the tenements and we had a bathroom with a tub. No one had
even heard of a shower :-).
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
snip
>>>> So what happened when the toilet was down the hall, but people
>>>> bathed in the kitchen? Like in tenements.
>
>>> I would assume you consider the main use of the room. CYLOR.
>>
>> Okay, at least before I move into the tenement. I think they only
>> bathed once a week then so the main use was probably cooking.
>>
>> For years it was against the law in NYC to take a bath. Because it
>> was so hard to heat the water, one person would use the same bathwater
>> the other person had used and it spread some diseases. I suspect
>> people did it anyhow for some years.
>>
>> When I got to NY in 1971, I had a friend there already with a bathtub
>> mounted in the kitchen iirc. A step up from a portable galvanized
>> tub. I think a toilet had been put in each apartment too, but maybe
>> it was down the hall. In the East Village. 6th St. and 2nd Avenue.
>
> I grew up in the tenements and we had a bathroom with a tub. No
> one had even heard of a shower :-).
Hmm one of the reasons Jews did not suffer the ravages of the Black
Plague as much as their non-Jewish neighbors was that the laws of
washing before eating bread forced them to maintain a level of
personal cleanliness much higher than the general population. (Of
course, the local populace, witht he support of the clergy _blamed_
the Jews for that plague <SIGH>).
Similarly, the niddah laws of family purity mandate a bath _before_
using the mikvah.