Hasidic attitude towards dogs
David Kent-Abbott
I recently moved to Borough Park (mainly because it is a safe,
affordable neighborhood within easy commuting distance of Manhattan). I
had been living in Park Slope - a Brooklyn neighborhood whose population
is mostly upper-middle class, college-educated and politically liberal,
and which, thanks to its proximity to Prospect Park, is a haven for
dog-owners. I have a labrador retriever, a very friendly dog that was
almost uniformly well-received in my old neighborhood. When I moved to
Borough Park, I found that 99% of the Hasidim reacted to my dog with
intense fear, disgust or both. I was completely surprised; I've grown
up in Brooklyn and have been marginally familiar with the Hasidic
community in Midwood, but never had a pet at the time.
My question is: is there a religious basis for this fear of dogs? Do
Hasidim generally keep pets? Are dogs viewed in a negative light for
some reason? I'm trying to educate myself so I can better deal with the
situation...
David
mi...@aishdas.org
On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 15:06:15 -0700, David Kent-Abbott
<david...@mailexcite.com> wrote:
: My question is: is there a religious basis for this fear of dogs? Do
: Hasidim generally keep pets? Are dogs viewed in a negative light for
: some reason? I'm trying to educate myself so I can better deal with the
: situation...
Let me preface my reply with two comments:
1- I own a dog.
2- Shmu'el, the Talmudic figure, owned a dog. We find that this dog was
by his feet when eating with his students. So, I'm picturing more of
a pet than a working dog. (The actual case was where Shmu'el was
sitting with some students and found some prohibited meat. In accordance
with the literal words of the Torah, he fed it to his dog.)
That aside, most O Jews consider dogs to be muktzah, that is, one may not
move a dog on Shabbos or Yom Tov. Those who own dogs rely on the notion
that since the dog requires your attention for its emotional well being.
Therefor, one's own dog (while still theoretically muktzah) has an overriding
issue involved.
I also heard it argued, though never in a practical setting, that because
the dog needs you on Shabbos, you are not overriding the law of muktzah,
but rather the dog itself is not muktzah. It is an object necessary on
Shabbos. The difference? If the prohibition exists but is overridden
(dechuyah), than only minimal violation to get the job done is allowed.
However, if the prohibition doesn't apply (hutrah) then you can do whatever
you want to keep the dog (and yourself) happy.
For this reason, Chassidim don't own dogs. Besides, it's hard enough
feeding a large family -- why spend money on feeding a pet?
With a lack of familiarity comes fear.
There are probably other issues as well, I'm sure Moshe Schulman (one
of scj's more participatory Chassidim) will fill in the gaps.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3899 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (16-Oct-86 - 2-Sep-97)
For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
http://aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
Bill Page
David Kent-Abbott (david...@mailexcite.com) wrote:
> Borough Park, I found that 99% of the Hasidim reacted to my dog with
> intense fear, disgust or both. I was completely surprised; I've grown
> up in Brooklyn and have been marginally familiar with the Hasidic
> community in Midwood, but never had a pet at the time.
>
> Hasidim generally keep pets? Are dogs viewed in a negative light for
> some reason? I'm trying to educate myself so I can better deal with the
It might be an aversion to nonkosher animals. I have heard that some
hasidim do not permit even teddy bears or other toy versions of nonkosher
animals in their homes.
--
Bill Page
DocForRox
Well, my Zaydy (Grandpa) used to say,
"If a Jew has a dog, either the Jew is no Jew, or the dog is no dog!"
I used to believe that until, one day, I turned the corner on my way home
from work, and I saw this frum guy with a white beard and a very black hat
walking one mean-looking German Shepherd. Now it's true that in our town,
the frum folk tend to be non-Chassidic and perhaps more "assimilated" than
is the norm in Brooklyn. Seriously, As far as I know, there's no religious
prohibition on woning a dog that I know of. But you never know with
chassidim. They make up their own minhagim (customs) that result in
prohibitions where none existed before.
Maybe these guys aren't into Labs, but rather into terriers or poodles. :)
Or maybe their disapproval is because they feel that a smaller dog is more
appropriate for a small city apartment than a big lab who needs to run,
fetch things, and jump in the freezing cold water and shake their coats all
over everybody. :)
David Kent-Abbott <david...@mailexcite.com> writes:
>I recently moved to Borough Park (mainly because it is a safe,
>affordable neighborhood within easy commuting distance of Manhattan). I
>had been living in Park Slope - a Brooklyn neighborhood whose population
>is mostly upper-middle class, college-educated and politically liberal,
>and which, thanks to its proximity to Prospect Park, is a haven for
>dog-owners. I have a labrador retriever, a very friendly dog that was
>almost uniformly well-received in my old neighborhood. When I moved to
>Borough Park, I found that 99% of the Hasidim reacted to my dog with
>intense fear, disgust or both. I was completely surprised; I've grown
>up in Brooklyn and have been marginally familiar with the Hasidic
>community in Midwood, but never had a pet at the time.
>My question is: is there a religious basis for this fear of dogs? Do
>Hasidim generally keep pets? Are dogs viewed in a negative light for
>some reason? I'm trying to educate myself so I can better deal with the
>situation...
>David
Harry Weiss
David Kent-Abbott (david...@mailexcite.com) wrote:
: I recently moved to Borough Park (mainly because it is a safe,
: affordable neighborhood within easy commuting distance of Manhattan). I
: had been living in Park Slope - a Brooklyn neighborhood whose population
: is mostly upper-middle class, college-educated and politically liberal,
: and which, thanks to its proximity to Prospect Park, is a haven for
: dog-owners. I have a labrador retriever, a very friendly dog that was
: almost uniformly well-received in my old neighborhood. When I moved to
: Borough Park, I found that 99% of the Hasidim reacted to my dog with
: intense fear, disgust or both. I was completely surprised; I've grown
: up in Brooklyn and have been marginally familiar with the Hasidic
: community in Midwood, but never had a pet at the time.
: My question is: is there a religious basis for this fear of dogs? Do
: Hasidim generally keep pets? Are dogs viewed in a negative light for
: some reason? I'm trying to educate myself so I can better deal with the
: situation...
: David
I don't think it is a religous issue. I think is is more cultural. My
parents never wanted a dog because it reminded them of the Nazis. Dogs
were very prominent in their cruelty to Jews.
Most Jews in Eastern Europe were impoverished. They could barely afford
to feed their children let alone a dog. The anti semites landowners did
own dogs. That could be a cause of the problem.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
a...@pobox.com
David Kent-Abbott <david...@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>I recently moved to Borough Park (mainly because it is a safe,
>affordable neighborhood within easy commuting distance of Manhattan). I
>had been living in Park Slope - a Brooklyn neighborhood whose population
>is mostly upper-middle class, college-educated and politically liberal,
>and which, thanks to its proximity to Prospect Park, is a haven for
>dog-owners. I have a labrador retriever, a very friendly dog that was
>almost uniformly well-received in my old neighborhood. When I moved to
>Borough Park, I found that 99% of the Hasidim reacted to my dog with
>intense fear, disgust or both. I was completely surprised; I've grown
>up in Brooklyn and have been marginally familiar with the Hasidic
>community in Midwood, but never had a pet at the time.
>My question is: is there a religious basis for this fear of dogs? Do
>Hasidim generally keep pets? Are dogs viewed in a negative light for
>some reason? I'm trying to educate myself so I can better deal with the
>situation...
I suspect that with the Holocaust, dogs, particularly large ones,
had a very nasty utilitarian value to the Nazis and were frequently
used for discovering or harrassing Jews.
Cats have less stigma because they simply cannot be used in a
hostile fashion. There never was any real danger from cats.
I have never heard about any stigma about fish in a fish tank.
I bet you don't see many Hasidim driving German cars, either, as
they represent one of the tools of Nazi oppression.
Another perspective is that the voluntary "adoption" of a pet
takes considerable responsibility and resources. Most large
Hasidic families could not justify the luxury of such an
optional expense. People, it may be perceived, should get
charitable resources before animals. $500/year spent on
pet food could go toward helping a fellow person.
David Kent-Abbott
Well, not to go off-topic for the newsgroup, but there are many large
dogs in Brooklyn apartments and even in tiny Manhattan studio
apartments. Many dedicated large-dog owners take the extra time out to
bring their dogs to parks to exercise, swim etc.
There are even a few large dogs in Borough Park. However, they are for
the most part rather intimidating breeds: pit bulls, rottweilers, boxers
etc. owned mostly by gentiles (Borough Park these days actually has a
substantial non-jewish minority of Poles, Italians, Indians, Hungarians,
and Hispanics to name a few), and these dogs have probably set an
unfortunate precedent. They are more protectors than pets, and their
owners tend not to give them long leisurely walks through the
neighborhood, which is the common practice in Park Slope. On 7th
Avenue, Park Slope's main commercial street, you really have to make an
effort to dodge all the dogs, large and small. If I took my lab out on
13th Ave. in Borough Park during daylight hours, havoc would ensue. I
guess folks in this part of Brooklyn just aren't very familiar with
large friendly breeds like retrievers. And yet, I knew a very Orthodox
fellow (he may have even been a Lubavitch Hasid) who used to drive his
labrador up to Prospect Park every Sunday to play with the other dogs;
of course I believe he owned a house. Of course, my dog has gotten much
less of a negative reaction from my non-hasidic Orthodox neighbors than
from my hasidic ones. I don't want to scare or disrespect my neighbors,
but my dog needs lots of exercise, and I do need to give her long walks
every day.
Well, thanks for your response in any case!
Heshy
a...@pobox.com wrote:
> Cats have less stigma because they simply cannot be used in a
> hostile fashion. There never was any real danger from cats.
> I have never heard about any stigma about fish in a fish tank.
and Joe Slater wrote:
> You'll probably find that few people in that community have pets, and
> that those that do probably have cats.
I heard, from some of my bunkmates back in the days when I went to a
summer sleep-away camp with an overwhelmingly "ultra-Orthodox"
population (many of whom came from Borough Park), that the reason most
such families don't have pets -- dogs *or* cats -- is because having
animals in the house is a major distraction and cause one to forget
everything he learns (=> Torah).
Heshy
DocForRox
David Kent-Abbott <david...@mailexcite.com> writes:
>There are even a few large dogs in Borough Park. However, they are for
>the most part rather intimidating breeds: pit bulls, rottweilers, boxers
>etc. owned mostly by gentiles (Borough Park these days actually has a
>substantial non-jewish minority of Poles, Italians, Indians, Hungarians,
>and Hispanics to name a few), and these dogs have probably set an
>unfortunate precedent. They are more protectors than pets,...
Wow. I don't know whether I should be upset at these antisemitic gentile
owners of vicious dogs who set them off on innocent chassidim, or whether
I should feel shame at my crazy fellow Jews, the chassidim, who act in
such a way that their Gentile neighbors feel the need to own such vicious
breeds for protection. :)
I guess a chihuahua doesn't have a chance. :)
Whew! I'm glad I don't live in Brooklyn.
(And I'll bet you Brooklynites are also glad I don't live there, either.)
Doc
Moshe Shulman
>From: Heshy <The...@juno.com>
>> You'll probably find that few people in that community have pets,
and
>> that those that do probably have cats.
>I heard, from some of my bunkmates back in the days when I went to a
>summer sleep-away camp with an overwhelmingly "ultra-Orthodox"
>population (many of whom came from Borough Park), that the reason most
>such families don't have pets -- dogs *or* cats -- is because having
>animals in the house is a major distraction and cause one to forget
>everything he learns (=> Torah).
As far as cats that cannot be true. I heard from my Rebbe that in
Poland everyone had a cat in his house. Many grocery stores in BP
have cats also.
--
Moshe Shulman mshu...@ix.netcom.com
a...@pobox.com
de...@access2.digex.net (DocForRox) wrote:
>David Kent-Abbott <david...@mailexcite.com> writes:
>>There are even a few large dogs in Borough Park. However, they are for
>>the most part rather intimidating breeds: pit bulls, rottweilers, boxers
>>etc. owned mostly by gentiles (Borough Park these days actually has a
>>substantial non-jewish minority of Poles, Italians, Indians, Hungarians,
>>and Hispanics to name a few), and these dogs have probably set an
>>unfortunate precedent. They are more protectors than pets,...
>Wow. I don't know whether I should be upset at these antisemitic gentile
>owners of vicious dogs who set them off on innocent chassidim, or whether
>I should feel shame at my crazy fellow Jews, the chassidim, who act in
>such a way that their Gentile neighbors feel the need to own such vicious
>breeds for protection. :)
>I guess a chihuahua doesn't have a chance. :)
The only thing a chihuahua is good for is 25 points
and a livingroom set. Maybe python food...
That's what my wife and I got for both answering
"chihuahua" to the final bonus question "Which dog
annoys you the most?" when we won on the Newlywed Game
in 1989.
Reminded us both of a shivering rat on a leash.
;-)
Aaron D. Gross
mei...@erols.com
In soc.culture.jewish on Tue, 02 Sep 1997 15:06:15 -0700 David
Kent-Abbott <david...@mailexcite.com> posted:
>I recently moved to Borough Park (mainly because it is a safe,
>affordable neighborhood within easy commuting distance of Manhattan). I
>had been living in Park Slope - a Brooklyn neighborhood whose population
>is mostly upper-middle class, college-educated and politically liberal,
>and which, thanks to its proximity to Prospect Park, is a haven for
>dog-owners. I have a labrador retriever, a very friendly dog that was
>almost uniformly well-received in my old neighborhood. When I moved to
>Borough Park, I found that 99% of the Hasidim reacted to my dog with
>intense fear, disgust or both. I was completely surprised; I've grown
>up in Brooklyn and have been marginally familiar with the Hasidic
>community in Midwood, but never had a pet at the time.
>My question is: is there a religious basis for this fear of dogs? Do
>Hasidim generally keep pets? Are dogs viewed in a negative light for
>some reason? I'm trying to educate myself so I can better deal with the
>situation...
I had this same preconception from my mother and grandmother, but what
I noticed in Israel is that all 4 frum households I stayed at or
visited had dogs, including the 1 1/2 that were frum from birth.
mei...@erols.com
Back but deleting most posts.
Only 825 posts, others missing, please contine
to E-MAIL me if you wish me to see your answer.
mei...@erols.com
In soc.culture.jewish on Wed, 03 Sep 1997 07:17:06 GMT a...@pobox.com
posted:
> People, it may be perceived, should get
>charitable resources before animals. $500/year spent on
>pet food could go toward helping a fellow person.
Large families possibly excepted, I do believe ones first duty is to
oneself and ones immediate family, and although I have never had one,
I believe a dog could easily return more than '500 dollars worth' of
companionship and love, let alone replace thousands of dollars worth
of therapy.
As Rabbi Shlomo Porter likes to point out, it is no coincidence that
kelev also reads kol lev. (dog = all heart)
Colin Rosenthal
On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 07:18:14 GMT, jimjam <sch...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Was your dog circumcised??
>
It is vitally important to remember that the bris must take place after
eight _dog_ days, ie approximately 8/7ths of a human day.
--
Colin Rosenthal
High Altitude Observatory
Boulder, Colorado
rose...@hao.ucar.edu
sch...@microdin.ru
In article <5uldsa$i...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
The latter is simply to keep mice away. The former surprises me, unless
it was for the same reason. Cats are not too well respected or loved
among my community, myself and storekeepers excluded.
Yitzchak
> --
> Moshe Shulman mshu...@ix.netcom.com
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
sch...@microdin.ru
In article <5ulemm$2...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
a...@pobox.com wrote:
>
> de...@access2.digex.net (DocForRox) wrote:
>
> >David Kent-Abbott <david...@mailexcite.com> writes:
>
> >Wow. I don't know whether I should be upset at these antisemitic gentile
> >owners of vicious dogs who set them off on innocent chassidim, or whether
> >I should feel shame at my crazy fellow Jews, the chassidim, who act in
> >such a way that their Gentile neighbors feel the need to own such vicious
> >breeds for protection. :)
Although I usually consider you, DocForRox, on the level of a Tekhelet or
a Golani Golani and not worthwhile of any response, this latest attempt
at humor on your part is thoroughly disgusting. These shkotzim keep dogs
to prevent crime by other shkotzim. The worst among them think it is good
sport to set them on innocent Charedim when they take walks on Shabbos or
holidays. I know-friends of mine and I were attacked by some amateur drug
dealer's canine on Shavuous 5751 You are no better than that dog or its
owner.
Yitzchak
>
> >I guess a chihuahua doesn't have a chance. :)
>
> The only thing a chihuahua is good for is 25 points
> and a livingroom set. Maybe python food...
>
> That's what my wife and I got for both answering
> "chihuahua" to the final bonus question "Which dog
> annoys you the most?" when we won on the Newlywed Game
> in 1989.
>
> Reminded us both of a shivering rat on a leash.
>
> ;-)
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Todd D. Ellner
In article <5uk5se$b...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Heshy <The...@juno.com> wrote:
>I heard, from some of my bunkmates back in the days when I went to a
>summer sleep-away camp with an overwhelmingly "ultra-Orthodox"
>population (many of whom came from Borough Park), that the reason most
>such families don't have pets -- dogs *or* cats -- is because having
>animals in the house is a major distraction and cause one to forget
>everything he learns (=> Torah).
their litter box, let them in and out, and take them to the vet,
at least for reasonable periods of time.
Dogs require more attention, but even so a lot less than a child.
If dogs and cats can make you forget everything you know, then children
would be utterly prohibited.
--
Todd Ellner | The man who never alters his opinion is like the
tel...@cs.pdx.edu | stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the mind.
(503)557-1572 | --William Blake "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
Jumbuck
Daniel P Faigin <fai...@aero.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 08:01:50 GMT, mei...@erols.com said:
>
> > I noticed in Israel is that all 4 frum households I stayed at or
> > visited had dogs, including the 1 1/2 that were frum from birth.
>
> Just an odd question: How can 1/2 a dog be frum from birth. Perhaps I misread
> this :-)
>
> Daniel
My newsfeed hasn't picked up moshe's post yet, so I don't know the
context, but....
I read it as being "including the 1 1/2 (households) that were frum
from birth". ie one household where 1 partner was alway frum and 1
where both partners were.
Or did I juust miss the smiley?
Jumbuck
Jumbuck
> >>the most part rather intimidating breeds: pit bulls, rottweilers, boxers
> >>etc. owned mostly by gentiles (Borough Park these days actually has a
> >>substantial non-jewish minority of Poles, Italians, Indians, Hungarians,
> >>and Hispanics to name a few), and these dogs have probably set an
> >>unfortunate precedent. They are more protectors than pets,...
> >I guess a chihuahua doesn't have a chance. :)
I dunno. I once saw a chihuahua rip out a rotweiler's throat
from the inside.
Jumbuck
Jumbuck
Heshy <The...@juno.com> wrote:
> a...@pobox.com wrote:
>
> > Cats have less stigma because they simply cannot be used in a
> > hostile fashion. There never was any real danger from cats.
> > I have never heard about any stigma about fish in a fish tank.
>
> and Joe Slater wrote:
>
> > You'll probably find that few people in that community have pets, and
> > that those that do probably have cats.
>
> I heard, from some of my bunkmates back in the days when I went to a
> summer sleep-away camp with an overwhelmingly "ultra-Orthodox"
> population (many of whom came from Borough Park), that the reason most
> such families don't have pets -- dogs *or* cats -- is because having
> animals in the house is a major distraction and cause one to forget
> everything he learns (=> Torah).
>
AFAIK Dogs (and other furry animals) on Shabbos cause halachic problems.
1) patting/stroking the animal may cause you to pull out hairs
2) putting out food for the animal on shabbos may allow other animals to
feed as well (I'm not quite sure of the exact law, but it has to do with
feeding wild animals on shabbos)
3) most playtime with a dog involves some obedience training techniques.
This would be considered working an animal.
Additionally,
3) They're a pain to feed if you don't want ANY non-kosher food in the
house. On pesach you can't have a crumb of Chametz in the house, which
counts out all commercial dog-food (in Australia, anyway)
I'm sure there several other halachic reasons to avoid pets. Anyone care
to continue.
We were visiting some friends one weekend when they had a group of grade
7 girls over for a shabbaton. Several Ochel Hanah girls (raised in NY)
were acting as madrichot. When our friends' golden retriever (as gentle
a s lamb) entered the room, two of them literally jumped on to the table
- 4 feet vertically from a standing start.
Given that fear of a dog is one good way to get them to attack, surely
"place fences around your rooftops" would be a good halachic reason to
get your kids used to dogs.
Jumbuck
david...@mailexcite.com
In article <8735761...@dejanews.com>,
sch...@microdin.ru wrote:
>These shkotzim keep dogs
> to prevent crime by other shkotzim. The worst among them think it is
good
> sport to set them on innocent Charedim when they take walks on
Shabbos or
> holidays. I know-friends of mine and I were attacked by some amateur
drug
> dealer's canine on Shavuous 5751
>
> Yitzchak
Unfortunately, my super-friendly dog gets unfairly lumped in with the
dogs of
these irresponsible owners. And it's not important whether the owners
are
jewish or "shkotzim", in fact many owners of dangerous dogs in
Brooklyn are
non-frum Russian Jews. And many of the most responsible owners are
gentile (I
myself am a 'secular' Jew). But irresponsible owners aside, there are
several
other friendly large dogs in my immediate neighborhood. But there's
also a very
irresponsible guy who lets his Rottweiler run around off the leash!
The lack of
familiarity of many Borough Park residents with dogs in general leads
to an
inability to distinguish the dangerous ones, or how to react to them.
A dog that is likely to bite usually will bare it's teeth, growl, and
keep it's
tail down. If are unlucky enough to encounter such a dog without a
leash, the
best reaction is to walk away slowly and casually. Running and
shouting is the
worst thing you could do - it only encourages the dog to chase you,
and a dog
will always be able to outrun a human.
If a dog greets every passer-by with it's tail wagging and it's tongue
hanging
out, as my dog does, it means she LOVES you and simply wants to say
hello!
David
DocForRox
sch...@microdin.ru writes:
>Although I usually consider you, DocForRox, on the level of a Tekhelet or
>a Golani Golani and not worthwhile of any response, this latest attempt
>at humor on your part is thoroughly disgusting. These shkotzim keep dogs
>to prevent crime by other shkotzim. The worst among them think it is good
>sport to set them on innocent Charedim when they take walks on Shabbos or
>holidays. I know-friends of mine and I were attacked by some amateur drug
>dealer's canine on Shavuous 5751 You are no better than that dog or its
>owner.
>Yitzchak
>>
Oh, so I'm disgusting? Would you mind telling those "shkotzim" to their
face that you call them "shkotzim" and what the word literally means?
Doesn't it mean "abominations?" Doesn't it mean "destestable things?"
That's how my dictionary tranlates the word. Isn't it true that charedim
call Gentiles "shkotzim?" Or is it just your community that does that?
With those attitudes, my satire is more pointed than disgusting. The
attitude that calls Gentiles, humans created by G-d in His image,
"shkotzim," that's what is disgusting.
And you call me no better than that dog. Dopes your rabbi know that
you're insulting Jews over the internet? Doesn't that violate 31 negative
and positive Torah mitzvot concerning lashon hara? Or are you one of
those who tries to find every loophole around the prohibitions against
lashon hara? Are you one of the people who rationalizes that everyone who
disagrees with you is an apikoras, a heretic, a "shoketz," one for whom
the rules of ethical conduct spelled out by G-d in the Tora doesn't apply?
Hey, I'm not perfect. I don't keep a lot of mitzvot. But I try my best
to treat all of G-d's creation with respect, not just the special elect
few who happen to be members of my own little "in-group."
May G-d have mercy on you and your friends, 'cause you're sure going to
need it a lot more than the so-called "shkotzim."
Doc
a...@creative.net
In <joe.87...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au>, j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joe Slater) writes:
>
>David Kent-Abbott <david...@mailexcite.com> writes:
"If it goes among you on four feet (paws), it is unclean, and if a man touches
it's carcass he shall be unclean until evening.....
Can't speak for all Orthodox, but I don't want one in my home *neither
dog nor cat*
Ali (Yehuda Ben-Shamai)
Zev Sero
a...@creative.net wrote:
>"If it goes among you on four feet (paws), it is unclean, and if a man touches
>it's carcass he shall be unclean until evening.....
> Can't speak for all Orthodox, but I don't want one in my home *neither
>dog nor cat*
I don't want a dead animal in my home either, but we're discussing
living animals, and there's no suggestion anywhere I've seen that
one becomes tamei by contact with a living animal. Anyway, even
if one did become tamei, how is that relevant? There is no issur
on becoming tamei, and nowadays there are no negative consequences
either, so nobody pays any attention to the laws of tum'ah and
tahara except in those applications that are still relevant
(cohanim may not become tamei *meit*, but there's no reason for
them to avoid other tum'ot; a niddah has certain restrictions on
her conduct while in the state of tum'ah, but I've never seen it
suggested that there's something `wrong' with her being in that
state, or that she should take steps to avoid it - otherwise
single women would be encouraged to go to mikveh to become tahor,
which is clearly not the case).
Daniel Israel
In article <5v335e$qt8$1...@news2.cais.com>, a...@creative.net writes:
> "If it goes among you on four feet (paws), it is unclean, and if a man touches
> it's carcass he shall be unclean until evening.....
>
> Can't speak for all Orthodox, but I don't want one in my home *neither
> dog nor cat*
I don't want a _dead_ dog or cat in my house either...
--
Daniel M. Israel I am not the sort of person that goes to bed
<dan...@pluto.ame.arizona.edu> at night thinking, "Gee, I wonder what I can
University of Arizona do to make life difficult for systems
Tucson, AZ administrators." -Eric Allman, author:sendmail
a...@creative.net
In <5v5894$cqc$9...@news.jumpnet.com>, zs...@idt.net (Zev Sero) writes:
>a...@creative.net wrote:
>
>>"If it goes among you on four feet (paws), it is unclean, and if a man touches
>>it's carcass he shall be unclean until evening.....
>
>> Can't speak for all Orthodox, but I don't want one in my home *neither
>>dog nor cat*
>
>living animals, and there's no suggestion anywhere I've seen that
>one becomes tamei by contact with a living animal. Anyway, even
>if one did become tamei, how is that relevant? There is no issur
>on becoming tamei, and nowadays there are no negative consequences
>either, so nobody pays any attention to the laws of tum'ah and
>tahara except in those applications that are still relevant
>(cohanim may not become tamei *meit*, but there's no reason for
>them to avoid other tum'ot; a niddah has certain restrictions on
>her conduct while in the state of tum'ah, but I've never seen it
>suggested that there's something `wrong' with her being in that
>state, or that she should take steps to avoid it - otherwise
>single women would be encouraged to go to mikveh to become tahor,
>which is clearly not the case).
>
Perhaps in your Minhag keeping unclean animals is perfectly permissable,
however, some of us were reared with the practise of avoiding contact with all
animals that are Tumeh...Also, would you let a single woman in a state of Niddah
touch sefer Torah? One of the points I find in favour of keeping a dog in an Ortho
dox home, was articulated by the Lubavitcher Rebbe when he said that a child
being reared alone should have a dog as a companion to teach him about love...
A very wise and caring view in my opinion..
Sincerely,
Ali (Yehuda)
Zev Sero
On 14 Sep 1997 08:05:45 GMT, a...@creative.net wrote:
>Perhaps in your Minhag keeping unclean animals is perfectly
>permissable, however, some of us were reared with the practise
>of avoiding contact with all animals that are Tumeh..
First you have to prove that this was ever a Jewish practise.
Next you have to realise that a living dog or cat is *not*
tamei in the usual sense of the word. Yes, it's a `chaya
temeiah', but that term means `an unkosher animal', not `an
animal that carries tum'ah'. The fact is that in Europe it
was common to have cats around the house, and I'm not aware
of any teshuva or other contemporary writing that levels
even mild criticism at this practise. In the paintings of
my great-uncle, Hendel Lieberman, you can easily see that
both cats and chickens were common features in almost any
scene in a Jewish shtetl, including indoor scenes.
In biblical times right through at least Talmudic times, it
was common and quite unremarkable for people to ride
horses, camels, or donkeys, all unkosher animals. If there
was something even the slightest bit wrong with contact
with a `chaya temeiah', would Moshe Rabbenu have let his
wife and sons ride a donkey? Would Rivka Imeinu have ridden
a camel? For that matter, would Mashiach ride a donkey if
it were even a hiddur not to do so, or even just a chassidishe
minhag?
>Also, would you let a single woman in a state of Niddah
>touch sefer Torah?
Of course. Why on earth not? Refraining from going to shul
or touching a sefer torah while niddah is a womens' minhag,
and if a particular woman chooses not to follow that minhag,
what right have I to `let' her or not to `let' her? Besides,
I believe that the womens' minhag is only to refrain while
actually menstruating, not while merely `in a state of niddah';
otherwise single women could never go to shul, except on Yom
Kippur in those communities where single women go to mikveh
on Erev Yom Kippur. So if a woman is in shul I assume that
either she is not menstruating, or she chooses not to follow
this minhag; either way, why shouldn't she touch a sefer torah?
One of the points I find in favour of keeping a dog in an Ortho
>dox home, was articulated by the Lubavitcher Rebbe when he said that a child
>being reared alone should have a dog as a companion to teach him about love...
>A very wise and caring view in my opinion..
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ali (Yehuda)
--
Zev Sero It's a Jewish thing; if you have a
zs...@idt.net bit of time, I'll explain it to you.
Art Kamlet
In article <5vg5sp$ot5$2...@news2.cais.com>, <ali*@creative.net> wrote:
>animals that are Tumeh...Also, would you let a single woman in a
>state of Niddah touch sefer Torah?
What is the issue here? Perhaps one might think a sefer Torah can
somehow become tameh, by the touch of a nidah or other method?
Not so. A sefer Torah can never become tameh.
--
Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kam...@infinet.com
Ailsa Murphy
In article <341c280a...@news.idt.net>, Zev Sero <zs...@idt.net> wrote:
>On 14 Sep 1997 08:05:45 GMT, a...@creative.net wrote:
>
>>touch sefer Torah?
>
>or touching a sefer torah while niddah is a womens' minhag,
>and if a particular woman chooses not to follow that minhag,
>what right have I to `let' her or not to `let' her? Besides,
>I believe that the womens' minhag is only to refrain while
>actually menstruating, not while merely `in a state of niddah';
>otherwise single women could never go to shul, except on Yom
>Kippur in those communities where single women go to mikveh
>on Erev Yom Kippur. So if a woman is in shul I assume that
>either she is not menstruating, or she chooses not to follow
>this minhag; either way, why shouldn't she touch a sefer torah?
>
>
or a general Orthodox one? This isn't the sort of thing that
tends to crop up in casual conversation, but it is definitely
the sort of thing one wants to know about. (And are there
any other women's minhagim I might not have heard about that
I ought to know about?)
-Ailsa
--
Sing water, sing water, sing rain and the river an...@spdcc.com
Sing oceans and waterfalls, water sing peace is
Sing water, sing water, sing mist on the mountain Ailsa N.T. Murphy
Sing rain in the desert, sing water, sing peace.
Moshe Shulman
>From: an...@spdcc.com (Ailsa Murphy)
>>on Erev Yom Kippur. So if a woman is in shul I assume that
>>either she is not menstruating, or she chooses not to follow
>>this minhag; either way, why shouldn't she touch a sefer torah?
>Is not going to shul while menstruating a Chassidic minhag,
>or a general Orthodox one? This isn't the sort of thing that
Ailisa, my wife does not stay home from Shul when she is niddah, and
neither do my teenaged daughters. We are Chassidic, and there is no
such custom.
--
Moshe Shulman mshu...@ix.netcom.com
Joe Slater
kam...@user2.infinet.com (Art Kamlet) writes:
>What is the issue here? Perhaps one might think a sefer Torah can
>somehow become tameh, by the touch of a nidah or other method?
>Not so. A sefer Torah can never become tameh.
Actually this is not so: all sifrei torah *are* tameh, by rabbinical
enactment, and can presumably become as tameh as anything alse by
biblical law. You're probably thinking fo the dictum that the *words* of
torah can never become tameh, which is quite a different matter.
jds
--
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | 'Look up, speak nicely, and don't
Fax: +61-3-95259206 | twiddle your fingers all the time.'
Email not accepted from rogue sites including: AOL, Moneyworld, Interramp,
Airmail, Earthstar and Winternet.
Randy B.
On 16 Sep 1997 00:15:56 -0400, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
wrote:
>In <> mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman) writes:
>
>>>From: an...@spdcc.com (Ailsa Murphy)
>>>Is not going to shul while menstruating a Chassidic minhag,
>>>or a general Orthodox one? This isn't the sort of thing that
>
>>Ailisa, my wife does not stay home from Shul when she is niddah, and
>>neither do my teenaged daughters. We are Chassidic, and there is no
>>such custom.
>
>I wouldn't say there is "no such custom". According to the Rema
>and the Mishnah Berurah, there evidently *was* such a custom in
>Europe, not that it had any real basis in halacha, but there were
>women who behaved thus (it was a minhag shtus (foolishness)). I
>do know some women today, at least one or two Lubavitchers, who
>won't touch the Torah when I carry it around the shul before
>musaf; I have to assume it's somehow based on this foolish custom.
>But certainly it's not widespread, and if you don't already have
>this custom, it would by silly/stupid to take it up.
===> Why such a harsh, nasty judgement??
Randy
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joe Slater) writes:
>kam...@user2.infinet.com (Art Kamlet) writes:
>>What is the issue here? Perhaps one might think a sefer Torah can
>>somehow become tameh, by the touch of a nidah or other method?
>>Not so. A sefer Torah can never become tameh.
>Actually this is not so: all sifrei torah *are* tameh, by rabbinical
>enactment, and can presumably become as tameh as anything alse by
>biblical law. You're probably thinking fo the dictum that the *words* of
>torah can never become tameh, which is quite a different matter.
I don't think so, Joe. While yes, a sefer torah is "metameh et hayadayim",
(makes the hands tameh, to prevent it being stored with grain and being
eaten by rats as a consequence)
I don't think that makes it tameh itself. Else, how could it be used in
the Temple? The King, who is supposed to keep a Torah with him all the
time, could never go into the Temple.
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Shoshana L. Boublil
I've already posted about this in the past, but I see it needs
repeating:
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 05:21:23 GMT, REMOVE...@cts.com (Randy B.)
wrote:
>On 16 Sep 1997 00:15:56 -0400, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
>wrote:
>
>>In <> mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman) writes:
>>
>>>>From: an...@spdcc.com (Ailsa Murphy)
>>>>Is not going to shul while menstruating a Chassidic minhag,
>>>>or a general Orthodox one? This isn't the sort of thing that
It is not a general Orthodox minhag. It is kept only by specific
groups.
>>>Ailisa, my wife does not stay home from Shul when she is niddah, and
>>>neither do my teenaged daughters. We are Chassidic, and there is no
>>>such custom.
>>
>>I wouldn't say there is "no such custom". According to the Rema
>>and the Mishnah Berurah, there evidently *was* such a custom in
>>Europe, not that it had any real basis in halacha, but there were
>>women who behaved thus (it was a minhag shtus (foolishness)).
This is not a minhag of foolishness, but of misunderstanding.
During the time of the Temple, women who were menstruating could not
go or eat Kodashim. Therefore women would immerse in a Mikvah - twice
- once, so that they could eat Kodashim after the end of menses, and
the 2nd time for Tahara - to be with their husbands.
Among Sephardim, especially, the synagogue was treated like a
mini-Temple, meaning that the laws pertaining to Kedushat Mikdash
Ve'kodoshav were enacted: women who were menstruating didn't go, and
they did not touch the Sefer Torah.
This was not restricted to the synagogue, but rather a lot of rules
that pertain to the matter of Kidushat Mikdash Vekodashav which were
kept by these women: In fact, while in most homes, a man whose wife
is Niddah couldn't, today, eat from a korban (if it were possible) the
husband's of these women could do so, b/c of the strict adherence to
these relevant laws.
Rav Halevi discusses this minhag in his books, and notes that in any
case, even where the custom prevails - the women can go to shul during
Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.
> I
>>do know some women today, at least one or two Lubavitchers, who
>>won't touch the Torah when I carry it around the shul before
>>musaf; I have to assume it's somehow based on this foolish custom.
>>But certainly it's not widespread, and if you don't already have
>>this custom, it would by silly/stupid to take it up.
>
>===> Why such a harsh, nasty judgement??
I agree! You should ask before you judge.
>Randy
Shana Tova to everyone!
Shoshana
(p&m)
come visit:
www.hilonet.com/achdut/ - the Achdut Yisrael web site!!!
Torah U'Madah ltd. homepage:
www.netvision.net.il/php/toramada/
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman) writes:
>>From: an...@spdcc.com (Ailsa Murphy)
>>Is not going to shul while menstruating a Chassidic minhag,
>>or a general Orthodox one? This isn't the sort of thing that
>Ailisa, my wife does not stay home from Shul when she is niddah, and
>neither do my teenaged daughters. We are Chassidic, and there is no
>such custom.
I wouldn't say there is "no such custom". According to the Rema
and the Mishnah Berurah, there evidently *was* such a custom in
Europe, not that it had any real basis in halacha, but there were
women who behaved thus (it was a minhag shtus (foolishness)). I
do know some women today, at least one or two Lubavitchers, who
won't touch the Torah when I carry it around the shul before
musaf; I have to assume it's somehow based on this foolish custom.
But certainly it's not widespread, and if you don't already have
this custom, it would by silly/stupid to take it up.
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Is not going to shul while menstruating a Chassidic minhag,
> or a general Orthodox one? This isn't the sort of thing that
> tends to crop up in casual conversation, but it is definitely
> the sort of thing one wants to know about. (And are there
> any other women's minhagim I might not have heard about that
> I ought to know about?)
While they may not crop up in casual conversation, they are important.
You should ask your Rabbi or possibly/preferrably his wife. You surely
can't be expected to know these sort of things in advance.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
Shana Tova to you and yours.
(mailed & posted)
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> REMOVE...@cts.com (Randy B.) writes:
>On 16 Sep 1997 00:15:56 -0400, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
>>>>or a general Orthodox one? This isn't the sort of thing that
>>this custom, it would by silly/stupid to take it up.
>===> Why such a harsh, nasty judgement??
Because that's the attitude of the earlier poskim who mentioned it?
Because stringency based on "air" is simply stupid and acts against
many of the social impulses that drive halachah?
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Debra Fran Baker
In <EGJ6M...@spdcc.com> an...@spdcc.com (Ailsa Murphy) writes:
>>>Also, would you let a single woman in a state of Niddah
>>>touch sefer Torah?
>>
>>Of course. Why on earth not? Refraining from going to shul
>>or touching a sefer torah while niddah is a womens' minhag,
>>and if a particular woman chooses not to follow that minhag,
>>what right have I to `let' her or not to `let' her? Besides,
>>I believe that the womens' minhag is only to refrain while
>>actually menstruating, not while merely `in a state of niddah';
>>otherwise single women could never go to shul, except on Yom
>>Kippur in those communities where single women go to mikveh
>>on Erev Yom Kippur. So if a woman is in shul I assume that
>>either she is not menstruating, or she chooses not to follow
>>this minhag; either way, why shouldn't she touch a sefer torah?
>>
>>
>Is not going to shul while menstruating a Chassidic minhag,
>or a general Orthodox one? This isn't the sort of thing that
>tends to crop up in casual conversation, but it is definitely
>the sort of thing one wants to know about. (And are there
>any other women's minhagim I might not have heard about that
>I ought to know about?)
I don't know any Orthodox Jewish women who stay away from shul because
they are currently menstruating. Some avoid touching a sefer Torah during
this time, or rather, in general (after all, if you touch or attend at one
point and don't at another, it's akin to announcing your cycle to all who
would notice, so such women simply don't touch it at all.), but that's
about it.
It's not a minhag I observe. <shrug> OTOH, this can actually create a
slightly awkward moment because my husband leads musaf, so he always
carries the Sefer Torah back to the Ark. In our synagogue, it is carried
through the women's section first. My normal habit is to touch my
husband's hand and then kiss the Torah. When I'm niddah, I can't touch my
husband, which also means I have to be careful touching the Torah if he's
carrying it. It's only slightly awkward, though, and I doubt the other
women notice a difference.
Debra
--
One sharp peppercorn is better than a basketful of melons.
-- Tractate Megillah 7A
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Fran Baker dfb...@panix.com
Art Kamlet
In article <5vl1ri$n...@panix2.panix.com>,
Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>I don't think so, Joe. While yes, a sefer torah is "metameh et hayadayim",
>(makes the hands tameh, to prevent it being stored with grain and being
>eaten by rats as a consequence)
>I don't think that makes it tameh itself. Else, how could it be used in
>the Temple? The King, who is supposed to keep a Torah with him all the
>time, could never go into the Temple.
I thought the expression "makes the hands tameh" meant --
contains holy stuff -- be careful about touching it.
Sort of like the "ark of the covenant" in Raiders of the Lost Ark"
-- the idea that the Torah held such power if you touched it, your
hands would burn -- or would be tameh by comparison to the Torah.
See for example, the discussion between R Akiva vs. Sanhederin
to decide if the Books of Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) and Shir hashirim
(Song of Songs) makes the hands unclean, and thus should be
included in the cannonized Bible. Shir Hashirim does not
contain God's name, and Kohelet does not contain the Y-H-V-H
version of God's name. (Nor does Esther contain God's name,
but they must have decided before this to include Esther.)
R Akiva declared that Shir Hashirim is the holiest of all the
books. Hyperbole or not, he held the day and Songs of Songs
is in the Bible.
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> REMOVE...@cts.com (Randy B.) writes:
>>>Jonathan Baker wrote
>>Meir Man wrote:
> jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
Meir Man wrote:
>>>>this custom, it would by silly/stupid to take it up.
>>>===> Why such a harsh, nasty judgement??
>===> I still don't understand. Please elaborate.
>>Because that's the attitude of the earlier poskim who mentioned it?
Take the Rema in OH 88:1. He says that "women may enter a synagogue,
and pray, and touch a Torah, when menstruating, and this is the
correct opinion. But the custom here in Europe is [not to]."
The logically and legally supportable position is to permit. Women
nevertheless keep themselves away. This is not good.
Note further that the Mishnah Berurah ad loc says taht the custom
has fallen out of use in Europe (both he and the Rema lived in Poland,
400 years apart).
Baer Heitev is also harsh: it is a mistaken custom [for a woman not to
come to shul for 40[80] days after the birth of a boy[girl], and we
should actively discourage it (this is mentioned in the context of
niddah women not going to shul) (quoting Olat Tamid).
>>Because stringency based on "air" is simply stupid and acts against
>>many of the social impulses that drive halachah?
Consider the eruv. After the rabbis had set up the "fence" of not
carrying in a carmelit, a semi-public space, they ameliorated it by
instituting the eruv, explicitly to encourage people, espcially
women who have to carry babies & nappies & bottles, to visit each
other and socialize. Consider also that there is a reward for one
who is not commanded and does, as in a woman who comes to shul to
participate in the minyan and hear the Torah reading. Being
strict on this baseless custom (there is no halachic reason for it,
it's just something some women used to do) discourages women from
coming out of the house and participating in communal life.
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Randy B.
On 16 Sep 1997 14:45:57 -0400, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
wrote:
>In <> REMOVE...@cts.com (Randy B.) writes:
>>On 16 Sep 1997 00:15:56 -0400, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
>>>In <> mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman) writes:
>>>>From: an...@spdcc.com (Ailsa Murphy)
>>>>>Is not going to shul while menstruating a Chassidic minhag,
>>>>>or a general Orthodox one? This isn't the sort of thing that
>>>>We are Chassidic, and there is no such custom.
>>>But certainly it's not widespread, and if you don't already have
>>>this custom, it would by silly/stupid to take it up.
>
>>===> Why such a harsh, nasty judgement??
>
>Because that's the attitude of the earlier poskim who mentioned it?
>Because stringency based on "air" is simply stupid and acts against
>many of the social impulses that drive halachah?
===> I still don't understand. Please elaborate.
Randy
P & M
Ailsa Murphy
In article <5vkbp5$m...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Moshe Shulman <mshu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>From: an...@spdcc.com (Ailsa Murphy)
>>>on Erev Yom Kippur. So if a woman is in shul I assume that
>>>either she is not menstruating, or she chooses not to follow
>>>this minhag; either way, why shouldn't she touch a sefer torah?
>>or a general Orthodox one? This isn't the sort of thing that
>
>neither do my teenaged daughters. We are Chassidic, and there is no
>such custom.
>
OK, thanks. But then *puzzled look* whose custom _is_ it?
Randy B.
>>===> I still don't understand. Please elaborate.
>
>>>Because that's the attitude of the earlier poskim who mentioned it?
>
>Take the Rema in OH 88:1. He says that "women may enter a synagogue,
>and pray, and touch a Torah, when menstruating, and this is the
>correct opinion. But the custom here in Europe is [not to]."
>
>The logically and legally supportable position is to permit. Women
>nevertheless keep themselves away. This is not good.
>
>Note further that the Mishnah Berurah ad loc says taht the custom
>has fallen out of use in Europe (both he and the Rema lived in Poland,
>400 years apart).
>
>Baer Heitev is also harsh: it is a mistaken custom [for a woman not to
>come to shul for 40[80] days after the birth of a boy[girl], and we
>should actively discourage it (this is mentioned in the context of
>niddah women not going to shul) (quoting Olat Tamid).
>
>>>Because stringency based on "air" is simply stupid and acts against
>>>many of the social impulses that drive halachah?
>
>Consider the eruv. After the rabbis had set up the "fence" of not
>carrying in a carmelit, a semi-public space, they ameliorated it by
>instituting the eruv, explicitly to encourage people, espcially
>women who have to carry babies & nappies & bottles, to visit each
>other and socialize. Consider also that there is a reward for one
>who is not commanded and does, as in a woman who comes to shul to
>participate in the minyan and hear the Torah reading. Being
>strict on this baseless custom (there is no halachic reason for it,
>it's just something some women used to do) discourages women from
>coming out of the house and participating in communal life.
===> OK, now I get it. Thank-you.
Randy
Shoshana L. Boublil
On 16 Sep 1997 23:22:21 -0400, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
>>>>===> Why such a harsh, nasty judgement??
There is still no reason for such harshness. I posted an explanation
earlier, and will do so again if it doesn't come through.
>>>Because that's the attitude of the earlier poskim who mentioned it?
>
>Take the Rema in OH 88:1. He says that "women may enter a synagogue,
>and pray, and touch a Torah, when menstruating, and this is the
>correct opinion. But the custom here in Europe is [not to]."
But he doesn't call the women fools! Or as Rav HaLevy (Chief Rabbi of
Tel Aviv, a great Posek and author) writes in his book: Makor Chaim -
"There are those who wrote that a woman shouldn't go to shul during
the menses, and those who say it is permitted - and that is the Ikar
(the way one should act - s.b.).
The Chayei Adam mentions that while women do go to shul - they don't
look at the Sefer Torah when menst.
Rav HaLevy also states clearly that : "Ein Tum'at Niddah Ela LeMikdash
Vekodashav U'LeBa'ala Bilvad" - Tum'ah connected with Nidah applies
only to the Temple and the Kodashim, and to the husband. The purpose
of the statement is to inform people, that they don't have to keep the
laws of Kodashim in connection with the synagogue.
>The logically and legally supportable position is to permit. Women
>nevertheless keep themselves away. This is not good.
>
>Note further that the Mishnah Berurah ad loc says taht the custom
>has fallen out of use in Europe (both he and the Rema lived in Poland,
>400 years apart).
>
>Baer Heitev is also harsh: it is a mistaken custom [for a woman not to
>come to shul for 40[80] days after the birth of a boy[girl], and we
>should actively discourage it (this is mentioned in the context of
>niddah women not going to shul) (quoting Olat Tamid).
>
>>>Because stringency based on "air" is simply stupid and acts against
>>>many of the social impulses that drive halachah?
The stringency is _not_ based on air, but on the mistaken
understanding that Hilchot Kodashim re: a menst. woman apply also to
the synagogue.
[del]
> Jonathan Baker
> jjb...@panix.com
p&m
Shoshana
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> tora...@netvision.net.il (Shoshana L. Boublil) writes:
>On 16 Sep 1997 23:22:21 -0400, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
>>In <> REMOVE...@cts.com (Randy B.) writes:
>>> jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
>>>>Meir Man wrote:
>>>>>Jonathan Baker wrote
>>>>>>this custom, it would by silly/stupid to take it up.
>>>>>===> Why such a harsh, nasty judgement??
>>>===> I still don't understand. Please elaborate.
>There is still no reason for such harshness. I posted an explanation
>earlier, and will do so again if it doesn't come through.
>>>>Because that's the attitude of the earlier poskim who mentioned it?
>>
>>Take the Rema in OH 88:1. He says that "women may enter a synagogue,
>>and pray, and touch a Torah, when menstruating, and this is the
>>correct opinion. But the custom here in Europe is [not to]."
>But he doesn't call the women fools! Or as Rav HaLevy (Chief Rabbi of
Neither do I, you fool (now I'm calling a specific woman a fool,
for her deciding to slander me publicly).
>Tel Aviv, a great Posek and author) writes in his book: Makor Chaim -
>"There are those who wrote that a woman shouldn't go to shul during
>the menses, and those who say it is permitted - and that is the Ikar
>(the way one should act - s.b.).
Another stroke for "permitted is the correct way to act".
>The Chayei Adam mentions that while women do go to shul - they don't
>look at the Sefer Torah when menst.
>Rav HaLevy also states clearly that : "Ein Tum'at Niddah Ela LeMikdash
>Vekodashav U'LeBa'ala Bilvad" - Tum'ah connected with Nidah applies
>only to the Temple and the Kodashim, and to the husband. The purpose
>of the statement is to inform people, that they don't have to keep the
>laws of Kodashim in connection with the synagogue.
another stroke for "women who try to apply niddah outside the realm
of halacha are mistaken."
>>The logically and legally supportable position is to permit. Women
>>nevertheless keep themselves away. This is not good.
>>
>>Note further that the Mishnah Berurah ad loc says taht the custom
>>has fallen out of use in Europe (both he and the Rema lived in Poland,
>>400 years apart).
>>
>>Baer Heitev is also harsh: it is a mistaken custom [for a woman not to
>>come to shul for 40[80] days after the birth of a boy[girl], and we
>>should actively discourage it (this is mentioned in the context of
>>niddah women not going to shul) (quoting Olat Tamid).
>>
>>>>Because stringency based on "air" is simply stupid and acts against
>>>>many of the social impulses that drive halachah?
>The stringency is _not_ based on air, but on the mistaken
>understanding that Hilchot Kodashim re: a menst. woman apply also to
>the synagogue.
In other words it is based on air. If there is no basis for it,
there is no basis for it. You keep quoting people who say there is
no basis for it. Do you think rabbeim only figured this out in
the 15th century? Maybe, just maybe, they had been saying this for
2000 years, but some women kept doing this thing WHICH HAS NO BASIS
IN HALACHA. It's not a zecher lemikdash, it's not a kavod to the Torah
(regarding it as something common which can receive tumah), it's not
an application of niddah, it's not a fence for anything (how many women
are going to have intercourse with a Torah scroll (yecchh)?) (kitchen
stringency above & beyond the letter of the law is at least understandable
as a fence), it's based on some women's ignorance of halacha.
And as I said in my other post, it acts against many of the social
forces that normally drive halacha. In other words, it's not only
not based in halacha at all, it is actively against some of the underlying
principles (maybe chazakot) of halacha.
In other words it is based on air, i.e., *nothing*. For a woman today
to adopt such a custom, unless she got it from her parents, indicates
a total ignorance of, and lack of respect for the halachic process.
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Moshe Shulman
>From: an...@spdcc.com (Ailsa Murphy)
>In article <5vkbp5$m...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>Moshe Shulman <mshu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>From: an...@spdcc.com (Ailsa Murphy)
>>>>on Erev Yom Kippur. So if a woman is in shul I assume that
>>>>either she is not menstruating, or she chooses not to follow
>>>>this minhag; either way, why shouldn't she touch a sefer torah?
>>>Is not going to shul while menstruating a Chassidic minhag,
>>>or a general Orthodox one? This isn't the sort of thing that
>>Ailsa, my wife does not stay home from Shul when she is niddah, and
>>neither do my teenaged daughters. We are Chassidic, and there is no
>>such custom.
>OK, thanks. But then *puzzled look* whose custom _is_ it?
I don't know. I have only seen it in one source, but I do not know if
anyone takes it seriously.
--
Moshe Shulman mshu...@ix.netcom.com
Debra Fran Baker
In <EGMwI...@spdcc.com> an...@spdcc.com (Ailsa Murphy) writes:
>In article <5vkbp5$m...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>Moshe Shulman <mshu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>From: an...@spdcc.com (Ailsa Murphy)
>>>>on Erev Yom Kippur. So if a woman is in shul I assume that
>>>>either she is not menstruating, or she chooses not to follow
>>>>this minhag; either way, why shouldn't she touch a sefer torah?
>>>Is not going to shul while menstruating a Chassidic minhag,
>>>or a general Orthodox one? This isn't the sort of thing that
>>
>>Ailsa, my wife does not stay home from Shul when she is niddah, and
>>neither do my teenaged daughters. We are Chassidic, and there is no
>>such custom.
>>
>OK, thanks. But then *puzzled look* whose custom _is_ it?
I think some Sphardi groups used to practice this.
Jonathan J. Baker
In <5vpl75$7...@panix.com> dfb...@panix.com (Debra Fran Baker) writes:
>In <EGMwI...@spdcc.com> an...@spdcc.com (Ailsa Murphy) writes:
>>OK, thanks. But then *puzzled look* whose custom _is_ it?
>I think some Sphardi groups used to practice this.
I disagree, because I've only seen Ashkenazi sources discuss this.
The discussion begins with the Rema, not with the Mechaber.
Debbie: if you want to look into this further, take down Avi
Weiss' book, it's there over the desk, and read the section on
"Women and Sifrei Torah." It seems to be based on an illogical
extension of a since-nullified takkanah of Ezra.
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
mei...@erols.com
In soc.culture.jewish on 17 Sep 1997 10:58:03 -0400 jjb...@panix.com
(Jonathan J. Baker) posted:
>In other words it is based on air. If there is no basis for it,
>there is no basis for it. You keep quoting people who say there is
>no basis for it. Do you think rabbeim only figured this out in
>the 15th century? Maybe, just maybe, they had been saying this for
>2000 years, but some women kept doing this thing WHICH HAS NO BASIS
>IN HALACHA. It's not a zecher lemikdash,
How is it not zecher lemikdash? Other posters showed how it related
to Temple practice.
>it's not a kavod to the Torah
>(regarding it as something common which can receive tumah), it's not
>an application of niddah, it's not a fence for anything
meir
Harry Weiss
r5r$k...@panix2.panix.com>
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Distribution:
Jonathan J. Baker (jjb...@panix.com) wrote:
: Neither do I, you fool (now I'm calling a specific woman a fool,
: for her deciding to slander me publicly).
That was uncalled for. She was disagreeing with you. I think the
disagreement is more on atitude rather than facts, but there was
definitely no slander. You are both some of the better posters on SCJ,
and such a response is not necessary.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
Randy B.
>>>>>>Jonathan Baker wrote
>>>>>>>this custom, it would by silly/stupid to take it up.
>>>>>>===> Why such a harsh, nasty judgement??
>>>>===> I still don't understand. Please elaborate.
>
>>There is still no reason for such harshness. I posted an explanation
>>earlier, and will do so again if it doesn't come through.
>
>>>>>Because that's the attitude of the earlier poskim who mentioned it?
>>>
>>>Take the Rema in OH 88:1. He says that "women may enter a synagogue,
>>>and pray, and touch a Torah, when menstruating, and this is the
>>>correct opinion. But the custom here in Europe is [not to]."
>
>>But he doesn't call the women fools! Or as Rav HaLevy (Chief Rabbi of
>
>Neither do I, you fool (now I'm calling a specific woman a fool,
>for her deciding to slander me publicly).
===> <sigh> I truly enjoyed many of your posts, Jonathan, They are
very informative. It is truly a shame to see you sink to such mean
name calling, especially since Shoshana has done nothing to deserve
that. I hope all is well where you are, i have never read such a mean
post from you. Oh well.
Randy
Jonathan J. Baker
In <hjweissE...@netcom.com> hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) writes:
>Jonathan J. Baker (jjb...@panix.com) wrote:
>: Neither do I, you fool (now I'm calling a specific woman a fool,
>: for her deciding to slander me publicly).
>That was uncalled for. She was disagreeing with you. I think the
>disagreement is more on atitude rather than facts, but there was
>definitely no slander. You are both some of the better posters on SCJ,
>and such a response is not necessary.
See my previous post. She made a specific false claim about me, to
which I should have responded privately rather than publicly.
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Jonathan J. Baker
I wrote:
>>>>Take the Rema in OH 88:1. He says that "women may enter a synagogue,
>>>>and pray, and touch a Torah, when menstruating, and this is the
>>>>correct opinion. But the custom here in Europe is [not to]."
>>>But he doesn't call the women fools!
>>Neither do I, you fool (now I'm calling a specific woman a fool,
>>for her deciding to slander me publicly).
>===> <sigh> I truly enjoyed many of your posts, Jonathan, They are
>very informative. It is truly a shame to see you sink to such mean
>name calling, especially since Shoshana has done nothing to deserve
What pretend universe are you living in, Randy? Shoshana made a
specific claim: that I said that poskim called women fools. Thereby
implying that I think that women are fools. I took justified umbrage
at this slanderous claim, and decided to show Shoshana how she makes
me feel when she makes such claims against me.
Shoshana has done something to deserve mild ill treatment: she has treated
me poorly in public. There is argument for the sake of Torah, where
people argue about what the rabbis said, and there is argument ad
hominem. I read Shoshana's statement as carrying the argument into
the ad hominem arena, so I decided to retaliate in a similar arena.
Of course, in doing so, I probably violated "lo tikom", for which
I should watch out in future.
When a "better" poster such as Shoshana decides to get personal,
how should the other posters react?
Slander and libel are not the exclusive domains of obsessive O-bashers.
We all have to watch out for it. I may have overreacted, for which I
apologize to Shoshana, but there was that to which I could react.
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> mei...@erols.com writes:
>(Jonathan J. Baker) posted:
>>no basis for it. Do you think rabbeim only figured this out in
>>the 15th century? Maybe, just maybe, they had been saying this for
>>2000 years, but some women kept doing this thing WHICH HAS NO BASIS
>>IN HALACHA. It's not a zecher lemikdash,
>How is it not zecher lemikdash? Other posters showed how it related
>to Temple practice.
The way my talmud teacher tells it, there are specific actions which
are considered "zecher lemikdash". People are not free to create new
instances of zecher lemikdash, any more than they are free to create
new services of the status of mussaf or mincha: including a shmoneh
esreh, to be said publicly, etc. [to pick a rabbinic mitzvah]. And
nothing in the relevant literature to this custom calls it a zecher
lemikdash.
Unfortunately, I can't find a specific list of these actions, other than
the actions prescribed and proscribed in Orach Chaim 560-561 that
are memorials specifically of the destruction (some of which are
widely ignored today, such as the prohibition of music outside the
context of approved simchas).
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Shoshana L. Boublil
Harry,
Thank you for your comments. I must indeed be a fool if I can't
express myself clearly enough, but anyway I wish everyone well,
(cont. below)
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 02:42:40 GMT, hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss)
wrote:
>r5r$k...@panix2.panix.com>
>Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
>Distribution:
>Jonathan J. Baker (jjb...@panix.com) wrote:
>: Neither do I, you fool (now I'm calling a specific woman a fool,
>: for her deciding to slander me publicly).
>
>That was uncalled for. She was disagreeing with you. I think the
>disagreement is more on atitude rather than facts, but there was
>definitely no slander. You are both some of the better posters on SCJ,
>and such a response is not necessary.
>--
>Harry J. Weiss
>hjw...@netcom.com
True - it _is_ indeed more a question of attitude than fact, though
the background of this issue is, IMHO, relevant as well.
The Rabbis who address the issue use very mild language. The reason
is that while the actual act of not going to shul is a mistaken one,
it is based on good intentions.
Women from many Sephardi cultures keep an additional group of laws
regarding Tum'at Niddah - which the majority of Ashkenazi groups don't
keep today.
As the Rabbis state, there is no reason to feel bad if you don't keep
them - you can spend your whole life keeping the regular laws of Nidah
- and not being able to eat Kodoshim at the time, but you can always
eat Hulin.
These additional laws connected with Kedushat Mikdash Ve'kodashav have
been kept alive by these women, and they deserve credit for their
actions - not disdain becaue they mistakenly attributed a set of laws
pertaining _only_ to the Temple - to the synagogue.
So if a lady who never went to shul when menst. comes to visit. One
is supposed to speak softly with her, and explain that her tradition
is mistaken (if she will accept this!) and explain the difference
between the laws of Niddah re: a synagogue vs. the laws of the
Temple.
Shabbat Shalom to all
and Shana Tova!
Randy B.
>
>What pretend universe are you living in, Randy?
===> Ummm...I like to call it San Diego...
Shoshana made a
>specific claim: that I said that poskim called women fools. Thereby
>implying that I think that women are fools.
===> Jonathan, I didn't even come close to getting that from her post.
Why would you "assume" she was "implying" anything??
I took justified umbrage
>at this slanderous claim, and decided to show Shoshana how she makes
>me feel when she makes such claims against me.
==> Two words - "lighten up". Here in my universe, when faced with
such perceived stressors, we go to the beach and relax. You folks in
the east coast universe are way too uptight. At least go at it with RK
or YS. That way, it will be much more entertaining for the rest of us.
Yehuda can scream about the GAY CLUB UNIVERSITY
Robert can complain about you threatening to kill him.
I will bring a case of ice cold Pacificos, and we'll have a party.
>
>Shoshana has done something to deserve mild ill treatment: she has treated
>me poorly in public. There is argument for the sake of Torah, where
>people argue about what the rabbis said, and there is argument ad
>hominem. I read Shoshana's statement as carrying the argument into
>the ad hominem arena, so I decided to retaliate in a similar arena.
>Of course, in doing so, I probably violated "lo tikom", for which
>I should watch out in future.
>When a "better" poster such as Shoshana decides to get personal,
>how should the other posters react?
==> With a private email to clarify their words?
>
>Slander and libel are not the exclusive domains of obsessive O-bashers.
>We all have to watch out for it. I may have overreacted, for which I
>apologize to Shoshana, but there was that to which I could react.
==> Your apology is fair, your interpretaion of her post is really far
out. Oh well. This ng is getting very, very edgy. Maybe everyones'
underwear is on too tight.
Randy
Joe Slater
>>biblical law.
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) writes:
>I don't think so, Joe. While yes, a sefer torah is "metameh et hayadayim",
>(makes the hands tameh, to prevent it being stored with grain and being
>eaten by rats as a consequence)
>I don't think that makes it tameh itself. Else, how could it be used in
>the Temple? The King, who is supposed to keep a Torah with him all the
>time, could never go into the Temple.
It's not biblically tameh, and perhaps that makes a difference. Note that
the king would have problems anyway - "Mi yaaleh b'har Hashem? *nki
kapayyim* ..."
jds
--
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | 'Look up, speak nicely, and don't
Fax: +61-3-95259206 | twiddle your fingers all the time.'
Email not accepted from rogue sites including: AOL, Moneyworld, Interramp,
Airmail, Earthstar and Winternet.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>>On 16 Sep 1997 23:22:21 -0400, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
>>>In <> REMOVE...@cts.com (Randy B.) writes:
>>>> jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
>>>>>Meir Man wrote:
>>>>>>>this custom, it would by silly/stupid to take it up.
>>>>>>===> Why such a harsh, nasty judgement??
>>>>===> I still don't understand. Please elaborate.
>
>>There is still no reason for such harshness. I posted an explanation
>>earlier, and will do so again if it doesn't come through.
>
>>>>>Because that's the attitude of the earlier poskim who mentioned it?
>>>
>>>Take the Rema in OH 88:1. He says that "women may enter a synagogue,
>>>and pray, and touch a Torah, when menstruating, and this is the
>>>correct opinion. But the custom here in Europe is [not to]."
>
>>But he doesn't call the women fools! Or as Rav HaLevy (Chief Rabbi of
>
> Neither do I, you fool (now I'm calling a specific woman a fool,
> for her deciding to slander me publicly).
Jonathan, really. I read through this whole peice and could not find
slander. Unless maybe you define it a special way. Even then is the
response to percieved slander to call the slanderer a fool. If you
can show me slander by Shoshana of you in this post, I'd consider it
a learning esperience. I couldn't.
>>Tel Aviv, a great Posek and author) writes in his book: Makor Chaim -
>>"There are those who wrote that a woman shouldn't go to shul during
>>the menses, and those who say it is permitted - and that is the Ikar
>>(the way one should act - s.b.).
>
> Another stroke for "permitted is the correct way to act".
Could you elaborate on this, please.
>>The Chayei Adam mentions that while women do go to shul - they don't
>>look at the Sefer Torah when menst.
>
>>Rav HaLevy also states clearly that : "Ein Tum'at Niddah Ela LeMikdash
>>Vekodashav U'LeBa'ala Bilvad" - Tum'ah connected with Nidah applies
>>only to the Temple and the Kodashim, and to the husband. The purpose
>>of the statement is to inform people, that they don't have to keep the
>>laws of Kodashim in connection with the synagogue.
>
> another stroke for "women who try to apply niddah outside the realm
> of halacha are mistaken."
Ditto. I get confused sometimes between sarcasm and comment. :-(
>>>The logically and legally supportable position is to permit. Women
>>>nevertheless keep themselves away. This is not good.
>>>
>>>Note further that the Mishnah Berurah ad loc says taht the custom
>>>has fallen out of use in Europe (both he and the Rema lived in Poland,
>>>400 years apart).
>>>
>>>Baer Heitev is also harsh: it is a mistaken custom [for a woman not to
>>>come to shul for 40[80] days after the birth of a boy[girl], and we
>>>should actively discourage it (this is mentioned in the context of
>>>niddah women not going to shul) (quoting Olat Tamid).
>>>
>>>>>Because stringency based on "air" is simply stupid and acts against
>>>>>many of the social impulses that drive halachah?
>
>>The stringency is _not_ based on air, but on the mistaken
>>understanding that Hilchot Kodashim re: a menst. woman apply also to
>>the synagogue.
The rest of this is your post which I'm snipping. Have you seen the
slander yet?
BTW, don't take what I said as disagreeing with your stance. My wife
and daughters go to shule whenever they can without regard to their
period.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
In article <5vqcs5$2...@panix.com>, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) writes:
> I wrote:
>>>>>Take the Rema in OH 88:1. He says that "women may enter a synagogue,
>>>>>and pray, and touch a Torah, when menstruating, and this is the
>>>>>correct opinion. But the custom here in Europe is [not to]."
>>>>But he doesn't call the women fools!
Jonathan took umbrage at this remark of Shoshana's and gave "double
barrels". Randy took exeption to that.
> What pretend universe are you living in, Randy? Shoshana made a
> specific claim: that I said that poskim called women fools.
> Thereby implying that I think that women are fools.
I don't see the claim being that specific. You snipped the thread
before this, but you were quite positive about the _lack_ of
neccesity of the custom. I don't have DejaNews, but you _may_ even
have called the _custom_ "foolish". I'm not sure you used that word
but you surely gave that impression. Do you recall that?. In any case,
your second claim "Thereby implying...." is _your_ interpratation.
> Slander and libel are not the exclusive domains of obsessive
> O-bashers. We all have to watch out for it.
Agreed.
> I may have overreacted, for which I apologize to Shoshana, but
> there was that to which I could react.
Possibly, but much of that was what _you_ made of it.
An apology is a good way to get past it.
Shoshana L. Boublil
Going through DejaNews I found the following post:
_____start of quote___________
Re: Niddah in shul, was Re: Hasidic attitude towards dogs
From: mei...@erols.com
Date: 1997/09/18
Message-Id: <5vpqrr$q...@winter.news.erols.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
[More Headers]
>In other words it is based on air. If there is no basis for it,
>there is no basis for it. You keep quoting people who say there is
>no basis for it. Do you think rabbeim only figured this out in
>the 15th century? Maybe, just maybe, they had been saying this for
>2000 years, but some women kept doing this thing WHICH HAS NO BASIS
>IN HALACHA. It's not a zecher lemikdash,
How is it not zecher lemikdash? Other posters showed how it related
to Temple practice.
>it's not a kavod to the Torah
>(regarding it as something common which can receive tumah), it's not
>an application of niddah, it's not a fence for anything
meir
__________-end of quote___________________
Jonathan is right, it is _not_ zecher LeMikdash, nor is it a fence for
anything. It is a mistaken application of halacha that was supposed
to be applied solely to the Mikdash, and which these women applied to
the synagogue.
If that were the beginning and end of it - we could treat it as an
isolated incident and solve it. But it is far more complex.
As long as there was a Beit HaMikdash, wives of men who wished to eat
Kodoshim had to practice extra halachot when they were Niddah -
otherwise the men couldn't eat Kodesh. Of course they could eat as
much Hulin as they wanted <g>.
When the Beit HaMikdash was destroyed, most of the women forgot these
laws and didn't practice them any more. In many Sephardi communities,
the women didn't forget the laws. Furthermore, they incorporated them
as part of the _Regular Niddah Laws_ - and passed them on to their
daughters through the hundreds of years of Exile, and thus the
knowledge and practice of these laws has survived to this day.
The problem is that somewhere /sometime /someone ruled that the laws
of Mikdash apply to the synogogue in connection with Niddah. So just
as women didn't go to the Mikdash during menses, they didn't go to
shul during menses either. Even the Chayei Adam mentions that women
with menses shouldn't look at the Torah when it is raised high. I
know many women who don't touch the Torah directly at any time, but
touch it with a cloth or a siddur. I wonder if anyone can find the
oldest source for this.
In any case, while teaching the women that the application of Hilchot
Tum'at Mikdash doesn't apply to the synagogue, we should also laud
these women for keeping the laws known and alive for when the Mikdash
is built Bemheira BeYameinu Amen.
Shoshana
Slicha U'Mechla - I beg forgiveness from any who I may have insulted
in any way in the past.
Shana Tova to all!
Harry Weiss
Shoshana L. Boublil (tora...@netvision.net.il) wrote:
: Going through DejaNews I found the following post:
That is just an issue of kavod for the Torah. Men also ususally do not
touch the Torah with their hand when it goes around, but touch it with
their Talis or siddur.
: In any case, while teaching the women that the application of Hilchot
: Tum'at Mikdash doesn't apply to the synagogue, we should also laud
: these women for keeping the laws known and alive for when the Mikdash
: is built Bemheira BeYameinu Amen.
: Shoshana
: Slicha U'Mechla - I beg forgiveness from any who I may have insulted
: in any way in the past.
: Shana Tova to all!
: come visit:
: www.hilonet.com/achdut/ - the Achdut Yisrael web site!!!
: Torah U'Madah ltd. homepage:
: www.netvision.net.il/php/toramada/
Gideon Ehrlich
Moshe Shulman (mshu...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Ailisa, my wife does not stay home from Shul when she is niddah, and
: neither do my teenaged daughters. We are Chassidic, and there is no
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: such custom.
Shulman is right and wrong.
He is right when he write that a woman is not supposed to stay
home when she is Nidah.
He is wrong when he write to the public about the period of his
own wife and doughters. Neither Chasidic nor Mithnaged is expected
to write that way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shalom Gideon Ehrlich
.-. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX
.-. ((@)) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX
((@)) / `.-. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
.-.\ / `-' XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
((@))\ /<Z> XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
`-' Y XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
|<Z> XXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
| XXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Harry Weiss
Gideon Ehrlich (ehr...@sunlight.cs.biu.ac.il) wrote:
: Moshe Shulman (mshu...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: : Ailisa, my wife does not stay home from Shul when she is niddah, and
: : neither do my teenaged daughters. We are Chassidic, and there is no
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: : such custom.
: Shulman is right and wrong.
: He is right when he write that a woman is not supposed to stay
: home when she is Nidah.
: He is wrong when he write to the public about the period of his
: own wife and doughters. Neither Chasidic nor Mithnaged is expected
: to write that way.
I think you are mixing up writing in genral and specific.
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Shalom Gideon Ehrlich
: .-. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX
: .-. ((@)) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX
: ((@)) / `.-. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
: .-.\ / `-' XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
: ((@))\ /<Z> XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
: `-' Y XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
: |<Z> XXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
: | XXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXX
: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXX
: XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
: XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
: XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
: XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
: XXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
: XXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX
: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Yehuda SIlver
: >>
: >>>>From: an...@spdcc.com (Ailsa Murphy)
: >>>>Is not going to shul while menstruating a Chassidic minhag,
: >>>>or a general Orthodox one? This isn't the sort of thing that
: It is not a general Orthodox minhag. It is kept only by specific
: groups.
: >>>Ailisa, my wife does not stay home from Shul when she is niddah, and
: >>>neither do my teenaged daughters. We are Chassidic, and there is no
: >>>such custom.
: >>
: >>I wouldn't say there is "no such custom". According to the Rema
: >>and the Mishnah Berurah, there evidently *was* such a custom in
: >>Europe, not that it had any real basis in halacha, but there were
: >>women who behaved thus
there is a similar minhag regarding touching a sefer torah!
Both minhagim had the saction of Gedolei Yisreol,
while there were Gedolei Yisroel who disagreed
m
notably the Vilna Gaon!
(it was a minhag shtus (foolishness)).
One ignorant mistake:!
: This is not a minhag of foolishness, but of misunderstanding.
Another ignorant mistake!
Gedolei Yisroel have a right to positions on these Issue!
Hashem rewards all nashim tzidkaniyos who follow the minhagim of thier
communities!
Those who attack theose women based on some modern feminist psuedo
values, should retrun to the minhagim of their own grandmothers
and stop trying to be male psokim!
Leshona Tovah Techosivu v'sechosaimu!
: >
: >===> Why such a harsh, nasty judgement??
because feminists i.e. women who think they are men and vice verso
are usually nasty ignorant and frustrated!
--
ys
Gideon Ehrlich
Yehuda SIlver (ysi...@panix.com) wrote:
: ...
: notably the Vilna Gaon!
: (it was a minhag shtus (foolishness)). One ignorant mistake:!
: : This is not a minhag of foolishness, but of misunderstanding.
: Another ignorant mistake!
: Gedolei Yisroel have a right to positions on these Issue!
: Hashem rewards all nashim tzidkaniyos who follow the minhagim of thier
: communities!
: because feminists i.e. women who think they are men and vice verso
: are usually nasty ignorant and frustrated!
Over all one can learn from the above discusion some good nice
English idioms.
As to the point, It seemed that becouse of the un-appropriate
English term UNCLEAN for a Nidah some mixe 2 different situations:
1. When a person , male or female, is PHISICALY unclean.
2. When a person , male or female is 'spiritualy' un-pure.
As to the first case , assume the so common case , a disable old person
can' control his body. Assume his diapres (spell?) are fool of that
bad smell material. should he enter a shull?
Assume the previouse case, but somehow there is no smell, is the case
different?
Joshua W. Burton
ysi...@panix.com (Yehuda SIlver) wrote:
> because feminists i.e. women who think they are men and vice verso
> are usually nasty ignorant and frustrated!
>
> --
> ys
"Nasty, ignorant, and frustrated." It has a nice ring, actually. Why
don't you try it out in your .signature, say right after the "ys"?
`In some cultures, |=======================================================
what I do would be | Joshua W Burton (847)677-3902 jbu...@nwu.edu
considered normal.' |=======================================================
zs...@mail.idt.net
I've unexpectedly dropped off usenet for a few weeks, but I found
this on DejaNews:
an...@spdcc.com (Ailsa Murphy) wrote:
> Is not going to shul while menstruating a Chassidic minhag,
> or a general Orthodox one? This isn't the sort of thing that
> tends to crop up in casual conversation, but it is definitely
> the sort of thing one wants to know about. (And are there
> any other women's minhagim I might not have heard about that
> I ought to know about?)
No, it's not a chassidic thing. It's mentioned in Shulchan Aruch
and other centuries-old sources as a women's minhag. Whether any
women today have the same minhag, I have no idea. I imagine that
if the minhag survives at all, it's a lot less common than it once
was. I further imagine that the Shulchan Aruch's mention comes
from the author having been asked a she'ela by a woman, and that
this was the first he'd heard of the minhag, so it might be that
it was never very widespread.
Another women's minhag that I know about, and that definitely
does survive, is accepting shabbos upon lighting candles, which
means that you must light candles *before* the bracha, because
when you say the bracha you are accepting shabbos. As a man,
I do not follow that minhag, and I say the bracha *before*
lighting my one candle (not two), and continue to do work until
a few minutes before sunset.
Please email copies of any replies, as I'm far more likely to
check email than usenet at least until after Rosh Hashana.
Ketiva vachatima tova to all.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Jumbuck
Gideon Ehrlich <ehr...@sunlight.cs.biu.ac.il> wrote:
> Moshe Shulman (mshu...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : Ailisa, my wife does not stay home from Shul when she is niddah, and
> : neither do my teenaged daughters. We are Chassidic, and there is no
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : such custom.
>
> Shulman is right and wrong.
>
> He is right when he write that a woman is not supposed to stay
> home when she is Nidah.
>
> He is wrong when he write to the public about the period of his
> own wife and doughters. Neither Chasidic nor Mithnaged is expected
> to write that way.
I know that one should not be announcing when one's wife/self is
niddah/not niddah in public. Hence one should avoid any performing any
action in opublic that one would be prevented from doing whilst she is
niddah (eg hand holding,sharing food from a plate, etc).
I did not know that it was forbidden to discuss the effects of one's
wife's/self's niddah status. If so, then we could not be discussing
Niddah in public at all.
Jumbuck