New guide for halachic and egalitarian minyan
levi...@gmail.com
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3505012,00.html
Jay
cindys
<levi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6cda089a-547f-49c8...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Some Os aren't going to like this very much.
-----
Sorry to burst your bubble Jay but the Os that I know will be quite unaware
of this "development" and wouldn't care one way or the other if someone told
them. They already have their opinion of the non-O movements, and this
isn't going to alter those opinions good, bad, or otherwise. In fact, most
of the Os that I know don't even know the difference between C and R (and
don't care).
You could have just posted the weblink without comment as you usually do,
thereby enabling you to subsequently claim that it wasn't intended to be
anti-O. And the truth of the matter is that neither of the treads you
initiated today was inherently anti-O, but *you* added an anti-O spin by
prefacing them with snide remarks about the O.
I am convinced that the sole intent of your weblink to the story about the
Lubavitch high school principal was so that when you linked the next 100
anti-O, anti-Chareidi articles from ynet and ha'aretz, and O Jews
complained, you could then point to the Lubavitch principal story link and
claim "I'm not anti-Chareidi. I linked that positive story about the
Lubavitch principal, remember?"
BTW, I can't remember the last time any O Jew on this forum initiated a post
for the purpose of casting C or R in a negative light. And I haven't seen
many anti-C or anti-R follow-ups either. If I wanted to start posting
anti-C, anti-R articles, believe me, I would have no problem. Just this past
week, my local Jewish Ledger carried an article where there were complaints
from some national Jewish organization (can't remember which one off the top
of my head) because O Jews spend one or two years post-high school in
Israeli yeshivos and as a result develop a stronger connection with Israel
than the "mainstream" American-Jewish world, tend to be politically more
conservative, and develop a worldview which differs from their "mainstream
American-Jewish counterparts." This is apparently regarded as a negative
thing by the "mainstream" American Jewish world.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
>
> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3505012,00.html
>
> Jay
KarenElizabeth
> <levin....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6cda089a-547f-49c8...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Some Os aren't going to like this very much.
>
> -----
> Sorry to burst your bubble Jay but the Os that I know will be quite unaware
> of this "development" and wouldn't care one way or the other if someone told
> them. They already have their opinion of the non-O movements, and this
> isn't going to alter those opinions good, bad, or otherwise. In fact, most
> of the Os that I know don't even know the difference between C and R (and
> don't care).
Well, then I do feel sorry for these people in your acquaintance, who
would prefer ignorance to information. Most of the O I know -- and
since I am the member of an O congregation, and my son attends an O
school, I know a fair number -- have at least a rudimentary
understanding of the beliefs and practices of C and R Jews. Certainly
they have enough of an understanding to reject the differences between
C or R Judaism on the one hand and O Judaism on the other on a
reasoned and informed basis.
Nonetheless, I don't understand why you make that statement in the
context of the article linked by Jay. Surely all of us here know that
C and R Judaism have long since adopted egalitarian minyanim. The
link is to a guide authorred by a couple who identify themselves as O,
intended to be written from an O perspective, and written at the
behest of JOFA, an ostensibly O organization. Certainly, had that not
been the case, then the guide would have been one sentence long,
stating *women can do whatever men can do; there is no difference.*
>
> You could have just posted the weblink without comment as you usually do,
> thereby enabling you to subsequently claim that it wasn't intended to be
> anti-O. And the truth of the matter is that neither of the treads you
> initiated today was inherently anti-O, but *you* added an anti-O spin by
> prefacing them with snide remarks about the O.
>
I suppose Jay's comment could be viewed as snide. Then again, it
could be viewed as sincere. Most right wing O will not agree with the
conclusions of the Guide (which I've only skimmed thus far).
Centrists will sit on it for 10 years. Only the furthest left wing O
will even consider some of the things that the Guide claims are
acceptable.
In reality, I think that Jay intended this to be highly complimentary
to the O, or at least those O who support the Guide.
Snipping the rest.
Karen Elizabeth, returning to lurking
cindys
"KarenElizabeth" <karenel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ce280dc8-590c-4a2c...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 11, 10:28 am, "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> <levin....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6cda089a-547f-49c8...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Some Os aren't going to like this very much.
>
> -----
>> Sorry to burst your bubble Jay but the Os that I know will be quite
>> unaware
> of this "development" and wouldn't care one way or the other if someone
> told
> them. They already have their opinion of the non-O movements, and this
> isn't going to alter those opinions good, bad, or otherwise. In fact, most
> of the Os that I know don't even know the difference between C and R (and
> don't care).
>Well, then I do feel sorry for these people in your acquaintance, who
would prefer ignorance to information.
There are only a certain number of hours in the day, and researching the
differences between C and R is not high on the priority list of most O.
>Most of the O I know -- and
since I am the member of an O congregation, and my son attends an O
school, I know a fair number -- have at least a rudimentary
understanding of the beliefs and practices of C and R Jews. Certainly
they have enough of an understanding to reject the differences between
C or R Judaism on the one hand and O Judaism on the other on a
reasoned and informed basis.
Yes. The O that I know understand enough about R/C (collectively) to reject
the differences. But they are not interested in *the distinction* between R
and C.
>Nonetheless, I don't understand why you make that statement in the
context of the article linked by Jay. Surely all of us here know that
C and R Judaism have long since adopted egalitarian minyanim. The
link is to a guide authorred by a couple who identify themselves as O,
intended to be written from an O perspective, and written at the
behest of JOFA, an ostensibly O organization. Certainly, had that not
been the case, then the guide would have been one sentence long,
stating *women can do whatever men can do; there is no difference.*
I don't know anything about the couple who wrote the book, but most of the
Os that I know would say that "egalitarian minyan" is by definition *not* O.
>
>> You could have just posted the weblink without comment as you usually do,
> thereby enabling you to subsequently claim that it wasn't intended to be
> anti-O. And the truth of the matter is that neither of the treads you
> initiated today was inherently anti-O, but *you* added an anti-O spin by
> prefacing them with snide remarks about the O.
>
>I suppose Jay's comment could be viewed as snide. Then again, it
could be viewed as sincere. Most right wing O will not agree with the
conclusions of the Guide (which I've only skimmed thus far).
Centrists will sit on it for 10 years. Only the furthest left wing O
will even consider some of the things that the Guide claims are
acceptable.
Yes.
>In reality, I think that Jay intended this to be highly complimentary
to the O, or at least those O who support the Guide.
Nevertheless, he felt compelled to include a snide remark and turn it into
something ugly. Had he not done that, I wouldn't have commented.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
levi...@gmail.com
Saying that "some Os aren't going to like this very much" is anti-O?
It implies that some Os MAY like it. And I believe that some may
accept this. You obviously don't.
You didn't read the story closely. Otherwise, you would not have
missed the fact that this guide was written by was an Orthodox couple.
You are free to accept or reject their premises, but they wrote this
guide according to halacha. Rather than refuting their view of
halacha, you attack the messenger and impute extraneous reasoning into
his postings.
Jay
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-Feb-2008, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> <levi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6cda089a-547f-49c8...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > Some Os aren't going to like this very much.
>
> -----
> Sorry to burst your bubble Jay but the Os that I know will be quite
> unaware
> of this "development" and wouldn't care one way or the other if someone
> told
> them. They already have their opinion of the non-O movements, and this
> isn't going to alter those opinions good, bad, or otherwise. In fact, most
>
> of the Os that I know don't even know the difference between C and R (and
> don't care).
>
> You could have just posted the weblink without comment as you usually do,
> thereby enabling you to subsequently claim that it wasn't intended to be
> anti-O. And the truth of the matter is that neither of the treads you
> initiated today was inherently anti-O, but *you* added an anti-O spin by
> prefacing them with snide remarks about the O.
>
> I am convinced that the sole intent of your weblink to the story about the
> Lubavitch high school principal was so that when you linked the next 100
> anti-O, anti-Chareidi articles from ynet and ha'aretz, and O Jews
> complained, you could then point to the Lubavitch principal story link and
> claim "I'm not anti-Chareidi. I linked that positive story about the
> Lubavitch principal, remember?"
Of course. Forgetting, of course, that there's 2 differnt groups involved...
>
> BTW, I can't remember the last time any O Jew on this forum initiated a
> post
> for the purpose of casting C or R in a negative light.
Can you imagine if someone did - & then denied that was what we were doing??
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-Feb-2008, KarenElizabeth <karenel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In reality, I think that Jay intended this to be highly complimentary
> to the O, or at least those O who support the Guide.
Yes, Jay is always highly complimentary to any O who
behaves in a way he thinks isn't O.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-Feb-2008, levi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Saying that "some Os aren't going to like this very much" is anti-O?
Someone as disingeunous as you should not be allowed to vote.
Maybe you could get your wife to guide you.
Susan
levi...@gmail.com
huh?
Wrong thread? wrong reply? Wrong side of the bed this morning?
Jay
cindys
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:foqdg4$k84$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
Bingo.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-Feb-2008, levi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 11, 4:10 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 11-Feb-2008, levin....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Saying that "some Os aren't going to like this very much" is anti-O?
> >
> > Someone as disingeunous as you should not be allowed to vote.
> > Maybe you could get your wife to guide you.
> >
> > Susan
>
> huh?
Exactly.
>
> Wrong thread? wrong reply? Wrong side of the bed this morning?
Okay - I accept your explanation.
Susan
mm
Referring to the subject line:
Do you mean a sexually egalitarian minyan? Since a minyan is 10
Jewish men over bar mitzvah age, that's not possible.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> <levi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> Some Os aren't going to like this very much.
> -----
> Sorry to burst your bubble Jay but the Os that I know will be quite
> unaware of this "development" and wouldn't care one way or the other
> if someone told them.
snip
> BTW, I can't remember the last time any O Jew on this forum initiated a post
> for the purpose of casting C or R in a negative light. And I haven't seen
> many anti-C or anti-R follow-ups either. If I wanted to start posting
> anti-C, anti-R articles, believe me, I would have no problem. Just this past
> week, my local Jewish Ledger carried an article where there were complaints
> from some national Jewish organization (can't remember which one off the top
> of my head) because O Jews spend one or two years post-high school in
> Israeli yeshivos and as a result develop a stronger connection with Israel
> than the "mainstream" American-Jewish world, tend to be politically more
> conservative, and develop a worldview which differs from their "mainstream
> American-Jewish counterparts." This is apparently regarded as a negative
> thing by the "mainstream" American Jewish world.
Cindy, "different" unfortunately is usually seen as "negative"
espescially if it seems threatening. Personally I can't see why a
connection with Israel is not greeted with gret joy, but that's me.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
Everything snipped. It's very interesting, as usual for Karen Elizabeth
> Karen Elizabeth, returning to lurking
Why? Contribute more often.
Herman Rubin
>>http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3505012,00.html
>>Jay
As far back as I know, Reform minyanim are of any size
of "adult" Jews.
Also, I believe that the Conservatives have counted
women for some time.
In addition, the Talmud is not all that clear on the
subject.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
mm
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
>In article <7e32r3950dp2bu033...@4ax.com>,
>mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:36:16 +0000 (UTC), levi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>Some Os aren't going to like this very much.
>
>>>http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3505012,00.html
>
>>>Jay
>
>>Referring to the subject line:
>
>>Do you mean a sexually egalitarian minyan? Since a minyan is 10
>>Jewish men over bar mitzvah age, that's not possible.
>
>As far back as I know, Reform minyanim are of any size
>of "adult" Jews.
>
>Also, I believe that the Conservatives have counted
>women for some time.
As Abraham Lincoln said, "How many legs does a horse have if you call
its tail a leg?"
>
>In addition, the Talmud is not all that clear on the
>subject.
Don't know how not all that lear it is but a decision was made.
Joel Shurkin
> <levin....@gmail.com> wrote in message
You really need to get out of Rochester more (the O's you know are a
very small sub-group and perhaps a little odd)....and read posted
articles before you fire off a shot. The couple involved are Orthodox
scholars. It has nothing to do with R and C;, who aren't mentioned in
the article or the guide (I skimmed the latter). If you want to
disagree with them, I'd love to hear about it. (Really) What you did
instead was attack Jay without bothering to read the article he
posted, apparently. That, I'm not interested in. Knee.....
The organization that backed the study is MO and they have clashed
often with their brethren and sistren (I made that up) to the right
for years. I've written about them. Indeed, a couple of MO synagogues
have been caught unhappily in the clash. It is correct that most O
synagogues won't pay attention, but some will, particularly on the
left.
j
Don Levey
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:14:26 +0000 (UTC), hru...@stat.purdue.edu
> (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>
>>In article <7e32r3950dp2bu033...@4ax.com>,
>>mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:36:16 +0000 (UTC), levi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>Some Os aren't going to like this very much.
>>
>>>>http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3505012,00.html
>>
>>>>Jay
>>
>>>Referring to the subject line:
>>
>>>Do you mean a sexually egalitarian minyan? Since a minyan is 10
>>>Jewish men over bar mitzvah age, that's not possible.
>>
>>As far back as I know, Reform minyanim are of any size
>>of "adult" Jews.
>>
>>Also, I believe that the Conservatives have counted
>>women for some time.
>
> As Abraham Lincoln said, "How many legs does a horse have if you call
> its tail a leg?"
Elsewhere recently we've had the discussion of homosexuality, and that
for the purposes of the Haredi the definition they use (those that
engage in homosexual acts) works just fine. If you start calling a
leg something which was formerly called a tail, then for the purposes
of those that choose to accept that definition the horse has 5 legs.
Since your definition may be different, your count may also be different.
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to sal...@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
mm
<Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:14:26 +0000 (UTC), hru...@stat.purdue.edu
>> (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <7e32r3950dp2bu033...@4ax.com>,
>>>mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:36:16 +0000 (UTC), levi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Some Os aren't going to like this very much.
>>>
>>>>>http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3505012,00.html
>>>
>>>>>Jay
>>>
>>>>Referring to the subject line:
>>>
>>>>Do you mean a sexually egalitarian minyan? Since a minyan is 10
>>>>Jewish men over bar mitzvah age, that's not possible.
>>>
>>>As far back as I know, Reform minyanim are of any size
>>>of "adult" Jews.
>>>
>>>Also, I believe that the Conservatives have counted
>>>women for some time.
>>
>> As Abraham Lincoln said, "How many legs does a horse have if you call
>> its tail a leg?"
>
>Elsewhere recently we've had the discussion of homosexuality, and that
>for the purposes of the Haredi the definition they use (those that
>engage in homosexual acts) works just fine.
I don't think this is a good analogy at all because as I said more
than once in that thread, I don't think Hareidim use the English word
"homosexual" at all when they are discussing halacha.
Some may end up using the word homosexual when dealing with those who
don't know Hebrew or Torah, but if they use it incorrectly, that a
mistake but it doesn't affect their legal decisions. My comments
came after most people had stopped reading the thread, but they should
be in your newsreader somewhere.
> If you start calling a
>leg something which was formerly called a tail, then for the purposes
>of those that choose to accept that definition the horse has 5 legs.
The leg of a horse has a meaning and so does a minyan of Jews. If
they want something new, they should coin a different word. Or they
could use "quorum".
cindys
"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:uhv4r39kfu0v331fp...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:28:41 +0000 (UTC), Don Levey
>>
>>Elsewhere recently we've had the discussion of homosexuality, and that
>>for the purposes of the Haredi the definition they use (those that
>>engage in homosexual acts) works just fine.
>
> I don't think this is a good analogy at all because as I said more
> than once in that thread, I don't think Hareidim use the English word
> "homosexual" at all when they are discussing halacha.
>
> Some may end up using the word homosexual when dealing with those who
> don't know Hebrew or Torah, but if they use it incorrectly, that a
> mistake but it doesn't affect their legal decisions. My comments
> came after most people had stopped reading the thread, but they should
> be in your newsreader somewhere.
I read it, and it was an excellent post. One way to get around the problem
of stuff being buried in a thread is to start a new thread. The synopsis of
your post was that the chareidim (who speak Hebrew and Yiddish) don't even
have a word that correlates to the English word "homosexual," so they don't
have a definition. They would involve themselves only if it became apparent
that two men in the community were involved in a sexual relationship with
each other. The only situation in which a chareidi Jew would use the word
"homosexual" would be if he were speaking to a secular Jew or a non-Jew or
someone who doesn't know torah or Hebrew. Sort of like when one person is
attempting to communicate with someone who speaks a different language, so
he will pick a word in the other person's language, which he believes will
roughly correlate with the word in his language, but the word he picks isn't
an exact match.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
yaco...@aol.com
> In article <7e32r3950dp2bu033177fek5vsjr8gl...@4ax.com>,
> Also, I believe that the Conservatives have counted
> women for some time.
>
> In addition, the Talmud is not all that clear on the
> subject.
Of course it is.
Men only.
I understand the spin value of introducing "ambiguity" to further you
agenda.
It remains dishonest, however.
No legal text would leave such details as vague. Get real!
Jacko
Jonathan J. Baker
>> Some Os aren't going to like this very much.
>Sorry to burst your bubble Jay but the Os that I know will be quite unaware
>of this "development" and wouldn't care one way or the other if someone told
>them. They already have their opinion of the non-O movements, and this
>isn't going to alter those opinions good, bad, or otherwise. In fact, most
>of the Os that I know don't even know the difference between C and R (and
>don't care).
But this isn't a "non-O" minyan guide, it's for very left-wing Modern Orthodox
groups, such as started springing up in Israel, and now (since the Shapiro
article in the EDAH journal) in the US.
They go up to the very limit of what women and minors can do within
a halachic prayer service. They obviate "kevod tzibur" by only operating
in new minyanim, never in established ones.
--
name: jon baker web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
address: jjb...@panix.com blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com
--
Jonathan Baker | Happy birthday, trees!
jjb...@panix.com | Web page <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/>
Blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com/
Jonathan J. Baker
>"KarenElizabeth" <karenel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> <levin....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > Some Os aren't going to like this very much.
>> them. They already have their opinion of the non-O movements, and this
>> isn't going to alter those opinions good, bad, or otherwise. In fact, most
>Yes. The O that I know understand enough about R/C (collectively) to reject
>the differences. But they are not interested in *the distinction* between R
>and C.
>I don't know anything about the couple who wrote the book, but most of the
>Os that I know would say that "egalitarian minyan" is by definition *not* O.
No, you have to read the booklet before you can make that judgment.
I agree, it's an unfortunate title because "egalitarian" starts ringing
alarm bells that say "oh, it's Conservative", but it's an LWMO guide,
NOT a Conservative guide.
Women can say pesukei dezimrah, the Torah service, Kabbalat Shabbt - all
parts without devarim shebikedushah (kaddish, kedusha, barchu). Women can
get aliyot, if kevod hatzibbur allows (memra of RYBL in B. Megillah, brought
down in Shulchan Aruch), and thus lein and serve as gabbayot.
But it's not Conservative-Egalitarian by a long shot.
Eliyahu
> In <> "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
> ><levin....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> Some Os aren't going to like this very much.
> >Sorry to burst your bubble Jay but the Os that I know will be quite unaware
> >of this "development" and wouldn't care one way or the other if someone told
> >them. They already have their opinion of the non-O movements, and this
> >isn't going to alter those opinions good, bad, or otherwise. In fact, most
> >of the Os that I know don't even know the difference between C and R (and
> >don't care).
>
> But this isn't a "non-O" minyan guide, it's for very left-wing Modern Orthodox
> groups, such as started springing up in Israel, and now (since the Shapiro
> article in the EDAH journal) in the US.
>
> They go up to the very limit of what women and minors can do within
> a halachic prayer service. They obviate "kevod tzibur" by only operating
> in new minyanim, never in established ones.
>
Jonathan J. Baker
>Of course it is.
>Men only.
Well, where is it? I've read those Gemarot, and they give the nice
double gezera shava toch-toch-edah-edah, but they use the same G"S
for the minyan for kiddush Hashem which can be mixed men and women.
So no, there's nothing explicitly requiring ten men for tefillah
until the time of the Rishonim, e.g. Tosafot. Some take it for
granted, others derive it from the ten-men for saying Elokeinu for
birkat Hamazon.
But the Gemara leaves it ambiguous.
I suggest you read the articles by R' Aryeh Frimer, archived at
http://www.mail-jewish.org/ on women and Minyan, women and tefillah,
women and birkat hamazon.
--
Jonathan Baker | Knock knock. Who's there? Mischa. Mischa who?
jjb...@panix.com | Mishenichnas Adar I marbim besimcha ketanah.
Blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com/
cindys
"Eliyahu" <lro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:079a66ad-9254-44a0...@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com...
I think the point is that (generally speaking), halacha is not so black and
white. As Jonathan pointed out, the guide is for left-wing Modern Orthodox.
While some poskim may say mutar (permitted), others may say ossur
(forbidden). One argument I can think of off the top of my head (which I can
guarantee would be the position of many poskim) is that women are not
supposed to take center stage and there is a tsnius (modesty) problem with
their doing so.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
yaco...@aol.com
> In <> yacova...@aol.com writes:
> >On Feb 12, 11:14 am, hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
> >> Also, I believe that the Conservatives have counted
> >> women for some time.
> >> In addition, the Talmud is not all that clear on the
> >> subject.
> >Of course it is.
> >Men only.
> >I understand the spin value of introducing "ambiguity" to further you
> >agenda. It remains dishonest, however.
> >No legal text would leave such details as vague. Get real!
>
> Well, where is it? I've read those Gemarot, and they give the nice
> double gezera shava toch-toch-edah-edah, but they use the same G"S
> for the minyan for kiddush Hashem which can be mixed men and women.
>
> So no, there's nothing explicitly requiring ten men for tefillah
> until the time of the Rishonim, e.g. Tosafot. Some take it for
> granted, others derive it from the ten-men for saying Elokeinu for
> birkat Hamazon.
>
> But the Gemara leaves it ambiguous.
Then how do you know the ten for qiddush hashem can include women? It
is the same for tefilla, for qiddush hashem and for birkath haggomel.
"Asara miyyisra'el." In no place i know is there an explicit
statement that any of them can include women.
The "edah" being referred to is ten males.
If the paradigm is the ten spies, and really mixed gender was
intended, why use an obvious male only group? Or, why not
affirmatively state women can also be an "edah"?
Even though women are hayyaboth in birkath hamazon, men do not make a
zimun with them.
Why not, if "shelosha she'akhelu" is just as "ambiguous"?
> Jonathan Baker
Jacko
Jonathan J. Baker
So why are you arguing the opposite, that "no legal text would leave such
details as vague"? If you agree that the Gemara is ambiguous, and that it's
not made explicit until the Tosafot and other Rishonim.
>The "edah" being referred to is ten males.
Supposition, only clarified hundreds of years later.
>If the paradigm is the ten spies, and really mixed gender was
>intended, why use an obvious male only group? Or, why not
>affirmatively state women can also be an "edah"?
If the Gemara meant to bring that inference, they would have done so.
As I understand these kinds of drashot to work, however, one drasha can
only bring in one parameter, one new rule. Once the drasha was used to
specify TEN for kiddush hashem and other such things, it was played out,
and there would need to be another drasha for MALES.
>Even though women are hayyaboth in birkath hamazon, men do not make a
>zimun with them.
>Why not, if "shelosha she'akhelu" is just as "ambiguous"?
I've wondered that myself for decades.
But they do make a zimun, and one or two men may answer.
yaco...@aol.com
> In <m> yacova...@aol.com writes:
> So why are you arguing the opposite, that "no legal text would leave such
> details as vague"? If you agree that the Gemara is ambiguous, and that it's
> not made explicit until the Tosafot and other Rishonim.
I do not agree that the paradigm is haphazard. I consider details of
a sugya important. That edah was ten males.
> >The "edah" being referred to is ten males.
>
> Supposition, only clarified hundreds of years later.
What supposition. I can read, and I know whom that edah was.
> >If the paradigm is the ten spies, and really mixed gender was
> >intended, why use an obvious male only group? Or, why not
> >affirmatively state women can also be an "edah"?
>
> If the Gemara meant to bring that inference, they would have done so.
They brought the paradigm. The READER is supposed to catch that.
You assume it is haphazard.
> As I understand these kinds of drashot to work, however, one drasha can
> only bring in one parameter, one new rule. Once the drasha was used to
> specify TEN for kiddush hashem and other such things, it was played out,
> and there would need to be another drasha for MALES.
Not so. Source for this "rule of derashoth"?
I have no such understanding. The Talmud is explicit that a plurality
of laws can flow from one pasuq. "Ahath dibber Elohim, shetayim zu
shama'ti"
"Miqra ehad yose lekhama te'amim."
Sanhedrin 34A. Imra of Abaye.
The "edah" is ten males.
> >Even though women are hayyaboth in birkath hamazon, men do not make a
> >zimun with them.
> >Why not, if "shelosha she'akhelu" is just as "ambiguous"?
>
> I've wondered that myself for decades.
Perhaps it is not ambiguous.
> But they do make a zimun, and one or two men may answer.
I am not sure what that means. The men cannot make a zimun with
them. Period.
> Jonathan Baker
Jacko
Arthur Kamlet
<yaco...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Feb 23, 8:16 pm, "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjba...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> >If the paradigm is the ten spies, and really mixed gender was
>> >intended, why use an obvious male only group? Or, why not
>> >affirmatively state women can also be an "edah"?
>>
>> If the Gemara meant to bring that inference, they would have done so.
>
>They brought the paradigm. The READER is supposed to catch that.
>You assume it is haphazard.
In addition to being male,
i) the ten spies consistd of one from each of the ten landed tribes.
ii) there were no Levites or Kohanim
iii) each was a strong and powerful leader of his tribe.
--
ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH
yaco...@aol.com
> In article <31c75bdd-b7b4-4d9a-b6e9-ec67f4ddc...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <yacova...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 23, 8:16 pm, "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjba...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> >If the paradigm is the ten spies, and really mixed gender was
> >> >intended, why use an obvious male only group? Or, why not
> >> >affirmatively state women can also be an "edah"?
>
> >> If the Gemara meant to bring that inference, they would have done so.
>
> >They brought the paradigm. The READER is supposed to catch that.
> >You assume it is haphazard.
>
> In addition to being male,
>
> i) the ten spies consistd of one from each of the ten landed tribes.
>
> ii) there were no Levites or Kohanim
>
> iii) each was a strong and powerful leader of his tribe.
So what?
What has that got to do with "edah". A derasha requires using a
pasuq. This was the best that they had.
> ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH
Jacko
meir b.
That's not how derashot work. If some detail is derived because
of an extra word, you are correct: once it has been applied to one
detail, it is no longer extraneous, and hence unavailable for another.
However, where the detail is derived by analogy or gezeira shava, then
on the contrary -- all details are derived, unless another derasha
specifically excludes one of them. Many times, the Talmud derives a
detail of a law, and the question is raised, "If so, let us say (some
other detail) as well."
There is actually one case where the Talmud gives a clear
inference that the requirement of ten means males only. In Ketubot
8a, we are informed that birkat chatanim (i.e., Sheva Berachot)
require ten, and "chatanim min haminyan" -- the chatan counts. If
women could be part of a minyan, the Talmud should have stated that
chatan vekallah min haminyan. Ergo, women cannot be counted.
Meir
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
Works for me.
yaco...@aol.com
Because sheba' berakhoth involves zimmun, as is explicitly referred to
on Ketuboth 8A-8B ("ki tanya hahi bebirkath hammazon" - the barraita
of "grooms are part of the minyan" refers to the birkath hammazon),
and men do not include women in a zimun, the law that "hatanim min
hamminyan" may not be a proof.
What if women make their own zimmun at a gathering during the week
following a wedding. Can the kalla be part of the minyan?
The proof that women are not part of a minyan needs to be a case that
does not implicate birkath hammazon, which by a different law women
and men do not participate in the same zimmun.
Jacko
yaco...@aol.com
> In article <31c75bdd-b7b4-4d9a-b6e9-ec67f4ddc...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> In addition to being male,
> i) the ten spies consistd of one from each of the ten landed tribes.
I see no evidence of this in Emoraitic or Geonic times, but for
Maimonides, women are obligated in all the tefilloth that men are.
Thus, anyone who is obligated may serve as a hazzan for others, and
assumably would count in the minyan of fellow Israelites praying.
If you believe a woman can be part of a minyan under Talmudic Law,
then you should also allow her to pray as a hazzana as well.
This looks like the law according to Maimonides, and dovetails with
the original fact that women would read from the sefer (thus receiving
aliyoth)..
> ArtKamlet
Jacko
Jonathan J. Baker
>On Feb 23, 8:16 pm, "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjba...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In <m> yacova...@aol.com writes:
>> So why are you arguing the opposite, that "no legal text would leave such
>> details as vague"? If you agree that the Gemara is ambiguous, and that it's
>> not made explicit until the Tosafot and other Rishonim.
>I do not agree that the paradigm is haphazard. I consider details of
>a sugya important. That edah was ten males.
But it is not so stated in the sugya. The details of a sugya are important,
and adding details not stated in any version of the sugya is not kosher.
>> >The "edah" being referred to is ten males.
>> Supposition, only clarified hundreds of years later.
>What supposition. I can read, and I know whom that edah was.
By the same token, the minyan should only be made up of those who
don't believe in the promises made by God? of those who lead
the people into sin? Those too are characteristics of the "eidah
hara'ah". But those characteristics are not stated in the sugya.
Neither is "adult male". QED.
>> >If the paradigm is the ten spies, and really mixed gender was
>> >intended, why use an obvious male only group? Or, why not
>> >affirmatively state women can also be an "edah"?
>> If the Gemara meant to bring that inference, they would have done so.
>They brought the paradigm. The READER is supposed to catch that.
>You assume it is haphazard.
You beg the question, by only assuming certain characteristics to be
important and others not to be.
>The "edah" is ten males.
Begging the question fallacy.
>> >Even though women are hayyaboth in birkath hamazon, men do not make a
>> >zimun with them.
>> >Why not, if "shelosha she'akhelu" is just as "ambiguous"?
>> I've wondered that myself for decades.
>Perhaps it is not ambiguous.
And yet it is.
>> But they do make a zimun, and one or two men may answer.
>I am not sure what that means. The men cannot make a zimun with
>them. Period.
Duh.
Three women make a zimun. If one or two men are eating with them,
they may answer. Just as women sitting with three or more men who
constitute a zimun may answer the men.
Jonathan J. Baker
>> In addition to being male,
>> i) the ten spies consistd of one from each of the ten landed tribes.
>I see no evidence of this in Emoraitic or Geonic times, but for
Well, you're the one (along with Meir Biezunski) who propounds the idea
that all details come in. So let it be all details - no two members
of the minyan from the same tribe, nobody from Ephraim or Yehudah, etc.
>Maimonides, women are obligated in all the tefilloth that men are.
>Thus, anyone who is obligated may serve as a hazzan for others, and
>assumably would count in the minyan of fellow Israelites praying.
>If you believe a woman can be part of a minyan under Talmudic Law,
>then you should also allow her to pray as a hazzana as well.
>This looks like the law according to Maimonides, and dovetails with
>the original fact that women would read from the sefer (thus receiving
>aliyoth)..
Um, you're confusing the minyan of 7 for the minyan of 10. The minyan of
10 (adult male Jews) is necessary to create a situation where kriah can
happen; the minyan of 7 is the set of people who are oleh latorah. The minyan
of 7, according to the memra of R' Yehoshua b. Levi, can include women,
absent "kevod tzibur", however that is defined.
yaco...@aol.com
> In <> yacova...@aol.com writes:
> >On Feb 23, 8:16 pm, "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjba...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> In <m> yacova...@aol.com writes:
> >> So why are you arguing the opposite, that "no legal text would leave such
> >> details as vague"? If you agree that the Gemara is ambiguous, and that it's
> >> not made explicit until the Tosafot and other Rishonim.
> >I do not agree that the paradigm is haphazard. I consider details of
> >a sugya important. That edah was ten males.
>
> But it is not so stated in the sugya. The details of a sugya are important,
> and adding details not stated in any version of the sugya is not kosher.
It says "asara miyisra'el." That is supported by the "edah." Not all
details are explicit. Talmud is not Western books on philosophy that
start from axioms and move in a linear way.
So what is yisra'el? Everyone has been taking it as males, and well
before the European "rishonim" (a term not used outside of Europe), it
was read that way.
Why? The reading is "not kosher." but nonetheless, it is read that
way by everyone.
> >> >The "edah" being referred to is ten males.
> >> Supposition, only clarified hundreds of years later.
> >What supposition. I can read, and I know whom that edah was.
>
> By the same token, the minyan should only be made up of those who
> don't believe in the promises made by God? of those who lead
> the people into sin? Those too are characteristics of the "eidah
> hara'ah". But those characteristics are not stated in the sugya.
> Neither is "adult male". QED.
"Asara miyisra'el." Begs the same question.
> >> >If the paradigm is the ten spies, and really mixed gender was
> >> >intended, why use an obvious male only group? Or, why not
> >> >affirmatively state women can also be an "edah"?
> >> If the Gemara meant to bring that inference, they would have done so.
> >They brought the paradigm. The READER is supposed to catch that.
> >You assume it is haphazard.
>
> You beg the question, by only assuming certain characteristics to be
> important and others not to be.
I really disagree. You can project all kinds of ambiguity you want to
onto the text, but why wasn't anyone ever perplexed by this
"ambiguity"? Texts are fine, but they are read by people who
attribute meaning to them.
Poq haze mai de'amma abad. Historical reading of a text by Jewish
courts has relevance to the meaning of a text.
Why has everyone throughout history read this as meaning males? It is
NOT the French "rishonim" who invented this idea and removed the
"ambiguity." Nobody saw the alleged "ambiguity" before. Nobody
counted women in a minyan in Geonic or Talmudic times.
Do you have any evidence that they did?
> >The "edah" is ten males.
>
> Begging the question fallacy.
Onus is on you to prove the ma'ase is faulty. You have to take on the
Geonim and Emoraim.
If you can, fine. Let's see it.
>> >Even though women are hayyaboth in birkath hamazon, men do not
make a
> >> >zimun with them.
> >> >Why not, if "shelosha she'akhelu" is just as "ambiguous"?
> >> I've wondered that myself for decades.
> >Perhaps it is not ambiguous.
>
> And yet it is.
To whom? Not the codes.
> >> But they do make a zimun, and one or two men may answer.
> >I am not sure what that means. The men cannot make a zimun with
> >them. Period.
>
> Duh.
Again, I have no idea what you are saying.
> Three women make a zimun. If one or two men are eating with them,
> they may answer. Just as women sitting with three or more men who
> constitute a zimun may answer the men.
So? Has nothing to do with "mezammenim alehen." So what is your
point?
The quorum is not facilitated by a mixed company. But the statement
of the law does not discriminate as to gender, and does not say men
with men and women with women.
Ergo, your alleged ambiguity of "three who ate" is not taken as at all
ambiguous in this context, perhaps similar language is not ambiguous
in other contexts, as in "asara miyisra'el." In both women are
excluded, but not explicitly so in the tannaitic formulation.
> Jonathan Baker
Jacko
yaco...@aol.com
> In <> yacova...@aol.com writes:
> >On Feb 24, 4:50 pm, kam...@panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) wrote:
> >> In addition to being male,
> >> i) the ten spies consistd of one from each of the ten landed tribes.
> >I see no evidence of this in Emoraitic or Geonic times, but for
>
> Well, you're the one (along with Meir Biezunski) who propounds the idea
> that all details come in. So let it be all details - no two members
> of the minyan from the same tribe, nobody from Ephraim or Yehudah, etc.
>
> >Maimonides, women are obligated in all the tefilloth that men are.
> >Thus, anyone who is obligated may serve as a hazzan for others, and
> >assumably would count in the minyan of fellow Israelites praying.
> >If you believe a woman can be part of a minyan under Talmudic Law,
> >then you should also allow her to pray as a hazzana as well.
> >This looks like the law according to Maimonides, and dovetails with
> >the original fact that women would read from the sefer (thus receiving
> >aliyoth)..
>
> Um, you're confusing the minyan of 7 for the minyan of 10.
I may be stupid, and I truly often am, but not that stupid. Give me
some credit, huh?
> The minyan of
> 10 (adult male Jews) is necessary to create a situation where kriah can
> happen;
Why? You say there is no real source for that.
Again, 'asara miyisra'el. But if women are obligated in tefilla, then
they why cannot they constitute part of the quorum? What possible
reason to exclude them?
Those that say only men for a minyan also say women are not obligated
in tefilla bizmannah.
Maimonides is clear that they **are** so obligated. The French
disagree, and changed the girsa in Berakhoth 21? (28?). The French,
as you point out, also push the males only idea. Maimonides' text
said women are obligated in tefilla.
The two ideas are connected.
> the minyan of 7 is the set of people who are oleh latorah. The minyan
> of 7, according to the memra of R' Yehoshua b. Levi, can include women,
> absent "kevod tzibur", however that is defined.
Yes, but my point is different. The minyan of ten in which the Tora
is read publicly is "asara miyisra'el.
That is the minyan of praying people, who are obligated to pray in
public.
If women are so obligated, then what basis to exclude them form such a
minyan.
This explains why the Tosafoth did not like women being so obligated.
So they erased that line.
> Jonathan Baker
Jacko
Herman Rubin
<yaco...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Feb 25, 4:00 pm, "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjba...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In <> yacova...@aol.com writes:
>> >On Feb 24, 4:50 pm, kam...@panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) wrote:
...............
>Yes, but my point is different. The minyan of ten in which the Tora
>is read publicly is "asara miyisra'el.
>That is the minyan of praying people, who are obligated to pray in
>public.
I see no indication of this. It is unlikely that all
supposedly obligated will show up.
>If women are so obligated, then what basis to exclude them form such a
>minyan.
See the above. I cannot see that one should pray if
it is commanded, and one should not if it is not
commanded. This behavior is for slaves.
>This explains why the Tosafoth did not like women being so obligated.
>So they erased that line.
And we do not have all of their information, plus
more?
yaco...@aol.com
> In article <fa4a1031-b715-47cb-b6b3-1031c9193...@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> >Yes, but my point is different. The minyan of ten in which the Tora
> >is read publicly is "asara miyisra'el.
> >That is the minyan of praying people, who are obligated to pray in
> >public.
>
> I see no indication of this. It is unlikely that all
> supposedly obligated will show up.
What???
I have no ability to comprehend your point.
Nobody said all obligated will show up. I said the minyan needs to be
of persons who are obligated.
> >If women are so obligated, then what basis to exclude them form such a
> >minyan.
>
> See the above. I cannot see that one should pray if
> it is commanded, and one should not if it is not
> commanded. This behavior is for slaves.
What????
The Tora requires Jews to do things. One of them is prayer.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW IS A JEWISH VALUE.
You do not like it, then ignore it all.
Stop the arrogant presumption that a law abiding Jew is somehow a
lowly slave.
AHHH- IIGHT?
> >This explains why the Tosafoth did not like women being so obligated.
> >So they erased that line.
>
> And we do not have all of their information, plus
> more?
Say whaaat?
Jacko