Who/ what counts for a minyan?
maxine in ri
I've heard something about including a held Torah as being as
if there were 10, but would like a little more input on the
topic. Frequently, there are 1 or 2 children who would be able
to hold a scroll, even tho they are not b'nai mitzva.
maxine in ri
toi...@my-deja.com
If you orthodox then indeed that is one option to have a child hole an
object of holiness, however ask your LOR.
If you are a liberal jew, I am sure the ecclesiastical authorities will
find a method for you to pray with 9 or 8 or 7 or 6 or 5 or 4 people
too.
toichen
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Polar
Or even (shudder!) a Jew of the *female* persuasion!
--
Polar
maxine in ri
>
> In article <397F3513...@hotmail.com>,
> wee...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Oftentimes, the best we can do is 9 for a minyan in the morning.
> > I've heard something about including a held Torah as being as
> > if there were 10, but would like a little more input on the
> > topic. Frequently, there are 1 or 2 children who would be able
> > to hold a scroll, even tho they are not b'nai mitzva.
> >
> > maxine in ri
>
> If you orthodox then indeed that is one option to have a child hole an
> object of holiness, however ask your LOR.
> If you are a liberal jew, I am sure the ecclesiastical authorities will
> find a method for you to pray with 9 or 8 or 7 or 6 or 5 or 4 people
> too.
C requires 10 adult Jews for a minyan, men or women. Our
spiritual leader at the moment is an MO cantor, so perhaps he
will allow my daughter to hold one of the smaller scrolls if we
are again short this Friday.
And no, I have never heard of either C or R or Reconstructionist
minyans of less than 10.
Thank you for your response.
maxine in ri
Susan Cohen
Polar wrote:
> On 27 Jul 2000 00:14:53 GMT, toi...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >If you orthodox then indeed that is one option to have a child hole an
> >object of holiness, however ask your LOR.
> >If you are a liberal jew, I am sure the ecclesiastical authorities will
> >find a method for you to pray with 9 or 8 or 7 or 6 or 5 or 4 people
> >too.
>
> Or even (shudder!) a Jew of the *female* persuasion!
I'd like to thank whoever persuaded me to be a female.
But I have to say that no one's ever going to persuade
me to become part of a minyan.
Susan
>
>
> --
> Polar
Micha Berger
: C requires 10 adult Jews for a minyan, men or women.
Technically, C requires 10 men, or 10 women who took upon themselves to pray
regularly. This self-imposed obligation (oath) is used to justify counting them
toward a minyan along with men who have a rabbinically imposed obligation.
I don't agree with the reasoning, as the regulars here guessed by now.
I just mention it because I have never heard of an actual C congregation that
does things according to their own ruling.
-mi
Russell Steinthal
>In article <397F3513...@hotmail.com>,
> wee...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Oftentimes, the best we can do is 9 for a minyan in the morning.
>> I've heard something about including a held Torah as being as
>> if there were 10, but would like a little more input on the
>> topic. Frequently, there are 1 or 2 children who would be able
>> to hold a scroll, even tho they are not b'nai mitzva.
>>
>> maxine in ri
>
>object of holiness, however ask your LOR.
>If you are a liberal jew, I am sure the ecclesiastical authorities will
>find a method for you to pray with 9 or 8 or 7 or 6 or 5 or 4 people
>too.
Perhaps this is one of those cases where some Conservative rabbis are
stricter than some of their Orthodox counterparts....
The rabbi at my parents' Conservative synagogue ruled that neither the
"child holding a Chumash" or "9 + the Sefer Torah" rule were
halachically permissible, and instructed that the weekday evening
minyan (the only time this really came up) simply omit kaddish and
barchu if they couldn't find 10 people (reversing the practice under
our synagogue's former rabbi to allow the above-cited leniencies).
FWIW...
-Russell
--
Russell Steinthal Columbia Law School, Class of 2002
<rm...@columbia.edu> Columbia College, Class of 1999
<ste...@nj.org> UNIX System Administrator, nj.org
Russell Steinthal
With all due respect to Micha, his understanding is a few years
old. :)
That is to say, while he accurately describes the reasoning of R. Joel
Roth in permitting women who accept the obligation of thrice-daily
prayer to count to a minyan, other teshuvot have been offered since
then which permit the counting of all women, regardless of whether or
not they have formally assumed an obligation.
In particular, Dr. Judith Hauptman, the chair of the Talmud department
at JTS, has written a paper arguing that women are equally obligated
to daily prayer from birth, and therefore need not assume any
additional obligation (since they already *were* obligated). While
Dr. Hauptman does not claim to be a posek halacha, R. Ismar Schorsch
adopted the reasoning suggested in the Hauptman paper as binding on
the Seminary's egalitarian minyan. I don't know if the
Hauptman/Schorsch teshuvah [1] was ever considered by the Committee on
Jewish Law & Standards, but it has nonetheless become quite
influential in the Conservative movement, and has been adopted by many
rabbis for their synagogues. (I supect a majority of egaliatarian
Conservative shuls follow it, but I have no actual data to back that
up. Perhaps Jay does?)
Whether or not that is a good thing is, of course, a matter of debate,
even among Conservative Jews. (It's a relatively recurring subject on
several CJ mailing lists in which I participate). Whatever one thinks
of the merits, it does have the advantage of being eminently more
feasible to implement according to its own terms than the Roth
teshuvah.
-Russell
[1] I use the odd title to indicate that although the position is
almost universally referred to as the Hauptman paper or the Hauptman
teshuvah, the latter is a bit imprecise since she is not a rabbi and
disclaims any status as a posek. The "teshuvah," then, should
probably be ascribed to R. Schorsch, even though the reasoning is
Dr. Hauptman's.
Polar
>
>
>Polar wrote:
>
>> On 27 Jul 2000 00:14:53 GMT, toi...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
>> >If you orthodox then indeed that is one option to have a child hole an
>> >object of holiness, however ask your LOR.
>> >If you are a liberal jew, I am sure the ecclesiastical authorities will
>> >find a method for you to pray with 9 or 8 or 7 or 6 or 5 or 4 people
>> >too.
>>
>> Or even (shudder!) a Jew of the *female* persuasion!
>
>I'd like to thank whoever persuaded me to be a female.
A little tricky to locate the specific sperm that penetrated a given
ovum "n" years ago, but I'm sure it would be very appreciative
of your appreciation. <g>
>But I have to say that no one's ever going to persuade
>me to become part of a minyan.
Wow! Intriguing! Sincere plea for an explanation of this incendiary
statement.
--
Polar
Elisheva Chaya
> > >
> > >If you orthodox then indeed that is one option to have a child hole an
> > >object of holiness, however ask your LOR.
> > >If you are a liberal jew, I am sure the ecclesiastical authorities will
> > >find a method for you to pray with 9 or 8 or 7 or 6 or 5 or 4 people
> > >too.
> >
> Polar wrote:
> > Or even (shudder!) a Jew of the *female* persuasion!
>
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote
> I'd like to thank whoever persuaded me to be a female.
> But I have to say that no one's ever going to persuade
> me to become part of a minyan.
>
lol
ditto
Elisheva
Simcha Streltsov
: That is to say, while he accurately describes the reasoning of R. Joel
: Roth in permitting women who accept the obligation of thrice-daily
: prayer to count to a minyan, other teshuvot have been offered since
: then which permit the counting of all women, regardless of whether or
: not they have formally assumed an obligation.
AFAIU, C- holds certain principles when they develop new rules. What
exactly happened or was discovered between these 2 rulings to
ermit the 2nd? or was the 1st one not thought thru enough?
what follows from this question - how can a C- person be sure that
the rules will not be updated 5 years from now? for example,
were he to argue against R- 20 years ago that women need to accept
extra obligations, he would have made fool of himself and mislead
his R- bretheren! and maybe now he can go to a R- congregation
in anticipation of upcoming leniencies?
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Harry Weiss
: In article <8lnmnj$999$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <toi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
:>In article <397F3513...@hotmail.com>,
:> wee...@hotmail.com wrote:
:>> Oftentimes, the best we can do is 9 for a minyan in the morning.
:>> I've heard something about including a held Torah as being as
:>> if there were 10, but would like a little more input on the
:>> topic. Frequently, there are 1 or 2 children who would be able
:>> to hold a scroll, even tho they are not b'nai mitzva.
:>>
:>> maxine in ri
:>If you orthodox then indeed that is one option to have a child hole an
:>object of holiness, however ask your LOR.
:>If you are a liberal jew, I am sure the ecclesiastical authorities will
:>find a method for you to pray with 9 or 8 or 7 or 6 or 5 or 4 people
:>too.
: Perhaps this is one of those cases where some Conservative rabbis are
: stricter than some of their Orthodox counterparts....
Actually, the way I understand it you are not really counting the child.
there is a view that a Torah can be counted as no. 10. There is a
qualifier, that it can only be counted if there is a noticable sign that
there is a difference. The child (in my MO morning miyan it is 12 1/2
and my Chabad evening Minyan it is 12) with the chumash just creates the
sign.
: The rabbi at my parents' Conservative synagogue ruled that neither the
: "child holding a Chumash" or "9 + the Sefer Torah" rule were
: halachically permissible, and instructed that the weekday evening
: minyan (the only time this really came up) simply omit kaddish and
: barchu if they couldn't find 10 people (reversing the practice under
: our synagogue's former rabbi to allow the above-cited leniencies).
: FWIW...
: -Russell
: --
: Russell Steinthal Columbia Law School, Class of 2002
: <rm...@columbia.edu> Columbia College, Class of 1999
: <ste...@nj.org> UNIX System Administrator, nj.org
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
hotsh...@my-deja.com
CJ, then (1983) and now>
There is also a (relatively recent?) teshuva by Rav Golinkin which, I am
told, supports the Hauptman position. (I have not seen the teshuva
myself, either in the original Hebrew or in English translation. Perhaps
Jay can summarize the halakhic reasoning and conclusion.)
>(I supect a majority of egaliatarian
> Conservative shuls follow it, but I have no actual data to back that
> up. Perhaps Jay does?)
("It", above, referring to the position that all women are obligated to
thrice daily prayer.)
It has been my experience that most Conservative shuls and minyanim
simply moved to egalitarianism without considering the halachic basis at
all (when my non-egal shul was in the midst of the debate [which the
egals lost, mostly because it's an older congregation], the halachic
issues were presented by our rabbi, but the congregational debate itself
was decidedly non-halakhic in character). When I have raised the issue
as a halakhic one in various minyanim (in a futile attempt to have the
Roth position heard), I have been ignored. So, in the end, the Hauptman/
Schorsch/Golinkin? position is followed defacto, but not by conscious
choice.
How Conservative rabbis could have permitted this to happen is another
question entirely (one that greatly disturbs this frum Conservative Jew).
> Whether or not that is a good thing is, of course, a matter of debate,
> even among Conservative Jews. (It's a relatively recurring subject on
> several CJ mailing lists in which I participate). Whatever one thinks
> of the merits, it does have the advantage of being eminently more
> feasible to implement according to its own terms than the Roth
> teshuvah.
I spoke recently to a learned friend who has contacts in the movement,
and he told me that the Roth teshuvah has taken a place next to takkanat
Ezra as a decree that simply couldn't be kept by the community. As
someone who follows the Roth teshuva, I can't accept that defeatist
attitude.
William Friedman
Susan Cohen
Polar wrote:
> On 27 Jul 2000 14:20:45 GMT, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote:
> >
> >But I have to say that no one's ever going to persuade
> >me to become part of a minyan.
>
> Wow! Intriguing! Sincere plea for an explanation of this incendiary
> statement.
How is it incendiary to state that I do not ever want to take
part in a minyan? Now, what I would find incendiary is
someone isisting that I have to.
Susan
judai...@my-deja.com
> With all due respect to Micha, his understanding is a few years
> old. :)
>
> That is to say, while he accurately describes the reasoning of R. Joel
> Roth in permitting women who accept the obligation of thrice-daily
> prayer to count to a minyan, other teshuvot have been offered since
> then which permit the counting of all women, regardless of whether or
> not they have formally assumed an obligation.
>
> In particular, Dr. Judith Hauptman, the chair of the Talmud department
> at JTS, has written a paper arguing that women are equally obligated
> to daily prayer from birth, and therefore need not assume any
> additional obligation (since they already *were* obligated).
> While Dr. Hauptman does not claim to be a posek halacha,
> R. Ismar Schorsch adopted the reasoning suggested in the Hauptman
> paper as binding on the Seminary's egalitarian minyan. I don't
> know if the Hauptman/Schorsch teshuvah [1] was ever considered
> by the Committee on Jewish Law & Standards, but it has nonetheless
> become quite influential in the Conservative movement,
Indeed! Just to add a historical note, Prof. Judtith Hauptman's
papers never needed to be approved by the law commitee for two separate
reasons.
(1) Any rabbi may make a psak halakha (legal decision) based on his or
her reading of the law codes, responsa, and articles on the topic.
There is no law mandating that a psak halakha has to be written by a
law committee. Of course, if a rabbi does make a psak, that psak does
not automatically become an official position of the movement. That
would only happen if (a) the law committee accepted it in one form or
another (b) the Rabbinical Assembly itself accepted it, or (c) a large
number of other rabbis in the same denomination learned about this
psak, studied it, and then chose to accept it as valid.
(2) In any case, many years before Prof. Hauptman wrote her papers on
the subject, the Conservative movement's official law committee already
had reached that conclusion! See the teshuva y Rabbi Phillip Segal,
published in "Conservative Judaism and Jewish Law", p.281-292. This
ruling did not became as accepted until years later, when the C
movement began ordaining women as rabbis. And at that time, as you
noted, the C movement chose to use a different paper - one by Rabbi
Joel Roth - on this topic.
For those who want more detail, I am attaching below an excerpt from
the Conservative Judaism FAQ
------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Can women count in a minyan?
Subject: Can women count in a minyan? (a quorum of 10 adult Jews
necessary for a public prayer service to be held),
There are three views that are held in the Conservative movement on
this issue.
(I) The first is the customary traditional position, which does not
count women for the minyan. This position is accepted by
approximately 20% of North American Conservative synagogues, very few
in Israel, and by many of the Masorti synagogues in the United Kingdom.
(II) The second position is the most liberal one, and was adopted in
1973. The law committee chose to issue a takkanah (legislative
enactment) rather than adopt a specific teshuva (responsa). The
takkanah was based on a teshuva prepared by Rabbi Phillip Segal.
[See "Conservative Judaism and Jewish Law", p.281-292.]
In 1993 JTS Talmud Processor Judith Hauptman authored a set of
papers on this subject and related issues. Her work supports this line
of reasoning. See _Judaism_ Winter 1993 v.42(1) p.94 "Women and
prayer"; and _Judaism_ Fall 1993 v42(4) "Some thoughts on the nature of
halakhic adjudication". Her papers are summarized below. Her thesis is
that halakha demands that all adult Jewish women count in a minyan
because:
(a) Women do have the same obligation to say tefila, including not only
the Amidah but many other papers. The Mishnah says that women are
obligated to say tefilah. Rashi and Tosafot hold that prayer is
rabbinically ordained, and that the tefila that the Mishnan obligates
men to recite is the same as that which are required to recite; both
must recite it with the same frequency. Other prominent authorities
who rules in this was are R. Isaac Alfasi and Maimonides (11th
century), R. Joseph Karo (16th century), R. Yehiel Epstein (19th
century) author of Arukh HaShulhan, and R. Meir Hakohen (more popularly
known as the Hafetz Hayyim), (20th century). In fact, the Hafetz
Hayyim obligates women not only to tefila, but to virtually all of the
components of morning and afternoon prayer.
(b) Men are encouraged to pray with a minyan, but contrary to popular
misunderstanding, this is not a halakhic requirement. The Shulkhan
Arukh OH 90:9 says "A person should make every effort to attend
services in a synagogue with a quorum; if circumstances prevent him
from doing so, he should pray, wherever he is, at the same time that
the synagogue service takes place". As Prof. Hauptman points
out "every effort" is not synonymous with absolute obligation. Communal
prayer is a preferred option, but it is not a requirement. It is
therefore incorrect to conclude that to serve as a prayer leader it is
necessary to have an obligation to pray in a minyan, and since women do
not have such an obligation, they cannot serve as prayer leader. No
Jew, according to Karo, has an obligation to public prayer.
(c) The Mishna and Talmud nowhere exclude women from participating in
the modern day form of minyan. In fact, "in all four cases where the
Talmud or its commentators allude to gender and minyan, opportunities
for minyan participation are extended to women" [Hauptman]. In
_Judaism_ Fall 1993 v42(4) Prof. Hauptman writes:
R. Joshua b. Levi (BT Megillah 4a) obligates women to read or
hear a reading of the megillah, just like men, it follows,
according to some authorities, that women may count in the
minyan for reading the megillah, and even read it for men.
The Mishnah (Megillah 4:3, Megillah 23b) states that no fewer
than ten must gather to read the Torah in public. A tannaitic
source [cited on that page]...says that women may be called
to read from the Torah in public, and that, in fact, everyone,
even a child, is qualified to read. Can there by any doubt,
in these circumstances, that women count in the required minyan?
According to some authorities, women's obligation to recite Grace
is Biblical, and a woman can therefore recite Grace for a man.
It would also seem to follow that she could then count in the
quorum of three for zimmun and the quorum of ten for zimmun in
God's name. In fact, R. Judah hacohen (Mainz, c. 1050) and
other authorities rule that a woman may count in a men's zimmun.
If a Jew is asked to violate a commandment of Torah in a public
setting, or else die, he must choose death. A public setting
is defined as the presence of a minyan of ten Jews (asarah
b'nei adam). According to some recent authorities, women are
counted in the minyan for kiddush hashem because they, like men,
are obligated by this mizvah. Again, the principle at work here
is that people who are similarly obligated join together to
form a minyan.
...the general defining quality of those who count in a minyan
is obligation, unless explicitly stated to the contrary. Since
women are obligated to read the megillah, die for kiddush
hashem, recite Grace, and theoretically are qualified to read
the Torah in public, just like men, and may therefore count in
the minyan for these mizvot, and since, as I demonstrated in my
previous article, women are obligated to pray at least twice
daily, just like men, it follows that they may count in the
minyan for prayer.
(d) Contrary to the common misperceptions, Jewish law never formally
prevented women from counting in a minyan until R. Karo stated this in
his Shulkhan Arukh (1600s). However, this R. Karo expands on this in
his larger work, the Beit Yosef (of which the Shulkha Arukh is only a
student's abridgement!); in the latter work he notes that there are
legitimate views that women indeed may be able to count in a minyan,
and that his rejecting this position is only one view.
(III) The third Conservative view is stricter than the view held by
Segal and Hauptman, but more liberal than the position within
Orthodoxy. In 1983 the faculty of the Jewish Theological Seminary
voted to accept women into the rabbinical school. One of the
conditions for this was for women to be able to count in a minyan and
have the same halakhic obligations as those of men. While many
accepted the Segal paper, some had questions about the propriety of
this approach. A responsum was prepared by Rabbi Joel Roth that
bypassed all such concerns. His responsum showed that it was possible
for women to make a vow which would obligate themselves to follow these
mitzvot; their new status is halakhically considered to have the same
level of obligation as that of men. This was the position officially
accepted by JTS. In this view, women generally may not count in a
minyan, unless they have specifically taken a vow to obligate
themselves in regards to these mitzvot. Any women who wants to count
in a minyan thus can; those that do not want to be counted are free not
to undertake any such obligations. In his teshuva (published in "The
Ordination of Women as Rabbis) he states:
"To be sure, it must be made absolutely clear to all women who
adopt the observance of mitzvot that there is often more involved than
observance alone. This is particularly true either where a minyan is
needed of where the issue of agency is involved. They must understand
that only obligated individuals constitute a quorum and only one who is
obligated can serve as an agent for others. Just because a woman comes
to services, or dons tallit and tefillin, or receives an aliyah does
not mean she has the right to be counted toward a minyan or to act as
an agent in behalf of one who is obligated to perform a mitzvah....
women may be counted in a minyan or serve as a shatz (shaliach tzibur,
cantor) only when they have accepted upon themselves the voluntary
obligation to pray as required by the law, and at the times required by
the law, and only when they recognize and affirm that failure to comply
with the obligation is sin. Then they may be counted in the quorum and
serve as the agents for others."
The rabbi of a Conservative or Masorti synagogue, acting as mara
d'atra, may adopt any of the above three positions.
http://communities.msn.com/JudaismFAQs
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
Jay Lapidus
>Just to add a historical note, Prof. Judtith Hauptman's
>papers never needed to be approved by the law commitee for two separate
>reasons.
>
>(1) Any rabbi may make a psak halakha (legal decision) based on his or
>her reading of the law codes, responsa, and articles on the topic.
[snip]
Prof. Hauptman is not a rabbi and does not claim to be.
However, Rabbi Schorsch, the JTSA chancellor issued a p'saq to decide
internal JTSA policies based on her research.
Jay Lapidus http://jlapidus.tripod.com
"Nonsense is nonsense, but the history of nonsense is
a very important science." -- Prof. Saul Lieberman
Polar
Sorry indeed if I trod on personal ground. Not my intention.
Very embarrassed. Was puzzled because I didn't see anything "wrong"
with participating in a minyan, particularly one where men & women
could pray together.
--
Polar
Brett Weiss
minyan.
--
Brett
"Russell Steinthal" <rm...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:8lpqqu$fai$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
> In article <8lnmnj$999$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <toi...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >In article <397F3513...@hotmail.com>,
> > wee...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Oftentimes, the best we can do is 9 for a minyan in the morning.
> >> I've heard something about including a held Torah as being as
> >> if there were 10, but would like a little more input on the
> >> topic. Frequently, there are 1 or 2 children who would be able
> >> to hold a scroll, even tho they are not b'nai mitzva.
> >>
> >> maxine in ri
> >
> >If you orthodox then indeed that is one option to have a child hole
an
> >object of holiness, however ask your LOR.
> >If you are a liberal jew, I am sure the ecclesiastical authorities
will
> >find a method for you to pray with 9 or 8 or 7 or 6 or 5 or 4
people
> >too.
>
> Perhaps this is one of those cases where some Conservative rabbis
are
> stricter than some of their Orthodox counterparts....
>
Brett Weiss
will
> find a method for you to pray with 9 or 8 or 7 or 6 or 5 or 4 people
> too.
I wasn't aware that different rules applied to Democratic Jews as
contrasted with Republican Jews.
CJ certainly does not allow a minyan to consist of less than 10
people, any more than OJ does.
--
Brett
<toi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8lnmnj$999$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <397F3513...@hotmail.com>,
> wee...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Oftentimes, the best we can do is 9 for a minyan in the morning.
> > I've heard something about including a held Torah as being as
> > if there were 10, but would like a little more input on the
> > topic. Frequently, there are 1 or 2 children who would be able
> > to hold a scroll, even tho they are not b'nai mitzva.
> >
> > maxine in ri
>
> If you orthodox then indeed that is one option to have a child hole
an
> object of holiness, however ask your LOR.
> > toichen
Dan Kimmel
news:397FDF28...@hers.com...
> > >object of holiness, however ask your LOR.
> > >find a method for you to pray with 9 or 8 or 7 or 6 or 5 or 4 people
> > >too.
> >
>
> me to become part of a minyan.
Unless you're saying that you would refuse to join a service that was
short -- thereby not allowing mourners to say Kaddish -- I don't see how you
can avoid it. If you show up at a service at the beginning where women are
counted you WILL be part of the minyan whether you know it or not.
Susan Cohen
Polar wrote:
> On 28 Jul 2000 00:30:10 GMT, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Polar wrote:
> >
> >> On 27 Jul 2000 14:20:45 GMT, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >But I have to say that no one's ever going to persuade
> >> >me to become part of a minyan.
> >>
> >> Wow! Intriguing! Sincere plea for an explanation of this incendiary
> >> statement.
> >
> >How is it incendiary to state that I do not ever want to take
> >part in a minyan? Now, what I would find incendiary is
> >someone isisting that I have to.
>
> Sorry indeed if I trod on personal ground. Not my intention.
> Very embarrassed. Was puzzled because I didn't see anything "wrong"
> with participating in a minyan, particularly one where men & women
> could pray together.
Well, there are those of us who think that it's a man's
duty, & wouldn't dream of taking it away from him
(Some of us like our own jobs much better!)
Susan
mpfreed...@my-deja.com
Harry Weiss <hjw...@netcom4.netcom.com> wrote:
> Russell Steinthal <rm...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> : In article <8lnmnj$999$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <toi...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> :>In article <397F3513...@hotmail.com>,
> :> wee...@hotmail.com wrote:
> :>> Oftentimes, the best we can do is 9 for a minyan in the morning.
> :>> I've heard something about including a held Torah as being as
> :>> if there were 10, but would like a little more input on the
> :>> topic. Frequently, there are 1 or 2 children who would be able
> :>> to hold a scroll, even tho they are not b'nai mitzva.
> :>>
> :>> maxine in ri
> :>If you orthodox then indeed that is one option to have a child hole
an
> :>object of holiness, however ask your LOR.
> :>If you are a liberal jew, I am sure the ecclesiastical authorities
will
> :>find a method for you to pray with 9 or 8 or 7 or 6 or 5 or 4 people
> :>too.
>
are
> : stricter than some of their Orthodox counterparts....
>
child.
> there is a view that a Torah can be counted as no. 10. There is a
> qualifier, that it can only be counted if there is a noticable sign
that
> there is a difference. The child (in my MO morning miyan it is 12
1/2
> and my Chabad evening Minyan it is 12) with the chumash just creates
the
> sign.
>
the
> : "child holding a Chumash" or "9 + the Sefer Torah" rule were
> : halachically permissible, and instructed that the weekday evening
> : minyan (the only time this really came up) simply omit kaddish and
> : barchu if they couldn't find 10 people (reversing the practice under
> : our synagogue's former rabbi to allow the above-cited leniencies).
I would genuinely like to know how many women in C avail themselves of
the opportunity to take part in minyanim during the week - even just to
recite kaddish for a yohrsteit. Perhaps we can have the experience of
this from C contributors. Am I right in thinking that this would not
apply to R since they do not have daily communal prayers.
Murray Freedman
Leeds UK
Dan Kimmel
news:8lrhbj$329$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8lq1dk$p2k$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>,
> I would genuinely like to know how many women in C avail themselves of
> the opportunity to take part in minyanim during the week - even just to
> recite kaddish for a yohrsteit. Perhaps we can have the experience of
> this from C contributors. Am I right in thinking that this would not
> apply to R since they do not have daily communal prayers.
>
It's probably to say many of the women at C daily services are there for
yahrzeit or because they are in the mourning period, but there are women at
my shul who show up regularly and are not there for kaddish.
As for Reform, I think that's right however when I visited the NY branch of
Hebrew Union College the rabbinical students there DID conduct daily
services. As Reform influences the other branches in some areas (e.g.,
female rabbis and cantors) it is also rediscovering and embracing some parts
of traditional Judaism as well.
Just compare the nearly non-existant Hebrew in the "classical Reform"
service with the service today which is conducted largely in Hebrew.
hotsh...@my-deja.com
"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
> news:397FDF28...@hers.com...
> >
> >
> > > >object of holiness, however ask your LOR.
> > > >If you are a liberal jew, I am sure the ecclesiastical authorities will
> > > >find a method for you to pray with 9 or 8 or 7 or 6 or 5 or 4 people
> > > >too.
> > >
> >
> > I'd like to thank whoever persuaded me to be a female.
> > me to become part of a minyan.
>
> short -- thereby not allowing mourners to say Kaddish -- I don't see how you
> can avoid it. If you show up at a service at the beginning where women are
> counted you WILL be part of the minyan whether you know it or not.
Not necessarily. First, Susan probably wouldn't attend such a minyan
anyway, but if she did . . . not all women necessarily _must_ count in
all "egalitarian" minyanim. A minyan which followed the Roth teshuva
(only women who take on their "exempted" obligations count) would not
count Susan. (No such minyanim exist, to my knowledge and my regret.)
However, I would hope that a minyan that counts all women would respect
Susan's decision not to be counted (even though it is disconsonant with
their halakha). I know for a fact that such things can happen -- there
was a woman at a Conservative minyan (which does count all women) who
desired not to be counted, and her decision was respected, even on those
occasions when she would have been tenth. Sometimes we found a real
tenth; other times we proceeded as if there was _not_ a minyan. Granted,
I doubt all Conservative minyanim would be so understanding (especially
those in which few or no people are actually Conservative Jews, i.e.,
learn and follow halakha), but such minyanim do exist, and will respect a
woman's decision not to count herself.
Shabbat Shalom,
William Friedman
Yisroel Markov
Harry Weiss <hjw...@netcom4.netcom.com> wrote:
> Russell Steinthal <rm...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> : In article <8lnmnj$999$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <toi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> :>In article <397F3513...@hotmail.com>,
> :> wee...@hotmail.com wrote:
> :>> Oftentimes, the best we can do is 9 for a minyan in the morning.
> :>> I've heard something about including a held Torah as being as
> :>> if there were 10, but would like a little more input on the
> :>> topic. Frequently, there are 1 or 2 children who would be able
> :>> to hold a scroll, even tho they are not b'nai mitzva.
> :>>
> :>> maxine in ri
> :>
> :>object of holiness, however ask your LOR.
> :>If you are a liberal jew, I am sure the ecclesiastical authorities will
> :>find a method for you to pray with 9 or 8 or 7 or 6 or 5 or 4 people
> :>too.
>
> : stricter than some of their Orthodox counterparts....
>
> Actually, the way I understand it you are not really counting the child.
> there is a view that a Torah can be counted as no. 10. There is a
> qualifier, that it can only be counted if there is a noticable sign that
> there is a difference. The child (in my MO morning miyan it is 12 1/2
> and my Chabad evening Minyan it is 12) with the chumash just creates the
> sign.
>
> : The rabbi at my parents' Conservative synagogue ruled that neither the
> : "child holding a Chumash" or "9 + the Sefer Torah" rule were
> : halachically permissible, and instructed that the weekday evening
> : minyan (the only time this really came up) simply omit kaddish and
> : barchu if they couldn't find 10 people (reversing the practice under
> : our synagogue's former rabbi to allow the above-cited leniencies).
It does seem like the C rabbi here is stricter. Here's what I've found in
Shulchan Arukh HaRav, Laws of Kaddish, 55-5 (page 100 in the standard Kehot
edition):
(WARNING: translation is mine, and so are all the errors. I would very much
appreciate corrections from people who know Hebrew better than I do. Words in
square brackets are my additions to facilitate understanding of the rather
terse language; again, corrections of any misunderstandings are welcome.
Round brackets indicate references found in the text.)
"There are those [halachic authorities] (Rav Hai, Rabbeinu Tam; TB Brachot
47b) who permit saying words of holiness [dvar she-b’kedushah, i.e., prayers
like kaddish and kedushah] with [only] nine [adult male Jews present] and add
a slave, a woman, or a minor, because [it is written] “upon any ten children
of the Covenant the Shechina rests” [without regard to freedom, gender, or
age], but [normally this is not done because] it is not honor to the Heaven
[i.e., God] to say words of holiness with only nine mitzvah-obligated [men
present].
"And only a minor [boy] older than six who knows to Whom he is praying [can
be added], for a minor under six years old, even if he knows, has no [real]
knowledge whatsoever, since he doesn’t come to answer [I don’t understand
what this means], and therefore he is like one who has no understanding [ben
da’at] (Rivash, like Rav Nachman, supra).
"And there are those (Rosh, Rambam) who say that no woman, slave, or child
can be added [to the nine], but it is necessary that all ten should be male,
free, and adult, like it is brought in “Gates” (Maharil 41) that Shechina
doesn’t rest [otherwise], and therefore we do not say words of holiness. And
even though some give a Sefer Torah in the hands of the minor (Tosafot TB
Brachot 48a), this doesn’t permit to add him. [Here comes a short sentence I
can’t quite parse, with reference to Shulhan Arukh samech-ayin-dalet and
Remah thereon, but I think that it means: “Despite all that, some] are
accustomed to be lenient in time of sore need, and they add a minor with a
Chumash in his hand, or even without a Chumash, and it is acceptable since
they have what to rely on. But even they only say Barchu and kaddish,
because he [the minor] is obligated to [say or answer these], but not the
kaddish [yatom, mourner’s kaddish] that comes after “Aleinu”, because that
one is only a minhag."
So it seems that the decision to exclude minors from the minyan is because of
a doubt of whether they understand what's involved, and the decision to
exclude women from same rests on our understanding of God's "honor";
obligation doesn't seem to enter into this. I confess I don't understand the
logic. (In fact, one of my more learned friends insists that in the first
couple of hundred years after prayers were instituted women *were* counted,
but he can't cite a source.) As for slaves, I have no idea.
Can someone more learned please alleviate the confusion?
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are two ways to approach life: to believe everything, and to
doubt everything. Both save us from thinking." -- Alfred Korzybsky
Russell Steinthal
>Russell Steinthal (rm...@columbia.edu) wrote:
>
>: That is to say, while he accurately describes the reasoning of R. Joel
>: Roth in permitting women who accept the obligation of thrice-daily
>: prayer to count to a minyan, other teshuvot have been offered since
>: then which permit the counting of all women, regardless of whether or
>: not they have formally assumed an obligation.
>
>exactly happened or was discovered between these 2 rulings to
>ermit the 2nd? or was the 1st one not thought thru enough?
Well, it depends on who you ask. :)
R. Roth, for one, continues to hold by his position. He happens to
disagree with the reasoning of the later position, and since he's
clearly a recognized authority, he's entitled to his opinion. (I can
personally attest to this, having heard him discuss the subject, and
his discomfort participating in an egalitarian minyan which had
abandoned his requirement that women accept a formal obligation.)
From R. Schorsch's perspective, I can only assume that he was
presented with logic he found more compelling than earlier teshuvot,
and decided to adopt the later reasoning. This is analagous to the
case where a rabbi is asked, "Is it permissible to do X?," and
initially says no, but later is told of a recent teshuva which
demonstrates a leniency in that matter. So the next time someone
asks, he says yes, X is permissible. (I see nothing in my
understanding of the halachic process which would prohibit an Orthodox
rabbi from doing this... It's part of the process of halachic change,
for example the permission of women's learning, which was previously
prohibited.)
From a systemic perspective, Conservative Judaism has always affirmed
that more than one position can be acceptable within the movement.
So, just as Roth egalitarianism always existed in a pluralistic
balance with traditional non-egalitarianism, now both of those exist
in parallel with the "newer" egalitarian teshuvot. For any given
synagogue/minyan, the positions are mutually exclusive; for the
movement as a whole, they can coexist simultaneously.
>what follows from this question - how can a C- person be sure that
>the rules will not be updated 5 years from now? for example,
>were he to argue against R- 20 years ago that women need to accept
>extra obligations, he would have made fool of himself and mislead
>his R- bretheren! and maybe now he can go to a R- congregation
>in anticipation of upcoming leniencies?
Halacha, or at least rabbis' understanding of it, changes. The same
thing can be said in the Orthodox world, as the example I quoted above
shows: if one had gone around proclaiming that it was absolutely
forbidden for women to learn Torah, you would have been embarassed to
have known that major rabbis had started to permit it, and (if you
could live long enough) to discover that it was now basically
normative.
mpfreed...@my-deja.com
"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> <mpfreed...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8lrhbj$329$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <8lq1dk$p2k$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > I would genuinely like to know how many women in C avail themselves
of
> > the opportunity to take part in minyanim during the week - even
just to
> > recite kaddish for a yohrsteit. Perhaps we can have the experience
of
> > this from C contributors. Am I right in thinking that this would
not
> > apply to R since they do not have daily communal prayers.
> >
>
> It's probably to say many of the women at C daily services are there
for
> yahrzeit or because they are in the mourning period, but there are
women at
> my shul who show up regularly and are not there for kaddish.
Are there any statistics on this regarding the C mevement generally ?
>
> As for Reform, I think that's right however when I visited the NY
branch of
> Hebrew Union College the rabbinical students there DID conduct daily
> services.
Yes but this is surely the exception that proves the rule in R ?
> As Reform influences the other branches in some areas (e.g.,
female rabbis and cantors) it is also rediscovering and embracing some
parts
> of traditional Judaism as well.
> Just compare the nearly non-existant Hebrew in the "classical Reform"
> service with the service today which is conducted largely in Hebrew.
Gratifying return to more traditional practices but offset by other
trends like adoption of patrilineality in 1983.
Murray Freedman
Susan Cohen
Dan Kimmel wrote:
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
> news:397FDF28...@hers.com...
> >
> > I'd like to thank whoever persuaded me to be a female.
> > But I have to say that no one's ever going to persuade
> > me to become part of a minyan.
>
> Unless you're saying that you would refuse to join a service that was
> short -- thereby not allowing mourners to say Kaddish -
I am not of the belief that my presense either aids or hinders.
> - I don't see how you can avoid it. If you show up at a service at the
> beginning where women are counted you WILL be part of the minyan whether you
> know it or not.
That's definitely not true everywhere.
I've been to synagogues who ask women first
whether they wish to be counted. And they
respect their wishes regardless.
Susan
hotsh...@my-deja.com
> I would genuinely like to know how many women in C avail themselves of
> the opportunity to take part in minyanim during the week - even just to
> recite kaddish for a yohrsteit.
In my experience, a growing number, baruch Hashem. I have found that as
morning (and afternoon\evening) minyanim transition from old men (by
necessity -- many are dying) to a younger contingent, women are more
likely to take part. As more shacharit\minca\maariv minyanim become
egalitarian, more women have begun to attend. As more women take on the
mitzvot of tallit and tefillin (and as these practices become more
socially acceptable), attendence by women has increased as well.
> Perhaps we can have the experience of
> this from C contributors.
A local university Conservative minyan (one of the few, if only, college
Conservative minyanim in the country that has weekday Monday/Thursday/
Chol Hamoed/etc. tefillah) with which I daven is attended approximately
by half women; most wear tallitot, none but several irregular
participants don tefillin. At the non-egal, "mixed seating" morning
minyan I sometimes attend (more frequently during the summer), no women
ever show up, except at yahretzeits. (Recently, a very active female
member of the shul searched in vain for Chabad or Orthodox minyanim where
she could say Kaddish when she went on vacation. Unable to find one (and
the rabbis she called not very accommodating to a woman), she opted to
delay her family's vacation to say Kaddish with the regular minyan.) At
the (non-egal, mixed seating) minyan at which my mother davened during
her year of aveilut (and at which she continues to daven on a regular
basis), she was the only woman (and continues to be so) among the old
men.
> Am I right in thinking that this would not
> apply to R since they do not have daily communal prayers.
Although I am unaware of the existence of daily Reform minyanim, at the
very least the New Union Prayerbook (1975) has (greatly abbreviated)
tefillot for daily shacharit/mincha/maariv.
Shabbat Shalom,
William Friedman
Jonathan J. Baker
>Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>>On 27 Jul 2000 14:08:09 GMT, maxine in ri <wee...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>: C requires 10 adult Jews for a minyan, men or women.
>>Technically, C requires 10 men, or 10 women who took upon themselves to pray
>>regularly. This self-imposed obligation (oath) is used to justify counting them
>>toward a minyan along with men who have a rabbinically imposed obligation.
>>I don't agree with the reasoning, as the regulars here guessed by now.
>>I just mention it because I have never heard of an actual C congregation that
>>does things according to their own ruling.
>That is to say, while he accurately describes the reasoning of R. Joel
>Roth in permitting women who accept the obligation of thrice-daily
>prayer to count to a minyan, other teshuvot have been offered since
>then which permit the counting of all women, regardless of whether or
>not they have formally assumed an obligation.
IIRC, R' Roth uses this self-obligation while glossing over the
fact that this self-obligation obligates the women in a *different*
mitzvah than that which obligates the men to attend a minyan. The
men are obligated in sanctifying God's name, while self-obligated
women are obligated in fulfilling an oath.
>In particular, Dr. Judith Hauptman, the chair of the Talmud department
>at JTS, has written a paper arguing that women are equally obligated
>to daily prayer from birth, and therefore need not assume any
>additional obligation (since they already *were* obligated). While
I do not take any revolutionary claims by Dr. Hauptman seriously
until I have checked out her sources myself, as I and others have
found that she takes unacceptable liberties with the integrity of
the texts she quotes to support several of her positions.
See other post for specific critiques of "judaismfaqs" presentation
on this topic.
I will have to write a critique of the Hauptman papers. Or,
I could just refer people to the critiques made by R' Broyde and
Dr. Wolowelsky in JUDAISM of Dr. Hauptman's papers.
>Dr. Hauptman does not claim to be a posek halacha, R. Ismar Schorsch
>adopted the reasoning suggested in the Hauptman paper as binding on
>the Seminary's egalitarian minyan. I don't know if the
>Hauptman/Schorsch teshuvah [1] was ever considered by the Committee on
>Jewish Law & Standards, but it has nonetheless become quite
>influential in the Conservative movement, and has been adopted by many
>rabbis for their synagogues. (I supect a majority of egaliatarian
>Conservative shuls follow it, but I have no actual data to back that
>up. Perhaps Jay does?)
Well, at least that's the normal (Orthodox) way teshuvot become
binding: people accept their logic, rather than having them imposed
from above by a pseudo-Sanhedrin-like CJLS.
--
Jonathan Baker | It's almost time ta muze
jjb...@panix.com | about the Destruction.
Jonathan J. Baker
If "judaismfaqs" is reposting old material, I'll repost an old
critique of the material. At some point I'll try to post a
critque of the original articles in JUDAISM.
This was originally posted on 8/5/99.
The poster writes:
>The long version of my argument:
^^^^^^^^^^^ - note that he says "my argument", thus taking
responsibility for the content to follow. [Thus he can't escape
criticism by saying "you're criticizing my sources", as he sometimes
does.]
The long version of my problems:
> JTS Talmud Professor Judith Hauptman authored a set of papers on
>this subject and related issues, examining the manner in a
>comprehensive tour-de-force. See _Judaism_ Winter 1993 v.42(1) p.94
>"Women and prayer"; and _Judaism_ Fall 1993 v42(4) "Some thoughts on
>the nature of halakhic adjudication" by Prof. Judith Hauptman. The
>reader is strongly urged to read these papers, which are summarized
>below: This position shows that classical halakhic sources in fact can
>allow all adult Jewish women to count in a minyan because:
I read them many years ago, maybe I'll read them again.
>(a) Women do have the same obligation to say tefila, including not
>only the Amidah but many other papers. The Mishnah says that women
Does Hauptmann say *same* or is that your interpretation?
>are obligated to say tefilah. Rashi and Tosafot hold that prayer is
>rabbinically ordained, and that the tefila that the Mishnan obligates
>men to recite is the same as that which are required to recite; both
>must recite it with the same frequency. Other prominent authorities
>who rules in this was are R. Isaac Alfasi and Maimonides (11th
>century), R. Joseph Karo (16th century), R. Yehiel Epstein (19th
>century) author of Arukh HaShulhan, and R. Meir Hakohen (more
>popularly known as the Hafez Hayyim), (20th century). In fact, the
>Hafez Hayyim obligates women not only to tefillah, but to virtually
>all of the components of morning and afternoon prayer.
Note that this is (for women) *rabbinic* obligation.
Women and men have the same Torah obligation to pray (daily or in times of
need, per Rambam vs. Ramban in Sefer haMitzvot 5). In addition, men have a
rabbinic obligation to pray tefillah twice a day, and a Torah obligation to say Shma
(rabbinically modified to include the associated blessings and last 2 paragraphs)
twice a day. Women
are encouraged, particularly in the Acharonim, to pray at least twice a day. Men
are encouraged to pray with a minyan. Encouragement is not the same as
obligation.
>(b) Men are encouraged to pray with a minyan, but contrary to popular
>misunderstanding, this is not a halakhic requirement. The Shulkhan
>Arukh OH 90:9 says "A person should make every effort to attend
>services in a synagogue with a quorum; if circumstances prevent him
>from doing so, he should pray, wherever he is, at the same time that
>the synagogue service takes place". As Prof. Hauptman points out
>"every effort" is not synonymous with absolute obligation. Communal
>prayer is a preferred option, but it is not a requirement. It is
>therefore incorrect to conclude that to serve as a prayer leader it
>is necessary to have an obligation to pray in a minyan, and since
>women do not have such an obligation, they cannot serve as prayer
>leader. No Jew, according to Karo, has an obligation to public prayer.
Nor according to Rambam. Mr. Berman tries to counter with OH 90:16, but I see
that 90:17 mitigates the strength of 90:16. It's strong encouragement, but still only
encouragement, not obligation. This is why (ignoring 90:16-17) I don't think her
analysis went far enough, at least as presented here. Or did you leave out a
presenetation of those paragraphs?
>(c) The Mishna and Talmud nowhere exclude women from participating in
>the modern day form of minyan. In fact, "in all four cases where the
Patently false.
>Talmud or its commentators allude to gender and minyan, opportunities
>for minyan participation are extended to women" [Hauptman]. In
>_Judaism_ Fall 1993 v42(4) Prof. Hauptman writes:
You see, it's lines like this that make it unclear to me how much is Hauptmann's
and how much is yours.
>
> R. Joshua b. Levi (BT Megillah 4a) obligates women to read or hear
> a reading of the megillah, just like men, it follows,
> according to some authorities, that women may count in the
> minyan for reading the megillah, and even read it for men.
And in fact, everyone agrees that women count for reading megillah. Is a minyan
even required for reading megillah? I don't think so - so this is not a relevant
case. A minyan is required for saying the after-bracha with the Divine names, but
even an individual can say it without the names. See Kitzur SA 141:9.
> The Mishnah (Megillah 4:3, Megillah 23b) states that no
> fewer than ten must gather to read the Torah in public.
> A tannaitic source [cited on that page]...says that women
> may be called to read from the Torah in public, and that, in
> fact, everyone, even a child, is qualified to read. Can there be
> any doubt, in these circumstances, that women count in
> the required minyan?
Yes. Reading (i.e. getting an aliyah) is again a different questions than counting
for a minyan. One thing (minyan) allows the reading to happen, the other
(technical ability to read) is the reading itself. Container for the thing contained.
> According to some authorities, women's obligation to recite Grace
>is Biblical, and a woman can therefore recite Grace for a man. It
>would also seem to follow that she could then count in the quorum of
>three for zimmun and the quorum of ten for zimmun in God's name. In
False. The Gemara says explicitly that zimmun of ten requires men.
>fact, R. Judah hacohen (Mainz, c. 1050) and
> other authorities rule that a woman may count in a men's zimmun.
Citations? I had the same idea, that women reciting grace for a man entitled her to
count for a mixed zimmun, but a more learned fellow at work straightened me out.
A careful reading of the sources
demonstrates that agency and inclusion in zimmun are two separate questions.
> If a Jew is asked to violate a commandment of Torah in a public
> setting, or else die, he must choose death. A public setting
> is defined as the presence of a minyan of ten Jews (asarah
> b'nei adam). According to some recent authorities, women are
> counted in the minyan for kiddush hashem because they, like men,
> are obligated by this mizvah. Again, the principle at work here is
> that people who are similarly obligated join together to
> form a minyan.
AFAIK, everyone counts women in the minyan for kiddush Hashem. Do you have
any sources to the contrary to demonstrate the validity of "some recent
authorities" being exceptional?
> ...the general defining quality of those who count in a minyan is
>obligation, unless explicitly stated to the contrary. Since women
>are obligated to read the megillah, die for kiddush
> hashem, recite Grace, and theoretically are qualified to read the
>Torah in public, just like men, and may therefore count in the
>minyan for these mizvot, and since, as I demonstrated in my previous
That's an invalid inference, the consequent of that "therefore".
>article, women are obligated to pray at least twice
> daily, just like men, it follows that they may count in the
> minyan for prayer.
Again invalid inference, since it leaves out the entire concept of devarim
shebikedushah.
I agree with a few of her points, but her conclusions are unwarranted inasmuch as
they reflect incomplete research and analysis.
>(d) Contrary to the common misperceptions, Jewish law never formally
>prevented women from counting in a minyan until R. Karo stated this in
>his Shulkhan Arukh (1600s). However, this R. Karo expands on this in
False. Hauptmann herself cites the Tosfos on this in one of her articles, making
explicit the requirement of men from the gezerah shavah of toch-toch-edah-edah.
>his larger work, the Beit Yosef ; in the latter work he notes that
>there are legitimate views that women indeed may be able to count in a
>minyan, and that his rejecting this position is only one view.
The question is, in a minyan for what? Citation for this?
> And yes, this means that women can be a shaliach tzibur (emissary
>of the congregation). Consider these additional points:
Again she glosses over/ignores various issues.
> According to the halakha, the shaliach tzibur conducts the
>services to help fulfill the obligations of worshippers who cannot
>pray for themselves. This provision stems from a time before the
>invention of the printing press when prayer books were scarce and many
>Jews could not pray on their own. In contrast, in modern times prayer
>books with translations are available at all synagogues.
>[Paragraph about agency requiring equality of obligation snipped]
> That is, women as women may be called to read from the Torah on
>Shabbat. But, in a society where their social standing makes them
>subordinate to, and dependent upon, men, and, hence, of lesser
>dignity, women may not." Thus in a society such as ours this concern
This ignores several recent analyses of kavod tzibbur; many of them boil down to
levels of obligation (Frimer; A. Weiss), and have nothing to do with "social
standing".
>is not applicable; In fact in most synagogues it would offend the
>dignity of the congrehation if a women were _unable_ to act as a
>shalich tzibur. "
The 60,000,000 Frenchmen argument, which ignores the idea of Catholic Israel
and Puk Chazi: only if the community of *observant* Jews innovates something can
it be considered correct as a communal innovation. What the non-observants do
is irrelevant.
> This is just an abridgement of the full argument, which can be
>found in "Women and prayer" Judith Hauptman _Judaism_ Winter 1993
>v42 n1 p.94.
Well, I don't know about the actual arguments, but as presented here, there are
many holes and flaws which mar the arguments.
Russell Steinthal
Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>Russell Steinthal writes:
>>In particular, Dr. Judith Hauptman, the chair of the Talmud department
>>at JTS, has written a paper arguing that women are equally obligated
>>to daily prayer from birth, and therefore need not assume any
>>additional obligation (since they already *were* obligated). While
>
>I do not take any revolutionary claims by Dr. Hauptman seriously
>until I have checked out her sources myself, as I and others have
>found that she takes unacceptable liberties with the integrity of
>the texts she quotes to support several of her positions.
Not having fully reviewed her writings (and certainly not the
originals of the sources she quotes), I can't express any opinion on
your comment about her past record. But I can say that it seems
perfectly reasonable to want to check a scholar's sources, and I
assume many (if not all) of the rabbis who have adopted her reasoning
for their congregations have done so (or at least relied on other
peers' reviews).
>I will have to write a critique of the Hauptman papers. Or,
>I could just refer people to the critiques made by R' Broyde and
>Dr. Wolowelsky in JUDAISM of Dr. Hauptman's papers.
If I didn't already have a "to read" pile which was longer than my
likely available time for the next decade or so, I'd be interested in
seeing the citations (or, even better, URL's, if they are available
online). OTOH, it's unlikely that it would change my actual halachic
practice in any way, since I wouldn't presume to be able to fairly
evaluate what I assume are conflicting sources.
>>Dr. Hauptman does not claim to be a posek halacha, R. Ismar Schorsch
>>adopted the reasoning suggested in the Hauptman paper as binding on
>>the Seminary's egalitarian minyan. I don't know if the
>>Hauptman/Schorsch teshuvah [1] was ever considered by the Committee on
>>Jewish Law & Standards, but it has nonetheless become quite
>>influential in the Conservative movement, and has been adopted by many
>>rabbis for their synagogues. (I supect a majority of egaliatarian
>>Conservative shuls follow it, but I have no actual data to back that
>>up. Perhaps Jay does?)
>
>Well, at least that's the normal (Orthodox) way teshuvot become
>binding: people accept their logic, rather than having them imposed
>from above by a pseudo-Sanhedrin-like CJLS.
And to be clear, it's the way teshuvot usually become adopted by
Conservative rabbis as well. The CJLS functions as a useful resource
for rabbis, by centralizing the efforts of some of the movement's
leading halachists, and directing the various questions which arise to
their consideration. And its voting system provides a "stamp of
approval" which provides some basic peer review of their opinions
(i.e. it indicates that some number (I forget the exact one) of the
author's colleagues on the committee, who are themselves experts, see
the reasoning of the teshuva as valid).
But absent the unanimous consent of the CJLS and a supermajority (I
think) of the entire Rabbinical Assembly required to institute a
Standard of Rabbinic Practice, teshuvot only have persuasive authority
on an individual rabbi, who is free to adopt whatever halachic
position he or she believes appropriate, in light of his or her own
knowledge, learning, and the various teshuvot (from whatever source)
they have at their disposal.
(And even in the case of a Standard, rabbis are still free to
disregard it, and posken otherwise for their congregations; if they do
so, however, they risk expulsion from the RA, which simply means they
can no longer claim to be Conservative rabbis. Most C congregations
would probably prefer to have an RA member in good standing as a
rabbi, however, and would probably start to look elsewhere.)
-Russell
(not a rabbi)
Dan Kimmel
>
>
> Dan Kimmel wrote:
>
> > "Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
> > news:397FDF28...@hers.com...
> > >
> > > I'd like to thank whoever persuaded me to be a female.
> > > But I have to say that no one's ever going to persuade
> > > me to become part of a minyan.
> >
> > Unless you're saying that you would refuse to join a service that was
> > short -- thereby not allowing mourners to say Kaddish -
>
> I am not of the belief that my presense either aids or hinders.
If you refuse to be the tenth and no tenth arrives, mourners will definitely
be hindered in being unable to say Kaddish.
>
> > - I don't see how you can avoid it. If you show up at a service at the
> > beginning where women are counted you WILL be part of the minyan whether
you
> > know it or not.
>
> That's definitely not true everywhere.
> I've been to synagogues who ask women first
> whether they wish to be counted. And they
> respect their wishes regardless.
That's your right and I'm glad your wishes are respected. What I'm trying
to understand is why you are adamant on a subject which causes no harm to
you but affect others.
toi...@my-deja.com
jlap...@my-deja.com wrote:
> RK wrote:
>
> >Just to add a historical note, Prof. Judtith Hauptman's
> >papers never needed to be approved by the law commitee for two
separate
> >reasons.
> >
> >(1) Any rabbi may make a psak halakha (legal decision) based on his
or
> >her reading of the law codes, responsa, and articles on the topic.
>
> Prof. Hauptman is not a rabbi and does not claim to be.
> However, Rabbi Schorsch, the JTSA chancellor issued a p'saq to decide
>
> Jay Lapidus
Why is Prof. Hauptman not recognised as a rabbi by the conservatives?
Surely if she can learn enough talmud to be a professor she knows
enough to be a rabbi, or in other words can any J.T.S. graduate be
assumed to know how to learn talmud better than Hauptman and therefore
be more qualified than Hauptman to make halachic decisions?
toichen
Jonathan J. Baker
> jlap...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> Prof. Hauptman is not a rabbi and does not claim to be.
>> However, Rabbi Schorsch, the JTSA chancellor issued a p'saq to decide
>> internal JTSA policies based on her research.=20
>Why is Prof. Hauptman not recognised as a rabbi by the conservatives?
>Surely if she can learn enough talmud to be a professor she knows
>enough to be a rabbi, or in other words can any J.T.S. graduate be
>assumed to know how to learn talmud better than Hauptman and therefore
>be more qualified than Hauptman to make halachic decisions?
Different degree, same title - goes back to my latest argument with Lisa.
Orthodox rabbis are certified for knowing a body of legal material: shas
poskim and codes. Conservative rabbis also have to know other material,
such as history and philosophy of Judaism, administration and counseling,
all of which are necessary in the American rabbinate. Even RIETS requires
an extra-Yeshiva degree when it grants ordination, whether it's an MS from
Revel, or a cantorial degree, or a degree in social work (?).
Dr. Hauptman specialized in Talmud/codes, and did not (presumably) take
the extra training for a rabbinic degree.
Even for Orthodox smicha, there is specialized smicha material. Someone
may have spent years sitting in learning, but if he didn't learn the
issur veheter material, he can't pass the Rabbanut exams to be an Israeli
state-certified rabbi.
David Ellis
>I would genuinely like to know how many women in C avail themselves of
>the opportunity to take part in minyanim during the week - even just to
>recite kaddish for a yohrsteit. Perhaps we can have the experience of
>this from C contributors.
In my (Conservative) congregation, men and women both count towards
the requirement of a minyan. In practice, the daily minyan seldom
reaches ten adults without the presence of women. Among the women who
participate regularly, some are saying Kaddish in their eleven months,
some are there for Yahrzeit, and some show up just to help make the
minyan.
--
David J Ellis
92 Wilson Drive / Framingham, MA 01702
d...@mkitso.ultranet.com
Harry Weiss
: mpfreed...@my-deja.com (Murray Freedman) wrote:
:>I would genuinely like to know how many women in C avail themselves of
:>the opportunity to take part in minyanim during the week - even just to
:>recite kaddish for a yohrsteit. Perhaps we can have the experience of
:>this from C contributors.
: In my (Conservative) congregation, men and women both count towards
: the requirement of a minyan. In practice, the daily minyan seldom
: reaches ten adults without the presence of women. Among the women who
: participate regularly, some are saying Kaddish in their eleven months,
: some are there for Yahrzeit, and some show up just to help make the
: minyan.
Another welcome back to a "long lost" scj regular.
: --
: David J Ellis
: 92 Wilson Drive / Framingham, MA 01702
: d...@mkitso.ultranet.com
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
Noach
"maxine in ri" <wee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3980398A...@hotmail.com...
> toi...@my-deja.com wrote:
> C requires 10 adult Jews for a minyan, men or women. Our
> spiritual leader at the moment is an MO cantor,
He came all the way from Missouri just to be your cantor?
;O)
Susan Cohen
Dan Kimmel wrote:
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
> news:3983B59E...@hers.com...
> >
> >
> > Dan Kimmel wrote:
> >
> > > "Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
> > > news:397FDF28...@hers.com...
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to thank whoever persuaded me to be a female.
> > > > But I have to say that no one's ever going to persuade
> > > > me to become part of a minyan.
> > >
> > > Unless you're saying that you would refuse to join a service that was
> > > short -- thereby not allowing mourners to say Kaddish -
> >
> > I am not of the belief that my presense either aids or hinders.
>
> If you refuse to be the tenth and no tenth arrives, mourners will definitely
> be hindered in being unable to say Kaddish.
Except that I don't count towards Kiddish, and my
presence can't allow them to say it.
> > > - I don't see how you can avoid it. If you show up at a service at the
> > > beginning where women are counted you WILL be part of the minyan whether
> you
> > > know it or not.
> >
> > That's definitely not true everywhere.
> > I've been to synagogues who ask women first
> > whether they wish to be counted. And they
> > respect their wishes regardless.
>
> That's your right and I'm glad your wishes are respected. What I'm trying
> to understand is why you are adamant on a subject which causes no harm to you
> but affect others.
Because it would cause harm to me, if only to offend me at the very least.
Susan
Brett Weiss
A hypothetical question...
You are walking past a CJ shul, and someone comes out and asks if
you're Jewish. You say that you are, and are told that there are 9 for
a minyan and you'll make 10. They've already been waiting 15 minutes,
and if you don't participate (at least to the extent of coming in),
the people there won't be able to say kaddish.
I fully understand that you do not believe that you count towards the
minyan, but under this egalitarian CJ shul, they will count you.
What do you do?
--
Brett
Susan Cohen
Brett Weiss wrote:
What do you think? Tell them to find a man or a C woman.
Dan's already tried this scenario, tho' not spelled out as
specifcally as this.
Susan
Dr. Shlomo Argamon
toi...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> In article <pgpmoose.2000...@scjm.nj.org>,
> jlap...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > RK wrote:
> >
> > >Just to add a historical note, Prof. Judtith Hauptman's
> > >papers never needed to be approved by the law commitee for two
> separate
> > >reasons.
> > >
> > >(1) Any rabbi may make a psak halakha (legal decision) based on his
> or
> > >her reading of the law codes, responsa, and articles on the topic.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Prof. Hauptman is not a rabbi and does not claim to be.
> > However, Rabbi Schorsch, the JTSA chancellor issued a p'saq to decide
> > internal JTSA policies based on her research.=20
> >
> > Jay Lapidus
>
> Why is Prof. Hauptman not recognised as a rabbi by the conservatives?
> Surely if she can learn enough talmud to be a professor she knows
> enough to be a rabbi, or in other words can any J.T.S. graduate be
> assumed to know how to learn talmud better than Hauptman and therefore
> be more qualified than Hauptman to make halachic decisions?
> toichen
Come now, there are plenty of Orthodox non-Rabbis who learn Talmud
(and codes) pretty damn well! The difference is in following a
particular course of study in pursuit of ordination.
-Shlomo-
maxine in ri
>
> I would genuinely like to know how many women in C avail themselves of
> the opportunity to take part in minyanim during the week - even just to
> recite kaddish for a yohrsteit. Perhaps we can have the experience of
> apply to R since they do not have daily communal prayers.
>
> Leeds UK
In my congregation, since the passing of the person who used to
call an cajol folks in to coming for minyan, it's averaging
50/50 men and women, at least on Friday mornings when I am able
to attend. One couple comes late, so that only the final
kaddish of the morning can be said oftentimes. Shabbat evening
services in the summer sometimes don't have enough for a minyan,
and talks with the other C synagogue that is also struggling to
have a minyan keep failing (don't let me start on that topic!),
I don't know what will happen when the next "Minyanaire" goes to
his or her final rest.
maxine in ri
hotsh...@my-deja.com
"Brett Weiss" <law...@erols.com> wrote:
> Susan:
>
> A hypothetical question...
>
> You are walking past a CJ shul, and someone comes out and asks if
> you're Jewish. You say that you are, and are told that there are 9 for
> a minyan and you'll make 10. They've already been waiting 15 minutes,
> and if you don't participate (at least to the extent of coming in),
> the people there won't be able to say kaddish.
>
> I fully understand that you do not believe that you count towards the
> minyan, but under this egalitarian CJ shul, they will count you.
>
> What do you do?
Susan has already responded. I believe she doesn't recognize any
positions that count women in a minyan as valid (please correct me if I'm
wrong). A more interesting, and pressing, question, is what of the man
or woman who recognizes counting women in a minyan as a halakhically
legitimate option, but doesn't personally follow that position. (For
example, in my case, I follow Roth [counts only obligated women] but not
Hauptman/Schorsch/Golinkin [who count all women] -- do I "complete" their
minyan, if I believe HSG is legit, but I follow Roth?)
Thanks,
Will
Simcha Streltsov
: >what follows from this question - how can a C- person be sure that
: >the rules will not be updated 5 years from now? for example,
: >were he to argue against R- 20 years ago that women need to accept
: >extra obligations, he would have made fool of himself and mislead
: >his R- bretheren! and maybe now he can go to a R- congregation
: >in anticipation of upcoming leniencies?
: Halacha, or at least rabbis' understanding of it, changes. The same
: thing can be said in the Orthodox world, as the example I quoted above
: shows: if one had gone around proclaiming that it was absolutely
: forbidden for women to learn Torah, you would have been embarassed to
: have known that major rabbis had started to permit it, and (if you
: could live long enough) to discover that it was now basically
: normative.
for one, I think there is a difference between social policies and understanding
of commandments: in C- case, there is a religious permission and obligation created
single-handedly for almost 50% of the members of the movement
when all women became part of the minyan!
for 2nd, there was a great social change from often closed societies in
Europe to modern US & Israel that lead to changes in education - but
in your case, the change seemed to occur over short period of time -
what caused it?
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Brett Weiss
--
Brett
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
news:39852159...@hers.com...
>
>
> Brett Weiss wrote:
>
> > Susan:
> >
> > A hypothetical question...
> >
> > You are walking past a CJ shul, and someone comes out and asks if
> > you're Jewish. You say that you are, and are told that there are 9
for
> > a minyan and you'll make 10. They've already been waiting 15
minutes,
> > and if you don't participate (at least to the extent of coming
in),
> > the people there won't be able to say kaddish.
> >
> > I fully understand that you do not believe that you count towards
the
> > minyan, but under this egalitarian CJ shul, they will count you.
> >
> > What do you do?
>
kam...@infinet.com
messages to moderated groups so this is being emailed to the
submit@scjm address.
In article <8lq4ba$pad$3...@news3.bu.edu>, Simcha Streltsov <sim...@bu.edu> wrote:
>Russell Steinthal (rm...@columbia.edu) wrote:
>
>: That is to say, while he accurately describes the reasoning of R. Joel
>: Roth in permitting women who accept the obligation of thrice-daily
>: prayer to count to a minyan, other teshuvot have been offered since
>: then which permit the counting of all women, regardless of whether or
>: not they have formally assumed an obligation.
>
>AFAIU, C- holds certain principles when they develop new rules. What
>exactly happened or was discovered between these 2 rulings to
>ermit the 2nd? or was the 1st one not thought thru enough?
>
>what follows from this question - how can a C- person be sure that
>the rules will not be updated 5 years from now? for example,
No one can be sure rules will not change, and whether the change
occurs in 5 years or 50 years or 500 years is a matter of degree.
Example:
I have tried to follow, sort of on the sidelines, the change to the
halachic definition of death to include cessation of brain stem
activity, and am seeing such change -- a change not anticipated a
mere 50 years ago to say nothing for 200 or 2000 years ago, being
accepted by more and more O authorites each year. Just about all
C and R authorities have already gone along with this change to
halacha, and those watching know it is being accepted more and
more in O circles too.
Now the pace of change might differ in different communities, but
my point is no one can depend on halacha being frozen for all
time. So whether the change could occur in 5 years or 50 or 500
years is interesting, but not an issue that bothers me.
I'm not a politician, but I observe that political positions,
and laws created by that political process, seem to be in a state
of relative flux, and few observers believe a political position
has much of a measurable half life, and laws might have a rather
small one. Perhaps in the US, Supreme Court decisions which end
up changing law have the largest half life, but by any measure
quite small compared to some unchanging or "don't change what's
been decided' mythical criteria.
I won't compare the half life of Jewish law with political
and judicial legsitation, but will offer my opinion that both
have observable half lives.
Honest differences of opinion exist on whether change is good or
bad, but I think any reasonable observer agrees change is ever
present, and moves along at some rate.
>were he to argue against R- 20 years ago that women need to accept
>extra obligations, he would have made fool of himself and mislead
>his R- bretheren! and maybe now he can go to a R- congregation
>in anticipation of upcoming leniencies?
--
Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kam...@infinet.com
Noach
>
>
> Dan Kimmel wrote:
> > If you refuse to be the tenth and no tenth arrives, mourners will
definitely
> > be hindered in being unable to say Kaddish.
>
> Except that I don't count towards Kiddish, and my
> presence can't allow them to say it.
Such backward, regressive thinking from YOU?!
(sarcasm)
Susan Cohen
hotsh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I believe she doesn't recognize any
> positions that count women in a minyan as valid (please correct me if I'm
> wrong).
Well, I'm extremely uncomfortable with it - but I do understand
the logic of counting women who have taken on the obligation of
men. I prefer to be the mommy &, with my particular child, there's
no way in the world I could also take on further obligations like
those.
I wonder if it's hypocritical to say "Okay, you can count women
who want to act like men, as long as they don't sit together,
because they still are women & men....?"
Susan
Noach
"Noach" <azure...@mindspring.REMOVE.com (REMOVE)> wrote in message
news:8m5l9s$28q$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Just to clarify: Being that Susan Cohen is a rather outspoken feminist here,
I was somewhat surprised to read this statement of hers.
William Friedman
On 1 Aug 2000 12:24:31 GMT, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote:
>
>
>hotsh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> I believe she doesn't recognize any
>> positions that count women in a minyan as valid (please correct me if I'm
>> wrong).
>
>Well, I'm extremely uncomfortable with it - but I do understand
>the logic of counting women who have taken on the obligation of
>men. I prefer to be the mommy &, with my particular child, there's
>no way in the world I could also take on further obligations like
>those.
Which is completely legitimate, and your choice. I greatly respect
you for acknowledging the logic of the Roth position, even if you
reject it in your personal life.
>I wonder if it's hypocritical to say "Okay, you can count women
>who want to act like men, as long as they don't sit together,
>because they still are women & men....?"
I disagree with your contention that these women are "acting like
men". I know many very feminine women who have taken on the mitzvot
because it enhances their spirituality and religiousity. I'd
recommend Haviva Ner-David's "Life on the Fringes" if you'd like to
change your mind. (Careful, though -- she's very persuasive, and
might even persuade you to take on the mitzvot ;-) )
As to mechitza, my main problem is NOT the separation, but the way it
is used to cut women off from the davening. If there were a shul with
a mechitza where women got aliyot (and perhaps were counted in the
minyan and acted as shatz), I suspect I'd feel as comfortable (if not
more so) than in a typical C shul.
Will
Susan Cohen
William Friedman wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2000 12:24:31 GMT, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >hotsh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >> I believe she doesn't recognize any
> >> positions that count women in a minyan as valid (please correct me if I'm
> >> wrong).
> >
> >Well, I'm extremely uncomfortable with it - but I do understand
> >the logic of counting women who have taken on the obligation of
> >men. I prefer to be the mommy &, with my particular child, there's
> >no way in the world I could also take on further obligations like
> >those.
>
> Which is completely legitimate, and your choice. I greatly respect
> you for acknowledging the logic of the Roth position, even if you
> reject it in your personal life.
>
> >I wonder if it's hypocritical to say "Okay, you can count women
> >who want to act like men, as long as they don't sit together,
> >because they still are women & men....?"
>
> I disagree with your contention that these women are "acting like
> men"
Nonono - I meant solely in the religious sense.
> . I know many very feminine women who have taken on the mitzvot
> because it enhances their spirituality and religiousity. I'd
> recommend Haviva Ner-David's "Life on the Fringes" if you'd like to
> change your mind. (Careful, though -- she's very persuasive, and
> might even persuade you to take on the mitzvot ;-) )
I was a breastfeeder. For two years. 'Nuff said.
> As to mechitza, my main problem is NOT the separation, but the way it
> is used to cut women off from the davening.
Really? How so? I guess it depends on the mechitza.
As a mother of a small *active*, *vocal* child, it would be
a blessing if it *would*.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Noach wrote:
> "Noach" <azure...@mindspring.REMOVE.com (REMOVE)> wrote in message
> news:8m5l9s$28q$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > "Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
> > news:3984FBB9...@hers.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan Kimmel wrote:
> >
> > > > If you refuse to be the tenth and no tenth arrives, mourners will
> > definitely
> > > > be hindered in being unable to say Kaddish.
> > >
> > > Except that I don't count towards Kiddish, and my
> > > presence can't allow them to say it.
> >
> > Such backward, regressive thinking from YOU?!
> >
> > (sarcasm)
I'm glad you labelled this sarcasm.
> Just to clarify: Being that Susan Cohen is a rather outspoken feminist here,
> I was somewhat surprised to read this statement of hers.
That's because most of y'all aint got a clue what "feminism" really means.
Explanations aviable on request.
Susan
Simcha Streltsov
: No one can be sure rules will not change, and whether the change
: occurs in 5 years or 50 years or 500 years is a matter of degree.
...
: Now the pace of change might differ in different communities, but
: my point is no one can depend on halacha being frozen for all
: time. So whether the change could occur in 5 years or 50 or 500
: years is interesting, but not an issue that bothers me.
I have nothing against changes per se. The issue is that non-O groups
define certain things as the ones that ideologically separate them
from traditional Jews and from each other. Given that we observe
that these changes occur within 1-2 generations without any, or
significant, changes in the outside world - the question is - who
is responsible for the damage to our communities?
take, for example, any stand taken by Reform 100 years ago -
their R- grandchildren do not care about those stands in most
cases - but they used this stand to declare that O- (and C-)
were wrong. well, now they still think they are right despite
changing all positions. This flies in the face of Jewish idea
of return - teshuva - that leads people, and groups, to
the truth by admitting mistakes and making up to the offended.
Same applies to groups (see laws of sacrifices brought by
tribes or even Sanhedrin in case of an error).
and, of course, same idea applies to everyone - and we have
examples in history (according to one my source, Rabeinu Yona
was involved in anti-Rambam activities that may have triggered
Xian Talmud-burning - what did he do? he wrote "Shharei Teshuva".
I note that my other esteemed source thinks that the story
above is not true).
but, it seems that this problem is especially important to
non-O groups - given that the speed of changes is fast,
someone has to pay for all the propaganda that became
outdated (ie was revealed to be not true) in 5 years!
William Friedman
Will:
>> I disagree with your contention that these women are "acting like
>> men"
>
>Nonono - I meant solely in the religious sense.
I guess that depends on your perspective. I don't view anything
inherently "male" in wearing tzitzit/tallit/tefillin (unlike Tahara
Hamishpacha, for example, where the act of immersion, in particular,
is solely directed at females). If I were a woman reading the Shema,
I would read "and _you_ must wear tzitzit and tefillin" and take that
"you" as a personal imperative.
Will:
>> . I know many very feminine women who have taken on the mitzvot
>> because it enhances their spirituality and religiousity. I'd
>> recommend Haviva Ner-David's "Life on the Fringes" if you'd like to
>> change your mind. (Careful, though -- she's very persuasive, and
>> might even persuade you to take on the mitzvot ;-) )
Susan:
>I was a breastfeeder. For two years. 'Nuff said.
ok . . . .? What inherently about breastfeeding makes observing these
mitzvot difficult? I know breastfeeders who observe the mitzvot.
>> As to mechitza, my main problem is NOT the separation, but the way it
>> is used to cut women off from the davening.
>
>Really? How so? I guess it depends on the mechitza.
>As a mother of a small *active*, *vocal* child, it would be
>a blessing if it *would*.
Balconies in particular irritate me -- when I was in Israel and
davened in Orthodox shuls for the first time, I was shocked and
appalled at the constant chatter and general disrespect from the
female section. That had _never_ happened at my mixed seating shul at
home. Back/front mechitzot are also pretty offensive -- why should
women have to look at my butt when they're davening? (After all, in
the water festival episode it is recorded that whether the men danced
outside the women _or_ vice versa, levity ensued. Thus, women
shouldn't see men either.) I think shuls should lighten up when it
comes to children. I'm grateful, not offended, when little kids walk
(or crawl) up to the bima and start touching the parokhet. Those are
the kinds of warm memories of shul they _should_ have.
Will
Dan Kimmel
news:398714ae...@news.mit.edu...
> I think shuls should lighten up when it
> comes to children. I'm grateful, not offended, when little kids walk
> (or crawl) up to the bima and start touching the parokhet. Those are
> the kinds of warm memories of shul they _should_ have.
Indeed. I remember the late cantor at my shul telling my wife and I how
pleased he was to see my daughter, then about 2, come to services
occasionally. He said there was a saying (possibly Talmudic) that as long
as there are children teething on the seats in the sanctuary the Jewish
people will survive.
You don't want children to be disruptive -- and that's the parents
responsibility to take them out if they can't control themselves -- but
getting them feel the shul is a place where they are welcome is a good
thing. At our shul the kids are all called up before Aleinu to stand in
front of the ark with the rabbi and cantor. Afterwards they get some
raisins or chocolate. Well my daughter got so excited being up there she
forgot about the sweets and shaking hands with the rabbi and when I led her
back to our seats she was upset. I assured her that we'd get her treat
right after the service. Afterwards she went back up and someone gave her
whatever it was, but SHE wouldn't leave until she shook hands with the rabbi
as well.
You can't be concerned about Jewish continuity without making children glad
to be participating in Jewish activities.
Noach
>
>
> Noach wrote:
>
> > "Noach" <azure...@mindspring.REMOVE.com (REMOVE)> wrote in message
> > news:8m5l9s$28q$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Just to clarify: Being that Susan Cohen is a rather outspoken feminist
here,
> > I was somewhat surprised to read this statement of hers.
>
> That's because most of y'all aint got a clue what "feminism" really means.
Learning of 'Who Stole Feminism?' by Christina Hoff Sommers and the
organization 'Feminists for Life' has shown me that 'feminism' is a very
broad term and there are many differing and even contradictory strains of
it.
Polar
>
>
>Noach wrote:
>
>> "Noach" <azure...@mindspring.REMOVE.com (REMOVE)> wrote in message
>> news:8m5l9s$28q$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>> >
>> > "Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
>> > news:3984FBB9...@hers.com...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Dan Kimmel wrote:
>> >
>> > > > If you refuse to be the tenth and no tenth arrives, mourners will
>> > definitely
>> > > > be hindered in being unable to say Kaddish.
>> > >
>> > > Except that I don't count towards Kiddish, and my
>> > > presence can't allow them to say it.
>> >
>> > Such backward, regressive thinking from YOU?!
>> >
>> > (sarcasm)
>
>I'm glad you labelled this sarcasm.
>
>> Just to clarify: Being that Susan Cohen is a rather outspoken feminist here,
>> I was somewhat surprised to read this statement of hers.
>
>That's because most of y'all aint got a clue what "feminism" really means.
>
>Explanations aviable on request.
Nice try, sugah, but save your electrons. Those who already have a
gestalt of "feminism" branded in their so-called brain -- and I've
dealt with many of them!! -- are not going to be persuaded by a
rational elucidation of your (or my) position -- which may or may not
coincide.
--
Polar
Susan Cohen
William Friedman wrote:
> Will:
> >>
> >> might even persuade you to take on the mitzvot ;-) )
> Susan:
> >I was a breastfeeder. For two years. 'Nuff said.
>
> ok . . . .? What inherently about breastfeeding makes observing these
> mitzvot difficult? I know breastfeeders who observe the mitzvot.
I prefer not to have to dislodge my baby just to do something
that a man *has* to do. My job is to breastfeed, which he
*can't* do. I don't know *anyone* who was able to schedule
their baby's feeding!!
> >> As to mechitza, my main problem is NOT the separation, but the way it
> >> is used to cut women off from the davening.
> >
> >Really? How so? I guess it depends on the mechitza.
> >As a mother of a small *active*, *vocal* child, it would be
> >a blessing if it *would*.
>
> Balconies in particular irritate me -- when I was in Israel and
> davened in Orthodox shuls for the first time, I was shocked and
> appalled at the constant chatter and general disrespect from the
> female section.
That is terrible. I've never witnessed anything like it, myself.
> That had _never_ happened at my mixed seating shul at
> home. Back/front mechitzot are also pretty offensive -- why should
> women have to look at my butt when they're davening?
Neither of you should be looking at any parts of each other.
> (After all, in
> the water festival episode it is recorded that whether the men danced
> outside the women _or_ vice versa, levity ensued. Thus, women
> shouldn't see men either.)
Well, yes!
> I think shuls should lighten up when it
> comes to children. I'm grateful, not offended, when little kids walk
> (or crawl) up to the bima and start touching the parokhet. Those are
> the kinds of warm memories of shul they _should_ have.
I know that my rabbi and our congregation thinks my daughter is
adorable. Part of that comes from her having been the light of my
father's declining months. But she's a major distraction, and *I*
refuse to allow my child to become a nuisance to anyone.
(I'm waiting for the day she wants to put on the crown....)
Susan
Micha Berger
: If I were a woman reading the Shema,
: I would read "and _you_ must wear tzitzit and tefillin" and take that
: "you" as a personal imperative.
Why not as a communal imperative? In which case, it is an imperative for a
woman to make sure the men in her life wear and want to wear them.
-mi
Eliot Shimoff
>
> "William Friedman" <hotsh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:398714ae...@news.mit.edu...
Dan:
> > I think shuls should lighten up when it
> > comes to children. I'm grateful, not offended, when little kids walk
> > (or crawl) up to the bima and start touching the parokhet. Those are
> > the kinds of warm memories of shul they _should_ have.
William:
> Indeed. I remember the late cantor at my shul telling my wife and I how
> pleased he was to see my daughter, then about 2, come to services
> occasionally. He said there was a saying (possibly Talmudic) that as long
> as there are children teething on the seats in the sanctuary the Jewish
> people will survive.
...
> You can't be concerned about Jewish continuity without making children glad
> to be participating in Jewish activities.
Which raises an interesting question. Just about every O synagogue I've
been
at has "candy men" with stashes of lollipops for little kids. So,
besides
the other children's activities (story groups for the littlest ones,
appropriate
levels of davening for the older ones, and a full-fledged minyan for the
really
big ones), the kids wander into shul, find the candy men, and eat.
What amazed me is when I heard from a C friend who joined me last
Shabbat that
the C synagogues with which he was familiar DIDN'T HAVE CANDY MEN!
(I could tie this to the thread about whether R is Judaism ...)
--
Eliot Shimoff
UMBC Psychology
Baltimore, MD 21250
410 455-2973 (lab)
410 455-2567 (dept. office)
410 455-1055 (fax)
http://www.umbc.edu/~shimoff
shi...@umbc.edu
William Friedman
On 1 Aug 2000 20:11:51 GMT, Eliot Shimoff <shi...@umbc.edu> wrote:
>What amazed me is when I heard from a C friend who joined me last
>Shabbat that
>the C synagogues with which he was familiar DIDN'T HAVE CANDY MEN!
That is NOT true across the board. How DARE you slander Conservative
Judaism in this way!! ;-)
Seriously, the weekday morning minyan where my mother began to daven
during her aveilut has a candy man, and at the shul where I daven we
have the "magic tallit bag" which comes out for Ein Keholheinu.
(Recently, the new rabbi started the trend of not dispersing the candy
until after Adon Olam. The kids weren't happy, but they sure as heck
stayed up there! Then there was the Shabbat before Pesach, when we
emptied out the magic tallit bag by throwing candy at the congregents
:-) . . . )
Will
Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879
by "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net>:
>
> pleased he was to see my daughter, then about 2, come to services
> occasionally. He said there was a saying (possibly Talmudic) that as long
> as there are children teething on the seats in the sanctuary the Jewish
> people will survive.
Right! Not only that, it's fun watching the kids who are regulars grow up
as the years pass. There's nothing like seeing a child come as a toddler
who hangs on his father's arms duraing an alyiah reach the age where he
runs to the bimah volunteering to open the ark, hearing the same child
enthusiastically singing along, and later, having the child helping other
smaller children. We need more such children hanging around on Saturday
mornings!
In our schul, we had, for many years, the "Ayn Keloheinu" group, a bunch of
kids that ran to the front to lead the congregation in that song every
Saturday morning. Most of that bunch has moved on, but there's a new crop
of crawlers that I expect will become regulars as they move into their
elementary school years.
Let's leave "high church decorum" to the high church.
Doug Jones
jo...@cs.uiowa.edu
Hadass Eviatar
> I would genuinely like to know how many women in C avail themselves of
> the opportunity to take part in minyanim during the week - even just to
> recite kaddish for a yohrsteit. Perhaps we can have the experience of
> this from C contributors. Am I right in thinking that this would not
> apply to R since they do not have daily communal prayers.
At my egalitarian C shul, at least half of the daily minyan is made up
of women - either saying kaddish (and they take the obligation very
seriously), or coming in for yahrzeit, or even just being good citizens
and helping to make up the minyan.
My husband is now saying kaddish for his mother, so I haven't been able
to go (somebody has to stay home with the kids!). But before that, I ran
the minyan every Sunday evening. I'm looking forward to getting back to
that when he finishes. I ran the Wednesday morning, too, before I had
kids, but it's just not compatible with getting kids to daycare and also
going to work ... sigh. In a few years ...
Kol tuv, Hadass
--
Hadass Eviatar
Winnipeg, Canada
http://www.superhwy.net/~eviatar
Harry Weiss
Organization:
Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: "William Friedman" <hotsh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
: news:398714ae...@news.mit.edu...
:> I think shuls should lighten up when it
:> comes to children. I'm grateful, not offended, when little kids walk
:> (or crawl) up to the bima and start touching the parokhet. Those are
:> the kinds of warm memories of shul they _should_ have.
: Indeed. I remember the late cantor at my shul telling my wife and I how
: pleased he was to see my daughter, then about 2, come to services
: occasionally. He said there was a saying (possibly Talmudic) that as long
: as there are children teething on the seats in the sanctuary the Jewish
: people will survive.
: You don't want children to be disruptive -- and that's the parents
: responsibility to take them out if they can't control themselves -- but
: getting them feel the shul is a place where they are welcome is a good
: thing. At our shul the kids are all called up before Aleinu to stand in
: front of the ark with the rabbi and cantor. Afterwards they get some
: raisins or chocolate. Well my daughter got so excited being up there she
: forgot about the sweets and shaking hands with the rabbi and when I led her
: back to our seats she was upset. I assured her that we'd get her treat
: right after the service. Afterwards she went back up and someone gave her
: whatever it was, but SHE wouldn't leave until she shook hands with the rabbi
: as well.
: You can't be concerned about Jewish continuity without making children glad
I: to be participating in Jewish activities.
I agree that children, unless they are unduly disruptive should be
allowed to hang around the shul. Most O shuls do allow that. Of course
the difference betwee who allow what is more a functionof how much
decorum they require.
Most smaller O shuls are much more informal. some of the larger
(partcularly those with a loarge percentage of German or elderly
congregants) are very p particualr about decorum.
children are always hanging around our shul, crossing back and forth
vbetween both sides of the mechitza and nbody complains. On busier times
such as holidays they often have a special childrenb's program that keeps
the children busy during the Rabbi's sermon.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
Russell Steinthal
>In article <8m32oj$gtl$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
>> Susan:
>>
>> A hypothetical question...
>>
>> You are walking past a CJ shul, and someone comes out and asks if
>> you're Jewish. You say that you are, and are told that there are 9 for
>> a minyan and you'll make 10. They've already been waiting 15 minutes,
>> and if you don't participate (at least to the extent of coming in),
>> the people there won't be able to say kaddish.
>>
>> I fully understand that you do not believe that you count towards the
>> minyan, but under this egalitarian CJ shul, they will count you.
>>
>> What do you do?
>
>positions that count women in a minyan as valid (please correct me if I'm
>or woman who recognizes counting women in a minyan as a halakhically
>legitimate option, but doesn't personally follow that position. (For
>example, in my case, I follow Roth [counts only obligated women] but not
>Hauptman/Schorsch/Golinkin [who count all women] -- do I "complete" their
>minyan, if I believe HSG is legit, but I follow Roth?)
I think a lot depends on how you construct the hypothetical.
If you concede (as you did above) that you recognize the legitimacy of
the "count all Jewish women" position, what possible reason could you
have for *not* being willing to join the minyan? You wouldn't be
encouraging an incorrect practice or committing any sin recognized by
your rabbinic authority. And by not joining the minyan, you would be
denying the others the opportunity to daven with a minyan.
A slightly harder question is whether or not you should answer to
kaddish in such a situation (assuming, of course, that there is at
least one non-obligated woman in the minyan; if the minyan would
otherwise be acceptable under Roth, I don't think there's a halachic
reason to treat it differently because hypothetically, it would have
allowed a non-obligated woman to count). I'm really not sure, and
can't even think of an analagous case which could be looked up in the
traditional halachic literature. So CYLCR. :) (One thing is clear:
even if you don't respond, since you don't recognize the minyan, you
can still count towards the minyan, just as a person who has already
davenned qualifies to be counted.)
I do know one person who falls into this category, since she holds by
Roth and davens with some regularity in a minyan which counts all
women. I know that she is willing to be our 10th, but she will
decline to be the shlichah tzibur unless she knows there is a Roth
minyan in the room (i.e. men + obligated women). Since she's the sort
of person who has most likely already discussed this question with her
rav, I'll try to remember to ask her about this the next time I see
her (and/or observe if she answers to kaddish).
-Russell
--
Russell Steinthal Columbia Law School, Class of 2002
<rm...@columbia.edu> Columbia College, Class of 1999
<ste...@nj.org> UNIX System Administrator, nj.org
Dan Kimmel
"Harry Weiss" <hjw...@netcom3.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8m7hd7$2ru$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> I agree that children, unless they are unduly disruptive should be
> allowed to hang around the shul. Most O shuls do allow that. Of course
> the difference betwee who allow what is more a functionof how much
> decorum they require.
>
>
> Most smaller O shuls are much more informal. some of the larger
> (partcularly those with a loarge percentage of German or elderly
> congregants) are very p particualr about decorum.
I can't resist noting how ironic that is, since the notion that "decorum"
was an important factor in a Jewish religious service was originally a
REFORM idea.
Art Kamlet
>I have nothing against changes per se. The issue is that non-O groups
>define certain things as the ones that ideologically separate them
>from traditional Jews and from each other. Given that we observe
>that these changes occur within 1-2 generations without any, or
>significant, changes in the outside world - the question is - who
>is responsible for the damage to our communities?
I think change is and always has been influenced by the
communities and the times in which we live. And I think in the
last 60 years change in these communities and the world as a whole
has been much faster than any time in history. So I am not at all
surprised to see changes in Jewish practice move quickly as well.
I disagree that no changes ooccur in the outside world -- for
example, within the Conservative Judaism community we observe
changes in the role of woman shifting from stay at home mom to
working mom, from not participating in synagogue services to
fully participating being parallel in nature. The world in which
we live does lend its influence to Jewish practice.
The medical science changes which produced EEG measurements led to
the halachic change in the definition of death.
The governmental supervision of milk have led to a major O
authority ruling that in the US, government supervised milk is
Cholov Yisroel.
>take, for example, any stand taken by Reform 100 years ago -
>their R- grandchildren do not care about those stands in most
>cases
Yes, R platofrms reversed many previous platform stands.
I and I suspect you too, am of the opinion that the older stands
needed to be changed and now that they have been, I think that is
a good thing rather than a negative aspect of too fast change.
- but they used this stand to declare that O- (and C-)
>were wrong. well, now they still think they are right despite
>changing all positions. This flies in the face of Jewish idea
>of return - teshuva - that leads people, and groups, to
>the truth by admitting mistakes and making up to the offended.
I see this change as something Judaism asks of all of us -- when
we see we have made a mistake, we correct it.
In R case, when they saw that moving Shabbat to Sunday was a
mistake, they changed it back. When they realized that
non-support if the Jewish state was a mistake, they changed it.
In recent years, R authorities have taken strong stands towards
more observance, and have moved themselves in that direction.
Are these not good examples of teshuvah? Rather than being
critical of rapid change that even reverses previous decisions,
there is a move towards teshuvah that should be applauded.
>but, it seems that this problem is especially important to
>non-O groups - given that the speed of changes is fast,
>someone has to pay for all the propaganda that became
>outdated (ie was revealed to be not true) in 5 years!
I really do not uderstand the latter point, sorry.
Rapid change in some cases is a plus not a negative idea.
William Friedman
On 2 Aug 2000 01:04:54 GMT, rm...@columbia.edu (Russell Steinthal)
wrote:
>In article <8m4649$dq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <hotsh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>Susan has already responded. I believe she doesn't recognize any
>>positions that count women in a minyan as valid (please correct me if I'm
>>wrong). A more interesting, and pressing, question, is what of the man
>>or woman who recognizes counting women in a minyan as a halakhically
>>legitimate option, but doesn't personally follow that position. (For
>>example, in my case, I follow Roth [counts only obligated women] but not
>>Hauptman/Schorsch/Golinkin [who count all women] -- do I "complete" their
>>minyan, if I believe HSG is legit, but I follow Roth?)
>
>I think a lot depends on how you construct the hypothetical.
>
>If you concede (as you did above) that you recognize the legitimacy of
>the "count all Jewish women" position, what possible reason could you
>have for *not* being willing to join the minyan? You wouldn't be
>encouraging an incorrect practice or committing any sin recognized by
>your rabbinic authority. And by not joining the minyan, you would be
>denying the others the opportunity to daven with a minyan.
Correct.
I do want to point out, however, that I do not consider HSG legitimate
in any real halachic way. Which makes the situation difficult. Am I
helping them transgress by joining and making them think they have a
minyan when they don't -- or should I join them anyway, believing it's
an unwitting transgression based on a false halachic position, and
that I should help them in the interests of bringing them to proper
observance?
>A slightly harder question is whether or not you should answer to
>kaddish in such a situation (assuming, of course, that there is at
>least one non-obligated woman in the minyan; if the minyan would
>otherwise be acceptable under Roth, I don't think there's a halachic
>reason to treat it differently because hypothetically, it would have
>allowed a non-obligated woman to count). I'm really not sure, and
>can't even think of an analagous case which could be looked up in the
>traditional halachic literature. So CYLCR. :) (One thing is clear:
>even if you don't respond, since you don't recognize the minyan, you
>can still count towards the minyan, just as a person who has already
>davenned qualifies to be counted.)
If there is a minyan by Roth standards, even in a minyan that follows
HSG, then of course there is a minyan. (If there are 10 men, and men
only serve as shlichim, there is no reason that a non-egal Jew should
feel uncomfortable davening there and responding, etiher.) BTW, I did
CMLCR today, as a matter of fact (about this and a host of other
issues). Her suggestion (as well as the suggestion of others in my
position) and personal practice is to NOT respond to Kaddish and
Barchu.
>I do know one person who falls into this category, since she holds by
>Roth and davens with some regularity in a minyan which counts all
>women. I know that she is willing to be our 10th, but she will
>decline to be the shlichah tzibur unless she knows there is a Roth
>minyan in the room (i.e. men + obligated women). Since she's the sort
>of person who has most likely already discussed this question with her
>rav, I'll try to remember to ask her about this the next time I see
>her (and/or observe if she answers to kaddish).
I'd be interested in her practice.
Will
Jackie Cappiello
Dan Kimmel wrote:
>
> "William Friedman" <hotsh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:398714ae...@news.mit.edu...
>
> > I think shuls should lighten up when it
> > comes to children. I'm grateful, not offended, when little kids walk
> > (or crawl) up to the bima and start touching the parokhet. Those are
> > the kinds of warm memories of shul they _should_ have.
>
> Indeed. I remember the late cantor at my shul telling my wife and I how
> pleased he was to see my daughter, then about 2, come to services
> occasionally. He said there was a saying (possibly Talmudic) that as long
> as there are children teething on the seats in the sanctuary the Jewish
> people will survive.
>
> You don't want children to be disruptive -- and that's the parents
> responsibility to take them out if they can't control themselves -- but
> getting them feel the shul is a place where they are welcome is a good
> thing. At our shul the kids are all called up before Aleinu to stand in
> front of the ark with the rabbi and cantor. Afterwards they get some
> raisins or chocolate. Well my daughter got so excited being up there she
> forgot about the sweets and shaking hands with the rabbi and when I led her
> back to our seats she was upset. I assured her that we'd get her treat
> right after the service. Afterwards she went back up and someone gave her
> whatever it was, but SHE wouldn't leave until she shook hands with the rabbi
> as well.
>
> You can't be concerned about Jewish continuity without making children glad
> to be participating in Jewish activities.
I agree wholeheartedly. It's one of the reasons when people asking
about our services enquire about special services for the children, I
tell them we welcome them at our regular services, especially the Friday
evening services. (We do offer special shorter services for children on
the High Holy Days.)
Jackie Cappiello
Susan Cohen wrote:
>
> William Friedman wrote:
>
> > Will:
> > >>
> > >> might even persuade you to take on the mitzvot ;-) )
> > Susan:
> > >I was a breastfeeder. For two years. 'Nuff said.
> >
> > ok . . . .? What inherently about breastfeeding makes observing these
> > mitzvot difficult? I know breastfeeders who observe the mitzvot.
>
> I prefer not to have to dislodge my baby just to do something
> that a man *has* to do. My job is to breastfeed, which he
> *can't* do. I don't know *anyone* who was able to schedule
> their baby's feeding!!
>
> > >> As to mechitza, my main problem is NOT the separation, but the way it
> > >> is used to cut women off from the davening.
> > >
> > >Really? How so? I guess it depends on the mechitza.
> > >As a mother of a small *active*, *vocal* child, it would be
> > >a blessing if it *would*.
> >
> > Balconies in particular irritate me -- when I was in Israel and
> > davened in Orthodox shuls for the first time, I was shocked and
> > appalled at the constant chatter and general disrespect from the
> > female section.
>
> That is terrible. I've never witnessed anything like it, myself.
I was very upset by it since I was confined to the balcony section at
the Great Synagogue (it was around the corner from my hotel), but it was
impossible for the women to daven or to hear the prayers, even had they
been silent. (It was almost like climbing to the top of the CN Tower or
the Statue of Liberty to get to the balcony seating for visiting women.)
>
> > That had _never_ happened at my mixed seating shul at
> > home. Back/front mechitzot are also pretty offensive -- why should
> > women have to look at my butt when they're davening?
>
> Neither of you should be looking at any parts of each other.
>
> > (After all, in
> > the water festival episode it is recorded that whether the men danced
> > outside the women _or_ vice versa, levity ensued. Thus, women
> > shouldn't see men either.)
>
> Well, yes!
>
> > I think shuls should lighten up when it
> > comes to children. I'm grateful, not offended, when little kids walk
> > (or crawl) up to the bima and start touching the parokhet. Those are
> > the kinds of warm memories of shul they _should_ have.
>
Matthew Saroff (Remove .123456 to reply)
>>
>I'd like to thank whoever persuaded me to be a female.
>But I have to say that no one's ever going to persuade
>me to become part of a minyan.
What about as part of an all woman minyan? I don't
believe that there is a halachic issue there.
--
Matthew Saroff | Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for
_____ | No one else, I don't even Speak for me. All my
/ o o \ | personalities and the spirits that I channel
______|_____|_____| disavow all knowledge of my activities. ;-)
uuu U uuu |
| In fact, all my personalities and channeled spirits
Saroff wuz here | hate my guts. (Well, maybe with garlic & butter...)
For law enforcment officials monitoring the net: abortion, marijuana, cocaine,
cia,plutonium, ammonium nitrate, militia, dea, nsa, pgp, hacker, assassinate.
Send suggestions for new and interesting words to:
msa...@123456.pobox.com. (remove the numbers to reply)
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
Russell Steinthal
Eliot Shimoff <shi...@umbc.edu> wrote:
>What amazed me is when I heard from a C friend who joined me last
>Shabbat that
>the C synagogues with which he was familiar DIDN'T HAVE CANDY MEN!
>
>(I could tie this to the thread about whether R is Judaism ...)
Well....
Our shul's former rabbi was in the habit of slipping candies from his
pocket into kids' hands during Torah processions. (Of course, he did
the same once or twice on Yom Kippur, to the consternation of many in
the shul...)
And our current rabbi gives out candies (or so I'm told by the little
girl in the row in front of me) on the bimah after Ein Keloheiynu (to
which he invites "all children of the Jewish faith under 12" to help
sing).
And then there's the aufruf candy. Unfortunately, I must report that
the shul which I'm describing (where I grew up and my parents still
attend) doesn't have too many aufrufs due to demographics, and candy
throwing has been barred from bnei mitzvah after a few incidents of
young guests pelting a bit too hard. :)
Polar
[...]
>The medical science changes which produced EEG measurements led to
>the halachic change in the definition of death.
[...]
Oh, please do expand on this. It would have some bearing on the
question of organ donation, which came up on this NG a while ago.
IIRC, wasn't it held by the Orthodox [1]that brain death was
insufficient to permit harvesting [2] of organs?
Clarification or referrals eagerly awaited.
[1] Some of them, anyway. Usual suspects, or.???
[2] Hate that term.
--
Polar
Harry Weiss
Organization:
Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: "Harry Weiss" <hjw...@netcom3.netcom.com> wrote in message
That sound right. That is why the small and Yeshivish shules are much
more informal. the German ones were heavily influenced by the same
outside influences that affected R.
With the elderly many came from the older Young Israel, which also
started with a heavy German (and people leaving C) background. In many
other shuls with many elderly you can't hear the daveing because of all
the talking ( particularly in Hungarian).
Polar
wrote:
[...]
>Balconies in particular irritate me -- when I was in Israel and
>davened in Orthodox shuls for the first time, I was shocked and
>appalled at the constant chatter and general disrespect from the
>female section.
[...]
That was my common experience in my father's {a'h) little O shul in
Pennsylvania. Ditto for O shuls that I visited in my travels. Always
the same: The women up in the balcony blabbed constantly. And even
when it was "mixed" seating, to the extent that women were on one side
and men on the other (no mechitzah), same thing. These must have
been women who were taught that they weren't important enough to be
required to show proper decorum, much less to follow the service,
whether silently or orally.
I never ceased to be, in your words, "shocked and appalled"
I'll say this for the C shuls that I prefer, and the few Rs I was was
obliged to visit in foreign countries because nothing else available:
Women didn't act like that, IIRC.
William Friedman
>> Will:
>> >>
>> >> might even persuade you to take on the mitzvot ;-) )
>> Susan:
>> >I was a breastfeeder. For two years. 'Nuff said.
Will:
>> ok . . . .? What inherently about breastfeeding makes observing these
>> mitzvot difficult? I know breastfeeders who observe the mitzvot.
Susan:
>I prefer not to have to dislodge my baby just to do something
>that a man *has* to do. My job is to breastfeed, which he
>*can't* do. I don't know *anyone* who was able to schedule
>their baby's feeding!!
Like I said before, your choice. I respect it.
>> >> As to mechitza, my main problem is NOT the separation, but the way it
>> >> is used to cut women off from the davening.
>> >
>> >Really? How so? I guess it depends on the mechitza.
>> >As a mother of a small *active*, *vocal* child, it would be
>> >a blessing if it *would*.
>>
>> Balconies in particular irritate me -- when I was in Israel and
>> davened in Orthodox shuls for the first time, I was shocked and
>> appalled at the constant chatter and general disrespect from the
>> female section.
>
>That is terrible. I've never witnessed anything like it, myself.
I wish I hadn't, myself. OTOH, it cemented my objection to any but
side/side mechitzot (and all mechitzot when used to segregate women
rather than enhance kavanah).
>> That had _never_ happened at my mixed seating shul at
>> home. Back/front mechitzot are also pretty offensive -- why should
>> women have to look at my butt when they're davening?
>
>Neither of you should be looking at any parts of each other.
Exactly. So why are men the only ones protected from looking? Side
by side mechitzot are the only halachic way to satisfy the situation
illustrated in the below mentioned gemara. So why do so many O shuls
have balconies and/or back/front mechitzot?
>> (After all, in
>> the water festival episode it is recorded that whether the men danced
>> outside the women _or_ vice versa, levity ensued. Thus, women
>> shouldn't see men either.)
>
>Well, yes!
>
>> I think shuls should lighten up when it
>> comes to children. I'm grateful, not offended, when little kids walk
>> (or crawl) up to the bima and start touching the parokhet. Those are
>> the kinds of warm memories of shul they _should_ have.
>
>I know that my rabbi and our congregation thinks my daughter is
>adorable. Part of that comes from her having been the light of my
>father's declining months. But she's a major distraction, and *I*
>refuse to allow my child to become a nuisance to anyone.
>(I'm waiting for the day she wants to put on the crown....)
You mean the shel rosh? ;-)
Will
Brett Weiss
The time to stop breastfeeding is when your child looks up and says,
"Can I have some cookies with this?"
--
Brett
Susan Cohen
William Friedman wrote:
> Susan:
> >I prefer not to have to dislodge my baby just to do something
> >that a man *has* to do. My job is to breastfeed, which he
> >*can't* do. I don't know *anyone* who was able to schedule
> >their baby's feeding!!
>
> Like I said before, your choice. I respect it.
I also had a very demanding baby.
> >> That had _never_ happened at my mixed seating shul at
> >> home. Back/front mechitzot are also pretty offensive -- why should
> >> women have to look at my butt when they're davening?
> >
> >Neither of you should be looking at any parts of each other.
>
> Exactly. So why are men the only ones protected from looking?
Oh, I see what you mean. (Sorry for being so dense!)
> Side
> by side mechitzot are the only halachic way to satisfy the situation
> illustrated in the below mentioned gemara. So why do so many O shuls
> have balconies and/or back/front mechitzot?
Probably a carry over from Europe.
> >> I think shuls should lighten up when it
> >> comes to children. I'm grateful, not offended, when little kids walk
> >> (or crawl) up to the bima and start touching the parokhet. Those are
> >> the kinds of warm memories of shul they _should_ have.
> >
> >I know that my rabbi and our congregation thinks my daughter is
> >adorable. Part of that comes from her having been the light of my
> >father's declining months. But she's a major distraction, and *I*
> >refuse to allow my child to become a nuisance to anyone.
> >(I'm waiting for the day she wants to put on the crown....)
>
> You mean the shel rosh? ;-)
Yup. She's already pointed it out...
I wonder if I'll ever live down the Circus Routine....
(She was getting antsy, so I was taking her out. Suddenly,
she broke away from me. While I was turning around, trying
to figure out where she'd gone, I suddenly heard:
"LAYDEEZNGENNULMUN, BOYZNGURLZ- "
She was on the bima, waving her arms! I have no idea what
else she was going to say, because I snatched her off and
ran out the door!)
>
>
> Will
Susan Cohen
"Matthew Saroff (Remove .123456 to reply)" wrote:
> Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >I'd like to thank whoever persuaded me to be a female.
> >But I have to say that no one's ever going to persuade
> >me to become part of a minyan.
> What about as part of an all woman minyan? I don't
> believe that there is a halachic issue there.
I wasn't going to get into that (so to speak) :-)
Susan
Dr. Shlomo Argamon
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> writes:
Why read it that way, Micha? Even as a communal imperative, the text
(as written) is not exclusive to men (unless "lo tirtsa`h" is as
well).
-Shlomo-
Shoshana L. Boublil
>Which raises an interesting question. Just about every O synagogue I've
>been
>at has "candy men" with stashes of lollipops for little kids. So,
>besides
>the other children's activities (story groups for the littlest ones,
>appropriate
>levels of davening for the older ones, and a full-fledged minyan for the
>really
>big ones), the kids wander into shul, find the candy men, and eat.
>
>What amazed me is when I heard from a C friend who joined me last
>Shabbat that
>the C synagogues with which he was familiar DIDN'T HAVE CANDY MEN!
Truly amazing.
In my husband's shul there was an owner of a toy factory (he passed
away recently) so for every holiday, he would bring toys for the
children (on top of what the candy-man supplied) -- Shofar before Rosh
Hashana, Dreidels for Chanukkah, Gragers (noise makers) for Purim etc.
He always found something to bring.
Shoshana L. Boublil
>
>(I could tie this to the thread about whether R is Judaism ...)
>
Russell Steinthal
That's obviously the harder case. But is that actually the position
your rabbi recommends? One of the supposed tenets of Conservative
halacha is its pluralism, but the question becomes how far down the
line the principle applies: does your rabbi consider the "all women"
position to be sufficiently incorrect that it it should be actively
discouraged, or just that it is not the correct position for her
congregation?
An anecdote which is not entirely relevant:
Several years ago, the Conservative (egalitarian) minyan at Columbia
experimented with a daily maariv minyan. As it turns out, we didn't
have the necessary critical mass of people who were willing and able
to come (due in part to the presence of several other Conservative
minyanim in the neighborhood), but the experiment lasted for about two
weeks. On several occasions, we had 8 or 9 people, and would have had
to daven without a minyan, if it were not for the fact that committed
Orthodox Jews took the time to come downstairs from the Beit Midrash
and stand in the back of the room while we davenned, allowing us to
count them for our minyan. They had no intention of davening with us,
and didn't, as I recall, answer to any of the davening. But they were
willing to help us make a minyan, and, even though I didn't know many
of them personally, earned my sincere respect for that.
Susan Cohen
Brett Weiss wrote:
Sadly, the time for me to stop was when we discovered
that her back two molars had all but rotted away. No one
told us that we were supposed to wipe off her teeth after
she fell asleep.
Susan
Jackie Cappiello
Russell Steinthal wrote:
>
> In article <39872816...@umbc.edu>,
> Eliot Shimoff <shi...@umbc.edu> wrote:
>
> >What amazed me is when I heard from a C friend who joined me last
> >Shabbat that
> >the C synagogues with which he was familiar DIDN'T HAVE CANDY MEN!
> >
> >(I could tie this to the thread about whether R is Judaism ...)
>
> Well....
>
> Our shul's former rabbi was in the habit of slipping candies from his
> pocket into kids' hands during Torah processions. (Of course, he did
> the same once or twice on Yom Kippur, to the consternation of many in
> the shul...)
>
> And our current rabbi gives out candies (or so I'm told by the little
> girl in the row in front of me) on the bimah after Ein Keloheiynu (to
> which he invites "all children of the Jewish faith under 12" to help
> sing).
>
> And then there's the aufruf candy. Unfortunately, I must report that
> the shul which I'm describing (where I grew up and my parents still
> attend) doesn't have too many aufrufs due to demographics, and candy
> throwing has been barred from bnei mitzvah after a few incidents of
> young guests pelting a bit too hard. :)
We suggest caramels or other soft candies. Those hard things can
hurt!!!
Hadass Eviatar
>
> Our (CJ) congregation follows this as well. Ten adult Jews or no
> minyan.
So does ours. A former (with O smicha) rabbi used to open the ark and
count the Torah, but that is no longer practiced.
Sheldon Ackerman
>
>The governmental supervision of milk have led to a major O
>authority ruling that in the US, government supervised milk is
>Cholov Yisroel.
>
Dan Kimmel
news:39879A6C...@home.com...
> I agree wholeheartedly. It's one of the reasons when people asking
> about our services enquire about special services for the children, I
> tell them we welcome them at our regular services, especially the Friday
> evening services. (We do offer special shorter services for children on
> the High Holy Days.)
At our (C) shul the rabbi offers a special service for very young children
prior to Tashlich. Using a children's book done for R Jews, it lightly
touches on each part of the Rosh Hashonah service. I think it's a wonderful
way to introduce the observance to little kids.
Eliot Shimoff
> In our schul, we had, for many years, the "Ayn Keloheinu" group, a bunch of
> kids that ran to the front to lead the congregation in that song every
> Saturday morning. Most of that bunch has moved on, but there's a new crop
> of crawlers that I expect will become regulars as they move into their
> elementary school years.
I once was at a synagogue in which Ashrei was read responsively, first
in Hebrew and then in English. The kid reading the English, whose
parents were both physicians read "... and on Thy glorious deeds will
I medicate." :-)
Eliot Shimoff
> children are always hanging around our shul, crossing back and forth
> vbetween both sides of the mechitza and nbody complains. On busier times
> such as holidays they often have a special childrenb's program that keeps
> the children busy during the Rabbi's sermon.
That's always bothered me. I _really_ don't want to be bothered by
children when I'm davening or listening to the Torah reading. But
if there's any part of the service in which I _would_ accept being
bothered, it would be during the Rabbi's sermon!
William Friedman
On 2 Aug 2000 06:12:56 GMT, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote:
>William Friedman wrote:
>
>> Susan:
>> >I prefer not to have to dislodge my baby just to do something
>> >that a man *has* to do. My job is to breastfeed, which he
>> >*can't* do. I don't know *anyone* who was able to schedule
>> >their baby's feeding!!
>>
>> Like I said before, your choice. I respect it.
>
>I also had a very demanding baby.
Yesterday I had a meeting with a female Conservative rabbi, who
recently had her third baby. She brought the baby with her (and the
kid was squirming all over th place). The little one didn't impair
her ability to advise me (in fact, the kiddo cried at just the moments
to lighten the conversation :-) ).
I also just want to note that the 15 minutes it takes to daven
Shacharit in the morning isn't the huge imposition on mother\baby time
that you seem to be making it out to be.
>
>> Side
>> by side mechitzot are the only halachic way to satisfy the situation
>> illustrated in the below mentioned gemara. So why do so many O shuls
>> have balconies and/or back/front mechitzot?
>
>Probably a carry over from Europe.
Blech. Time for some traditions to change, especially when they're
anti-halakhic (or, at the very least deny the plain evidence n the
gemara for mutual separation). (I suspect we disagree on whether that
separation is required.)
>> >> I think shuls should lighten up when it
>> >> comes to children. I'm grateful, not offended, when little kids walk
>> >> (or crawl) up to the bima and start touching the parokhet. Those are
>> >> the kinds of warm memories of shul they _should_ have.
>> >
>> >I know that my rabbi and our congregation thinks my daughter is
>> >adorable. Part of that comes from her having been the light of my
>> >father's declining months. But she's a major distraction, and *I*
>> >refuse to allow my child to become a nuisance to anyone.
>> >(I'm waiting for the day she wants to put on the crown....)
>>
>> You mean the shel rosh? ;-)
>
>Yup. She's already pointed it out...
That brings up an interesting question. Given that it is NOT
_forbidden_ for a woman to wear tefillin, what would your reaction be
if your daughter INSISTED on putting on tefillin? Ditto for tzitzit?
>I wonder if I'll ever live down the Circus Routine....
>(She was getting antsy, so I was taking her out. Suddenly,
>she broke away from me. While I was turning around, trying
>to figure out where she'd gone, I suddenly heard:
>"LAYDEEZNGENNULMUN, BOYZNGURLZ- "
>She was on the bima, waving her arms! I have no idea what
>else she was going to say, because I snatched her off and
>ran out the door!)
That's the cutest thing I've heard recently.
Will
Micha Berger
:>The medical science changes which produced EEG measurements led to
:>the halachic change in the definition of death.
: Oh, please do expand on this. It would have some bearing on the
: question of organ donation, which came up on this NG a while ago.
: IIRC, wasn't it held by the Orthodox [1]that brain death was
: insufficient to permit harvesting [2] of organs?
The position you recall is that of the majority of O. Some O, including
Israel's Cheif Rabbinate and R' Moshe Tendler (actually, R' Moshe Feinstein
according to R' Tendler, his son in law) do allow brain [stem] death as
a definition of death.
IOW, now that we can measure such cessation, some believe it can be used to
determine death. The Talmudic precedent is that someone who was decapitated
or whose brain became "tafuchah" (soft? rotten?) is considered dead without
requiring that one check breathing or heartbeat.
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287 - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Eliot Shimoff
>
> "Harry Weiss" <hjw...@netcom3.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:8m7hd7$2ru$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Harry:
> > I agree that children, unless they are unduly disruptive should be
> > allowed to hang around the shul. Most O shuls do allow that. Of course
> > the difference betwee who allow what is more a functionof how much
> > decorum they require.
> >
> >
> > Most smaller O shuls are much more informal. some of the larger
> > (partcularly those with a loarge percentage of German or elderly
> > congregants) are very p particualr about decorum.
Dan:
> I can't resist noting how ironic that is, since the notion that "decorum"
> was an important factor in a Jewish religious service was originally a
> REFORM idea.
Reform? Not at all. The Shulkan Arukh is filled with laws about decorum
in the synagogue.
(Historically, I think, the Reform movement adopted criteria for decorum
that were very different from that common among O: Everyone praying in
unison, standing at one time, sitting at one time, etc., as opposed to
the
common O practice which looks chaotic to an outsider. Even then,
though,
I'm not certain about O practices when the Reform movement got started;
perhaps O in Germany then was _very_ decorous, much like contemporary
"Yekkish" shuls.)
William Friedman
Will:
>>I do want to point out, however, that I do not consider HSG legitimate
>>in any real halachic way. Which makes the situation difficult. Am I
>>helping them transgress by joining and making them think they have a
>>minyan when they don't -- or should I join them anyway, believing it's
>>an unwitting transgression based on a false halachic position, and
>>that I should help them in the interests of bringing them to proper
>>observance?
>That's obviously the harder case. But is that actually the position
>your rabbi recommends? One of the supposed tenets of Conservative
>halacha is its pluralism, but the question becomes how far down the
>line the principle applies: does your rabbi consider the "all women"
>position to be sufficiently incorrect that it it should be actively
>discouraged, or just that it is not the correct position for her
>congregation?
Yes, she (and I) believe the "all women" position is patently
incorrect, and a violation of halakha. Thus, the only reason to join
such a minyan is to help them to proper observance.
>An anecdote which is not entirely relevant:
>
>Several years ago, the Conservative (egalitarian) minyan at Columbia
>experimented with a daily maariv minyan. As it turns out, we didn't
>have the necessary critical mass of people who were willing and able
>to come (due in part to the presence of several other Conservative
>minyanim in the neighborhood), but the experiment lasted for about two
>weeks. On several occasions, we had 8 or 9 people, and would have had
>to daven without a minyan, if it were not for the fact that committed
>Orthodox Jews took the time to come downstairs from the Beit Midrash
>and stand in the back of the room while we davenned, allowing us to
>count them for our minyan. They had no intention of davening with us,
>and didn't, as I recall, answer to any of the davening. But they were
>willing to help us make a minyan, and, even though I didn't know many
>of them personally, earned my sincere respect for that.
Wow that you actually managed to sustain a daily maariv minyan for
that long in a college environment (where I am now, we barely get a
"minyan" for Friday night services). And wow that you have such
Orthodox Jews. Stories like that give me hope that the unity of klal
Yisrael is not lost.
Will
Eliot Shimoff
> And then there's the aufruf candy. Unfortunately, I must report that
> the shul which I'm describing (where I grew up and my parents still
> attend) doesn't have too many aufrufs due to demographics, and candy
> throwing has been barred from bnei mitzvah after a few incidents of
> young guests pelting a bit too hard. :)
Our O synagogue also stopped Bar Mitzva candy-pelting after the BM
boy got hit in the eye. Aufrufs still get pelted though.
Simcha Streltsov
: I think change is and always has been influenced by the
: communities and the times in which we live. And I think in the
: last 60 years change in these communities and the world as a whole
: has been much faster than any time in history. So I am not at all
: surprised to see changes in Jewish practice move quickly as well.
We were talking about time between allowing only special
groups of women and all women to pray as men. that took less
than 60 years, IIRC.
: changes in the role of woman shifting from stay at home mom to
: working mom, from not participating in synagogue services to
sure, no women never worked outside of the home before -
are you a closted suburban Republican (_:?
: In R case, when they saw that moving Shabbat to Sunday was a
: mistake, they changed it back. When they realized that
: non-support if the Jewish state was a mistake, they changed it.
...
: Are these not good examples of teshuvah? Rather than being
: critical of rapid change that even reverses previous decisions,
: there is a move towards teshuvah that should be applauded.
I agree - but shouldnt we (and more you than me, an outsider
in many aspects) demand full teshuva - not a Xian-style
"remorse" with no strings attached?
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Simcha Streltsov
I think Art was simply trying to illustrate my thought -
that O- positions keep their integrity despite all technological
changes (_:
Henry Goodman
"Russell Steinthal" <rm...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:8m83sf$f7$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
>
> Well....
>
> Our shul's former rabbi was in the habit of slipping candies from his
> pocket into kids' hands during Torah processions. (Of course, he did
> the same once or twice on Yom Kippur, to the consternation of many in
> the shul...)
What's wrong with that? In my shul, children too young to fast get given
sweets (only kosher ones) on Yom Kippur just like on Shabbos.
[...]
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
>
> "Harry Weiss" <hjw...@netcom3.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:8m7hd7$2ru$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
>>
>> allowed to hang around the shul. Most O shuls do allow that. Of course
>> the difference betwee who allow what is more a functionof how much
>> decorum they require.
>>
>>
>> Most smaller O shuls are much more informal. some of the larger
>> (partcularly those with a loarge percentage of German or elderly
>> congregants) are very p particualr about decorum.
>
> was an important factor in a Jewish religious service was originally a
> REFORM idea.
Not exactly. Decorum in a synagogue is an absolute requirement. See:
Shulchan Aruch ORACH CHAIM 151:1 ["ein nohagim bahem kalut rosh"].
Josh
Binyamin Dissen
:>In article <8m6sed$5rn$1...@news3.bu.edu>, Simcha Streltsov <sim...@bu.edu> wrote:
:>>I have nothing against changes per se. The issue is that non-O groups
:>>define certain things as the ones that ideologically separate them
:>>from traditional Jews and from each other. Given that we observe
:>>that these changes occur within 1-2 generations without any, or
:>>significant, changes in the outside world - the question is - who
:>>is responsible for the damage to our communities?
:>I think change is and always has been influenced by the
:>communities and the times in which we live. And I think in the
:>last 60 years change in these communities and the world as a whole
:>has been much faster than any time in history. So I am not at all
:>surprised to see changes in Jewish practice move quickly as well.
:>I disagree that no changes ooccur in the outside world -- for
:>example, within the Conservative Judaism community we observe
:>changes in the role of woman shifting from stay at home mom to
:>working mom, from not participating in synagogue services to
:>fully participating being parallel in nature. The world in which
:>we live does lend its influence to Jewish practice.
:>The medical science changes which produced EEG measurements led to
:>the halachic change in the definition of death.
Who and how?
Details, please.
:>The governmental supervision of milk have led to a major O
:>authority ruling that in the US, government supervised milk is
:>Cholov Yisroel.
Who claimed such a thing?
Details, please.
:>>take, for example, any stand taken by Reform 100 years ago -
:>>their R- grandchildren do not care about those stands in most
:>>cases
:>Yes, R platofrms reversed many previous platform stands.
C as well.
Because they were losing donors.
:>I and I suspect you too, am of the opinion that the older stands
:>needed to be changed and now that they have been, I think that is
:>a good thing rather than a negative aspect of too fast change.
Compare and contract with true Judaism, Halachic Judaism, which stays forever.
No need to change the rules every generation to cater to the new clientele.
:>- but they used this stand to declare that O- (and C-)
:>>were wrong. well, now they still think they are right despite
:>>changing all positions. This flies in the face of Jewish idea
:>>of return - teshuva - that leads people, and groups, to
:>>the truth by admitting mistakes and making up to the offended.
:>I see this change as something Judaism asks of all of us -- when
:>we see we have made a mistake, we correct it.
Sort of like the Xians (Catholics?) who changed the rules about eating meat on
Friday?
One wonders how their faith explains the punishment received by those who
violated the rule when it was active.
One can see parallels with R/C and their rule changes.
:>In R case, when they saw that moving Shabbat to Sunday was a
:>mistake, they changed it back. When they realized that
:>non-support if the Jewish state was a mistake, they changed it.
:>In recent years, R authorities have taken strong stands towards
:>more observance, and have moved themselves in that direction.
So how does the faith treat those who followed the incorrect rules?
Were the leaders responsible?
:>Are these not good examples of teshuvah? Rather than being
:>critical of rapid change that even reverses previous decisions,
:>there is a move towards teshuvah that should be applauded.
If done for the correct reason, rather than as a means of retaining
contributors who would move to a Halachic congregation if C/R did not change
their rules.
:>>but, it seems that this problem is especially important to
:>>non-O groups - given that the speed of changes is fast,
:>>someone has to pay for all the propaganda that became
:>>outdated (ie was revealed to be not true) in 5 years!
:>I really do not uderstand the latter point, sorry.
:>Rapid change in some cases is a plus not a negative idea.
Rapid seesawing, changing the rules up and back, is a bad idea.
And when it changes every generation, it is clear that the faith has no
staying power.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com